Nachkebia
Well-known
Intro
The title of this essay is a bit provocative. Nevertheless the bottom line is clear. Most people assume that digital photography (a huge misnomer) is simply photography by other means than the use of film and chemicals. Take a camera body from the film-based era and substitute a sensor on the spot where the film gate used to be located. Then proceed as if nothing else has changed. This attitude is not only widespread it is the conventional wisdom worldwide. Being universally accepted does not make it true. If that were the case, we would still believe that the world is flat or that the world has been created six thousand years ago.
Core values
The essence of film-based photography is not only the fact that the mechanism of capturing an image and fixing it in a silver halide grain structure creates a final picture that can hardly be altered. The fundamental issue here is the fact that the laws of physics create the image, in particular by the characteristics of light rays and the interaction between photons and silver halide grains. Photography is writing with light, and fixing the shadows. Human interaction and manipulation are minimized and reduced to the location, viewpoint and moment of exposure by the photographer. Reading the new book about Cartier-Bresson, the Scrapbook, makes one aware of that peculiar and forceful truth that photography is not only intimately linked to the use of film, but in fact depends for its very existence on film.
Some days ago Jim Lewis wrote an analysis about John Szarkowski and noted (I quote in full): �In the years just before Szarkowsky retired, the best of photography underwent yet another deep change, becoming integrated into the broader concerns of art in general, influenced by conceptualism, performance, painting. It is only slightly overstating matters to say that there's really no such thing as photography anymore. It simply doesn't exist, except as one of many ways to make something that counts as art;�
Many pioneers in image making did not believe in photography as a distinct medium requiring special skills (one is reminded of David Hockney who has held the same position). Recently Jonathin Lipkin, has stated that same position: the transition from film-based to sensor-based photography is not a simple change in technology, but a fundamental change in culture and philosophy. Everybody can create technologically perfect images at this moment: the powerful post processing software will take care of all technical hurdles that the film-based photograph had to master. I am not claiming that the mastery of the craft is the essential element of photography. What I claim is that the relation between craft and result defines the result: the medium is still the message.
Fundamental differences
The best way to understand this difference is to take pictures with a film-loading camera like the M7 and the sensor-provided M8. Handling of both cameras is quite similar, but mentally and in the workflow there is a world of difference. Andre Rouille, La Photographie, needs 700 pages of densely written French to get to the core: �On montrera que l'improprement nommee 'photographie numerique' deborde totalement la photographie par sa matiere, son mode de circulation, son fonctionnement et son regime de verit - seuls certains usages la relient momentanement encore a la photographie proprement dite.�
There are indeed a few uses of the digital camera and its software manipulations that are close to the essence of the classical film-based photography. It is possible to select a number of products and to adopt a certain workflow that is close to the heart of what constitutes the classical film-related photography style, exemplified by the Magnum photos, but not restricted to that approach.
It is truly bad that the Leica company has been totally occupied with the transition from film-based to sensor-based image capture and is forgetting its heritage of great silver halide photography. The recent issue of the German magazine Geo has a portfolio of classical pictures, several made with a Leica camera and Tri-X film.
This is great photography that can evoke strong emotions such that one wishes to grab the M6/7/MP and run to the streets.
It has been noted that the prediction that photography is dead has been prematurely made. I am afraid that this prediction is false.
Erwin Puts
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c039.html
The title of this essay is a bit provocative. Nevertheless the bottom line is clear. Most people assume that digital photography (a huge misnomer) is simply photography by other means than the use of film and chemicals. Take a camera body from the film-based era and substitute a sensor on the spot where the film gate used to be located. Then proceed as if nothing else has changed. This attitude is not only widespread it is the conventional wisdom worldwide. Being universally accepted does not make it true. If that were the case, we would still believe that the world is flat or that the world has been created six thousand years ago.
Core values
The essence of film-based photography is not only the fact that the mechanism of capturing an image and fixing it in a silver halide grain structure creates a final picture that can hardly be altered. The fundamental issue here is the fact that the laws of physics create the image, in particular by the characteristics of light rays and the interaction between photons and silver halide grains. Photography is writing with light, and fixing the shadows. Human interaction and manipulation are minimized and reduced to the location, viewpoint and moment of exposure by the photographer. Reading the new book about Cartier-Bresson, the Scrapbook, makes one aware of that peculiar and forceful truth that photography is not only intimately linked to the use of film, but in fact depends for its very existence on film.
