Digital isn't art?

[Ryan McDaniel]

I love people (and they always seem to be on the side of film) who get hung up on the source of an image rather than the art of it. Digital to them is lifeless, flat, cold, and work in Photoshop isn't really work. But film is "3 dimensional", warm, "organic", and the darkroom is a holy place for the true artist. All because of the labeling.

Well, here's a little fact for the label freaks: at the moment of capture, film is a digital medium. Grains are developed or not. Tones are produced through dithering of binary "on/off" grains, colors through three layers of dithered, binary, "on/off" grains. Traditional enlargement and printing was an analog process, and film scanning involves an analog transfer step. But film is by no means analog.

Digital, at the moment of capture, is analog. An analog electric signal is produced which is proportionate to the level of light striking the sensor, and is later sampled into digital form with an analog-to-digital converter.

While we're at it, at the moment of capture the human eye works much more like a digital camera than a film one. Our cones are layed out in a flat "Bayer" pattern, with the number of green equaling the number of red and blue combined. Light level is measured directly, and tone and color are not produced through dithering.

If digital is not art, then film never was. And if the "digital" direct capture process ruins an image because of Bayer or whatever half baked reason film fans produce, then your eyes ruin everything you look at.

Oh, about Photoshop...most of its commands come from darkroom techniques invented before personal computers were a twinkle in Bill Gates eyes.

Get over it people...your choice of equipment or medium DOES NOT make you a good photographer. Never has, never will.

 

[Ryan McDaniel]

Something that anyone can do isn't really art, at least not
noteworthy art. For example anyone can doodle on a notepad, and
therfore doodling isn't art (unless it's exceptional doodling).

So to the extent that digital photography is easy (and it's a lot
easier than chemical darkroom photogrpahy), there isn't as much art
in it.

Geeze...and I thought that digital was "bad" because of the effort required in post processing, according to those who complain, while with film you just drop it off at a lab.

I guess slide film is never art, and print film is only if the photographer prints it himself in a home darkroom. Nice definition there.

 

[Ed Leys20479]

Ryan McDaniel wrote:
[snip]

Well, here's a little fact for the label freaks: at the moment of
capture, film is a digital medium. Grains are developed or not.
Tones are produced through dithering of binary "on/off" grains,
colors through three layers of dithered, binary, "on/off" grains.
Traditional enlargement and printing was an analog process, and
film scanning involves an analog transfer step. But film is by no
means analog.

Digital, at the moment of capture, is analog. An analog electric
signal is produced which is proportionate to the level of light
striking the sensor, and is later sampled into digital form with an
analog-to-digital converter.

[snipped a bit more]

Ah Ryan,

Just like your apparent mentor, Michael Reichmann, you bring up a tortured point having nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Bravo! Though it does seem you should have given him credit for the precedent. Oh well, you are who you are.

But here's the neat stuff. By precisely the same specious reasoning, a CD is analog ! Wow, boy howdy. That's right folks, if you buy the argument that a "digital" camera is really analog, ya gotta buy this. You see a microphone, (or a direct line from an electrical pickup/signal source, but the argument is, um, analogous), produces a voltage that is proportional at any point in time to the intensity of an acoustic pressure wave at that time point. Well, sure, any dummy knows that. But you see, at that same point in time, the PCM process runs the proportional signal voltage through an A/D converter and produces a number that is proportional to the wavepoint intensity! The "digital" file the CD contains is no more than a collection of these proportional number representations. Ta DAA, a CD too, is analog! Thank you Ryan (Michael), the scales have fallen from my eyes.

Now, even though a film image has too often been mistakenly thought of as "analog" (I laugh!), and the readout mechanism seems to be an analog modulated flow of lightwave packets, here's a thought question... Assume you read out the film encoded captured scene by slowly scanning a single small diameter light across it--can the spot size of the scanning light be reduced enough that the light on the outbound side of the film only takes on two intensities (representing "on" and "off") or a discrete number of intensities? Why or why not?

Of course, "digital camera" has always been a wee bit of a misnomer, they are more like "fixed grid sampling cameras" or some suchness.

Best regards,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

 

[Ryan McDaniel]

Just like your apparent mentor, Michael Reichmann, you bring up a
tortured point having nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Bravo! Though it does seem you should have given him credit for
the precedent. Oh well, you are who you are.

