mh2000 wrote:
Art/photography is usually most successful when it achieves an *illusion* of reality.
>>Totally agree with this. Reality is a bad standard of reference for photography. Photography is an art and like most great art, the goods ones have little to do with reality.
On Adams:
\"His black-and-white images were not \'realistic\' documents of nature.
Instead, they sought an intensification and purification of the
psychological experience of natural beauty. He created a sense of the
...sublime magnificence of nature that infused the viewer with the
emotional equivalent of wilderness, often more powerful than the actual
thing.\"
Photography is quite incapable of \"capturing\" something called \"objective reality.\" It is always subjective. If you really want \"reality,\" put the camera away and just look. As soon as you capture it, \"reality\" is not a possibility any more. A photograph is not the real thing, and the point of view of the photographer -by definition subjective - is inherent in the image. And, in the end, we are actually more interested in \"seeing\" what this photographer saw than in seeing what was \"really\" there. For this and a bunch of other reasons, using \"reality\" as a standard of reference for photography is bizarre.
By the way, the folks that resent the push-back on the \"film is superior\" claims should understand that those who don\'t buy this are emphatically not saying anything negative about photographs that have been made with film. Quite the contrary. During the era when film was the only game in town many of the best examples of photography we know of were created. Film is obviously a technology that can be used to create excellent photographic work. Who doubts that?
The issue here is not \"which is best\" as much as \"why are folks so stuck on claiming that their [old] method is better?\" These claims can fall into several categories:
1. Familiarity. There are plenty of photographers who make outstanding photographs and prefer to do so using chemical processes. In many cases this is largely because they know very well how to use those process but they don\'t know or care to learn the digital alternatives. I don\'t have any problem with this preference of theirs.
2. Nostalgia. Among some there is always a belief that things were better in the past - but in most cases not too far in the past - and that the most modern thing is necessarily cheaper and less capable. I don\'t deny the warm feelings evoked for these people by the smell of fixer (or the glow of vacuum tubes, period instruments, antique cars, etc.).
3. Distinction. If \"everyone else\" uses the new thing, one way to set yourself apart is to use an older thing. You can set yourself apart even more if you also believe that this choice makes you \"special\" and \"more serious.\"
4. Preference. Film is not identical to digital. There are differences. Keep in mind that \"different\" does not necessarily equate to \"better.\" Some prefer the differences that accrue to users of film technology, while other prefer the differences that seem to favor digital technologies.
In the end, I don\'t think it matters. One can make stunning and compelling photographic prints using chemical, digital, or a combination of the two technologies. When I look at a photograph that moves me I really care little which technology got the photographer there.
mh2000 wrote:
Art/photography is usually most successful when it achieves an *illusion* of reality.
>>Totally agree with this. Reality is a bad standard of reference for photography. Photography is an art and like most great art, the goods ones have little to do with reality.
On Adams:
\"His black-and-white images were not \'realistic\' documents of nature.
Instead, they sought an intensification and purification of the
psychological experience of natural beauty. He created a sense of the
...sublime magnificence of nature that infused the viewer with the
emotional equivalent of wilderness, often more powerful than the actual
thing.\"
Photography is quite incapable of \"capturing\" something called \"objective reality.\" It is always subjective. If you really want \"reality,\" put the camera away and just look. As soon as you capture it, \"reality\" is not a possibility any more. For this and a bunch of other reasons, using \"reality\" as a standard of reference for photography is bizarre.
By the way, the folks that resent the push-back on the \"film is superior\" claims should understand that those who don\'t buy this are emphatically not saying anything negative about photographs that have been made with film. Quite the contrary. During the era when film was the only game in town many of the best examples of photography we know of were created. Film is obviously a technology that can be used to create excellent photographic work. Who doubts that?
The issue here is not \"which is best\" as much as \"why are folks so stuck on claiming that their [old] method is better?\" These claims can fall into several categories:
1. Familiarity. There are plenty of photographers who make outstanding photographs and prefer to do so using chemical processes. In many cases this is largely because they know very well how to use those process but they don\'t know or care to learn the digital alternatives. I don\'t have any problem with this preference of theirs.
2. Nostalgia. Among some there is always a belief that things were better in the past - but in most cases not too far in the past - and that the most modern thing is necessarily cheaper and less capable. I don\'t deny the warm feelings evoked for these people by the smell of fixer (or the glow of vacuum tubes, period instruments, antique cars, etc.).
3. Distinction. If \"everyone else\" uses the new thing, one way to set yourself apart is to use an older thing. You can set yourself apart even more if you also believe that this choice makes you \"special\" and \"more serious.\"
4. Preference. Film is not identical to digital. There are differences. Keep in mind that \"different\" does not necessarily equate to \"better.\" Some prefer the differences that accrue to users of film technology, while other prefer the differences that seem to favor digital technologies.
In the end, I don\'t think it matters. One can make stunning and compelling photographic prints using chemical, digital, or a combination of the two technologies. When I look at a photograph that moves me I really care little which technology got the photographer there.
Dan
Jun 14, 2010 at 06:44 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #8569226 « 5D2 looks "digital" compare to 5D? »