Some days ago Jim Lewis wrote an analysis about John Szarkowski and noted (I quote in full): �In the years just before Szarkowsky retired, the best of photography underwent yet another deep change, becoming integrated into the broader concerns of art in general, influenced by conceptualism, performance, painting. It is only slightly overstating matters to say that there's really no such thing as photography anymore. It simply doesn't exist, except as one of many ways to make something that counts as art;�
Many pioneers in image making did not believe in photography as a distinct medium requiring special skills (one is reminded of David Hockney who has held the same position). Recently Jonathin Lipkin, has stated that same position: the transition from film-based to sensor-based photography is not a simple change in technology, but a fundamental change in culture and philosophy. Everybody can create technologically perfect images at this moment: the powerful post processing software will take care of all technical hurdles that the film-based photograph had to master. I am not claiming that the mastery of the craft is the essential element of photography. What I claim is that the relation between craft and result defines the result: the medium is still the message.
Fundamental differences
The best way to understand this difference is to take pictures with a film-loading camera like the M7 and the sensor-provided M8. Handling of both cameras is quite similar, but mentally and in the workflow there is a world of difference. Andre Rouille, La Photographie, needs 700 pages of densely written French to get to the core: �On montrera que l'improprement nommee 'photographie numerique' deborde totalement la photographie par sa matiere, son mode de circulation, son fonctionnement et son regime de verit - seuls certains usages la relient momentanement encore a la photographie proprement dite.�
There are indeed a few uses of the digital camera and its software manipulations that are close to the essence of the classical film-based photography. It is possible to select a number of products and to adopt a certain workflow that is close to the heart of what constitutes the classical film-related photography style, exemplified by the Magnum photos, but not restricted to that approach.
It is truly bad that the Leica company has been totally occupied with the transition from film-based to sensor-based image capture and is forgetting its heritage of great silver halide photography. The recent issue of the German magazine Geo has a portfolio of classical pictures, several made with a Leica camera and Tri-X film.
This is great photography that can evoke strong emotions such that one wishes to grab the M6/7/MP and run to the streets.
It has been noted that the prediction that photography is dead has been prematurely made. I am afraid that this prediction is false.
Erwin Puts
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c039.html
Nachkebia
Well-known
It might be overstated or tastelessly written but statement is clean and simple to which I agree!
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well, well, I'm afraid that's the usual mix of:
- cultural pessimism, the notion that things used to be better and are continually and inevitably getting worse ("Photography does not exist anymore", "[Leica] is forgetting its heritage of great silver halide photography")
- elitism - photography is a craft that is endangered if the masses are enabled to practice it, as opposed to a few enlightened individuals ("Everybody can create technologically perfect images at this moment: the powerful post processing software will take care of all technical hurdles that the film-based photograph had to master." - OK. I actually don't mind that everybody can do that. It means that technological perfection isn't enough anymore, but that if you want your images to say something you now have to make more of an effort. Where's the problem with that?)
- diffuse talk about aspects of photography that are insinuated (but not said) not to be present when the image is recorded on a sensor; the supposed difference isn't concretised, because it is only a subjective fixed idea and hence impossible to concretise ("Photography is writing with light, and fixing the shadows. Human interaction and manipulation are minimized and reduced to the location, viewpoint and moment of exposure by the photographer." - What's that got to do with film again?)
- intellectual habitus, here the usage of French without translation. The reader gets the impression that photography apparently isn't for everyone, particularly not for the non-French-speaking unwashed masses, but only for intellectuals capable of understanding the finer subtleties of culture.
- half-directed criticism without offering alternatives ("digital photography (a huge misnomer)" - OK, what do you suggest?)
- seemingly-philosophical statements of the obvious ("This attitude is not only widespread it is the conventional wisdom worldwide. Being universally accepted does not make it true. If that were the case, we would still believe that the world is flat or that the world has been created six thousand years ago.")
telenous
Well-known
Indeed a provocative essay. One can sense the great love that Erwin has for film and its craft and the defence mechanisms that kick in as digital has become mainstream at the expense of silver halide.
Of the things he implies, I am most inclined to agree with this: shooting digital is a different experience and process than shooting film. Whether that constitutes a "fundamental change in culture and philosophy" is something that cries for further elaboration, which he does not provide.
But with this central claim, it is impossible to agree with: "makes one aware of that peculiar and forceful truth that photography is not only intimately linked to the use of film, but in fact depends for its very existence on film" the rebuttal of which is plainly based on the existence of digital photography. Perhaps what he should have said, and then who would have disagreed, is that film photography is intimately linked and depends for its very existence on film. But, of course, that's trivial.
