| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2014 08:34:27 AM · #76 |
| After thinking about it, I've decided that the phrase "photographic in nature" is meaningless & useless & irrelevant. Nobody knows what it means in the context of digital photography. When I look at a digital image on my screen, I never think about its photographic qualities--because it doesn't have any. Photographic qualities are all about the paper it's printed on, is it glossy or matte finish, color or BW, 35mm or polaroid, does it have fingerprints on it--things like that. I haven't touched a photograph printed on paper from a film negative in years. Photographs printed on paper from a digital file are completely different, a different process, a different result, a different feel. And digital files viewed on a computer screen have nothing to do with anything printed on paper. And fantasy crap discussions are useless waste of time. IMHO. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 08:36:37 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I haven't touched a photograph printed on paper from a film negative in years. |
That's kinda sad. You should. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 08:38:29 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I haven't touched a photograph printed on paper from a film negative in years. |
That's kinda sad. You should. |
Haha. I have thousands of slides, too, but all put away, out of easy reach. I have a big ol' Nikon that still has a roll of film in it. Digital photography is much more my style.
Message edited by author 2014-05-13 08:40:08. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 08:39:11 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I haven't touched a photograph printed on paper from a film negative in years. |
That's kinda sad. You should. |
Why? your living in the past! Most young people have never handled a printed photograph.......keep up with the technology guys! |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 08:49:29 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
After thinking about it, I've decided that the phrase "photographic in nature" is meaningless & useless & irrelevant. Nobody knows what it means in the context of digital photography. When I look at a digital image on my screen, I never think about its photographic qualities--because it doesn't have any. Photographic qualities are all about the paper it's printed on, is it glossy or matte finish, color or BW, 35mm or polaroid, does it have fingerprints on it--things like that. I haven't touched a photograph printed on paper from a film negative in years. Photographs printed on paper from a digital file are completely different, a different process, a different result, a different feel. And digital files viewed on a computer screen have nothing to do with anything printed on paper. And fantasy crap discussions are useless waste of time. IMHO. |
As usual,  Pixelpig says it best. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 09:08:20 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
... And fantasy crap discussions are useless waste of time. IMHO. |
Sometimes, those who heavily photoshop step over the line in an attempt to get a rise out of people.
 |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 09:22:14 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
After thinking about it, I've decided that the phrase "photographic in nature" is meaningless & useless & irrelevant. Nobody knows what it means in the context of digital photography. When I look at a digital image on my screen, I never think about its photographic qualities--because it doesn't have any. Photographic qualities are all about the paper it's printed on, is it glossy or matte finish, color or BW, 35mm or polaroid, does it have fingerprints on it--things like that. I haven't touched a photograph printed on paper from a film negative in years. Photographs printed on paper from a digital file are completely different, a different process, a different result, a different feel. And digital files viewed on a computer screen have nothing to do with anything printed on paper. And fantasy crap discussions are useless waste of time. IMHO. |
So, in your opinion, the word "Photography" is obsolete now? A "photo" isn't a photo anymore?
Personally, I think that for the majority of people if you asked them to take (or describe) a photograph they would immediately think of using a camera (regardless if it's film based or digital).
The phrase "photographic in nature" is quite valid for those who care to give it any consideration whatsoever. It can be challenging to think about I'm sure. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 09:34:09 AM · #83 |
I thought about it some more...I believe "photographic in nature" means "don't do anything with a digital camera you couldn't do with a film camera."
[eta]
But of course the earliest examples of fantasy crap were created using a film camera. So "photographic in nature" means "don't do anything with a digital camera you couldn't do with pre-film technology." Still ridiculous.
[eta]
The phrase also seems to imply that a digital camera is some sort of imitation film camera. Also ridiculous.
[eta]
IMHO.
Message edited by author 2014-05-13 09:50:45. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 09:36:21 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
After thinking about it, I've decided that the phrase "photographic in nature" is meaningless & useless & irrelevant. Nobody knows what it means in the context of digital photography. When I look at a digital image on my screen, I never think about its photographic qualities--because it doesn't have any. Photographic qualities are all about the paper it's printed on, is it glossy or matte finish, color or BW, 35mm or polaroid, does it have fingerprints on it--things like that. I haven't touched a photograph printed on paper from a film negative in years. Photographs printed on paper from a digital file are completely different, a different process, a different result, a different feel. And digital files viewed on a computer screen have nothing to do with anything printed on paper. And fantasy crap discussions are useless waste of time. IMHO. |
So, in your opinion, the word "Photography" is obsolete now? A "photo" isn't a photo anymore?
