Digital Photography is it real.

P

paul mac

Suspended / Banned
Messages
305
Edit My Images
No
Hi, everyone just having a lazy Sunday and feeling lethargic wondering about digital photography what is it all about. After completing a city & guilds course in black & white photography & delveloping many years ago, has the art gone out of real photography.
I am sure like alot of photographers when they were shooting 35mm or 110mm on the day they got what they got and there wasn't much they could do with the image, I know they could dodge and burn in like I use to , but they certainly couldn't do anything like we can do in adobe.
And has the fun gone out of it I remember being in a bathroom which was my darkroom for hours & hours coming out stinking of the chemicals great days.
I dont know do you think it is all to easy on a computer are the best photos produced with the amount of computer skills you have.
Dont get me wrong i love digital photography i am really enjoying hdr at the moment which is very much done on computers and looks unreal.
I
think thats why it would be good to get back to the basics like the days with Bob Carlos Clarke. Anyway i would love to here your comments on what you think. :thumbs:
 
Far from it ... everyone that owns a digital camera thinks that they are photographers, but having CS3 or PSP is of no use unless you have the eye for a photograph.
I to spent hours dodging & burning with my stick and circle and now spend as much if not more time trying to produce even better work with the tools that are available. I love being able to work with the layers & add blur or colour, remove object etc etc...
For my own fun though last week I took some images at too high an iso & added noise to remind me of the old days & when I posted to various forums, no one could get it !!!
Image what Bob would be producing now, with liquify etc !!!!!
 
Yes fair comment, but how do you feel about removing items from images like litter or people and so on, where does it stop.
 
If I shoot a wedding, I can now remove the litter etc & love that ..
With my other hat on I am a senior official on the World Rally GB & laugh my head off at international press moving blades of grass & pieces of tape fron thier view, what do they think that people expect to see on rally pics ?
 
Great stuff tbabe i remember printing those high grain photos using 3200 speed films fantastic prints.
 
Having been brought up with "Wet" photography, I don't think there is any real difference between that and digital.

The skills I learn't in the darkroom from both B&W and colour have stood me in good stead with digital. The only real difference is my fingers don't smell of Hypo anymore.

Also digital has enabled me to try many more techniques, that I probably wouldn't have bothered with in the darkroom, mainly due to time constraints. Also complicated jobs are easier in digital. You can use layers in Photoshop for complex tasks and delete them if they don't work, without destroying the other steps you've done. Plus you can take a break and go back and continue where you left off.

However the important part is still the initial vision. Be it film or digital you've got to have the idea first, and be able to execute it in the camera. Everything else is a means to get to that vision. Digital means that that vision is not limited to simply compose and shoot ( putting it simply). But you still need that vision and the shot.
 
Chappers said:
Having been brought up with "Wet" photography, I don't think there is any real difference between that and digital.

The skills I learn't in the darkroom from both B&W and colour have stood me in good stead with digital. The only real difference is my fingers don't smell of Hypo anymore.

Also digital has enabled me to try many more techniques, that I probably wouldn't have bothered with in the darkroom, mainly due to time constraints. Also complicated jobs are easier in digital. You can use layers in Photoshop for complex tasks and delete them if they don't work, without destroying the other steps you've done. Plus you can take a break and go back and continue where you left off.

However the important part is still the initial vision. Be it film or digital you've got to have the idea first, and be able to execute it in the camera. Everything else is a means to get to that vision. Digital means that that vision is not limited to simply compose and shoot ( putting it simply). But you still need that vision and the shot.
Click to expand...

I totally agree ,but you get more chances now to create a better image.
 
Editing aside, digital has a synthetic look, film has a photographic look, they're both real.....take you're pick :)
Noise is a poor substitute for grain, but not everything digital is a poor substitute for film.
I don't really like digital that much, but in the 21st century it's a necessity for a lot of reasons, most of them finance related.
 
Does more giving more choice and greater accessibility mean it's less real then?
 
As a new guy to Photography, I don't see that the fun has gone out of it, nor skill. Go back to pre digitalm had I started out I'd be learining all the same principals when it comes to exposure, its the developing thats different. By that I mean that pre digital, I'd have been learning about which chemicals etc and how to process in a darkroom, post digital is learning about layers, masks, curves, histograms etc etc. Sure you have photoshop to help develop your images, but learning to use it is still a big deal. Its learning a different tool to get the end result thats all.
 
