Light L16

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:


Traditional wet darkroom work is by definition pure photography. One
uses light from an enlarger, passing through a negative to "paint with
light". Dodging and burning to modify the print is photography. This is
photography in its essential form, and is an integral part of creating
an image by recording a scene or subject with light.
This is why the wet darkroom played a major part in the creative process
of photographers like Adams. His works were not just products of the
camera, and that is a reason they might be emulated but not truly
reproduced by photographers shooting the same scenes.

Digital post processing is something else all together. It is digital
mimicry of the darkroom process.

It is mimicry where the processes are analogs of the darkroom processes.

it's identical, but uses math instead of chemicals. the results will be
the same (assuming same steps).

But it's also introduced a wealth of new techniques and abilities that
were impossible or impractical in a wet darkroom.

very true.

On 2015-10-25 15:02:58 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2015-10-25 10:25, Savageduck wrote:

Traditional wet darkroom work is by definition pure photography. One
uses light from an enlarger, passing through a negative to "paint with
light". Dodging and burning to modify the print is photography. This is
photography in its essential form, and is an integral part of creating
an image by recording a scene or subject with light.
This is why the wet darkroom played a major part in the creative process
of photographers like Adams. His works were not just products of the
camera, and that is a reason they might be emulated but not truly
reproduced by photographers shooting the same scenes.

Digital post processing is something else all together. It is digital
mimicry of the darkroom process.

It is mimicry where the processes are analogs of the darkroom
processes. But it's also introduced a wealth of new techniques and
abilities that were impossible or impractical in a wet darkroom.

Absolutely! I would never want to return to the wet darkroom. Photoshop
mimicks and supasses the best of the wet darkroom without the
environmental issues that chemistry raises.

I gave up my darkroom long before I adopted digital photography, but I
have been able to deal with some of what can be done in the "digital
darkroom" because of what I learned from my father in his darkroom, and
what I learned in my own 50 years ago.

My enlargers, 2 Durst and my father's nameless monster are long gone,
as are my stainless, and my father's bakelite 35mm developing tanks.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-10-25 16:31:57 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2015102507255071720-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

... many film luddites claim that digital photography is not
'real' because people manipulate images in photoshop.

apparently they are oblivious to the fact that film photographers did
exactly that in the darkroom.

This is true. The photography bit is the actual process of selecting a
scene and recording it by placing the image on the film or sensor.
What happens after that is not strictly photography. Call it editing,
manipulation or whatever but is seperate from the photography bit.
Both compliment one another to create the final viewable image but the
second part of the process cannot be done without the actual recording
process and this is why both processes seem to be associated as a
single process which we all call "photography".


Traditional wet darkroom work is by definition pure photography. One
uses light from an enlarger, passing through a negative to "paint with
light". Dodging and burning to modify the print is photography. This is
photography in its essential form, and is an integral part of creating
an image by recording a scene or subject with light.
This is why the wet darkroom played a major part in the creative
process of photographers like Adams. His works were not just products
of the camera, and that is a reason they might be emulated but not
truly reproduced by photographers shooting the same scenes.

Digital post processing is something else all together. It is digital
mimicry of the darkroom process.

it's not mimicry. it's exactly the same, just done with math rather
than chemicals, producing the same results when the same steps are
applied.

however, digital is not limited to what can be done chemically. it's
*much* more powerful, faster, easier, non-toxic, repeatable and
produces more consistent results. plus there's undo, something simply
not possible in a wet darkroom.

You understand that you are preaching to the choir, don't you?
There is no need to spell out the bleeding obvious to those of us who
gave up our wet darkrooms over 30 years ago.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/25/2015 12:31 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , MC
wrote:

... many film luddites claim that digital photography is not
'real' because people manipulate images in photoshop.

apparently they are oblivious to the fact that film photographers did
exactly that in the darkroom.

This is true. The photography bit is the actual process of selecting a
scene and recording it by placing the image on the film or sensor.
What happens after that is not strictly photography. Call it editing,
manipulation or whatever but is seperate from the photography bit.
Both compliment one another to create the final viewable image but the
second part of the process cannot be done without the actual recording
process and this is why both processes seem to be associated as a
single process which we all call "photography".

all of it is photography.


The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots φωτός (ph�tos),
genitive of φῶς (ph�s), "light" and γ�αφή (graphé) "representation by
means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning _"drawing with light"_.

Technically, the electronic, digital manipulation is not "photography"
or drawing an image using light. The camera, film or digital, created an
image with light, but the digital workflow does not use light to effect
the manipulations, so it is not, technically, photography.

Unless the resulting image was printed using a lightjet-type printer on
photographic paper. Then the front end (the camera) and the back end
(the print) would be strictly speaking, photography. The part in between
would be electronic digital manipulation of the photographic image.

But that's just being pedantic, and we never do that here!
--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

... many film luddites claim that digital photography is not
'real' because people manipulate images in photoshop.

apparently they are oblivious to the fact that film photographers did
exactly that in the darkroom.

This is true. The photography bit is the actual process of selecting a
scene and recording it by placing the image on the film or sensor.
What happens after that is not strictly photography. Call it editing,
manipulation or whatever but is seperate from the photography bit.
Both compliment one another to create the final viewable image but the
second part of the process cannot be done without the actual recording
process and this is why both processes seem to be associated as a
single process which we all call "photography".

all of it is photography.

