Comments on: Photographs — should we change the word — Photography podcast #43

By: admin

admin — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:05:10 +0000

Thanks so much for those comments everyone! There is no perfect answer to this question and i like it when people tell me they think I’m wrong or debate anything with me. That’s how we all learn, especially in this time of change!

Thanks so much for that podcast on the history of Photography Michael! I added the link. I think it’s super-cool how easy it is for a professor to simply record their classes and release them as a podcast. Long live Sharing spirit!

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:55:34 +0000

Traditional photography in black and white is very far from reality. Poor range of luminosity, artificial contrast, absence of colours, poor management of speed… everything is very far from reality. With Digital and photoshop transformations we can get closer from human experience (or not after all it is just a tool).

I think we are doing more and more photography imaging. No need to change word.

Debate between picturalists and naturalists existed in XIX century without digital processing but the philosophy was the same.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:19:03 +0000

Marko,

Photography means “writing with light” so I am not convinced that the term needs to be changed even in this “digital era.” The SOURCE is still light. Even if it does, we were using “Digital Imaging” during my studies in the mid-nineties.

Also, please take a look at Jeff Curto’s History of Photography podcast. You will find that even some of the “manipulations” you say are only available with modern software, are not. Quite a few very sophisticated methods were being used even before as well as during the 20th century with imagery, in the camera, the darkroom and even for mechanical reproduction (i.e. screens used on images to make negatives used to burn plates for offset printing or gravure.) Even so called HDR images were being produced by Muybridge (if I am not mistaken) in situ in his western landscape photographs by MECHANICAL means he developed for use INSIDE his field camera!

Personally, as an Artist, I just don’t think it is as important what you call it as what it communicates. I am more interested in the content of the image and not necessarily how it was made. But maybe that is just me…

Greetings from Germany!
M

By: Andre

Andre — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:50:48 +0000

Hi, Marko!

A good discussion for sure! Today there are so many post processed pictures I can’t call them just ‘photographs’. It’s digital art based on photography, with tons and tons of Photoshop filters and editing… after the process, if you put both images side by side — the original and the edited one — you will see they are completely different that you can not say they represent the same scene.

For me, I like to get the image straight out of the camera, then apply a minimum of adjustments (sharpen, contrast) and leave it as it is. I don’t like when the image looks fake. But sometimes is nice to play with PS.

Well, it’s just a matter of taste.

Bye,

Andre