Photography vs Digital Image

This is the type of discussion that could proceed ad infinitum...I posted a similar one on another forum
that went on for 17 pages with absolutely nothing agreed upon. To debate definitions, IMHO, borders
on absurdity, as it enlightens no one. Suffice to say that there has never been a print produced
without some level of manipulation.

To paraphrase Mike...who gives a rat's behind about labels?

Randy, I can't resist ....... for clarity.....

Quote:

---

I just have to ask: are painted negatives photos...or paintings?

---

We are talking about 'negatives 'that are painted using complementary colours?

If so ... photo's

If not .... paintings (surrealist!)

;)

Oh, it is so hard to draw the line. And, drawing was never my forte. When I first started processing digital pictures, I worried about such things. Then, I got a great pic of a gull. So close and sharp. But, a hotel was in the background. I saw I could clone some clouds to replace the hotel. So, I did it. I try to keep things real much of the time but fun is fun!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

If you worry about post processing, you should never view an image done by Ansel Adams!

He was a master of post processing in a darkroom environment...

Provided we define photography as the process of capturing various levels of light (usually via a lens) and recording it, then a digital image is just a result of one of a variety of recording methods. Making a comparison between photography and digital image is invalid. It is a bit like asking about a car vs petrol or cooking vs microwave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James G

...And we have not even got to ' modify', 'process', 'alter', 'manipulate' ....... yet :eek::eek:

Once this is clear then ....... Izzie will almost certainly have a very different but equally troublesome headache :D

---

....Like as if I already don't. Thanks for reminding me not to forget feeling alienated even if I just read the comments in this entertaining discussion. I am waiting to learn something until this 'going-around-in-circle' definition dies down. If not, what a waste of time! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

I make images. .................................................. .....

---

Absolutely my view. I would only add that 9 time out of 10, what I capture is raw material (no pun intended) and the camera or subsequently, the computer or both, are merely tools.

Interestingly, the BA in Photography that I'm undertaking at the moment thinks in terms of artists who use photography as their medium.

At the other end of that continuum you have the likes of Don McCullin who is quite clear that he is a photographer, not an artist.

In the end it's up to the taste of the Consumer...

Two mice were in a camera store, chewing on SD cards.
One mouse grimaced as he ate, saying "I don't think much of what's in these cards, not very tasteful!"
The the other rodent looked at the label on the card then gestured towards the despoiled negative drawers and replied: "Nah, and the films weren't much good either!"

:)

Something I find interesting:

My 5 year old grandson “makes images”. I have them all over my refrigerator!

On the other end of that spectrum, Ikea’s catalogue is now well over 75% CG imagery and Apple is almost 100%. Ikea has one of the premier CGI studios in the world. Their photo-realistic imagery I consider every bit as good as, if not better than, any photography. More and more commercial interests are going in this direction and some major advances have been made with CG portraiture.

Neither of these has anything to do with photography directly.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brev00

Oh, it is so hard to draw the line. And, drawing was never my forte.

---

Use an old ruler with a bit missing, then position that bit so the drawn line goes around the exception we wish to make :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

** said because you can't have fractions of photons, only whole numbers, so they're not truly "analog".

---

I have always disliked the view of film photography being analog. In my view these images were rather digital too.

The film emulsion incorporated silver halide crystals. If enough photons hit the crystal, it was converted into metallic silver during the development process and those that were not, stayed as silver salts and these are dissolved out in the fixing process. So effectively we did have a digital process, of sorts in the film days; you either had silver or had none, very much a binary / digital approach.

What I described is how B&W film work. Colour negative films uses a slightly more complex process as the the development process not only converts the exposed silver salts into silver, but also uses the process to activate / absorb colour dyes (the metallic silver is removed during a bleaching process and the silver salts are dissolved using a fixing process. Regardless, the silver / silver salt areas are how the colours are defined. In colour negatives, there are three emulsion layers and the negative's colours are the complements of the actual colours of the scene. Colour reversal films (slides) rely on the same principles as well; but the processing is a touch more complex.

