Ugent proposal for an important photo.net site modification.

[alberto pastorelli]

Particularly to the attention of Philip Greenspun and Brian

Mottershead.

Dear friends, I'm a member of Photo.net since February 19, 1999.

I'm not a pro-photographer, I am a doctor primary, but photography is

my Passion.

From 1999 to today the impact of digital imaging is obvious. I'm not

interested in a sterile war between the analog and the digital, but

the war started anyway, and we cannot ignore it.

I have requested (and ignored) to create a "second land" here on

photo.net dedicated to the digital imaging.

I strongly ask now again, to "don't loose the train" and start this

important modification : divide photo.net in two distinct sector.

I am, and I'm sure that many feels the same, frustrating from

the "contamination" (sorry I know this word sound strong, please

accept this term in a correct way) of the digital imaging creators.

I feel unacceptable that (it's only an example, but very common...)a

photo made in medium format could be superficially rated 3 or

injuried with comments like " maybe you can add a little bit of

contrast in PhotoShop..."

We are (like it or not) two distinct cathegories of members and we

need a separation. I don't agree with generic statement like " we are

all talking of image" because the WAY we obtain it is TOO different.

The rating system is also weak : Aesthetics & Originality are too

wide and generic.

This "condominium" between analog and digital it's the origin of

flames between members, suspects of copyright violation, members

banned or suspended...

 

On the contrary side, The last flame I've seen , is related to this

photo :

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1776357

 

The author is an Italian who lives in Toscana (Tuscany) very close to

San Quirico and Pienza (where comes the famous and now "common"

classical images of Tuscany)

In this shot, he made the replica of those famous images and

immediately received a lot of comments, some not so friendly.

He made the photo in digital, and many suspected an image

manipulation....

I am an analog photographer, and my parents were from Tuscany, so I

can say (without fear) that this image is true. I know this place, if

you go there with a point and shoot you can achive this kind of

image... without tricks.

 

Please, I'm sure you have understand the meaning of my request, I

feel my bad english a "real prison" for my thoughts.

Excuse, if I made some errors.

kind regards

Alberto Pastorelli

[mbb]

Photography is only one. �Second land� now more and more applies to �traditional � film� then to digital. Even Kodak is going away from the past. Some people are still riding the horses but it is more for pleasure then for transportation. If you want to get some where you drive a car, preferably new and fast. As far as manipulation it is someone choice to be a masochist in the darkroom or use the computer. Not every one is retied and has too much time to loose. As not everyone wants go back to Stone Age and use rocks as tools. On another hand some people have time and enjoy the darkroom so it is their choice to do so but they cannot tell others to have to do the same. All these discussions are taking us to nowhere. I have no problem with how the photograph was taken or if it was manipulated (as long as this is clearly stated). It is more important how good it is, so why not put away PS or not PS away and just enjoy shooting photos. Best Regards, Mark

[bobatkins]

Analog and digital photography are so mixed these days you cannot seperate the two, nor should you try. Digital is just as valid a medium as analog and what you judge is the final print, not the means by which it was made. If you manitain that only pure analog is valid, fine. You'll just have to mail your prints to every photo.net member since you obviously can't display them here as a digiatl image on a monitor screen.

 

However, we do have a checkbox for "unmanipulated" work and we could differentiate between unmanipulated images and manipulated images. I've said before that I think we should.

 

You can do equally valid work using analog and digital image capture, and both can be traditional PHOTOGRAPHY.

 

This isn't an urgent issue. It's an old issue. It won't go away. It will only get worse.

 

It will also fill this forum with complaints and disussions, most of which will lead absolutely nowhere. We might as well debate the merits of Christianity vs. Buddhism or the politics of Republicans vs. Democrats. We have about as much chance of agreeing on anything.

[alberto pastorelli]

Thanks Mark and Bob for the prompt replay.

Mark, many here are not Pro, many are here for Passion.

The fastest car you've mentioned is it real ? How many prints people are making from digital ? How many labs are offering quality in this kind of prints ? I don't ask you about a comparison side by side of a digital prints vs an analog enlargment because I'm sure you know it very well.

In other words, the fact that Kodak or other brands are going in that way does it mean they are going better ? And, that we have to follow ??

To Bob :

Really, if I have only to "judge the final print" there will be no story. Or is there some new cmos that can do better 8x10 than my 6x4.5 ?

The examples you gave me, are not correct in my opinion, because the cathegories you've mentioned lives perfectly (but separeted !)

I only ask this, to separate these two cathegories, definitively.

[sk_arts]

I dislike digital capture as much as anyone else who does, and I use the

digital darkroom... But Alberto, ask yourself this: What is it about digital

photography that doesn't make it any less a photograph?

 

This is like saying that non-silver process isn't photography, because it

doesn't use silver!

 

We already have a "manipulated" checkbox, and nearly every single "trick" in

photoshop can be done in the darkroom... might take a few months, but it can

be done. If you're saying it's cheating, I spend up to six hours on any given

image, a lot of work does go into it.

 

Ok... I've posted far too many replies today... time to do something else.

[Jerry_]

It would be difficult.

