Does this statement make sense? - DPChallenge Forums

10/12/2007 11:24:30 PM · #1

I saw this on facebook

"Group Info Name: Advocates for Traditional Photography
Type: Entertainment & Arts - Fine Arts
Description: You know. Film. Light. Response. Single lense reflex cameras. Working in a dark room. Developing your own film. Using an enlarger. Doing the craft and making the magic happen. Granted, digital photography has its perks, and I own a digital SLR myself. However, composite images and digitally altered images should not fall under the same category as photography. Photography means "to write with light." Not to write with photoshop. Because digital editing does not make photographs. It makes digital images."

This part in particular i dont get "digitally altered images should not fall under the same category as photography"

Now! I never used film, but does'nt dark room dodge and burn techniques constitute alteration, although not digital alteration.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/12/2007 11:48:30 PM · #2

It makes perfect sense.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/12/2007 11:54:54 PM · #3

He references "composite images" and "digitally altered images"; by the latter he is probably not referring to photoshop work that emulates traditional techniques like dodge & burn. Instead, I think he is referring to more extreme digital alterations, like radical color throws, partial desaturation, morphing of images, cloning of images, all the hallmarks of the "digitally altered photograph". He seems to be standing on a "traditional photography" soapbox, which is just fine by me though I'm not myself that tradition-bound.

Still, I know what he's talking about; it isn't the digital per se, it's the wild & wacky photoshopping that he's against.

R.

10/12/2007 11:57:08 PM · #4

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Still, I know what he's talking about; it isn't the digital per se, it's the wild & wacky photoshopping that he's against.

R.

His purpose seems simple to me. Use film and a darkroom. It's no more complicated than that.

10/13/2007 12:12:22 AM · #5

Ok! so is this suggesting that once u employ DPC's advanced and expert editing technique, the photo ceases to be a photo and is now an image?

10/13/2007 12:28:09 AM · #6

Originally posted by dmadden:

Ok! so is this suggesting that once u employ DPC's advanced and expert editing technique, the photo ceases to be a photo and is now an image?

Why are you being defensive? lol

10/13/2007 12:36:43 AM · #7

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by dmadden:
Ok! so is this suggesting that once u employ DPC's advanced and expert editing technique, the photo ceases to be a photo and is now an image?

Why are you being defensive? lol

Because I want to know if i should edit my list of hobby's to say image's instead of photography LOL :)

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

10/13/2007 12:40:51 AM · #8

Originally posted by dmadden:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by dmadden:
Ok! so is this suggesting that once u employ DPC's advanced and expert editing technique, the photo ceases to be a photo and is now an image?

Why are you being defensive? lol

Because I want to know if i should edit my list of hobby's to say image's instead of photography LOL :)

It's whatever you want it to be called.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

10/13/2007 12:45:12 AM · #9

Writing with light involves multiple steps.

Step 1: Light enters lens.
Step 2: Hits photosensitive receptor
Step 3: Convert from photosensitive receptor to paper, canvas or other other display media.

Three steps = writing with light.

If I use a pencil to write on paper, it's not creatively different from writing with a pen, or writing with a typewriter, or typing it out in Word. Or dictating it for that matter. Same difference goes for my writing on fine art papers using a Chinese calligraphy brush.

As such, writing either digitally or manually both constitute as writing. Therefore, his argument is pretty empty.

He's just a traditionalist. Make your own definitions as you see fit. If he chooses to disagree, that's his choice.

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

10/13/2007 12:56:26 AM · #10

I wanna be an "imageographer". : P

I think the OP quote meant that the captured image should remain generally unchanged except for light levels in the finished photograph, and crop. It seems that their thing is to allow darkroom dodge and burn, but not composing images from multiple images or digital overlay or manipulation.
We had a "no edit" side challenge not too long ago for those of that inclination.

10/13/2007 12:57:37 AM · #11

That makes a lot of sense earl.

I'll just chalk it up as the same "nay nay" canvas painters probably got, from the previous artists that drew on cave walls :)

10/13/2007 01:01:45 AM · #12

Thats the word I'm looking for waddy. So I'll edit to say I'm learning Photography/Imageography.

I have a little difficulty pronouncing imageography :)

10/13/2007 01:04:43 AM · #13

Originally posted by dmadden:

This part in particular i dont get "digitally altered images should not fall under the same category as photography"

There is no real way to make someone understand this unless they want to understand it. The concept is not complicated. We make it complicated though, because we tend to fall into the pit of trying to convince ourselves that what we are doing is comparable to what is done in a darkroom, when in reality, it is not. Whoever is being quoted here is advocating the use of non-digital techniques, which include shooting film and processing it by hand in a darkroom.

I think the original quote could have been better stated by saying something like 'digitally altered photographs should not fall under the same category as traditionally processed photographs.' I can agree with this fully.

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

10/13/2007 01:18:04 AM · #14

I am not sure "imageographer" is a word. I just made it up, so maybe it is one now. I don't remember ever seeing it anywhere else.