Yes they seem less real to me when ive seen articles where they totally remove building cranes from the backgrounds of photos surely this cant be tru photography.
 
Dont get me wrong guys and girls i love digital photgraphy i have cs3 and photmatrix and so on , the way we chance things is great but is it all getting to simple to make that perfect image.
 
I think both are valid.

Like you I learned with B&W and developed in the darkroom. (I still do) Digital is just different. I do find that I sometimes take a pic with a particular photoshop technique in mind and, in that way, my photography has changed.

At other times I'm just delighted to get exactly what I want out of the camera, spot on, first time.

Digital has given me much more in terms of development (pardon the pun) because, once the initial investment has been made then I can experiment till my heart's content for little to no cost. In that way digital has a huge influence over the different directions I am able to explore that I never could in terms of cost and time in a darkroom.

I do still love watching a 120 film coming out of the tank though! :)
 
I now use digital in the same way I used a polaroid back in the old days.

I set up shots and get them how I want them to look, then replace the Digital with a Slide Film camera.

I'm also experimenting much more with digital than I ever did with film.

For me photography is all about the final image. How it is created is of no concern. Ok there are those that can create an image from scratch in the computer so that for me is art. Provided the image is mostly created by the action of light from a subject interacting with a sensitive medium that is then processed to an image, that's fine.

So is an A3 scanner, a mirror, a sheet of frosted glass, a blacked out room and a small hole in the blackout curtian any less photography ???

Cheers
 
pjm said:
Yes they seem less real to me when ive seen articles where they totally remove building cranes from the backgrounds of photos surely this cant be tru photography.
Click to expand...

It is real.

To remove an unwanted artefact from a photo is a manipulative technique which is applied to a photograph by the disgression of the author, it doesn't make it any less 'real' and it doesn't compromise true photography in any way shape or form IMO.

The argument of whether digital photography is 'real' IMO can't exist, the argument of whether it's accepted by everyone, can.

Technology will always aggressively cause the capability of an art form to progress in countless and staggering ways but you cannot remove the human element from an art form, no matter how advanced the tech is, the human element will always be the variable, the human element decides the meaning, the conveyance and whether the image produced has significance.
Without us humans deciding the outcome = Dslr's are dead matter.

Basically, there are still heroes, there are still inspirational figures of the industry, there are still millions of influencial and deeply moving images being produced all over the world, day in and day out. Digital or otherwise.

pjm said:
.... is it all getting to simple to make that perfect image?
Click to expand...

IMO, No. What is a perfect image anyway? :)

T.
 
Nice to hear all of your views and i respect you all. Digital photography is the way forward and to be honest i dont miss smelling of those chemicals.I am sure there will always be the hardcore fans of the film users. :thumbs:
 
Plato would have banned photography, have a think on that next time you are wondering about what is real.
 
To answer the OP's question... Yes, of course it is real. It's just a different technique in producing images; like paint and brushes, chemicals and silver or chisel and marble is.

The mistake is to assume that because an image produced by one technique is different from one produced by another technique, it's value is somehow diminished. Trying to create a particular look of one method (film grain) using another method (introducing noise) whilst interesting, is to miss the point of embracing each method for it's own strengths and unique qualities. :)

Anthony.
 
I never had the space or facilities to have a darkroom so now I can tweak exposure dodge and burn and yes remove the odd little piece of litter although I draw the live at removing or adding people
 
In my opinion, as photography is a (wo)man-made concept it is as 'real' in the digital form as it is in the darkroom. The end results can be the same, even if the methods used to achieve them differ.
 
joxby said:
Editing aside, digital has a synthetic look, film has a photographic look, they're both real.....take you're pick :)
Noise is a poor substitute for grain, but not everything digital is a poor substitute for film.
Click to expand...
:agree: and I'm sure a similar discussion went on back when photography was first invented regarding its merits compared to painting :D
 
Flash In The Pan said:
:agree: and I'm sure a similar discussion went on back when photography was first invented regarding its merits compared to painting :D
Click to expand...

