When is a photo not a photo

Create a Post
dougj

dougj

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Posts
1,449
Loc
Martha's Vineyard Vineyard Haven MA
When you take your film or your memory stick or disc to a photo shop do you get photographs or prints of photographs?
When you plug your camera into your computer and print out a photo (or several) is it still considered a photo or is it a print?
Had a customer complain that one of our artists claims his prints are photos.
They are printed off his computer on photo grade matte paper and are sold as photography.
If you don't use film or have it developed by a photo lab is it still considered a photograph?
So is it a photograph or a photo or a print or a print of a photo of a photograph?
 
Who is on first, What is on Second, I Dont Know is on Third, Today is catching,, Tomorrow is pitching, Why is in Left field, and I Dont Give A Darn is playing Short...

Does that Help??

Actually many professional photographers are using digital media to produce portraits, etc.. I would think these would be considered photography - Wouldn't they?
 
I would think that an image produced through use of a camera, as opposed to other art materials, would be considered a photograph regardless of how the final image is rendered. I think the roots of the word are derived from Greek terms meaning "light" and "print" or something like that. No mention of how the chemistry is delivered.
:popc: Rick
 
I still think of a photo as one having been produced with negative and paper, but, in the grand scheme of things, to me it makes no never mind.

I’m beginning to refer to both ink jet prints and photos as “images”. To me it sounds hip and trendy, and I’m nothing if not cool.
 
One of our customers in NYC creates traditional "photographs" using some sort of projector that exposes photgraphic paper to a digital image light source instead of from a negative. I don't remember what the technology is called, but he can do prints of this type up to somewhere around 6 feet wide (tha machine takes up a whole small room).
 
Just to ad to the confusion... the majority of labs out there now scan the negative to make the print as opposed to shining light directly thru the neg onto the paper. :)
 
It seems to me that the photo world is starting to link "photo" with unaltered or slightly altered images. Once you start editing the image heavily with photoshop, it becomes something akin to a nose picking step-brother. Much like framers that whine about CMCs.

From what I can tell few photographers make the distinction between digital and traditional film much anymore. Well maybe the few using film...very few.
 
From the dictionary
Photo
nouna representation of a person or scene in the form of a print or transparent slide; http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZUxdm080YYUS recorded by a camera on light-sensitive material [syn: photograph]

I don't think you can actually see a picture from a camera until it is printed.
No matter how it is printed it is still a photo-graph.
Try to esplane that to a customer when they ask, is it a photo or a print of a photo? I usually say YES! Why? Cuzs it's not done with paint or crayons
23_11_61.gif
 
Then to confuse things even more, I know some artists who use a photographic process to produce reproductions of their art work and sign and number them.

Does this make them a photographer? I don't think so.

Photographs, however they're formed are reproductions. They may be considered limited edition prints if they are truly limited in number by the negative or digital file being destroyed after a certain number are reproduced. Limited edition prints are considered originals ...with other qualifying particulars also coming into play.

:popc:

Dave Makielski
 
Hmm, never even thought of this question. In my gallery, I carry lots of photography. I refer to what's hanging as "digital print" or "digital print on canvas" (not to open that can-o-worms); never refer to it as "photograph on paper" or whatever. But, when discussing the print with a customer, I will often say something like "this photograph was taken at Fiery Gizzard during early spring..." To me, the "image" or "photograph" is what is captured by the camera and the output is a print.

Or maybe not. Now I'm CORNFUSED!!!

But Fiery Gizzard is a pretty cool place......:faintthud:
 
chicken or egg?

As a photographer who does some framing as opposed to you who are framers who do a little photography let me try this.

The line is blurring!

All photographers,whether film or digital take photographs.

That said some who take the "Wall Hangers" do much work with photoshop and other software and print "Fine Art".

Those would be prints.

Then there are some who use photoshop to make their photographs look still like photographs but more technically perfect,

Those are photographs.

And then there are those who print in sizes that could not easily be done with any enlarger of the film genre.

Again those are prints.


Clear as mud?!?!
Hope that helps

Tom
 
Ah just call the darn thing a giclee, cuz, by definition if it is printed through an ink jet process. Just my 2 cents worth of wisdom on a snowy Friday afternoon.
 
