Is This The Future for Photography?

[oftheherd]

did he make photographs?

I certainly think so. He used cameras to capture images on photographic film, and created negatives. He used negatives to create photographic prints on light sensitive paper (no inkjets then). And it even seems to fit Thebes definition of a photograph.

And as to Thebes:
______________________________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oftheherd
I see your frame of reference. So I take it sir, that tintypes and Kodachrome slides are not photographs?

From my post above the one you quoted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebes
... I can't reconcile a photograph being something other than that which was created by light writing upon a surface, and by that I do mean the actual object being called a photograph, in most cases we would be talking about a photographic print though it could be a tin type or a polaroid or quite a few other things.
______________________________________________________________

If a slide is OK, since it is "... created by light writing upon a surface..." and viewed by projection on a screen, then a digital photo, created by light being written on the digital cells, and projected on paper by an ink jet, would seem to be also.

However, as pointed out above several times, we seem to be debating over semantics more that substance. I have my view, Thebes (and others) are certainly allowed to have theirs. I have no problem with their having their view, I just don't agree with it.

 

[Ranger Copy]

What's an M9?

What's an M9?

I'd never considered that Gabor ... so when all the film is gone and film cameras are all lying idle in cupboards is this all we're left with:

'Digital Imaging' ... doesn't sound very enticing to me! 😛

Oh yes ... and does this mean that someone with an M9 is not really a photographer but a 'digital imager?'

If so ... don't tell jaapv! 😀

What's an M9? Film Photography suits my age. It's what i grew up with. Simple little cheap cameras. As an adult I purchased a Minolta SLR. i didn't understand it ...couldn't really afford it. I enjoyed it though until it was stolen from me. Now twenty years after the violation I'm revisiting the world of film reignited by a friend the open darkroom class next to my oil painting class(another revisited desire).
Through this short journey I discovered Rangefinders and now have a few. Intrigued I now suffer from CBA and LBA. But I was floating back down to earth when one day while visiting this forum I discovered DIGITAL RANGEFINDERS! I nearly lost my lunch, I became delusional. I felt violated once again. What is the point of this endeavor.
I went to bed with my Matchmatic and GSN. We snuggled under the covers away from the dark cold world of digital make believe. (He lies to make a point). Once again i cling to the precipice of change. They took our Kodachrome away! Yea though i walk through the shadows I own and use a small digital image maker(DIM) and yes I post process... a crop there a resize here. Yet I ask myself as I slowly become familiar with this newest offense ...
"Is it Ella or is it Memorex?"

 

[Ted2001]

When I shot film, I shot Kodachrome or Velvia. I almost never printed anything since I found the limitations in dynamic range from prints disappointing. Now, I'm quite happy shooting digital and seeing the results on a computer screen.

I wonder why photographers have always had ongoing discussions of what constituted art. Now it's what constitutes photography? Do painter of oil, look at painters of acrylic and think less of them. Water color?

 

[Leigh Youdale]

This is going to cause some interesting debate!
Go across to Mike Johnson's "The Online Photographer" and check out this item posted today. 'Content-Aware Fill in Photoshop CS5?'
Brave New World or just a development that takes us even further away from what a lot of people consider to be "photography"?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

When I shot film, I shot Kodachrome or Velvia. I almost never printed anything since I found the limitations in dynamic range from prints disappointing. Now, I'm quite happy shooting digital and seeing the results on a computer screen.

I wonder why photographers have always had ongoing discussions of what constituted art. Now it's what constitutes photography? Do painter of oil, look at painters of acrylic and think less of them. Water color?

Not really. When Acrylics first came out, a lot of oil painters looked down on them. Seemed too easy, the paints dried fast, didn't require toxic solvents to thin them (you thin acrylic paints with plain water), and they're basically PLASTIC! That was driven mostly by a fear that traditional oils would go away, but it didn't happen. Painters discovered that the two paint types give a different look and they choose accordingly. Most argument among painters is more about aesthetics than technology/materials and even then the general attitude is that anything goes. Most photographers are not artists, and lack the education and background to understand art, so they obsess over the kind of crap you see obsessed over in this thread.

 

[FS Vontz]

I forgot the question...