And then this: "What I claim is that the relation between craft and result defines the result: the medium is still the message". It seems he thinks that "the relation between craft and result defines the result" is a simple rephrasing of the statement "the medium is still the message". But that can't be right, as you may accept the former (the meaning of "define" here is sufficiently loose to allow for many understandings, some of which may not be objectionable) and still deny the latter.
Even from the perspective of someone who likes film, Erwin's arguing is at best touching but ultimately flawed. The wedge he tries to drive between film and digital is artificial: there's a difference between the two but it is not one of a kind. Someone may prefer, for whatever reasons, to use film over digital but that doesn't mean that the first is photography and the second isn't. Erwin completely and utterly overstates the case for film, trying to pass a matter of preference as a matter of fact. Polarisation and partisanship are bad policies at a time when film has to muster for survival all its friends, including those who are comfortable with both digital and film.
Of the things he implies, I am most inclined to agree with this: shooting digital is a different experience and process than shooting film. Whether that constitutes a "fundamental change in culture and philosophy" is something that cries for further elaboration, which he does not provide.
But with this central claim, it is impossible to agree with: "makes one aware of that peculiar and forceful truth that photography is not only intimately linked to the use of film, but in fact depends for its very existence on film" the rebuttal of which is plainly based on the existence of digital photography. Perhaps what he should have said, and then who would have disagreed, is that film photography is intimately linked and depends for its very existence on film. But, of course, that's trivial.
And then this: "What I claim is that the relation between craft and result defines the result: the medium is still the message". It seems he thinks that "the relation between craft and result defines the result" is a simple rephrasing of the statement "the medium is still the message". But that can't be right, as you may accept the former (the meaning of "define" here is sufficiently loose to allow for many understandings, some of which may not be objectionable) and still deny the latter.
Even from the perspective of someone who likes film, Erwin's arguing is at best touching but ultimately flawed. The wedge he tries to drive between film and digital is artificial: there's a difference between the two but it is not one of a kind. Someone may prefer, for whatever reasons, to use film over digital but that doesn't mean that the first is photography and the second isn't. Erwin completely and utterly overstates the case for film, trying to pass a matter of preference as a matter of fact. Polarisation and partisanship are bad policies at a time when film has to muster for survival all its friends, including those who are comfortable with both digital and film.
Last edited:
papasnap
Well-known
ah! thanks for posting that Nachkebia, an interesting read. the guy really nailed his colours to the mast eh?
although I have a huge love & appreciation of film for both it's physical and intangible qualities (and so agree with many of Put's points), I think he's being needlessly antagonistic towards digital photography.
I think there's a very imporant role for both film- and digital-based photography, coexisting, and I think the world of photography would be much less interesting for the loss of either.
ah, there I go hedging my bets again!
cheers!
tom
although I have a huge love & appreciation of film for both it's physical and intangible qualities (and so agree with many of Put's points), I think he's being needlessly antagonistic towards digital photography.
I think there's a very imporant role for both film- and digital-based photography, coexisting, and I think the world of photography would be much less interesting for the loss of either.
ah, there I go hedging my bets again!
cheers!
tom
Gid
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39591
The link is to a thread by Jocko about attitudes to the new fangled film in 1900.
Nothing really changes does it?
I sometimes wonder why people write stuff like this - is it fear of competition? Is it that the photographic process using film requires a high degree of technical skill other than seeing the image and that digital is actually removing the need for such a high degree technical competence. If one's strength lies in the technicalities and not the seeing then I can understand the threat. I imagine that old time mechanics might feel the same about modern cars and the computer diagnoses - no skill involved anymore. I can also remember feeling a bit miffed when computer based music (digital sequencers) suddenly made it possible for people with no musical skill to produce stuff that sold
The reality is that they had the ability to hear a finished product but not the traditional skill to create it until computers came along. I no longer feel miffed
The link is to a thread by Jocko about attitudes to the new fangled film in 1900.
Nothing really changes does it?
I sometimes wonder why people write stuff like this - is it fear of competition? Is it that the photographic process using film requires a high degree of technical skill other than seeing the image and that digital is actually removing the need for such a high degree technical competence. If one's strength lies in the technicalities and not the seeing then I can understand the threat. I imagine that old time mechanics might feel the same about modern cars and the computer diagnoses - no skill involved anymore. I can also remember feeling a bit miffed when computer based music (digital sequencers) suddenly made it possible for people with no musical skill to produce stuff that sold
The reality is that they had the ability to hear a finished product but not the traditional skill to create it until computers came along. I no longer feel miffed 
Film dino
David Chong
A berk's an idiot or silly/ objectionable person
The Public School system of North carolina agrees with Mr. Puts.