Good point, of course Painters would have been able to leave out objects in a scene that they didn't want there. Its gone round in one big circle in that sense!
 
Flash In The Pan said:
:agree: and I'm sure a similar discussion went on back when photography was first invented regarding its merits compared to painting :D
Click to expand...

It did go on, there was one artist in particular (who's name escapes me) who was very vocal saying that photography was in no way legitimate art and should be used only in the editorial sense, and only ever to record an event. I think digital is just as legitimate as film photography. You need the same understanding of the principals, the only difference is you can look at an image as soon as you've taken it and decide if you want to redo it.

In terms of finacnce it means I can shoot every day instead of less often as I don't have to fork out for film. I still have my old 35mm ST605, it gets used occasionally, although I don't develop my own prints.
 
I went through college doing a ND course shooting 35mm film.
All the stress of money... Somedays only being able to buy 1 roll of film to try and shoot a project on.
I did use to enjoy printing in a darkroom, and I think that the stress of money helped you think harder about that vital shot, it made you plan ahead alot more.

But do I think digital photography is real? Hell yes!
I think shooting on film now would be ridiculous for me. I'm sure that other event photographers like myself would agree. Taking over a thousand shots and having them edited and online for sell withing 24hrs is just not possible in film.

My college days, I would have enjoyed far more had digital been around. Far more.
The stress of how many shots would be out the window.
Being able to process at home instead of waiting for a cubicle to be free in the darkroom because of forgetting to book one in..

Digital feels very real for me. I just wish it had come out a decade earlier!
 
Flash In The Pan said:
:agree: and I'm sure a similar discussion went on back when photography was first invented regarding its merits compared to painting :D
Click to expand...

My neighbour is a keen painter and she recently mentioned that the author of a book on painting said photography wasn't as good as painting because it couldn't capture movement. I showed her a few shots (fluffy waterfalls, light trails, blurred wheels, etc) and she was happy the author was full of it. At the time it did strike me as a strange thing for the author to claim...
 
pjm said:
Yes they seem less real to me when ive seen articles where they totally remove building cranes from the backgrounds of photos surely this cant be tru photography.
Click to expand...


Never seen an old postcard where things have been removed? Photos where people have been removed? Hand coloured prints? Toned prints? For that matter, have you ever seen a landscape in black and white? Not a photo of the landscape but the view itself? How about the Cottingley Fairies? Photo trickery, fakery, call it what you will predates digital by a long time - the modern process just makes it easier.

Personally, I don't miss the wet darkroom at all - emerging after a session of printing always left me with a nasty taste in my mouth and a headache!
 
For someone who only seriously got into photography a year or so ago (I never had a camera as a kid and got my first camera in 2000!), I had never done anything with film and darkroom processing until a couple of weeks ago. I absolutely LOVE it. So much so, I'm going to build my own darkroom, when I get the opportunity. Do I feel that is any more "real" than digital photography? Definitely not. Photography is about the light, how you use that light and how you visualise a scene. How that light is physically captured is mostly irrelevant, if you ask me. There are equal skills in developing and processing digital images and film images.

It's just as easy for someone to take a couple of snaps with a 35mm compact camera and get Boots to process it as taking a shot with a digital point and shoot and sticking it on facebook.
 
Good for you welly you will enjoy the darkroom like i did, but make sure you have some ventilation.I dont think that i would go back to the darkroom i had many good years in there.I do enjoy digital photography but i will admit i do get very tired looking at a computer screen for a long time. :thumbs:
 
Rob.7wood said:
Good point, of course Painters would have been able to leave out objects in a scene that they didn't want there. Its gone round in one big circle in that sense!
Click to expand...


It has, digital is part of that circle, sometimes I feel digital joins back up with painting, in its extreme form, its closer to painting than film ever was/could be.
Anything goes, just doesn't cut it, eventually what you have is a digital painting, not a photograph.
 
Well post no2,Well im no photographer thats why im here,To learn,My view of digital is not having to wait at Boots to see my poor shots,I now get them instantaniously in a little telly on the back ,and i can just keep pressing delete until i see a picture that looks half decent.

