What happened to photography? (Page 13): Huh? Isn't it the 'digital technician' or the photographer that selects the tools and the final outcome, whether to be printed or displayed in...

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

wj cody wrote:

the difference is simple - in film photography it is the photographer or the photographer's lab tech who is actively determining the final outcome of the print. in film photography the print is the final outcome of the initial action of taking the picture. in digital imaging it is whatever computer program which is being used that determines the final outcome if any print is made. if not, then it is a waste of time.

Huh? Isn't it the 'digital technician' or the photographer that selects the tools and the final outcome, whether to be printed or displayed in some other medium?

Perhaps I have misinterpreted your comment?

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

JohnSwanda wrote:

It isn't the computer program that determines the outcome, it is the person actively using the computer program as a tool, just as the darkroom is a tool.

you are limited by the computer program - this is why it is a program - it cannot operate outside set parameters. very much unlike human beings.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

JohnSwanda wrote:

It isn't the computer program that determines the outcome, it is the person actively using the computer program as a tool, just as the darkroom is a tool.

radiojohn

The vast majority of people with cameras have always used box cameras, Instamatics, 35mm point and shoots and now, after a brief flirtation with digital compacts, ...smartphone cameras. Snapshooters were the backbone of film and processing revenue. Now the industry pushs smartphones because the user needs a "data plan" to get photos from A to B.

The kind of people who take the time to learn photography are a decidedly dedicated minority in digital or chemical work.

jrh1354 Loc: Dayton, Ohio

radiojohn wrote:

The vast majority of people with cameras have always used box cameras, Instamatics, 35mm point and shoots and now, after a brief flirtation with digital compacts, ...smartphone cameras. Snapshooters were the backbone of film and processing revenue. Now the industry pushs smartphones because the user needs a "data plan" to get photos from A to B.

The kind of people who take the time to learn photography are a decidedly dedicated minority in digital or chemical work.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

wj cody wrote:

you are limited by the computer program - this is why it is a program - it cannot operate outside set parameters. very much unlike human beings.

And there are no limitations to what you can do in a darkroom? I can do much more on the computer than I could in the darkroom.

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

Kmgw9v wrote:

You agree that digital is "cheating". That says it all.
Go quietly back to the Swamp.

It is no more "cheating" that what was done in a dark room - dodging, cropping and a myriad other things done to enhance an image. Now we do it with a computer. What is the difference. You can't enhance a badly composed shot with a computer any more than you could in a darkroom. Good photography is still good photography.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

We have too much artificial intelligence already.

EdgarCPoone

SharpShooter wrote:

Swamp, Welcome to the Hog!
BTW, there's a simple test for reality.
Hang your camera around your neck and look in the mirror!
If you see yourself, you're real.
If you don't see yourself, your not a real photographer!!!

SS

Unless you are a vampire!!!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

wj cody wrote:

the difference is simple - in film photography it is the photographer or the photographer's lab tech who is actively determining the final outcome of the print. in film photography the print is the final outcome of the initial action of taking the picture. in digital imaging it is whatever computer program which is being used that determines the final outcome if any print is made. if not, then it is a waste of time.

Only if the goal is prints.

My goal has always been a record of what I saw. When I used Kodachrome, I determined the final outcome because I knew how the automated developing plant would react to my actions. Today I determine the final outcome because I know how the software in my camera will react to my actions. Only difference is that it happens faster.

DTC

Photography by Digital Processing is no different from the film photography. In the old days, professional level or serious amateur photographers spent a lot of time in the darkroom where they would tweak the exposures (time and light focus through the film), trick the enlarger to selectively darken certain areas in a photo (exposing light through the film and enlarging the image onto paper), cropping, double/multiple exposures... It is just a lot easier doing it using a computer...

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

JohnSwanda wrote:

And there are no limitations to what you can do in a darkroom? I can do much more on the computer than I could in the darkroom.

there are none in the darkroom. you should try it and see how plastic the process is.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

wj cody wrote:

there are none in the darkroom. you should try it and see how plastic the process is.

I did plenty of darkroom work in my time, I ran a custom/reproduction B&W photo lab for 20 years. I also have been using Photoshop since the first version. There are limitations in both, but I have more control sitting at a computer.

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

Kmgw9v wrote:

You agree that digital is "cheating". That says it all.
Go quietly back to the Swamp.

KMGW9V, what are you saying here? I mean, what are you implying? Is digital "CHEATING" in your opinion? As always, I'm interested in your opinion, have been for years now. You know what they say about "opinions" they are like Jerry and KMGW9V, always worth listening to. RJM

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

Dalek wrote:

I cut my own grass but I am not a gardener
I grow my own orchids but I am not a horticulturalist
I trim my own trees but I am not an arborist
I fixed my toilet but I am not a plumber
I built a rock wall but I am not a mason
I drive a 380 hp sports car but am not a race car driver
I take pictures and print digitally but I am not a photographer
So what am I, a tinkerer to some a master of none

And if you are satisfied with all that, YOU ARE SATISFIED , who else should define your TITLE??