I never care for your snide tone, and have long since lost respect for you, but you are who you are, an apparent film bigot who cannot show respect in a conversation like an adult would.

But here's the neat stuff. By precisely the same specious
reasoning, a CD is analog ! Wow, boy howdy.

A CD recording starts its life with analog inputs. Any audio engineer would agree with that statement.

Note that I never once said digital cameras were really all analog, or film all digital, but specifically said at the moment of capture. But like a typical film bigot, you've got to twist and distort to try and obfuscate the facts and issues.

Just like the film bigot who wrote the article which started this thread.

Now, even though a film image has too often been mistakenly thought
of as "analog" (I laugh!),

Only because you know it's correct, and you have to commit fallacies to try and hide that.

and the readout mechanism seems to be an
analog modulated flow of lightwave packets, here's a thought
question... Assume you read out the film encoded captured scene by
slowly scanning a single small diameter light across it--can the
spot size of the scanning light be reduced enough that the light on
the outbound side of the film only takes on two intensities
(representing "on" and "off") or a discrete number of intensities?
Why or why not?

The answer is yes. With a small enough beam, the light will either hit a developed grain or not.

Taking it a step further: if the grains (or resulting dye clouds in color) were magnetic, you could read the "bits" of the image directly. It wouldn't be as simple as reading a hard disk because they are not layed out in a formal grid. But you get down to the grain level, it's either on or off. Very digital in nature, but since film bigots can't handle labels with the word "digital", here's a label you cannot escape: film is a DITHERED medium. Happy now?

 

[knox]

sure . . . Britney Spears? smile

The Beatles couldn't create "art" as they were ONLY 4 / 8 track analog. But Britney? Now THERE is true art! Thank digital and plug ins for this "art". WAIT . . . that sounds just like . . . .

Anyone in this thread know anyone who has figured a way to do
it?

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com
http://www.alleycatphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/streetkid

 

[John Doyle]

Something that anyone can do isn't really art, at least not
noteworthy art. For example anyone can doodle on a notepad, and
therfore doodling isn't art (unless it's exceptional doodling).

Anyone can draw, therefore drawing isn't art?
Anyone can paint, therefore painting isn't art?
Anyone can sing, therefore music isn't art?
Anyone can write, therefore poetry isn't art?
Anyone can take a picture, therefore photography isn't art?

Digital photography is no easier than traditional photography, and even in the days of film, the vast majority of photographs taken could by no means be considered as art.

Surely the true value of an artist lies primarily in their vision and not in the medium that is used to express that vision. There is more artistic merit in a pile of bricks or an unmade bed than in an exquisitely reproduced copy of an old master.

 

[knox]

geez . . . where do I start? Or is there any point?

I love people (and they always seem to be on the side of film) who
get hung up on the source of an image rather than the art of it.
Digital to them is lifeless, flat, cold, and work in Photoshop
isn't really work. But film is "3 dimensional", warm, "organic",
and the darkroom is a holy place for the true artist. All because
of the labeling.

Yep, pretty much! It's impossible for digital (at this point) to have the front to back depth that film (analog) has simply by the way the formats work. As in digital recording of music / cds. Tail offs of reverbs, three dimensional depth, left to right depth . . low end response, where are they?

Well, here's a little fact for the label freaks: at the moment of
capture, film is a digital medium. Grains are developed or not.
Tones are produced through dithering of binary "on/off" grains,
colors through three layers of dithered, binary, "on/off" grains.
Traditional enlargement and printing was an analog process, and
film scanning involves an analog transfer step. But film is by no
means analog.

WOW! uh . . say wha?

You really are working up a sweat here to be "right" aren't you? But "film is by no means analog" makes no sense no matter how hard you try.

Digital, at the moment of capture, is analog. An analog electric
signal is produced which is proportionate to the level of light
striking the sensor, and is later sampled into digital form with an
analog-to-digital converter.

While we're at it, at the moment of capture the human eye works
much more like a digital camera than a film one. Our cones are
layed out in a flat "Bayer" pattern, with the number of green
equaling the number of red and blue combined. Light level is
measured directly, and tone and color are not produced through
dithering.

whew . . it hurts too much to even attempt clarification and rebuttal.

If digital is not art, then film never was. And if the "digital"
direct capture process ruins an image because of Bayer or whatever
half baked reason film fans produce, then your eyes ruin everything
you look at.

yes, eyes MUST be digital !!
oh man . .you are reaching like I would for Monica Bellucci.

