Is process important to you in photography?

[tunalegs]

There was an interesting idea expressed (latently) in another thread about disliking a photograph more when one finds out it was shot digitally. I thought this topic might be more constructive if I draw that thought out and state it blatantly: Is process important to you when you judge a photograph?
I'm not asking what process you feel is objectively better, but rather when you look at a photo do you ponder by what process it was made and do you think the process adds or detracts to the final piece.

For instance if somebody is making photographs with a wet plate process - does that process add to the subject? I don't mean to the image, but do you consider if the process and subject work together on some level, thematic, emotional, or what have you beyond simple image quality.

Is there a subject or theme one considers digital works with or against in this way? Would it perhaps be more fitting to photograph technological subjects with a digital camera than film? Is there a subject that film could be tied to in a conceptually interesting or meaninful way? and so on.

 

[jky]

Although i appreciate the processes involved, I examine the image only (subject, light, composition, etc). if it hits my buttons then that's all I really pay attention to & not how it came to be.

 

[Chris101]

Without process there would be no image. I always imagine the path an artist takes to arrive at the finished piece. So yeah, process is very important to me.

ps, I love both digital and film, and mix and match them freely.

 

[Godfrey]

No. And Yes.

Evaluating an image always happens in some sort of context. There are few absolutes in aesthetic appreciation. You can't grade the quality of a bromoil print on the same scale as a modern inkjet or silver gelatin print for dynamic range and detail, for instance. So when you look at any photograph and presume to judge it, some elements of its making contrive the context of its technical quality.

However, looking at a photograph and evaluating its aesthetic quality based principally on the process of its making isn't very objective (and yes, we can be objective about aesthetics - or Aristotle's books on poetics and aesthetics, the foundations of Western philosophical thinking on these topics, are null and void).

In a first-order analogy, it's like saying, "Hey, that photo was made by a Leica M9 ... It must be great!" or any variation thereof.

The photograph must stand on its own aesthetic values, results of the intent and execution of the photographer. Process plays into the execution portion of that merit, but it is certainly a distant second to the primary criteria by which to evaluate a photo.

G
'There is no sadder photograph than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept.' -paraphrased

 

[emjo]

I must answer yes to the question. A bad picture is of course a bad picture regardless of technique or process. But I tend to enjoy a good shot better if it is film, simply because of the looks of film.

 

[Godfrey]

I must answer yes to the question. A bad picture is of course a bad picture regardless of technique or process. But I tend to enjoy a good shot better if it is film, simply because of the looks of film.

And what if you cannot tell? Do you enjoy it less?

 

[tunalegs]

Well I meant beyond the visual qualities. There is more to art than just the image after all. For instance I especially like shooting slides, because I know that the slide I have taken, was the film which was in the camera which was struck by light reflected off of the subject I was photographing. It is not removed from the instant in the way that a print is, it is about as "genuine" as a photograph can get in a sense. I'm talking about process in that manner - does process bring anything to the work, beyond a simple visual quality? Is that important?

When I come across old Kodachromes from people's distant travels, that they are slides adds a whole new dimension of enjoyment. Because I know that those slides were there, what I'm holding was actually there that moment in 1948 when a family travelled to occupied Japan for example. To me that is something special.

 

[Spanik]

In a way yes. I enjoy the process as much as the result.

OTOH I don't care if I look at the result of someone elses photos. Maybe if I see something that captures my attention and I want to know how or why. But even the it is only secondary.

 

[emjo]

And what if you cannot tell? Do you enjoy it less?

In many of the pictures I enjoy I usually can tell the difference🙂

 

[Photo_Smith]

I tend to like images shot on film. I can normally spot them a mile off, of course there are exceptions, but mostly I can tell.
I try hard not to let this colour my judgement so as to become an 'elitist' here is a case in point.
I go to at least one exhibition a week, even the local stuff.
Today was no exception, I saw some interesting images from a local photographer but i could tell they were shot on digital, highlight transitions particularly when the sun was in the frame were irksome with that strange D shaped sun with very abrupt tonal scales/transitions.
Some of his images were good particularly the low key landscapes in fog.
I guess what I'm saying is most of the time when I view others work the process and method is of only passing interest, I don't like obviously digital shots.
My own work process is crucial and that doesn't matter if I use film or digital but each has a workflow that allows me to achieve my initial conception.

 

[Godfrey]

In many of the pictures I enjoy I usually can tell the difference🙂

Doesn't really answer my question.

But ... then you are not looking at the photos objectively, you're examining them in the context of wanting to like a film image more. You've pre-judged what you are going to like.

G

 

[Photo_Smith]

And what if you cannot tell? Do you enjoy it less?

Absolutely! in the cases I can tell, which is most overtly digital images i.e posterisation around the sun, weird HDR where shadows have the same reflectance value as semi specular highlights and just plain nasty.

I can say honestly if it looks 'digital' it can sometimes make me less enamoured with the image.

