digital imaging is not Photography
I recently completed a workshop with Ron Mowrey on emulsion making. In the workshop we made 3 emulsions;
1. An Azo paper emulsion,
2. A bromide enlarging paper emulsion,
3. A 40 speed ortho film emulsion.
I decided to take the course for many reasons, one of which is the fact that the science of photography is integrated with the aesthetics of the medium in such a way that it is impossible to accomplish much without understanding the tools and applying that knowledge to a personal vision.
Chemistry is the language of the photographic aesthetic. Think of it as akin to writing. A writer (or a story teller for that matter) cannot be so if he has no understanding of physical language. Perhaps he could shape a series of mumblings into a sequence of sounds that communicate something, but this approach seems to be limited to a very primal communication at best.
One of the beautiful aspects of photography has always been its ability to engage both sides of the brain. A beautiful photographic image must be a culmination of right and left side application. A subtle, extended tonal range cannot be separated from its sensitometry. Luminance, with all its wonder resides in the sweep of the dLogH curve. The rich blacks and glowing whites that create the dynamics of contrast grow out of the grains of chemistry.
Perhaps I take this too far for some. It is true that I have a mind that prefers the left lane more often than not. But, to separate the work from the knowledge of the tools that built it, more often than not will not produce anything that can stand very high.
I write this mainly because I see a rising generation ignorant of the tools of photography. Many people hold the belief that photography is "evolving" into a digital medium. They think that a digitized image (Whether on print or film), is the new photography. But it is something else. An Art form? Yes, it has that potential. But a medium that integrates the mind and hands through knowledge and craft..... No, it is not that.
Digital imaging has its place, especially in the commercial world. Having worked as a professional for many years, I acknowledge the advantages the digital medium has over the traditional analogue processes. Advertising will never go back. Its a matter of economics if nothing else.
It is the loss of craft that makes the digital process so limiting. So barren of soul. A negative is a work of Art. It is a culmination of thought, experience, craft, and vision. A negative can be a very beautiful object. And it is the aim of photographic artists to apply their vision through the use of craft to create a fine negative.
A digital negative is a different thing altogether. It is a point of departure. For this reason, the process of creation requires very limited craft. The negative is foundational only in that it is something to be manipulated by algorithms. These coded rules do much if not all of the thinking in the process leading to the final work. There is nothing wrong with this I suppose, but its not photography. And a digital artist is not a photographer.
Some people have told me that the digital process is an easy way out for those people who were unwilling or unable to master photographic printing. Indeed, printing contributes much to the craft of photography. Imogene Cunningham once stated that printing was the most difficult skill to master. The tools have improved with time (VC papers, finer emulsions, etc.), but photographic printing takes years of commitment and refinement before one can truly master the controls. How can photographic printing be likened to photoshop manipulation and ink jet printing? Sure it takes some effort to learn the software of the latter, but thats where the similarity stops...as well as the level of mastery.
I believe there is truth in the "easy way out" explanation. But then it has become the trademark of modern culture. Photographic Art is not alone in suffering the shortcomings associated with an instant gratification mentality. In the extreme, it has the ability to influence the very definition of quality by modifying the general understanding of what is identified as "Standard". It does this by aligning the term with the new limited product or process. (This seems to be the goal of most if not all marketing philosophies). Eventually, sub standard becomes standard and is taught to an uninformed or unconcerned public. For some, it may be all they know. This indeed is a great loss to photography, and breeds a generation ignorant of what was lost.
1. An Azo paper emulsion,
2. A bromide enlarging paper emulsion,
3. A 40 speed ortho film emulsion.
I decided to take the course for many reasons, one of which is the fact that the science of photography is integrated with the aesthetics of the medium in such a way that it is impossible to accomplish much without understanding the tools and applying that knowledge to a personal vision.
