An age old debate - DPChallenge Forums

07/26/2004 11:52:38 PM · #1

In one corner:

a photograph need not be an unaltered representation of reality; any technique may be employed by artists in the pursuit of creating their photographic art; that the fact-based expectations we have toward photography may be subverted to make a fictionalized image seem real; and that photography is, after all, only one more tool for artists to use to present their vision of the world. The William Mortensen story

and in the other:

Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the "Pictorialist," on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts.

The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself.Group F/64 manifesto

Message edited by author 2004-07-26 23:53:12.

boomer

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

07/27/2004 12:06:17 AM · #2

It all sounds good, but I must confess I haven't a clue what either "corner" is trying to say. I must be dense... lol

animes2k

07/27/2004 12:47:02 AM · #3

What I find most interesting about the f/64 manifesto is this bit:

...organized in 1932 by Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Willard Van Dyke, Imogen Cunningham, and others, to promote "straight" photography.

helps to explain a little more the controversy surrounding Adams works...

Message edited by author 2004-07-27 00:47:27.

07/27/2004 09:12:06 AM · #4

Originally posted by animes2k:

The thing I found most interesting about the full f/64 manifesto was that they were trying to reject any associations with previous art forms, (mostly painting or painterly effects favoured by pictoralists)

The entire motivation of their approach appears to be a break from the previous art forms - trying to explore the film medium to its utmost, rather than trying to make it look like something it is not, or carrying baggage from previous approaches in to to film.

And now here we are with digital, with a lot of people trying their hardest to carry over all the film baggage to this new medium, pointing to the F/64 group as a good example of what 'straight' digital photography should be, but missing the point that that particular group at its basis promoted the idea of not harking back to the past or trying to bring techniques forward to new art forms. possessing no qualities of technique [...] derivative of any other art form

I vaguely toy with the idea of a digital photography manifesto, rejecting constraints based on previous film based approaches. What do I care about techniques used 100 years ago, in darkrooms I've never experienced, using tools I've never used, on artistic media I've never touched ? Why would I care about mimicking approaches used for film, on digital ? It is a whole different medium, with its own quirks and possibilities.

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

07/27/2004 09:31:07 AM · #5

This is an interesting debate, although I have to say that Digital Photography is really not very different from traditional film photography. Except in a few areas...

From my limited understanding, you can do eveything with film photography that you can do with Digital Photography. It just takes longer with film, since there is developing that must be done. However, that doesn't mean you can't scan in and Photoshop your 'finished' image from film.

To me, the difference between film and digital is less then the difference between oil painting, air brush painting and water color painting. While those three are similar in that paint is involved, there is some fairly decent technical differences between them.

The debate between film and digital photography, to me, is nothing more then, when does a photographer switch or bring a mix of the two to play. That all depends on the photographer.

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

07/27/2004 12:00:05 PM · #6

Originally posted by Nelzie:

To me, the difference between film and digital is less then the difference between oil painting, air brush painting and water color painting. While those three are similar in that paint is involved, there is some fairly decent technical differences between them.

Yet with digital capture compared to film photography, even the base media is different - we aren't using film in a different way, we are using digital sensors.

You could also easily scan a sketch, or a half completed painting and 'finish it off' - it is quite a radical departure from the original approach.

Somehow I think in general constraining 'your' approach based on what could or couldn't be done in a film darkroom is probably a backward looking mistake. Perhaps more interesting is to consider what new potentials are offered by digital capture and capitalising on those - digital isn't film. In some ways it is better, in others it is worse. But mostly, it is different, for all the veneer of similarity put upon it by the camera companies.

Message edited by author 2004-07-27 12:00:30.

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

07/27/2004 12:14:36 PM · #7

Originally posted by Gordon:

Blimey, you're quite the eloquent one today, aren't you! ;o)

Very interesting and excellent food for thought.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

07/27/2004 12:14:58 PM · #8

These arguments do not lead to a final solution simply because the opposing schools run in parallel, each with a definative end which is like black and white.

I simply do both: that is traditional, in which I employ only the techniques of film with their digital counterpart.