Personally, I think that for the majority of people if you asked them to take (or describe) a photograph they would immediately think of using a camera (regardless if it's film based or digital).
The phrase "photographic in nature" is quite valid for those who care to give it any consideration whatsoever. It can be challenging to think about I'm sure. |
Yes, but if you asked them to take a photograph that is "photographic in nature" they would say "what?" |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 10:31:34 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by Stagolee:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I haven't touched a photograph printed on paper from a film negative in years. |
That's kinda sad. You should. |
Why? your living in the past! Most young people have never handled a printed photograph.......keep up with the technology guys! |
exactly |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 10:56:09 AM · #86 |
| You can use Photoshop to draw/create scenes/pictures without using any image captured by a camera. My interpretation of "keep your entry photographic in nature" is that it simply means the image you submit should be created primarily from one or more images captured by a camera rather than something created entirely using Photoshop drawing tools, etc. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 11:02:36 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
After thinking about it, I've decided that the phrase "photographic in nature" is meaningless & useless & irrelevant. |
I just wrote essentially the same thing on the other thread. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 11:02:40 AM · #88 |
photographic, imo, simply means: If you came across the scene, no matter how far out it is, make it look like you really took the photo. In other words, make the lighting realistic, make the scene look like it could have been a photograph -- if you lived in that funky of a world.
That's why I think that Christophe's work is very good -- his lighting, his perspective, etc., make me feel like he did take a picture of a funky world that he just visited. When I do expet editing, my perspective is off, my lighting isn't right or consistent -- so it looks like something thrown together, and not something of which I photographed. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 12:17:49 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
After thinking about it, I've decided that the phrase "photographic in nature" is meaningless & useless & irrelevant. Nobody knows what it means in the context of digital photography. When I look at a digital image on my screen, I never think about its photographic qualities--because it doesn't have any. Photographic qualities are all about the paper it's printed on, is it glossy or matte finish, color or BW, 35mm or polaroid, does it have fingerprints on it--things like that. I haven't touched a photograph printed on paper from a film negative in years. Photographs printed on paper from a digital file are completely different, a different process, a different result, a different feel. And digital files viewed on a computer screen have nothing to do with anything printed on paper. And fantasy crap discussions are useless waste of time. IMHO. |
So, in your opinion, the word "Photography" is obsolete now? A "photo" isn't a photo anymore?
Personally, I think that for the majority of people if you asked them to take (or describe) a photograph they would immediately think of using a camera (regardless if it's film based or digital).
The phrase "photographic in nature" is quite valid for those who care to give it any consideration whatsoever. It can be challenging to think about I'm sure. |
Yes, but if you asked them to take a photograph that is "photographic in nature" they would say "what?" |
Ahhh, but of course - however, we're not asking anyone that question. What's being asked is to present an image for a challenge that stays within the bounds of being "photographic in nature". As written, that's up to the person submitting the challenge entry to attempt and for the viewer / voter to determine if it's been obtained. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 12:29:36 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Stagolee:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I haven't touched a photograph printed on paper from a film negative in years. |
That's kinda sad. You should. |
Why? your living in the past! Most young people have never handled a printed photograph.......keep up with the technology guys! |
Because I've never seen a digital print and certainly not an on-screen image that has the qualities of good a print made in the darkroom. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 12:31:41 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by markwiley:
You can use Photoshop to draw/create scenes/pictures without using any image captured by a camera. My interpretation of "keep your entry photographic in nature" is that it simply means the image you submit should be created primarily from one or more images captured by a camera rather than something created entirely using Photoshop drawing tools, etc. |
So, if a "photographer" took pictures of colored swatches and warped/textured them into an illustration, that's good enough for you? |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 12:49:22 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Stagolee:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I haven't touched a photograph printed on paper from a film negative in years. |
That's kinda sad. You should. |
Why? your living in the past! Most young people have never handled a printed photograph.......keep up with the technology guys! |
Because I've never seen a digital print and certainly not an on-screen image that has the qualities of good a print made in the darkroom. |
darkroom = dark ages!.....you really are living in the past.
Why bring up the print quality of a photograph in a debate about a digital online photo challenge? |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 01:10:12 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Because I've never seen a digital print and certainly not an on-screen image that has the qualities of good a print made in the darkroom. |
And your point is....????
