Is there a difference between image making and photography?

Darwinean_JohnUK

Darwinean_JohnUK

Suspended / Banned
Messages
195
Edit My Images
No
Digital image making seems often, though not always, to be dominated by a significant amount of post processing.
For me, photography is about capturing the light-illuminated subject in-camera. Reframing / cropping seems a valid photographic technique to strengthen the message.
Others feel more comfortable than I in manipulating the light-sourced pixels.
Am I OCD about my hobby?
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
Digital image making seems often, though not always, to be dominated by a significant amount of post processing.
Click to expand...

Significant amounts of post processing have been going on for far longer than digital has been around.

.
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
For me, photography is about capturing the light-illuminated subject in-camera. Reframing / cropping seems a valid photographic technique to strengthen the message.
Others feel more comfortable than I in manipulating the light-sourced pixels?
Click to expand...

Whatever gives you the image you want is valid - whatever anyone says.

Darwinean_JohnUK said:
Am I OCD about my hobby?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
I don't think there's really any difference between processing your shots and straight out of camera pictures apart from who decides what they look like. If you do the processing then, obviously, you decide what your picture looks like but if you just leave it to the camera it's the manufacturer (Nikon/Conon/whoever) who decides what the shot should look like.

I take the view that as I've paid my hard earned dosh I'm perfectly entitled to overrule the manufacturer :D
 
(y)

Choice of emulsion is interesting though. Velvia or Portra?

Personally, I shoot B+W film. Tmax for its hard bite or Tri-X for its glowing tones.

Then, if necessary, or just because I fancy it, I do shed loads of post. If not, I don't.

What the hybrid analogue/digital approach gives you is the qualities of film with the ease of post processing. I don't have the equipment or skill to do the kind of intense processing the old film masters did.

And they did.
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
None of my cameras include any processing
Click to expand...

simon ess said:
Film?
Click to expand...

Darwinean_JohnUK said:
Yes
Click to expand...
But there's a lot of processing involved in developing and printing an image from film. Shooting film isn't some sort of ascetic purity, it's deeply rooted in process and manipulation.

Even if you shoot Polaroid/Instax, you choose to bias the development process by following or not following the recommended development times and holding temperatures.
 
Yes but after the chemistry, much of the darkroom processing is still based on the one-off manipulation of analogue light photons, not digital 0's and 1's in software created by programmers
 
I'm struggling to see your point - sorry.

On the one hand, it's just different ways of achieving the same thing.

On the other hand, so what?
 
And the chemistry is also an art to be harnessed. All the equivalent skill in Photoshop was done by a computer developer for you. No skill by you.
 
I'm confused. Are you making your own film emulsions, chemicals and photographic paper? If so kudos. Otherwise I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?
 
You take an image with a - more or less - p&s and use a program to refine it.
Not much photography there
 
I was watching a program on sky arts last week were a photographer would hire a sound stage, Set up a scene and have 5 weeks to work his shot. I'd say that was image making
 
Hmm Friday night post drinky belligerence perchance?
I'll leave you to it.
 
I have no argument with you.

You believe whatever you want, it makes no difference to me whatsoever.
 
Only the beginnings of an image is captured by the camera ... the rest lies within your mind.
 
simon ess said:
There's one thing I dislike more than digital photographers who think film is a waste of time.

Film photographers who thing digital isn't proper photography.

On that note - I'll leave you to your prejudices and wish you all the best.
Click to expand...
I can't believe I've liked two post from the same poster in one thread.

Still a good post is a good post
 
The image is born in the mind, refined using that organ between your ears, planned and implemented with the relevant camera
 
I use digital and film equally, although certainly get more satisfaction and enjoyment from film. I am happy to do any amount of manipulation of a digital image in photoshop to get the result I want.

But when using film, I prefer wet prints in a darkroom and don't do manipulation in photoshop of film.

If I can realise a vision largely 'in camera' I use film. If I'm creating something different that will require significant photoshop manipulation I use digital. Personally I don't see the point of using film and then subjecting it to significant digital manipulation, but if people enjoy that then why not?