 

 

Photo Net sans any images : the only way to post any image now is to have it transformed (for a better word) into a .jpg file for transmitting over the modem to the server at Photo Net.

 

 

 

Digital Net sans any input from photographers that are using film and not digital media to capture their interest(s) in photography.

(A lot of experience would be lost on this side of the street....)

[p._neil_ralley]

Unfortunately as soon as a 'traditional' image on negative (or positive) film is scanned into some kind of digital format it becomes a 'digital image'. It is no longer directly comparible with a negative printed onto photo-sensitive paper via a traditional darkroom with traditional chemistry. Like it or leave it, digital images are the price that has to be paid for instant and free sharing of work world-wide. Whether manipulation is just a click on unsharp mask or a complete reconstruct of an image it is the price we pay for the relentless march of technology.

It may be my imagination but my sense is that this post is driven more by a desire to clean up the ratings system than a real fundamental urge to split the site but in any event the two methodologies and captures and translations are absolutely and totally and utterly inseperable.

[mbb]

Alberto, we ALL are here because the Passion we share. I print my digital photos � a lot of them and I do it myself. What is better I don�t have to print all of them (or do contacts sheets, wait for development etc.). And like you spend hours in darkroom I spend the same on the computer. In only few more years we will not even mention enlargement comparison because will be nothing to compare. Technology goes very fast. I am from the generation which when I was teenager computer was a few story building. I got my first medium format camera when I was 6, then I remember first (and my first) SRL � Exakta, then all way to the Nikon F3. I have nothing against film photography � I enjoyed every minute of it, but I never have problems with switching to something new, better. All I am against is a war between digital versus film. There is a niche for everybody. It is ALL photography and we should not fight each other, but again enjoy the PASSION. Best Regards, Mark

[kelly_flanigan1]

Analog electronic still image capture was the method used 2 decades ago; that was non digital; and non-film. It is better to use the 100 year old term "film"; which has a clear precise definition; than the real weak term "analog"; which has several meanings; is not precise; and can cause confusion. <BR><BR>Electronic still image capture is old; and predates Photoshop by a decade.<BR><BR>A customer of mine that has me printing prints from 50 year old film/slides only cares about the results; and NOT the method by which I use. A straight print from these old slides will be real poor; with horrible faded colors; and full of dust and mold spots. Proper restoration of these images will make the customer happy; and bring back more work. Dwelling on the methods used to produce images; and not results obtained; sounds more like the wants of a person not concerned with one's customers. One should focus on results; and not exclude any method or tool.

[james_oneill]

It's not urgent. And it is pointless anyway. <p>

1st. You can't post a print to photo.net, you have to post a digitized picture. Whether that was a print or a neg or slide that was scanned or if it went straight to digital in the camera matters very little. <p>

2nd. Every print is "manipulated", simply by the act of setting colour balance, black and white contrast grade, and exposure. Burning and dodging my black and white prints is most certainly manipulation, so is toning so is cropping. Photographers have been doing those for over 100 years. <p>

3rd Retouching pictures with a paintbrush (and in more recent times with an airbrush) is not new. <p>

4th Composite pictures made with multiple exposures, masks and copying muliple slides are also as old as photography.<p>

5th Choosing your film or processing to give strong colours or muted ones, or a tonal range or grain pattern is also manipulation. <p>

6th Using a filter to give a better sky, is manipulation. Using a wide angle or telephoto lens to change the perspective is manipulation. Using artificial light is manipulation. <p>

 

To me there is absolutely no difference between, on the one hand, getting my roll of XP2 transfered to CD at the lab, tweaking the contrast, toning and cropping the picture in software and, on the other hand, making print of the cropped image on my chosen grade of paper, dunking it in sepia toner and scanning it on a colour scanner. The idea that the latter is "Pure" and the former isn't is just bunk to my way of thinking.<p>

The problem - if it really is a problem, is that while few photographers own a range of toners etc, many have access to software; and they are still getting to used to what can be done. The net effect is we have a lot of overtreated pictures. Eventually software will be just another tool available to photograpghers. When filters became really popular in the 1980s they were over used, and there was a backlash against them, and that has passed.

 

Don't worry about your English by the way, it is far better than most of us could manage in Italian; it may be an effect of writing in a language which isn't your own but you say. <i>

I feel unacceptable that a photo made in medium format could be superficially rated 3 or injuried with comments like " maybe you can add a little bit of contrast in PhotoShop..." </i>

Well just because it is made in medium format doesn't make it a good picture. I've seen some large format work on here which has been of a such a low standard I'm surprised the photographer invested in such expensive equipment. Now if the person making the comment had said "This picture lacks contrast, if the print looks like this you might want to use a harder paper, or even look at your development times. Of course it might be the scanner, so you could look at the settings or even tweak the levels in software" that would be OK.

 

As for Aesthetics and Originality. "This picture looks good", and "I like a good thought process went into it" are pretty good measures. Actually people tie the two togehter too much but you'll get that whatever the scores are.

[Spearhead]

There are much bigger issues with what can be seen here than digital vs analog. Judging by the uploads, most people don't seem to know what makes a good print, or how to make one. It would be a lot better to worry about that than worry about the technology used to make a bad print (or screen image.)