the end result is the issue. so, i guess we disagree.
sure.
but before going into what may well upset a lot of folks, let me state the following: while i do not use digital (other than images for stuff i sell on ebay), i am not hostile to that medium.
i do, however demand accuracy. digital image capturing devices are not cameras. they are highly sophisticated computers to which lenses happen to be attached. there is coming, in the very near future, digital devices which will not require a lens.
a photograph is taken with a film camera. what the film camera is pointed at appears on the negative. hydrants, phone poles, wires - you get the idea. the negative is the ground from which the print is made. in the darkroom, the print is made from that negative. it may be, if black and white, dodged and burned, somewhat. it may be sandwiched or reversed, and beyond solarisation and tinting, that's about the extent of manipulation of the print. the negative remains as provenance and is proof of the official record of what the camera recorded.
an image taken with a digital capturing device has no provenance. heads change places, items are deleted or added, the entire subject matter becomes inacurate and there is no credible record of what originally was recorded.
which is why forensic digital image capturing devices are modified via specific codes to provide proof the image seen is the image taken and has not been tampered with.
as the print is the final arbiter, it may be said, that digital images do not enjoy provenance. and without at the very least, provenance, there is no "art".
can't wait for the response to this one....
gessman wrote:
Could it be because of what you said earlier:
"An artist gets it right in the camera."
"I agree Racmanaz, once you PP a photo it is no longer a
photo, it is art. If I can not take a good photo with my
camera I discard it. Photography is only photography when
it comes straight out of the camera."
...bearing in mind that it has not yet been established and universally agreed upon what exactly about photography is "art" and what isn't and it seems to come down to who can holler the loudest and longest. It sure sounds, from what you say, that you have made up your mind. Maybe the world will adopt your standard but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Could it be because of what you said earlier: br ... (
show quote)
i'd like to clarify, once something is PP'd, it's an image which is not necessarily "art".
amehta wrote:
A 36mp camera will provide 613 dots per inch.
yup, and a 6x6cm camera will provide 944 dots per square inch. and it does, believe me, get worse from there. for instance, a 63mp camera will provide 812 dots per square inch.
RichardQ wrote:
Alyn, since the topic is "Is this a photograph? If not, why not?", and the NY Tmes article dealt with that very subject, I tried to synopsize it for any reader who might not be a subscriber to that web page. I certainly did not mean to talk down to you or others in the forum, and possibly I am naiive in finding a lot of the projects in the non-photographic photography arena are unworthy of crowding into what the curators call the "capture" approach. Of course, to each his own.
Alyn, since the topic is "Is this a photograp... (
show quote)
as a photographer, rather than a digital image maker, i don't think you have anything to apologise for. your conclusions are correct. and we do raise our ancient eyebrows at the tsunami of instantly forgettable images.
not only that, but there is print quality to consider. prints are counted in dots per square inch. for instance, a 21.1 megapixel image on an 8x12 enlargement will contain 468 dots per inch.
a 35mm negative, same size print contains 590 dots per square inch. you really dont want to know what a 6x6 negative contains (hee-hee)
use film and get a real photograph, rather than a digital image.
MT Shooter wrote:
And just exactly what does APS-C sized sensors have to do with the relationship between comparative sensors in evaluations?????
sorry for the late reply. comparing sensors to sensors doesn't change the fact film prints will always contain much more information.
for instance, as all prints are counted in dots per inch, a 21.1 megapixel camera on an 8x12 print will provide 468 dots per inch. a 35mm negative printed to the same specification will provide 590 dots per inch.
my point is simple, digital image making devices will not, at the end of the day, provide the quality of film cameras. doesn't really matter what sensor is used.
hope this clarifies things.
mosbenav wrote:
wj cody: when in Rome do as the Romans do. good idea.
thank you, greatly appreciated!
Lundberg02 wrote:
Photo8, what's a Nikon 105mm lens worth?
my 105 f2.5 on my nikon s3 rangefinder camera is worth everything to me!
winterrose wrote:
We see this far too much here, people who know all the answers, they just have a lot of trouble matching them to the question.
perhaps. or perhaps you are ignoring the larger issues involved.
bull drink water wrote:
yes it is, some of the most renound have been using tricks since day 2. they have been dodgeing, burning, double exposing,layering, and using filters all over the place.
that is correct. but we have also made very clear what changes to the final print were made. that has not happened in the digital realm.
apologies for the late reply - weather issues in the great midwest.
checked with Erv and he did not have one for the FG. sorry about not being able to assist you with this. perhaps one of the other members can come to the rescue.