Lots of times when we frame something for an artist, they will ask us to make a "print" of the work. We take a digital photograph of the art and make a print for them to keep. So is this a photo of the art or a print of the art or is it still just art or is it even art at all after all of this?

Just kidding.

We usually just say image as was mentioned above, and photograph cause that's what they are. And like Jay said, the only people who don't consider digital products to be real photography are usually those that haven't yet learned the beauty of digital photography, digital manipulation, and digital restoration.
 
To throw another dimension into this discussion - I find myself thinking (perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly) that a photograph is created through chemistry in a darkroom (the source could be either digital or film) and a print is created with ink or dye (whether done by the $69 home printer or the professional "ink squirt" machine and given a fancy moniker).

My impression also that photographs made with a chemical process are a whole lot likelier to outlast ink or dye products.

And that old black and white photographs on fiber based paper will outlast the LOT!
 
I operate a Photo Lab and a Frame Shop.

I haven't given it a lot of thought but we use the terms interchangeably.

We make RA4 prints (wet process), dye sub prints and ink jet prints. I would call any of them a photograph if life began in a camera. Film or Digital makes no difference, everything gets digitized before printing.

Once we introduce graphic enhancements the lines become blurred.

I would say that all photographs are images but not all images are photographs.

Doug
 
After reading this thread so far I think i will take two Aspirins and lie down for a while:p

Seriously, though, the only practical consideration for us as framers is how to best handle the artwork. For instance, if they haven't been there too long you can wipe finger prints off a traditional photograph with a soft cloth. Try that with some images produced in a printer and you will be looking at white paper.

There seems to be a mind-boggling range of photographic processes, printers and inks out there producing images and it is becoming increasingly hard to distinguish one from the other.

I am inclined to agree that any image which was originally created using a camera is entitled to be called a "photograph" regardless of what medium is used to produce it.
 
The important part of selling and framing any photographic image is being able to correctly identify the process. With everything from hand applied Platinum/Palladium emulsions to photoshop on a variety of substrate, the process of conveying exactly what the process is in creating the image to a potential customer is much more important than qualifying the technology. Right or wrong isn't our realm, and using crossover catch phrases that have no solid definition in the photographic world can be misleading.

If it is a photographic process, then call it that. A photographically reproduced pencil drawing is exactly that. It isn't a print by the strictest definitions, though photography has borrowed the word from printmaking to indicate a single image.

Also be sure to identify digital processing and or capture. My employee uses both digital and film cameras. He generally hand develops the film images using traditional dark room technology. He will also have the images scanned and printed using digital technology. His digital images are rarely even seem since he cleans them up in photoshop and transfers the information to a portable format and sends it to a PR firm that then incorporates the image in print advertising. Granted the latter are not considered art, it is still important to know the process when dealing with the various photographic formats.

Photography has been more willing to accept technological changes because it is a technology driven medium. It has been in the hands of scientists as much as in the hands of artists, and advancement from film to digital to whatever seems quite natural. The challenge for the people who make their living selling and framing photographic images is to keep up with the ever changing technology.
 
Jay H said:
It seems to me that the photo world is starting to link "photo" with unaltered or slightly altered images. Once you start editing the image heavily with photoshop, it becomes something akin to a nose picking step-brother....
Click to expand...

I remember the controversy years ago when National Geographic moved the Great Pyramids closer together digitally for one of their covers, and then again when the weekly news magazines had cover photos of O.J. Simpson that were altered to make him look more shadowy and sinister. This kind of work is now routine, but it is referred to as "photo illustration".

:kaffeetrinker_2: Rick
 
Its all a ........................PICTURE.....................

More people around me ask to see the pictures I took on my trip, not photo's


Now I back out of the room and watch

James
 
Framar said:
My impression also that photographs made with a chemical process are a whole lot likelier to outlast ink or dye products.
Click to expand...

Mar, The Ink prints that I make with my Epson 9800 will far outlast you typical chemical photo. There are to many things that can go wrong with the chemestry that won't show up till years down the road.
 