I also engage in digital art which involves the composite.

Both have their virtues the only thing is that I do not belong to either camp, yet I give each camp their due.

The moment art enters the picture the definitions become fuzzy. We all know that compositional layouts were employed by the early artist. We also know art expands to fill the void.

So, I am still in awe when observing an Ansel Adams as I am with the current digital artist.

There is room for both.

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

07/27/2004 01:02:53 PM · #9

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Nelzie:

To me, the difference between film and digital is less then the difference between oil painting, air brush painting and water color painting. While those three are similar in that paint is involved, there is some fairly decent technical differences between them.

Yet with digital capture compared to film photography, even the base media is different - we aren't using film in a different way, we are using digital sensors.

You could also easily scan a sketch, or a half completed painting and 'finish it off' - it is quite a radical departure from the original approach.

Somehow I think in general constraining 'your' approach based on what could or couldn't be done in a film darkroom is probably a backward looking mistake. Perhaps more interesting is to consider what new potentials are offered by digital capture and capitalising on those - digital isn't film. In some ways it is better, in others it is worse. But mostly, it is different, for all the veneer of similarity put upon it by the camera companies.

It's true that with digital photography sensors, instead of film is used. However, you are capable of getting identical to nearly identical results. That is not something that you could truly obtain with Oil Painting versus Water Color Painting. The medium is just to different.

True, you can take a half-finished sketch and 'finish' it on the computer. However, what I was saying is taking your completed photogsaphic print and scanning that into the computer, which is similar (obviously not identical) to taking a digital print and bring them both into Photoshop and manipulate them both similarly.

If film photography could only create images no better then the best Color Pencil artist and Digital photography was able to create images as we see here on DPC. Yeah, there would be a huge difference and a need to develop a new school of thought. Since you can get the 'same' image out of both, the 'old schools' of photographic thought are extremely applicable.

These schools just need to be enhanced with the additional options available in digital photography.

07/27/2004 02:38:41 PM · #10

Originally posted by Nelzie:

Since you can get the 'same' image out of both, the 'old schools' of photographic thought are extremely applicable.

A skilled artist can also paint something in oils that looks essentially 'photo realistic'.

The point I was trying to put forth is not that you can't limit yourself to copying everything possible in the film world - you certainly can.

The more interesting issue I think is why would you bother ? Just because you can define these constraints, or equate digital techniques to prior darkroom techniques, why is that relevant ? The technology is radically different. The recording medium is radically different. It is certainly much more dramatically divergent than say oil paint and acrylic or watercolour. We can certainly shoehorn digital capture into the straightjacket of film based image making, but the more interesting approaches are out there, waiting to be discovered, rather than reapplying old approaches.

Out of the F/64 principles came the zone system - a radical departure of previous film based image making. Looking forward seems more likely to produce interesting results than copying previous techniques or emulating them in a new medium.

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

07/27/2004 02:56:32 PM · #11

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Nelzie:
Since you can get the 'same' image out of both, the 'old schools' of photographic thought are extremely applicable.

A skilled artist can also paint something in oils that looks essentially 'photo realistic'.

The point I was trying to put forth is not that you can't limit yourself to copying everything possible in the film world - you certainly can.

The more interesting issue I think is why would you bother ? Just because you can define these constraints, or equate digital techniques to prior darkroom techniques, why is that relevant ? The technology is radically different. The recording medium is radically different. It is certainly much more dramatically divergent than say oil paint and acrylic or watercolour. We can certainly shoehorn digital capture into the straightjacket of film based image making, but the more interesting approaches are out there, waiting to be discovered, rather than reapplying old approaches.

Out of the F/64 principles came the zone system - a radical departure of previous film based image making. Looking forward seems more likely to produce interesting results than copying previous techniques or emulating them in a new medium.

Like what?

If you are talking photoshopping the heck out of the image, that moves away from photography and becomes digital art in my book. It's a type of painting using a different medium then brush, paints and canvas. Sure, you may have started with a photograph, but when you are finished it may not resemble anything like the original location or subject that photograph was about.

That's a different branch of art then photography.