"Photography: The art or process of producing images by the action of light on surfaces sensitized by chemical processes."
As do many other standard definitions of the word "photography".
http://www.google.com/search?num=10...tography&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
But the word is apparently Greek in origin and is not limited to chemical based film. The ancient Greeks did not have film or digital cameras.
Photography
From the Greek Photos and Graphos, light writing or writing with light. The mix of art, craft and science for the creation of images on a light sensitive surface (such as film or a CCD).
"Photography: The art or process of producing images by the action of light on surfaces sensitized by chemical processes."
As do many other standard definitions of the word "photography".
http://www.google.com/search?num=10...tography&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
But the word is apparently Greek in origin and is not limited to chemical based film. The ancient Greeks did not have film or digital cameras.
Photography
From the Greek Photos and Graphos, light writing or writing with light. The mix of art, craft and science for the creation of images on a light sensitive surface (such as film or a CCD).
Last edited:
Nachkebia
Well-known
As long as you are talking I am happy
Toby
On the alert
Film dino said:
not quite
"Berk" originates from the rhyming slang "Berkeley Hunt"
I'm not going to spell it out any further...
More recently it's meaning has become more mild and the word could quite easily be heard on TV or radio in the UK
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
After reading this I would say he has a future in politics, seems to know how to craft baffle gab.
Bob
Bob
Toby
On the alert
I must say I don't agree with Erwins musings. Especially the 'medium is the message'. What camera you use and whether you use film or digital is not the message in any image. It's just the usual 'four legs good, two legs bad' generalisations that typify most film vs. digital discussions.
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
rxmd said:
Well well I'm afraid I totally agree with RXMD.
Marc
PS: RXMD; about the French quotation, I agree with you. It's a common technique to exclude readers or act important; French authors quote in German or Latine without translation; English authors quote in Italian, German ones in Greek ...etc. It's a despicable practice.
Dfin
Well-known
Artists still see themselves as elitist, a few years ago I saw a book titled Photography the Low Brow Art. I saw an interview with Robert Hughes,the art critique for the New York Times, he remembers a lecture given by some Gatesien Nerd, about how via computers, and the Net, everyone will be able to have Monet or a Rembrant or Picasso in their home, I think not was his polite answer. Will digital crush film? Maybe,maybe, the weekend before last ,I was speaking with the head photographer of our local newspaper, about this very subject. They had recently re-equiped with Canon1d mk11,switched over from Nikons, spent thousands,strange but the photos didn`t get any better? Might have something to do with talent? I ventured, maybe maybe he said.
dskphotography
Member
to a certain extent this is true but in reality it just changes the way
RichC
Well-known
It's pronounced "Erwin Puts"! (Actually, "burk".)dexdog said:
palec
Well-known
rxmd said:
While the topic is very interesting and leaves some space for discussion, I absolutely agree with rxmd.
It's similar to music recording - is the idea lost when the music is recorded on hardisk instead of magnetic reel (or even Edison's cyllinder)?
dskphotography
Member
oops it just changes the way real photographers shoot not hobbyists i am both pro and hobbyist/artist i shoot film for my personal work because i have a sense of what i can do with tri-x and ddx but not nescicarily with the post work i have to do to get the same thing with digital ,, nearly impossible to obtain i like film but digital has its place ,,digital rangefinders ,, how about a point and shoot with a full frame censor!!
Film dino
David Chong
Dfin said:
Hmm... I suppose they feel compelled to switch so that the photos don't get any worse.
Perhaps we should ask whether digital image capture fundamentally changes the nature of the craft?
oftheherd
Veteran
Brian Sweeney said:
I shouldn't be surprised if Tennessee doesn't also.
Memphis, do you know?
Just my 2 cents. Inasmuch as light is the medium that is used to energize the medium, and a print or representation of a print is the intended end result, digital is properly called photography. I certainly don't doubt the necessity of needed skills in manipulating the "original" whether in PS or by dodging and burning to produce a print. Ansel Adams was as much a master at that as he was at original exposure. He used both as he felt needed to produce the photo he had "seen" when he exposed his medium to light.
Me, I still prefer film for what I consider any of my more serious work, as I feel more mastery (little as it is) of that process than digital and post processing. Contrarily, I have been exposing more digital than film in recent years due to certain, what I perceive as ease of use for snapshots.