Dave is correct Mar... lets not even go that far back... the picture of you as a little girl is what we call "Sepia tone". When it was taken, it was taken on film that would render in "Grey scale" (B&W). When it was printed, the negative was exposed to silver salts on paper, and rendered the image in Grey Scale or B&W. It stayed that way for many years. But as the acids and the paper and air worked on the silver halite, it started to "rust" and decompose..... and became "Sepia Toned".
Prior to 1926, most papers including those for photography, were rag based, so the "rusting" was slower. Also there were many portrait papers that were less bleached and started in a "warmer" tone... today we call paper by it's "brightness". Most "photo" paper for lasers and ink jets, have a brightness scale range from 96-120, and is based on reflective properties of the paper in respect to light.

In 40 more years, I'm sad to say, your original photo will be a blank yellow mottled piece of paper. The print I made for your frame, has every reason to still be the same as today. Ink pigment vs chemical reaction.
 
Here is some more wood.

So with all the old timers abandoning the traditional equipment, printing, knowledge of photogaphy we are getting further away from photography. Let be honest we all should be able to tell the difference between the two. There are huge differences, the nuiances that made the medium are dying. So it is not honest to term a digital print as photography. Why is it so hard for these so called "photographers" to use correct terms. When taking classes many teachers painfully taught us the difference between types of prints. Now it is just plain lazy to lable an inferior product as a photograph. Know what the medium really is. It will help when framing, when selling, when discussing what you maybe be selling.

Now go into the darkroom and make something with your hands and mind. Or you could just push that button...heck it only take tens seconds

pushing buttons

That is all I have to say about that.

PL
 
My images are photographs whether thay came out of my Nikon F3 using film or from my Canon 1Ds digital camera. Both images were captured on a specific medium...film or sensor chip...and then eventually transfered to paper. Makes no difference how they were transfered to paper, they are stilll photographs.
The fact that I could dodge and burn an image in the darkroom or in Photoshop makes no difference.
If I change the exposure of the image in PS or change the development time in the darkroom, still photographs.

Patrick... come on into the 21st. century. or at least the late 20th!!
 
Baer - that photo you mentioned of me as a little cowgirl was a balck and white snapshot kept in an album for, ulp, 50+ years before I posted it on the G and you fell in love with it and got inspired and wanted a copy....

...so the original was scanned and manipulated in Photoshop to have an older more classic sepia look and then printed by the chemical process on RC paper.

I imagine that the original in the album (which has not visibly changed in 55 years) and the copy behind museum glass in a windowless room will have about the same life span - none of which will matter since after I'm gone all will be pitched into the trash (well, maybe not your frame...).
 
I forgot one thing...let all of this digital junk keep coming. It will make my prices go up. Hand made goods are harder and harder to find. The people I am selling to appreciate something beyond me sitting at a puter pushing buttons. Art should not be as easy as typing.

PL
 
The technical revolution in photography is similar to the revolution from lithographic printing to digital printing.

Very few printmakers still use grease on stone and fewer and fewer photographers are using silver halide on paper.

Traditional photographic print making will be a more specialized form of the photographic arts and will considered rarer and possibly more of a fine arts process than a photographic process. I bet the few remaining photographers that employ the traditional methods may even go back to coating their own glass plates to preserve and emphasize the old art form.

The same thing has also happened in the printing industry. There are few letterpress craftsman around, but you'll find their work is often held in high regard as an art form and printed on cotton or linen papers.

The debut of the Apple Computer in 1984 changed all visual arts industries and will be looked on as a revolution unlike any witnessed in history.

Dave Makielski
 
Not to argue, Baer, but in dad’s darkroom we made genuine sepia's using toners. Nobody would bear that smell just for its pretty colors. I think it was done to preserve the image by actually removing the silver? That is the very reason that sepia are so common today. There might be some odd process that breaks down quickly but sepia tones created in a darkroom were/are done intentionally and to preserve the photo.

The only REAL photographer I have ever met refused to buy into this whole "color" hoax. When asked why, with all this current technology would he still hand paints photos he would respond, "I'm a professional. I couldn't in good conscious sell a photograph that would be a mere memory of its original color in just a few years. Long after this junk people are peddling are faded away, mine will look just as you see it now." I was young then and I believed him then, and now.

I still say if the image is captured on a camera, it’s a “photo”. What about these digital frames we keep seeing? Are the images loaded onto those, from a cameras memory card, photos?
 