On photo editing and dont get me wrong if you can understand them well done, but doesnt that deract from taking the perfect picture, suppose you could call them a forgery really if you have to move or remove litter or whatever then its just becoming a set like a movie,anyway better skulk off sharpish before the ear bashin starts,Regards Nick.:):)
 
Chappers said:
However the important part is still the initial vision. Be it film or digital you've got to have the idea first, and be able to execute it in the camera. Everything else is a means to get to that vision. Digital means that that vision is not limited to simply compose and shoot ( putting it simply). But you still need that vision and the shot.
Click to expand...

That's my view too.

In a more general sense, technology has always make it's mark on creativity - regardless of the field. I remember many years ago when digital recording and sampling became more accessible/affordable to the hobbyist musician. Back then there were many debates about who was a 'real' musician and who depended too much on technology to either enhance a performance, or if someone borrowed too heavily from an existing work. Meanwhile the real musicians were using whatever tools they had at hand to get the job done - regardless of the methods used.
I think it's great to have as much choice and flexibility as possible when you're trying to create something.
 
Like many of you I started with "wet" photography - in my case a 1/4 plate camera of my father's in 1948, and still get the same pleasure in creating an image. Recently I went back to Shere and re-took an image of the church that I took on a 12 on 120 Nettar in 1955 still having an old print and the negative. Scanning the negative and comparing it with my digital image still gave the same buzz. Yes you can cheat far more easily in Photoshop - if that is the word, but I did it in the dark room, rephotographing images and combining to add people - took ages! It is about the finished product and the pleasure in seeing and taking and being able to share with others. It is now so much easier - just look at the forums here! Many years ago i would project a slide on to paper and trace over to give me the outline of a sketch - look at my Norfolk Doodles and see what I can do with a few keystrokes and a couple of minutes with a mouse of graphic pen and tabled - No smell, in the warm and even in front of kids at a youth club with a digital projector so they can follow it on a big screen.

Go out and take the picture - just remember to either to print the result so others can share!
 
For me, the greatest advantage is the instant feedback you get from your digital pictures. Digital allows you to experiment over multiple shots in a way which is not possible with wet film. Although the screen on the camera is small, it can show how well the image is focused, lit, framed, and also show the artistic impact that the image will have.

Through this instant feedback, learning is enhanced and it is easier to move to new or more difficult techniques.

The computer post processing of images gives you much greater freedom than the darkroom ever could. It also allows deeper analysis and comparison betwen photos; with more effects and results to choose from.

Forums like this, with many contributors extend the critical range of your photos. They allow you to see how others approach your pet topics, and what others have done with their own many and varied subjects.

No, I would not want to go back to the limitations of film and wet processing, fun though it was.

Edward
 
I don't know why being able to remove and add parts of an image is being quoted as a reason for digital not being real. Both of those have been done for a long time in film, as have masses of other retouching techniques that are available in photoshop.

They're easier and at our finger tips with digital but that doesn't make it less real.
 
Werecow said:
I don't know why being able to remove and add parts of an image is being quoted as a reason for digital not being real. Both of those have been done for a long time in film, as have masses of other retouching techniques that are available in photoshop.

They're easier and at our finger tips with digital but that doesn't make it less real.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

I recently attended a talk and presentation on "The Life and Times of Edward Chambré Hardman."

One of the things discussed was his famous "The Birth of the Ark Royal" photograph - taken in 1950. It was pointed out how he'd removed a lampost and burned in a few white gable ends in the foreground that drew the eye away from the white Ark Royal in the distance.
 
Tbabe said:
Far from it ... everyone that owns a digital camera thinks that they are photographers
Click to expand...

Well where would you draw the line as to who is classed as a photographer? I remember ("when I were a lad") my chemistry teacher always said that anyone who practises chemistry is a chemist regardless of the level you practise at.

And for me that is true for photography too :)
 
I think far too many people get hung up on the "process" part of "the creative process". I like learning techniques, and I like to find interesting ways of doing things, but really all of that stuff is what I have to learn or figure out to create and interface between an idea and a reality.

I use software to make music as well, and even now people argue about the reality of music made with computers. To me the whole argument is a nonsense - I want to take ideas and make them happen - anything that reduces the amount of interface between those two endpoints is peachy by me.

The one downside to the digital age, the growing prevalence of the phrase "can't you just photoshop it?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top