Truly, Spork. You're having an argument about dark rooms on a DIGITAL photography website...? Then not a single image on this site could possibly live up to your standards. For you, nothing ever created with a digital camera can ever compare to one captured on film and printed on paper. That's fine, and that could certainly be true, but then, what are you doing here? What would you have all of us do?
I'm not trying to be obtuse. I am truly curious. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 01:26:18 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Because I've never seen a digital print and certainly not an on-screen image that has the qualities of good a print made in the darkroom. |
And your point is....????
Truly, Spork. You're having an argument about dark rooms on a DIGITAL photography website...? Then not a single image on this site could possibly live up to your standards. For you, nothing ever created with a digital camera can ever compare to one captured on film and printed on paper. That's fine, and that could certainly be true, but then, what are you doing here? What would you have all of us do?
I'm not trying to be obtuse. I am truly curious. |
Why do you seem to think one must choose between digital or film and nevermore touch the other?
I just think it's a shame if people are so caught up in the gee whiz of digital, they can't be bothered to appreciate anything else. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 01:50:01 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
photographic, imo, simply means: If you came across the scene, no matter how far out it is, make it look like you really took the photo. In other words, make the lighting realistic, make the scene look like it could have been a photograph -- if you lived in that funky of a world. |
This is how I've interpreted the phrase.
I have the same problems getting composites to look "realistic" and so I rarely make them (though I think my "Dirds" entry came out pretty good). Just because a rule set is allowed doesn't mean one has to use all of the available tools -- I've even entered a Minimal-edited image which I liked into an Expert challenge. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 01:50:09 PM · #96 |
I don't see anyone doing that but you, Spork. I haven't read anything in either of the ongoing discussions about film-based photography having no merits.
OTOH, there has been a relentless discrediting of anything digital from you. Surely, as we are all participating on a digitally-based photography site, you can see the irony? In fact, there are numerous SC that are film-based, and that explore film-based techniques, so even the site is more inclusive than you are being regarding this issue. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 01:57:11 PM · #97 |
I think this quote is appropriate to this discussion. It is from the Man Ray website and biography page -
...[Man Ray} is remembered for his artistic wit and originality. As friend Marcel Duchamp once said,
"It was his achievement to treat the camera as he treated the paint brush, as a mere instrument at the service of the mind."
I wonder if he would find this pro/con discussion of digital vs film as to which is more 'real' very productive. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 02:29:49 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
I don't see anyone doing that but you, Spork. I haven't read anything in either of the ongoing discussions about film-based photography having no merits.
OTOH, there has been a relentless discrediting of anything digital from you. Surely, as we are all participating on a digitally-based photography site, you can see the irony? In fact, there are numerous SC that are film-based, and that explore film-based techniques, so even the site is more inclusive than you are being regarding this issue. |
Where have I discredited digital artwork? You're making things up again. I've said I prefer the image quality possible with silver prints. That I don't consider Photoshop composites as "photographic in nature" anymore than I consider a painting made from a photograph "photographic in nature". They're based in photographs, but that's about it. I don't particularly care for them and yes, they have an unreal, airbrushed and cartoonish quality to them. You seem to be taking this way too personally. There's a great deal of good digital photography on DPC, I don't consider the composites that are typical of expert challenges among those photographs. The composite images that typically ribbon are generally very well done, no doubt, but they're lacking.
Message edited by author 2014-05-13 14:33:37. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 02:52:51 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
I think this quote is appropriate to this discussion. It is from the Man Ray website and biography page -
...[Man Ray} is remembered for his artistic wit and originality. As friend Marcel Duchamp once said,
"It was his achievement to treat the camera as he treated the paint brush, as a mere instrument at the service of the mind."
I wonder if he would find this pro/con discussion of digital vs film as to which is more 'real' very productive. |
you nailed it.
photography has no nature. |
|
|
|
05/13/2014 02:53:54 PM · #100 |
Not taking this personally at all, Spork. You are clearly passionate about your position, and I'm trying to understand it, within the context of this site. I'm also attempting to uncouple photographic style (the content of an image) from HOW a photograph was created (analog vs digital, single take vs composite).
For example, Violon d'Ingres - one of Man Ray's most famous - images is a "composite". He photographed the woman, developed the image, then (depending on where you read), either painted, dodged, or cut out and pasted the "f" holes on pieces of paper on the image, and reprinted it.
So, is it cartoonish...? |
|