Having Problems with Your Older & Faded Photos

Anyone of u having problems with your photos like staining, getting yellowish. I also got these problems some days back. But, now I met with a website whose main work is making our photos look nice by doing photo restoration, reconstruction or retouching depending upon the damage happened to our photos. So, if anyone has like that photos, these people are doing for normal prices. The site name is "Fireia" and you can check it out at http://www.fireia.com/
 
Fireia, since your name and the name of the website doing this work is the same, and since you resurrected an old thread regarding photographs, I would say this is not an informative post but a blatant commercial message. You are allowed to post such, but they shouldn't be buried in a thread, they belong in the commercial forum.

Your first post and all didn't want you to get off on the wrong foot. Welcome, and we'll wait for you to contribute to the G with questions or answers sharing your knowledge. ;)
 
And that also begs the question, Fireia, does your business work on photos, photo copies, digital reproductions, copies of photos, prints of copies of photos, enhanced copies of digitized images that were printed from negatives reproduced from electronic media using modern technology to accurately portray the original capture of an image that was on a negative base and printed by chemical methods in a real dark room?

Aw well shoot, I think I'll just go to Fast Photo and get some copies made, thank you.:shrug:
 
Mecianne said:
the only people who don't consider digital products to be real photography are usually those that haven't yet learned the beauty of digital photography, digital manipulation, and digital restoration.
Click to expand...

I completely beg to differ. Not to toot a horn or anything, but I have a degree in photo studio with emphasis on fine art. While technically I have a sound hold on digital imaging, I find that the true artistry of photography has been ripped from its foundation by "digital artists." Try working with a large format view camera, utilizing all of its tilt/shift capabilities, contact printing with painted on light sensitive emulsion (cyanotype for instance, created in the 1700s!), vs. the quickly and ever evolving commercial application of digital imaging.

My firm belief is that a photograph is a ONE OF A KIND art object. It is a work of art. If we analyze artists like Ansel Adams for instance. You don't see multiples of his work (beside show posters and the like) exhibiting in galleries. His use of darkroom chemistry was "in the moment" The film image may never change, but in the darkroom, the manipulation of chemistry, exposure, dodging and burning, cannot ever be reproduced.

By the way, check out www.alternativephotography.com for some really excellent one of a kind art works.:popc:
 
I keep looking but I don't think i see it yet.

I am by no means any degree of a Photographic Expert . But to my understanding the key that seems to be omitted thus far is what is used to TRANSFER the IMAGE to whatever medium ( Plate, negative of any kind, or digital memeory card). I think it is a LENS that seperates Photography from other forms of image makeing . Images can be made by the use of pencil, brushes, engraved paltes , ( that includes all sorts od methods of engraving) and by the through the LENS Transfer only found ,to my understanding, of an exact ( to the best of the photographers ability at least) reproduction of what is viewed in the viewer of a camera. The method by which the image is produced is another part of the process but the Transfering is what seperates Photography from print makeing or other forms of image making.

Photgraphs can be in a meriad of colorations and on various film stock but how it arrived there is what differentiates it from other forms of art. ( e. g. Giclees refer to how the image is printed not tarnsfered to whatever substrate. IMO)

However Photgraphs are original art and as such can be numbered in limited addition sense , although the subject may be like a lot of others you have seen, the quality of the final production depends entirely upon the SKILL of the Photgraphic ARTIST's use of the Camera and LENS. But then what do I know sense, I now have a difficult time useing a digital camera or the old Browny Hawkeyes from way back when. LOL

But do you really need to be proficient with the use of a camera or have worked in a photgraphic Studio or lab to understand how Photography works and what seperates it from other forms of art?

BUDDY
 
I think ACframer was really talking more about the combination of capture and print techniques that make up the photograph. I would equate the skill of darkroom light and chemical manipulation to the skills used by traditional printmakers working in media such as stone lithography, etching, aquatint, etc. To me, the ability to visualize the final outcome and to be able to achieve it, while not being able to see the image directly during its creation, is artistic mastery and genius. It is akin to Beethoven composing music after he became deaf.
:cool: Rick

There are true artists in digital media too, but maybe we need another name for it.
 
Krappy Kamera

For over 20 years I was involved with a photo gallery in NYC called Soho Photo Gallery on White Street in Tribeca.

About 10 or 12 years ago they had a member only competition called the "Krappy Kamera" Show. Only photographs made with a camera that cost less than $25 were eligible. The quality of the work was "amazing". Fine art photography taken to an entirely new level.