I'm not sure at what point a photograph changes into a digital image, but as long as you are comfortable with what you enjoy, it doesn't matter what anyone else does.
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
The image is born in the mind, refined using that organ between your ears, planned and implemented with the relevant camera
Click to expand...

I've a feeling I'm going to regret this but I'll ask anyway.

So what happens when the shot you've meticulously planned in your head doesn't match what is produced by the camera. What do you do then?
 
Last edited:
Stuart M said:
I've a feeling I'm going to regret this but I'll ask anyway.

So what happens when the shot you've meticulously planned in your head doesn't match what is produced by the camera. What do you do then?
Click to expand...
Re plan, re shoot or ditch the idea
 
I don't understand the poster's point of view. All kinds of photography are an unnatural process. They all involve a reaction between light and a light reactive surface whether that be chemical or electrical based i.e. film or an electronic sensor - they are both man made and unnatural.

With film you have to develop the film and then project it on to photo reactive paper - effectively taking a photo twice and then you can choose whether to develop different areas for longer or shorter to dodge & burn, etc, etc. You can choose different films for different effects and also choose different chemicals to develop film in for cross processing effects.

With digital you achieve the same kind of effects but use software to do it, whether that be software built in to the camera such as in built art filters, or you use software on the computer. I can't see any difference other than different means to the same ends.

At the end of the day a photograph is an entirely man made unnatural thing and there is not a pure way to create one.
 
Last edited:
Idlefrog said:
With digital you achieve the same kind of effects but use software to do it, whether that be software built in to the camera such as in built art filters, or you use software on the computer. I can't see any difference other than different means to the same ends.

At the end of the day a photograph is an entirely man made unnatural thing and there is not a pure way to create one.
Click to expand...
That's cool, you're happy to use a software program created by somebody else to adjust your '0's and '1's.
I'll use chemistry to create my original printed images
 
Last edited:
Just because I use software does not mean my images are not unique. There are infinite variables to play with and the original photo being edited is unique to start with.

The chemicals you use have been made by some one else too. I really don't understand you point.

Most artists use paint made by someone else. But it is the way they use the paint that expresses their individuality. Editing photos in software is no different. Not everyone would end up with the same result from the same starting photo even if they edited it using the same software. It is about interpretation and preferences and making choices to get the photo how you want. Of course it is all much easier if you can take a decent photo to start with.
 
You are a user of tools created by somebody else. You aren't tweaking the image, you are invoking software functionality that make the changes
 
This is verging on trolling.

With film, unless you print by hand then you're stuck with whatever presets the film maker, dev manufacturer, machine printer pre-determined you should have, and basically your photography is a combination of lottery and serendipity as to whether you managed to judge correctly how all the different parameters would interact to make the final image. If you create the prints yourself then you're introducing post-processing adjustment every bit as much as if you were using software, except you'll be doing it crudely, masking with shapes or hands, so that no 2 prints will ever be identical. Even if you shoot transparency you're STILL using the manufacturer's pre-sets and hoping you can judge correctly how it will perform. When we only had film, top printers would be sought after to produce the very best quality images.

I've printed B&W, colour neg and CIBAchrome. There is no such thing as an unmanipulated image, and anywhere outside a studio will have light you can't control to create the image you want. A digital darkroom is more convenient, but ethically and artistically no different than working wet: just less restrictive. Suggesting that using a piece of commercial software means someone else is in control of your development process is the same as suggesting the people than make your camera and lens are controlling the pictures you take.

Darwinean may be a good handle. ;)
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
You are a user of tools created by somebody else. You aren't tweaking the image, you are invoking software functionality that make the changes
Click to expand...

I rather suspect you could no more create photosensitive emulsion & coat it on film & paper, formulate a developer, fixer and stop solution than you could write an image editing app.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
If one sees photography as a simple scientific process of capturing photons then that's one's perfectly valid perspective.

Alternatively, if one sees photography as a largely irrelevant mechanism that facilitates the telling of a story through picture then that's another's perfectly valid perspective.

Both are right, both are in conflict. Some are lucky enough to find beauty in both.
 
Wet processing and darkroom processing is dependent on the skill of the artisan, not the programmer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top