Oh, about Photoshop...most of its commands come from darkroom
techniques invented before personal computers were a twinkle in
Bill Gates eyes.

you mean Wozniak and Apple. Listen, emulating something digitally is a far cry from DOING the REAL and 'actual' action. I have $10,000 mics here at the studio. yet some company has a program that allows someone to sing through a $60 mic, then run it through this horrible DIGITAL program and it is suppose to emulate the $10,000 mic. Are you so thick to think it's the same thing? That it sounds the same? What about the air / space around the mic, much less the German built large diaphragm and tube.

But you feel PS and digital can emulate the same techniques of film? It's a completely different animal.

Get over it people...your choice of equipment or medium DOES NOT
make you a good photographer. Never has, never will.

Well, if you say so it must be so. Not saying it make you a better photographer BUT it can enhance a look / depth etc that makes an image more pleasing or less so.

Why is it when you go to a art gallery you see much more film based work then digital? Why is it that more art style photographers artists (not weekend bird shooters or water drop photo 'technicians') are shooting film, even 35 mm over digital? Is it they see, sense and feel the difference though you don't?

Why is it when I sit down to listen to a cd I begin to tire quickly and find I don't enjoy the music as much? Why do people say the same thing that have no idea why?

Digital dazzles 'some' people, but I gotta tell ya, some of us are blessed enough to see / hear the difference. Some WON'T or can't. Some are so addicted to their computers that they make a drug addict look sane. They go on and on about digital. Some sit in their basements looking at histograms and taking endless water drop shots seeking the PERFECT one so they can dazzle their neighbors at how perfect they must be because their $5000 camera took a perfect water drop image! (well not really because they spent 6 hours editing the so called perfection with PS) The whole time their kids are outside in the sun longing for interaction or their wives are talking to divorce attorneys.

ahem . . .Hunter Thompson has nothing on me.

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com
http://www.alleycatphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/streetkid

 

[Ed Leys20479]

I never care for your snide tone, and have long since lost respect
for you, but you are who you are, an apparent film bigot who cannot
show respect in a conversation like an adult would.

Yep, ya got me dead to rights...

My Canon S50:
http://www.blackmallard.com/digital/vetsday.jpg

My Nikon D2H:
http://www.blackmallard.com/digital/scroll.jpg

I start out neutral on respecting someone, but do tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. If I'm not showing you the level of "respect" you desire, I must have lost it somewhere along the way. But that's not entirely my doing.

As for what you think of me, you're falling on the side of the coin I've learned to prefer from you.

Still, I have to admit, you're great fun to play with,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

 

[lanef]

Don't interpret it literally; it's a figure of speech.

So the art world had to swallow their spit!

Everybody swallows their saliva. This is quite normal behaviour.
Spitting out your saliva is either:
a) Rude, or
b) idicative of some sort of pathology of the upper airway, pharynx
or oesophagus.

 

[Ed Leys20479]

Ed Leys wrote:

[things randomly snipped throughout]

Just like the film bigot who wrote the article which started this
thread.

Hmm, "film bigot". Ah yes, a sure sign you have an open and balanced mind. :^)

and the readout mechanism seems to be an
analog modulated flow of lightwave packets, here's a thought
question... Assume you read out the film encoded captured scene by
slowly scanning a single small diameter light across it--can the
spot size of the scanning light be reduced enough that the light on
the outbound side of the film only takes on two intensities
(representing "on" and "off") or a discrete number of intensities?
Why or why not?

The answer is yes. With a small enough beam, the light will either
hit a developed grain or not.

Gee, maybe I asked a trick question. :^)

You see whether a developed "film grain" is binary or not (i.e. develops as an "exposed" grain or not), they are stochastically embedded in the emulsion in three dimensions. Top, cross sectional, photograph here:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html

Also, as will be seen in some of the very high-rez samples of developed film further down that page, they may not be stone opaque, leading one to believe they are at least a little bit additive in density as light passes though the developed emulsion.

...Not to mention color films or chromogenic "black and white" films which have the silver "grains" bleached out in processing, leaving behind a "dye cloud" (but you know about that)...and the dye clouds interact--which means they have to have transparency--to form color (or chromogenic "black and white") values.

http://www.bway.net/~jscruggs/film.html

Or, maybe I'm totally all wet.

Best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

 

[wll]

The writer of this cr%pTony Long know not what he talks about. I have spent many a many a hour working on a photo.