The point being that art is in the hands of the artist, not the tools or technique. The most expensive equipment (film or digital) in the world is useless in the hands of someone who doesn't know what to do with it...and a cheap piece of "krap" can produce great art in the hands of an artist. It just doesn't matter how you get there if it is good art which, of course, is entirely subjective...nevertheless...

The Krappy Kamera has since become a hugely successful national competition.

Personally, as much as I really love darkroom work, I sold all the Nikon and "Blad" equipment and went Digital 3 years ago...and after 45 years of film...I love it!!!!!

(It's not easy selling a 4x5 enlarger these days!)

Just my artistic opinion

Joel
 
There will always be people hanging on to what ever relevance they can by touting the old or original ways of doing things. Often newer is better. This is just another example.

When this type of discussion comes up the purist will quickly shift the discussion from the factual to the superficial.

This board see this often in mat cutting. A honest comparison of CMC vs. manual mat cutting will always tilt toward the CMC. Sure there are pros and cons on both systems but remove the superficial and the theoretical and Stevie Wonder can see which is the better choice. Yet we have those that will shout to the heavens about why every framer should be proficient on a manual mat cutter.

I had a similar discussion with a Disk Jockey who said that he sees the same thing in his industry. They have purist that think that a person should load each disk into a machine and voice every spot live. They are being lumped into two categories. 1) Perpetually angry. 2)Unemployed.

There are some trades that I hope stay alive. Printmaking and chemical process photography would be two. However, they are antiquated and unnecessary and hold no value in the market place except for nostalgia and history.
 
Perhaps I came off sounding a bit angry, but it can be quite disheartening for a photographer trained in a traditional way (both technically and conceptually) to be presented with the idea that their craft is mocked in some ways by quicker imaging solutions.

For me, this year has been a strange mixture of emotions on the issue. All of the SUNY schools across the board are completely removing their darkrooms, no longer teaching incoming students those basics that I so cherish and value as an artist. These darkrooms are now being replaced by computer labs for the "digital darkrooms." I think it is a real problem, when all a person has to do is keep their camera on automatic exposure and fix any issues they may have in Photoshop. These days, everyone is calling themselves photographers.

I suppose we all experience this more or less in the framing industry as well. Baer's thread on the ignorant framer comes to mind.
 
AC, while I was allowed to tool around in my fathers darkroom, I could write all my knowledge of the subject on my palm. I'm a digital guy all the way. I find it fascinating and just as or more dynamic as the chemical process.

I would like to correct a misconception. Using quality equipment and getting good shots are essential. A shotty capture can be camouflaged in Photoshop but the end result will never compare to a great photographer using a good camera. Those basics you hail are still as important as they ever were. I know of no serious photographers using the manual setting on a camera.

One thing I have been working on a lot is bracketing exposures and HDR. That process isn't new but was only available to a few film photo geniuses. I for one LOVE that technology had progressed to allow the hobbiest learn this technique.

However I still don't see that a digital print is automatically substandard quality.
 
I have 50 years of Photography experience and I still haven't done it all - photography is vast. I have done the black and white darkroom, owned a color lab and studio, worked as a professional photographer, and now I'm totally digital in shooting and printing. I sell my images framed everyday. Many of my images start on paper drawn in pencil. When my idea starts to come together I then try to figure out how to get the image idea into my camera. Then the image goes to the computer where I compare what I've got to what I wanted. And then I try to make it even better than my original idea. Finally it's printed - usually a few times until I'm satisfied. It's all part of the process. Now that I don't work for other people anymore I don't care if anyone likes my images or not. I only do them for my own satisfaction. Photography was fun when I was a boy and just work when I made my living from it - it's fun again. There's never been a "pure Photo", it's a process leading to a final image which is the important part - the art. People ask me about cameras and digital printing and are surprised when I tell them I'm not interested and would they like to talk about pictues which is my interest. People ask me about taking a camera course and I suggest taking an art course. It may be a print or a photo or an original or whatever it is to you but how about looking at the image - that's the art - or not.
 
Wow !! I didn't realize there was such strong opinions about photography. I've

been a photographer for 40 yrs, about 30 of them with camera's using film. I

believe that if it is taken with a camera ( film camera, digital, whatever) then it

is a photograph.