The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots ????? (ph?tos),
genitive of ??? (ph?s), "light" and ????? (graphé) "representation by
means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning _"drawing with light"_.

then it's a good thing that digital photography uses light, isn't it?

Technically, the electronic, digital manipulation is not "photography"
or drawing an image using light. The camera, film or digital, created an
image with light, but the digital workflow does not use light to effect
the manipulations, so it is not, technically, photography.

neither does chemistry, so by your definition, darkroom work is not
photography.

that means that ansel adams was not a photographer.

Unless the resulting image was printed using a lightjet-type printer on
photographic paper. Then the front end (the camera) and the back end
(the print) would be strictly speaking, photography. The part in between
would be electronic digital manipulation of the photographic image.

nonsense.

how a printer prints does not change anything.

the amusing thing is that the results are much better than had it been
done with chemicals.

But that's just being pedantic, and we never do that here!

it's not being pedantic.

what you wrote is flat out wrong.

On 10/25/2015 04:13 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

... many film luddites claim that digital photography is not
'real' because people manipulate images in photoshop.

apparently they are oblivious to the fact that film photographers did
exactly that in the darkroom.

This is true. The photography bit is the actual process of selecting a
scene and recording it by placing the image on the film or sensor.
What happens after that is not strictly photography. Call it editing,
manipulation or whatever but is seperate from the photography bit.
Both compliment one another to create the final viewable image but the
second part of the process cannot be done without the actual recording
process and this is why both processes seem to be associated as a
single process which we all call "photography".

all of it is photography.

The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots ????? (ph?tos),
genitive of ??? (ph?s), "light" and ????? (graphé) "representation by
means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning _"drawing with light"_.

then it's a good thing that digital photography uses light, isn't it?

Yes, it is. Light is focused onto the digital image sensor, where it is
recorded: an image is drawn with light. The target of that image, film
or electronic sensor doesn't matter; an image is drawn with light, hence
"photography".

Technically, the electronic, digital manipulation is not "photography"
or drawing an image using light. The camera, film or digital, created an
image with light, but the digital workflow does not use light to effect
the manipulations, so it is not, technically, photography.

neither does chemistry, so by your definition, darkroom work is not
photography.

Have you ever been in a darkroom? Light is passed through a negative
onto light-sensitive photographic paper, where it forms a latent image;
that is to say, the image is drawn on the photo paper with light, or
"photography". The paper is immersed in certain chemicals that cause
that latent image to become visible, then permanent.

I don't know where you were headed in bringing up just the chemicals
used in the darkroom, but if you want to dismiss the chemicals, then we
will use printing out paper- no chemicals needed.

that means that ansel adams was not a photographer.

I have never been one to invoke the Name of The Almighty AA, but it is
my understanding that he used a light-tight box with a lens to focus the
light reflected from a scene onto a light-sensitive medium; in other
words, he drew with light, thus he practiced "photography".

It is my further understanding that he was very hands on in the
darkroom, where he passed light through the negatives onto
light-sensitive paper to create an image in the manner explained above
in my paragraph about darkrooms. In other words, once again, he drew
with light, thus he practiced "photography" in the darkroom.


Unless the resulting image was printed using a lightjet-type printer on
photographic paper. Then the front end (the camera) and the back end
(the print) would be strictly speaking, photography. The part in between
would be electronic digital manipulation of the photographic image.

nonsense.

how a printer prints does not change anything.

Yes, it does. You miss the point, which is that "photography" means
"drawing with light". An inkjet printer draws an image on the paper by
spitting ink through nozzles. It does not draw with light, therefore, it
does not create a photograph. It creates an image.

I once had a dot-matrix printer with a four color ribbon (CMYK). It drew
an image on paper by hitting the ribbon against the paper with a tiny
pin. It did not draw with light, therefore, it did not create a
photograph. It created an image.

A lightjet printer prints by focusing a laser (a very coherent light
source) onto a light-sensitive paper which is then processed in RA-4
chemicals: it draws with light, a photograph.
(Mea culpa: a toner-based laser printer also draws with light, so it is
a photographic printer. I missed that earlier.)


the amusing thing is that the results are much better than had it been
done with chemicals.

I don't know how you can say that the results are much better. The
results CAN be better, but they can also be worse. Very often, the
results will be faster. But faster is not always better- I know that
goes against what your boss tells you at McDonald's.

Somewhere in a junk drawer, I have a 100K pixel digital camera. Are you
saying that simply because it is digital (and newer), the images from
that 100K pixel camera will always be better than the images from my
Mamiya 645 camera? If so, I can get you a good deal on a prime building
site in the Florida Everglades!

But that's just being pedantic, and we never do that here!

it's not being pedantic.

what you wrote is flat out wrong.

No, it's not wrong. It's absolutely pedantic, but not wrong.

You really need to get out and actually interact face to face with real
people in the real world once in a while. I think the French fry grease
is starting to rot your brain.



--
Ken Hart

Ken Hart wrote:

Yes, it does. You miss the point, which is that "photography" means
"drawing with light". An inkjet printer draws an image on the paper by
spitting ink through nozzles. It does not draw with light, therefore, it
does not create a photograph. It creates an image.

R. Child Bailey in _The_Complete_Photographer_ (p.212 in my 1932 edition)
says "In the strictly literal sense of the word 'photograph' a carbro
print is not a photograph at all, since light plays no part in its
production"

This seems to me to be a rather pedantic distinction, but it is
certainly not without precedent.

Peter.
--