 

[Godfrey]

I tend to like images shot on film. I can normally spot them a mile off, of course there are exceptions, but mostly I can tell.
I try hard not to let this colour my judgement so as to become an 'elitist' here is a case in point.
I go to at least one exhibition a week, even the local stuff.
Today was no exception, I saw some interesting images from a local photographer but i could tell they were shot on digital, highlight transitions particularly when the sun was in the frame were irksome with that strange D shaped sun with very abrupt tonal scales/transitions.
Some of his images were good particularly the low key landscapes in fog.
I guess what I'm saying is most of the time when I view others work the process and method is of only passing interest, I don't like obviously digital shots.
My own work process is crucial and that doesn't matter if I use film or digital but each has a workflow that allows me to achieve my initial conception.

That is the significant part of your reply, to me, and what I agree with. The process by which I produce my photos is very important to me, and should be transparent to other viewers.

Of course one can always find a way to tell whether a photo was a digital capture or a film capture, whether a print is a darkroom gelatin silver or an inkjet print. But to be LOOKING for those characteristics and having them influence what the photo appears like colors your vision and eliminates objectivity.

Becoming pre-occupied with process is fine if that's what you want to be doing, but to me it is a far distant, secondary thing to the appreciation of photographs.

G

 

[Photo_Smith]

But to be LOOKING for those characteristics and having them influence what the photo appears like colors your vision and eliminates objectivity.

You misunderstand; I'm not 'LOOKING' for those differences, I'm noticing them and sometimes finding them objectionable, or spoiling my enjoyment of those images.
In other words I'm going in with an open mind, being objective and making my decision from there; it's those characteristics I don't like that help me form my opinions not the other way round.

 

[Godfrey]

You misunderstand; I'm not 'LOOKING' for those differences, I'm noticing them and sometimes finding them objectionable, or spoiling my enjoyment of those images.
In other words I'm going in with an open mind, being objective and making my decision from there; it's those characteristics I don't like that help me form my opinions not the other way round.

Pardon me if it sounded like I was accusing you of doing this, I was speaking in broader terms, nonspecifically — of those who've said they 'always prefer the look of film images'. To me, that means those who do that have a prejudiced eye.

G

 

[hepcat]

Hmmm.... I think if you're able to look for process, then the image isn't working. Process should be transparent, especially at the distance from which the work is supposed to be viewed. It's the image that's important, not how it got on the viewing surface. The image either works or it doesn't for each viewer. I doubt that an identical image created by a different process would be exciting either.

One of my major complaints about photo equipment reviews is that there's a need to find differentiation between products... like there's a significant difference between the images produced by a 1968 Summicron and a current model in actual use. The variables are just too great to see those differences in 98% of imaging situations in real-world shooting. I think that being concerned with "process" is the same kind of "how many angels fit on the head of a pin" analysis as comparing the Summicrons.

That's not to say that I'm not curious about the process in images I like...

 

[Photo_Smith]

Pardon me if it sounded like I was accusing you of doing this, I was speaking in broader terms, nonspecifically — of those who've said they 'always prefer the look of film images'. To me, that means those who do that have a prejudiced eye.

G

Sure Godrey, my point is if they 'always prefer film' then they probably can tell where the image originates from and if they can tell— why is that?
That may lead you to the assertion that they are prejudiced, which may not be the case, they may just prefer film (if we can agree there is a 'look') or not like some digital processing HDR, oversharpend etc.
Possibly they are more used to the look of analogue or that some facets of digital imaging are fundamentally broken, like the banding I saw today in the skies of an upcoming landscaper.
I doubt the eye is prejudicial in such cases, more often it's just taste rather than prejudged ideas.

 

[Godfrey]

Sure Godrey, my point is if they 'always prefer film' then they probably can tell where the image originates from and if they can tell— why is that?
That may lead you to the assertion that they are prejudiced, which may not be the case, they may just prefer film (if we can agree there is a 'look') or not like some digital processing HDR, oversharpend etc.
Possibly they are more used to the look of analogue or that some facets of digital imaging are fundamentally broken, like the banding I saw today in the skies of an upcoming landscaper.
I doubt the eye is prejudicial in such cases, more often it's just taste rather than prejudged ideas.

I think Hepcat hit it right on the head.

I think if you're able to look for process, then the image isn't working. Process should be transparent, especially at the distance from which the work is supposed to be viewed. It's the image that's important, not how it got on the viewing surface. The image either works or it doesn't for each viewer. I doubt that an identical image created by a different process would be exciting either....

If your only comments about a photo are about its technical qualities or whether it is film or digital, than the photo simply isn't working.

G

 

[zsas]

Tunalegs - I am going to take it up one more level, does the medium and/or process affect anyone's enjoyment of a piece of art? Think of other mediums, there could be one who only collects and enjoys charcholals not etchings, another who collects and enjoys stained glass not stained plastic. Another might only enjoy oil paintings instead of acrylics.....some folks could care less and don't distinguish. My point is those who do care have as much right to care as the one who don't. Although the question is profound, I find it kind of obvious when extrapolated to all art because the answer is some do/some don't.....toe'may'toe....taaah'maaah'toe...all's good when we enjoy art!

 

[Photo_Smith]

I think Hepcat hit it right on the head. If your only comments about a photo are about its technical qualities or whether it is film or digital, than the photo simply isn't working.

G

I think that's wrong, Hepcats answer was before my question and doesn't really answer it.

I think it's an oversimplification to just suggest if you can see (or look) for the process the image 'just isn't working'
In fact the assertion is just plain daft, I can easily tell a Bromoil image or a cyanotype from the look of the process.

Does this mean the image isn't working?