With my Epson 7800 I can print just about anything with a professional look.

You can call these prints, photographs, or the fancier term "Giclee". My

problem is with people who use the same printer and art paper that I use, and

charge a huge price for a Giclee that is really just a print.

Bill
www.oceanart.com
 
What did I miss?

When I read this topic's title and then when i read the original post i got the distinct impression the question was what differentiated a camera generated image from any other such as a engraving, litho , Giclee , or any other print medium.

In fact that is what I thought my reply addressed by saying the LENS of a camera resulted in a totaly different method of rendering an image of any color or texture on any substrate. with exceptions to the quality dependent upon the expertise of the ARTIST/PHOTOGRAHER which allowed for either or all being issued in limited editions or as originals.

Now this thread seems IMO to have degenerated into a name calling match between those who have Photographic skills and those who claim to be more proficient and now among the quality of the framing done by others .

I vaguely remeber another thread where this same trend got way out of hand and down right offensive. Only to require explanations and apologies on all sides. Why can't we on TFG discuss the differences of opinions and merits of such with out getting into personal attacks like we did when I first joined this forum ?

If my comments lead to any of that misbehavior ,please re-read my post and hopefully realize it was a opinion of how the creation of images differed not who had more or LESS skill.

BUDDY
 
Jay H said:
However I still don't see that a digital print is automatically substandard quality.
Click to expand...

I do not feel that digital printing is substandard in its quality in any way. I have a lot of respect for people who use digital equipment, but still have been classically trained on manual cameras and darkroom equipment. There are certain fundamentals that can be mastered on these types of cameras, and thus be transferred for use in the digital realm, such as a quick working knowledge of f/stops and shutter speeds, ISOs, etc. Not to say that a digital photographer doesn't know the difference.

I can only speak for myself when I say that by mastering those techniques through a completely manual camera, I was able to completely whiz through digital camera usage. I have, however, found that for my particular use, darkrooms and view cameras and alt processes give my work the edge that I've always looked for as an artist coming into my own. And I absolutely do NOT believe that those things should be forgotten, just because there is a new technology available. What's worse than placing them into the category of "history" is that future artists may not have the resources such as film or pre emulsified darkroom papers to create their work.

When the television was invented, everyone thought that the radio would disappear too, you know. I hope (if not for anyone beside myself) that this concept sticks with the film vs. digital "showdown"

BUDDY said:
Why can't we on TFG discuss the differences of opinions and merits of such with out getting into personal attacks like we did when I first joined this forum ? BUDDY
Click to expand...

I apologize if I have come off as biting or anything. I'm just very passionate about my beliefs in the aesthetic realm. All of us are or we wouldn't be here as artisans. I am one, however, to respect all opinions, no matter how much they differ from mine.
 
The camera was invented before light sensitive material today called film. The camera was an artist's tool - the camera obscura. Inside the camera was a person that painted the scene over the lens image. Sometimes they carved wood blocks from the lens image for printing, sometimes they engraved plates from the lens image for etchings. So, historically, a camera generated image is a rather broad term. In modern times it's common for painters to paint from photographs they or others have shot - are these paintings camera generated images?
 
ACFramer said:
I have, however, found that for my particular use, darkrooms and view cameras and alt processes give my work the edge that I've always looked for as an artist coming into my own. And I absolutely do NOT believe that those things should be forgotten, just because there is a new technology available. What's worse than placing them into the category of "history" is that future artists may not have the resources such as film or pre emulsified darkroom papers to create their work."
Click to expand...

Exactly! "Traditional" photographic equipment and processes are a particular set of tools, just as are digital hardware and software. If you as an artist choose those tools as the best medium of expression for your artistic ideas and visions, that's all the beter for those who view your work. Even though other tools have come along, (and like your TV/Radio analogy), one would hope that the traditional methods will remain available for those who choose to use them. Oil paint and sculpture in marble and bronze are still widely used even though acrylic paints and sculptural resins are now available.
To say that film cameras and processes are "antiquated and unnecessary and hold no value in the market place except for nostalgia and history" is rather a zero-sum way of looking at things, and an unnecessary and premature marginalization that can only lead to the increasing difficulty in obtaining tools of enduring value and uniqueness.
:soapbox: Rick
 
Derek has just rewritten a course for the local university at which he teaches. They, too, are phasing the darkroom photography out of the Communications department, but keeping it as part of the Art department. Those who want to learn the art of darkroom photography will still be able to, only through the Art department. He will teach both.