Chemistry is the language of the photographic aesthetic. Think of it as akin to writing. A writer (or a story teller for that matter) cannot be so if he has no understanding of physical language. Perhaps he could shape a series of mumblings into a sequence of sounds that communicate something, but this approach seems to be limited to a very primal communication at best.
One of the beautiful aspects of photography has always been its ability to engage both sides of the brain. A beautiful photographic image must be a culmination of right and left side application. A subtle, extended tonal range cannot be separated from its sensitometry. Luminance, with all its wonder resides in the sweep of the dLogH curve. The rich blacks and glowing whites that create the dynamics of contrast grow out of the grains of chemistry.
Perhaps I take this too far for some. It is true that I have a mind that prefers the left lane more often than not. But, to separate the work from the knowledge of the tools that built it, more often than not will not produce anything that can stand very high.
I write this mainly because I see a rising generation ignorant of the tools of photography. Many people hold the belief that photography is "evolving" into a digital medium. They think that a digitized image (Whether on print or film), is the new photography. But it is something else. An Art form? Yes, it has that potential. But a medium that integrates the mind and hands through knowledge and craft..... No, it is not that.
Digital imaging has its place, especially in the commercial world. Having worked as a professional for many years, I acknowledge the advantages the digital medium has over the traditional analogue processes. Advertising will never go back. Its a matter of economics if nothing else.
It is the loss of craft that makes the digital process so limiting. So barren of soul. A negative is a work of Art. It is a culmination of thought, experience, craft, and vision. A negative can be a very beautiful object. And it is the aim of photographic artists to apply their vision through the use of craft to create a fine negative.
A digital negative is a different thing altogether. It is a point of departure. For this reason, the process of creation requires very limited craft. The negative is foundational only in that it is something to be manipulated by algorithms. These coded rules do much if not all of the thinking in the process leading to the final work. There is nothing wrong with this I suppose, but its not photography. And a digital artist is not a photographer.
Some people have told me that the digital process is an easy way out for those people who were unwilling or unable to master photographic printing. Indeed, printing contributes much to the craft of photography. Imogene Cunningham once stated that printing was the most difficult skill to master. The tools have improved with time (VC papers, finer emulsions, etc.), but photographic printing takes years of commitment and refinement before one can truly master the controls. How can photographic printing be likened to photoshop manipulation and ink jet printing? Sure it takes some effort to learn the software of the latter, but thats where the similarity stops...as well as the level of mastery.
I believe there is truth in the "easy way out" explanation. But then it has become the trademark of modern culture. Photographic Art is not alone in suffering the shortcomings associated with an instant gratification mentality. In the extreme, it has the ability to influence the very definition of quality by modifying the general understanding of what is identified as "Standard". It does this by aligning the term with the new limited product or process. (This seems to be the goal of most if not all marketing philosophies). Eventually, sub standard becomes standard and is taught to an uninformed or unconcerned public. For some, it may be all they know. This indeed is a great loss to photography, and breeds a generation ignorant of what was lost.
2 Comments:
Please, go to http://www.privatephotoreview.com/ and look at the great images there. Please identify which are photographs, and which are not.
bjorke clearly misses the point, but then we have had this discussion before. Painting is not photography and neither is digital imaging. because they may look similar, does not make them the same. I can (and anybody who understands silver gelatin), pick out a silver photo from a digital image when comparing the two side by side. Give me a print, and I will be able to tell which is which. bjorke, on the other hand, seems to be more comfortable with a gross generalization of the term, "photography". He so misses the point, its hardly worth arguing with about it. Anybody who thinks that manipulating an image in photoshop and printing it on an Epson are the same thing as processing and printing a negative ....well... what can I say...anyone who thinks that... probably could not process or print worth a damn anyway. For them, let the algorithm do the thinking, they're better off.
My point is you cannot separate the craft from the art. I recognize that many have a different opinion on that. It seems they do not place any aesthetic value on the tools... too bad. That kind of thinking denies everyone of the opportunity to understand and experience the medium and the processes.
Post a Comment
<< Home