Prediction: RAW is going to eventually be a deprecated file format

[samstevens]

it does take your picture-making process further into the synthetic realm occupied by traditional visual arts such as painting

... Not to mention traditional photography which required “synthetic” darkroom work.

 

Face it. Photography is manufactured. Photos don’t grow on trees!

[leo_papandreou1]

So by "nothing wrong with that" I did not mean to imply "less valid".

 

The taking vs making distinction is pretty basic, though, the reason photographs look the way they do is because photography is a mechanical picture-making process based on selection rather than synthesis. You select what's in the frame. You select what's in focus. You select the duration in which the picture is made. You select the lighting. The camera does the rest, and -- very important! -- it doesn't rely on a cultural archive of knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to accomplish this feat. It's just physics. That's why almost all photographs are sh*t. It's hard to take a good picture.

 

Not to mention traditional photography which required “synthetic” darkroom work.

 

It's called printing.

[samstevens]

It's called printing.

Traditionally, and for many photographers, darkroom work meant a lot more than printing. It was very much a synthetic process.

[samstevens]

photography is a mechanical picture-making process based on selection rather than synthesis. You select what's in the frame. You select what's in focus. You select the duration in which the picture is made. You select the lighting. The camera does the rest, and -- very important! -- it doesn't rely on a cultural archive of knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to accomplish this feat. It's just physics. That's why almost all photographs are sh*t.

I’d submit that photos that result from this kind of narrow and mechanical thinking are often sh*t. Photos made by photographers who are in touch with the amount of active involvement (as much as or more than selection) and humanity that go into making a photo tend to make engaging photos. And that’s before they even begin the refinement of their craft and artistry with good and appropriate post work, darkroom or digital.

[leo_papandreou1]

"Mechanical thinking" etc -- what are you even talking about?

[samstevens]

I’m thinking of your words.

photography is a mechanical picture-making process based on selection rather than synthesis

[leo_papandreou1]

Ah, one of my finer moments.

[leo_papandreou1]

All you're doing in a darkroom is selectively adjusting the exposure of a negative on a substrate such as paper. Printing. It's harder than it sounds, practically an art form unto itself, but still, it's a removal of information not an addition. Yes, experimental/mixed media techniques that synthesize new information on a negative are a thing photographers can play with, but I wouldn't call it an essential feature or tradition.

[Supriyo]

the reason photographs look the way they do is because photography is a mechanical picture-making process based on selection rather than synthesis. You select what's in the frame. You select what's in focus. You select the duration in which the picture is made. You select the lighting. The camera does the rest, and

 

You also select the aperture and focal length, not to mention long exposures, which completely change the way a given frame looks to the naked eye. I am not sure if you call that a synthesis. In many genre, the photographer also selects lighting. Anyway, what I am saying is, selection and synthesis are not that binary that we may think. Many synthesis processes are a string of numerous micro selections. Thats the reason they seem entirely 'made' vs picked out of an array of choices. Even something as obvious as sculpture or peotry that would be considered 'synthetic' by most, are technically a product of micro-choices the artists make, whether its hand orientations and pressure levels, or combination of words. Same goes with post-processing. One selects a number of parameters in a specific sequence to give the picture it's final look. Now, to judge 'something' as synthesis, ones needs to define a threshold for the number of micro choices one has to make to arrive at the creation. More the number of selections, farther the creation moves into the realm of synthesis away from selection, if we go by mechanistic definition.

 

On the other hand, when a street photographer sees (perceives) and frames something amongst chaos that nobody else notices although the scene is laid flat before everyone's eyes, thats a selection that is as precious as a skillfully constructed pottery or a poetry made out of choice words, in my opinion.

 

In my view, its pointless to argue about distinction between selection vs synthesis when it comes to creative photography or any other art. Yes, we may give mechanistic definition to artistic processes, but art is different than science. So these definitions seem less relevant when describing artistic processes. One distinction is, if an artist willfully imposes restrictions on his/her process as a challenge, that restriction can become part of the creative appeal, but that would depend case by case.

 

The camera does the rest, and -- very important! -- it doesn't rely on a cultural archive of knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to accomplish this feat. It's just physics.

 

Its not just physics. I explained it in my previous paragraph where I gave example of the street photographer. What makes one photographer capture a desolate park bench in fog, and another one the same bench in bright sunlight full of people. Both are making choices that come from personal attitudes.

[leo_papandreou1]

I explained it in my previous paragraph where I gave example of the street photographer.