So while the process could be described as "digital", the main difference is that the silver salt distribution in the film emulsion was random and the salt crystals would not all be the same size. Larger crystals would be more sensitive to light, but would add a level of grain to the final product.

Besides the whole problem of trying to come with any one definition that will "stick", I think maybe the OP, whether intended or not, introduces an idea that is guaranteed to set a lot people's hair on fire: that you are, OR ARE NOT, a photographer for (well you name it) any number of criteria that could be proposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thlayle

Besides the whole problem of trying to come with any one definition that will "stick", I think maybe the OP, whether intended or not, introduces an idea that is guaranteed to set a lot people's hair on fire: that you are, OR ARE NOT, a photographer for (well you name it) any number of criteria that could be proposed.

---

Borrowing from Descartes, "I photograph, therefore I am . . . a photographer" :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Borrowing from Descartes, "I photograph, therefore I am . . . a photographer" :D

---

Very funny...I am not up to that category yet...so I will just call my shots as images, pretty much like Terry's grandchildren -- to be put up at the front of the fridge with magnets. :D

The best stuff we have is on that fridge Izzie!

I’m saving a spot on there for when I get to own an original Izzie! Already got the magnets!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBigE

Hello,



Digital Image - An image that is altered to some degree beyond tonality and detail enhancement. In the example I watched, it was imaging half the scene and replicating it on the other side of the image only inverted. Essentially eliminating half of the scene. In this case the scene itself does not in fact exists, but rather only digitally.

---

You could actually do that in the darkroom with a negative. Place a matte over half the negative and the printing paper. Expose half of the print that way. Flip the covered negative without moving the mat. Flip the matte on the printing paper keeping the vertical axis in place. Tape markers top and bottom show that.

Digital makes a lot of things easy but very few possible. Cutting mattes and using multiple exposures on prints was as much an art as digital PP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saorsa

You could actually do that in the darkroom with a negative. Place a matte over half the negative and the printing paper. Expose half of the print that way. Flip the covered negative without moving the mat. Flip the matte on the printing paper keeping the vertical axis in place. Tape markers top and bottom show that.

Digital makes a lot of things easy but very few possible. Cutting mattes and using multiple exposures on prints was as much an art as digital PP.

---

...or sandwiching a line film copy back to back with a positive copy and shining light through at 45 degrees to produce graphic line image or sandwiching a slide with a negative copy to produce a posterized image etc. etc. I still have a Focal Press Book (remember them?) by Par Lundqvist on the subject. All that has happened is that he "tools" have just got better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBigE

For me I struggle a bit when there are significant changes to the photo and it is not a faithful representation of of the original scene. This is a very very fine line and different for each person.

---

Nothing is a faithful image of the original scene.

Are IR, UV, BW, grainy OOF images not faithful images in someone's eyes.
It is comforting to be able to draw clear lines but, unfortunately, reality isn't that unambiguous.
Nature and science are always ambiguous at their edges.
Even life and death themselves are open to ambiguity.

Humans propose, Nature disposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBigE

Hello,

A bit of open-ended philosphical discussion on what makes a Photograph and a Digital Image.

Photography - Light captured by a camera, that may or may not be converted to digital format. However, the image is adjusted for tonality and to bring out details An example might be a landscape scene where the colors of the landscape are enhanced and details are revealed in shadows/highlights. Some general cleanup is done maybe removing dust spots or "distractions" to the image. In the end a relatively "faithful" representation of the scene.

---

Love that phrase "relatively faithful" after all those adjustments. Sorry, I can not agree with the definition.

Quote:

---

Digital Image - An image that is altered to some degree beyond tonality and detail enhancement.

---

Can't agree with that either. A digital image is simply one that has been sampled digitally, no more, no less. Why both definitions appear to include some post-processing is beyond my understanding.

Sorry about the lack of philosophy . . .