This allows students who are going into communications fields such as journalism and public relations to learn the "digital world". Newspapers (and I have worked at a couple) no longer do things the "old" way. Having been brought up in the darkroom and the dark ages of cutting and pasting the pages of print together, I too am a little nostalgic for the "good old days." But I also had to relearn a lot of things when we went from cut and paste (literally with scissors and glue) to the computer world (my first was a Baby Mac).

Thing is, depending on if you want to make a living pursuing certain careers/occupations, you have to get on board the technology train. If you want to pursue a career as an artist, you can do whatever it is that you like or that benefits your creativity.

It would be unfair to these students not to offer technologically advanced training. And you can count on one thing, they won't walk out of that class with anything more than an "F" if they only use the manual setting.
 
Just my two bobs worth here - I've been involved with the photographic trade for over 30 years - mostly in retail phot labs and camera stores.

The digital "revolution" has culled about 70% of photolabs in Oz - why? because people have a belief that they don't need to print their photos "because I've got them on my computer"

Now, there are others who believe that their little BJ printer at home can do a great job on the ones that do need to be printed.

There are going to be some very upset people when todays kiddies grow up and want to see their baby photos either

(a) "Er, we had them on the old computer before it crashed the hard drive"

(b) " That cd must be here SOMEWHERE!"

(c) " Heres the home prints we made - Geez I don't remember you being THAT colour!"

My business has survived (just) by offering traditional silver halide prints from digital media. If I was to offer an opinion of film v digital I would have to say that the standard of photography of J. Citizen has not improved one iota but considerably more images are being captured.

For me an image is an image - doesn't matter where it originated my job is to "print" that image and frame it to its optimum.

Mike
 
Did my premise get reinforced again?

In an effort to explain why I suggested what I did ( that the common denominator of all Photographic images is that it is transferred through the use of a lens to depict an actual image as seen by the eye) I respectfully wish to resubmit a comment posted by Bandsaw,"Inside the camera was a person that painted the scene over the LENS image. So, historically, a camera generated image is a rather broad term. In modern times it's common for painters to paint from photographs they or others have shot - are these paintings camera generated images?( not in my estimation but they may be Prints of one form or another) " IMHO the LENS is the thing that all photographers and Cameras have in common and the method and material on which the image or digital information is stored may vary widely. Hence prints and their many respected mediums and techniques no matter how old or new are not what makes a "PHOTO A PHOTO" as opposed to any other print making method. ( But all require a very skillful artist to render as best they can. And I don't began to wish to compete in any fashion or craft.)

And ACFramer my comments were in no way intended to single you out . As a matter of fact some of your rebuttals were IMHO very negative and equally of the topic. But maybe Mine are seen in the same light.

BUDDY
 
I've read most, but not all, so perhaps I'm duplicating some other genius of a responder.

To me, a photograph comes from a camera, that is a device that manipulates light through a lens onto film. The image on that film is a permanent record of what the camera saw. If it is printed in a darkroom, or a chemical machine, it is a print of a photograph, the actual photograph is the image captured on the film itself.

The image can then be manipulated either through darkroom sorcery or computer wizardry, if it is darkroom sorcery, I call it an actual photograph.
If it is an ink jet print, to me, it's just a computer print.

A digital camera is nothing more than a digital scanner, that requires a computer to transform it into a computer print.

You can tell the difference between scanned images and photographic images. Photographic images just look more real, the colors and light are just more believable, especially flesh tones. I'm talking of course, if they are taken by a serious photographer, who knows what they are doing.

To sum my thoughts up, a photograph comes from a camera and is printed on light sensitive photographic emulsion paper.

A computer print comes from a scanner, is digitally processed, then ink jet printed.

John
 
JRB said:
To sum my thoughts up, a photograph comes from a camera and is printed on light sensitive photographic emulsion paper.

A computer print comes from a scanner, is digitally processed, then ink jet printed.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. But there is a third option that is a combination of the two that makes it fuzzy.

What do you call it when light sensitive photographic emulsion paper is exposed to light from a digital file?
 
Create a Post
Back
Top