 

"... that's a selection ..."

 

I agree.

 

I don't want to argue at what point a pile of dirt turns into a mountain, I mean even painters select what to paint, but this:

 

In my view, its pointless to argue about distinction between selection vs synthesis when it comes to creative photography or any other art.

 

Is it pointless though? Do you sometimes look at a photograph and call it a painting?

 

Yes, we may give mechanistic definition to artistic processes, but art is different than science.

 

Every art form has its own set of creative issues that arise from its structure. I'm no scientist, just an ordinary Joe who can (hint) successfully operate a shutter, mission accomplished.

[samstevens]

I'm no scientist, just an ordinary Joe who can (hint) successfully operate a shutter, mission accomplished.

And more power to you for doing it your way and recognizing that. But your posts contrast painting and photography as if that holds true generically. While it may be a key contrast for your way of doing photography, it clearly does not hold true for many of the rest of us. No dictionaries are necessary and it’s not a matter of semantics. Just recognizing that yours is one way and only one way.

[Supriyo]

Do you sometimes look at a photograph and call it a painting?

 

It depends. Some photographs do give me the feelings and sensibilities that come from viewing paintings. Some still life, landscapes or portraits do. Also, some paintings give me the feeling of looking at a photograph. Of course there are those that are at the far ends of the spectrum with very distinct characteristics of the respective art. However when I am thinking of something as painting vs a photograph, its not selection vs synthesis that guides my feelings. Its more of the distinct characteristics of both which include texture, use of light, dynamic range, color use and continuity etc.

 

I'm no scientist, just an ordinary Joe who can (hint) successfully operate a shutter, mission accomplished.

 

But there's so much more than simply knowing how to operate the shutter. Photography is probably one medium where an ordinary joe can get a superb picture once in a while just by random chance, I agree. Thats different than some other arts that take years of training and skills. However, comparing the portfolio of a random joe (call that me) vs an accomplished photographer, the difference is in consistency of vision and vocabulary and more number of great pictures than is achievable by random chance. I think, thats something that doesn't come from just learning how to press the shutter. Selection propelled by vision, interaction with the community, some deep realization of the surrounding world and society and an urge to express that in a message form, all come to work.

[leo_papandreou1]

But there's so much more than simply knowing how to operate the shutter.

 

However, comparing the portfolio of a random joe (call that me) vs an accomplished photographer, [...]

 

 

You and steve seem determined to discuss things I haven't broached except by bundling into the phrase "creative issues". Why aren't you also telling me there's more to painting than just pushing pigment around a canvas?

 

Do you agree that when I press the clicky thing on top of my camera I get a photograph?

If so, do you agree this represents the invention of a radically different picture-making process?

Well then what specifically, essentially, makes it radically different?

 

The underlying structure of photography is important. If you don't investigate it you'll be limited to making vague noises about "vision and vocabulary" rather than photographically literate issues that arise , say, once I, Joe Average, not King of Canada or otherwise Very Important Person, acquire the wherewithal to suspend pictures of my ancestors on the wall.

Edited October 21, 2019 by leo_papandreou|1

[leo_papandreou1]

It depends.

 

 

Not a picture scientist, i get it.

[samstevens]

Do you agree that when I press the clicky thing on top of my camera I get a photograph?

Of course not. Even with a Polaroid, there are steps to be taken well past the click of the shutter, not to mention that people use their brains in a lot of steps before pushing it. With cameras other than Polaroids, it was more complicated to get a photo. Maybe all you did was press a shutter and then mail your film off to a lab, in which case you might have been oblivious to the many steps beyond pushing a shutter that were performed to get your photo, but your ignoring these steps doesn’t wish them away.

 

Besides, as I followed the discussion, no one was talking about the bare minimum necessary to get what’s technically called a photo. We’re talking about processes we employ to get the photos we want. I’m skeptical that your mechanized “just push the button” process would produce photos that I care about, though they might produce something comparable to a xerox copy of the Grand Canyon, which I can get for $1.00 were i to buy a stupid postcard. Since you have no photos on view, I have no way to assess the results of your supposed method.

 

As with painting, I’m not looking for pigment science. I’m looking for human craft and/or art. That’s not often as passive or lacking in nuance a process as you describe.

[leo_papandreou1]

The biggest impediment to your understanding is your churlishness.

[leo_papandreou1]

The structure of photography (selection vs synthesis) gives rise to important creative issues. Here's GB Shaw as quoted in The Photographer's Eye.

 

"There is a terrible truthfulness about photography. The ordinary academician gets hold of a pretty model, paints her as well as he can, calls her Juliet, and puts a nice verse from Shakespeare underneath, and the picture is admired beyond measure. The photographer finds the same pretty girl, he dresses her up and photographs her, and calls her Juliet, but somehow it is no good — it is still Miss Wilkins, the model. It is too true to be Juliet."

[Supriyo]

You said ...

Every art form has its own set of creative issues that arise from its structure. I'm no scientist, just an ordinary Joe who can (hint) successfully operate a shutter, mission accomplished.

 

I pointed out that there are more aspects to the artistic process in photography than pressing the shutter and thinking the mission to be accomplished. Vision and vocabulary are not vague noises by any means, BTW. If you think, "studying the underlying structure of photography is important", why use statements like above, and not discuss them directly. I have stated what are the underlying aspects (pressing the shutter is the most obvious yet the most naively made a big deal of by so many people) I think are important to picture making.

 

You seem to interchangeably treat the subject of photography as art vs technology whenever it suites you. In the quoted comment, you were speaking from art perspective and I replied in the same spirit. Now, in your last comment, you have switched back to technology and refer to how great an invention it is that gives you the ability to hang your ancestors' pictures on the wall. Anyway, I don't agree with your characterization of photography as selection. That description is too simplistic and misleading. There are many steps both mental and physical that come before and after pressing the shutter. Not considering them will produce a picture that likely will be of value only to you. Oh, I see Sam just said something in the same line.

[samstevens]

Oh, I see Sam just said something in the same line.

Yes!

[leo_papandreou1]

, why use statements like above, and not discuss them directly.

 

S E L E C T I O N

[Supriyo]

S E L E C T I O N

 

Got it!

Its an outdated, overrated concept that doesn't describe the overall breadth of the photographic process.

 

W H A T E L S E ?

Edited October 21, 2019 by Supriyo

[leo_papandreou1]

That distinguishes it from prior arts? Nothing. Specifically, essentially, nothing. Sorry for being so obvious and direct about it. I'm open to correction. Got anything?

[Supriyo]

That distinguishes it from prior arts? Nothing. Specifically, essentially, nothing. Sorry for being so obvious and direct about it. I'm open to correction. Got anything?

 

And I have already said that selection is not a necessary feature that distinguishes the entire breadth of photography. What else? The concept of light directly imprinting a medium comes to mind, be it a random scene or a carefully arranged one. And, any average joe can ... (helping you here, not necessarily agreeing) at times with selfie sticks.

[leo_papandreou1]

"The camera does the rest , and -- very important! -- it doesn't rely on a cultural archive of knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to accomplish this feat. It's just physics."

 

You want to talk about what makes a good photograph. Vision, vocabulary, etc. I get it. It's just that, in photography, those things are integral to selection, not synthesis. Painting (e.g.) necessarily has a different vocabulary. When photography was invented regular-ass people who couldn't synthesize a circle ran rampant across the globe taking -- literally taking, *click* *click* --- pictures of literally everything. It was revolutionary! People wrote letters to the editor complaining about their manners.They didn't know sh*t about the vision and vocabulary of painting or whatever. They didn't need to. Some of their pictures were memorable enough and weird enough compared to paintings to survive and reproduce in the vision and vocabulary of our own photographs today, whether we realize it or not.

Edited October 22, 2019 by leo_papandreou|1

[tomspielman]

"The camera does the rest , and -- very important! -- it doesn't rely on a cultural archive of knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to accomplish this feat. It's just physics."

 

You want to talk about what makes a good photograph. Vision, vocabulary, etc. I get it. It's just that, in photography, those things are integral to selection, not synthesis. Painting (e.g.) necessarily has a different vocabulary. When photography was invented regular-ass people who couldn't synthesize a circle ran rampant across the globe taking -- literally taking, *click* *click* --- pictures of literally everything. It was revolutionary! People wrote letters to the editor complaining about their manners.They didn't know sh*t about the vision and vocabulary of painting or whatever. They didn't need to. Some of their pictures were memorable enough and weird enough compared to paintings to survive and reproduce in the vision and vocabulary of our own photographs today, whether we realize it or not.

 

Just so I understand, Are you trying to say that post processing is not photography but something else? I won't agree or disagree. I don't think it matters how it's categorized but I also don't think that distinction matters when it comes to raw vs jpeg.