If someone wants to shoot film and spend 6 month on it, let him. That does not make his image better, it is different, and thats all.

Just because they used to do something, doesn't make it better. What is better is no chemicals, no special room, no, bla, bla ,bla.

Since I went digital about 5 years ago, I have no need ever to use film again. Just my feelings.

wll

 

[aman74]

My quote from that episode: "If you have to ask, it's not art!"

Don't you mean "If you don't have to ask it's not art".

If you know what it is, and what it means, it can't possibly be art.

Are you saying that in gest?

Actually I disagree with both statements.

 

[aman74]

It seems reasonable to suggest that art, at least sometimes, should
be challenging and provocative.

Usual arguments:
Does art have to be aesthetically pleasing?
Is something that is man-made art just because it is aesthetically
pleasing?
Does it have to be challenging to be art?
Can it be art if anyone can do it?
Do you have to have talent (or skill) to produce art.
Can art be produced by accident?

In my opinion, the problem with very obscure "art" is that there's
a bit too much of the emporer's new clothes involved. If you don't
like it, or don't appreciate, or don't understand it, it's because
"you don't have sufficent understanding of art, or aren't
intellegent enough or educated enough". Or maybe it's because there
just isn't anything there. It seems to be quite easy to just throw
any old junk together and call it art. It doesn't work if everyone
sees the emporer is naked, but if you can gather a critical mass of
followers, then you might pull it off, and some do.

What is art? Does it matter? Who cares? It's very tempting to say
that art is whatever YOU personally say it is, but art critics and
art educationalists (and some artists) don't like that, perhaps
because it would tend to deprive them of their elitism.

These threads are much more interesting than the "my Canon 350D is
better than your Nikon D50" and "here is a picture of my cat". But
perhaps thats me being elitist.

Good points.

 

[Tim the Grey]

--

1. ######
2. ####_O Tim Yorath
3. #### />
4. #### @ UK.
5. ### \

http://catmangler.smugmug.com/

 

[aman74]

This is Amish Photography:

LOL ! I love this ! You should trademark this expression.

Some may find this offensive. For some odd reason it seems ok to make light of certain religions and races, while speaking in this way about the other more vocal minority groups wouldn't be so readily tolerated on a public forum.

I'm not even a particularly PC person and your comment wasn't overly negative, while certainly not flattering, you didn't seem to wish to be cruel, however unenlightened it sounded. Also, it shows a lack of understanding of Amish culture, and when viewed that way, doesn't even make sense.

Like I said though, I'm not very PC myself and sometimes go for humor before sensitivity, but certainly wouldn't do so on a public forum. My point is more an observation about what is acceptable in society today. It's funny to me that a comment about the Amish would easily slip by, but had you said something about the Jewish religion, I can guess that it may have been a different story.

 

[tbcass]

The guy is a pompus ass. Notice how 95% of the respondants disagree with him.
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[Ryan McDaniel]

I love people (and they always seem to be on the side of film) who
get hung up on the source of an image rather than the art of it.
Digital to them is lifeless, flat, cold, and work in Photoshop
isn't really work. But film is "3 dimensional", warm, "organic",
and the darkroom is a holy place for the true artist. All because
of the labeling.

Yep, pretty much! It's impossible for digital (at this point) to
have the front to back depth that film (analog) has simply by the
way the formats work.

sigh ...another "analog bigot"...

Well, here's a little fact for the label freaks: at the moment of
capture, film is a digital medium. Grains are developed or not.
Tones are produced through dithering of binary "on/off" grains,
colors through three layers of dithered, binary, "on/off" grains.
Traditional enlargement and printing was an analog process, and
film scanning involves an analog transfer step. But film is by no
means analog.

WOW! uh . . say wha?

Yes, you read that correctly: film is a binary, dithered medium. And at the moment of capture it is more "digital" than any electronic sensor.

Digital, at the moment of capture, is analog. An analog electric
signal is produced which is proportionate to the level of light
striking the sensor, and is later sampled into digital form with an
analog-to-digital converter.

While we're at it, at the moment of capture the human eye works
much more like a digital camera than a film one. Our cones are
layed out in a flat "Bayer" pattern, with the number of green
equaling the number of red and blue combined. Light level is
measured directly, and tone and color are not produced through
dithering.

whew . . it hurts too much to even attempt clarification and rebuttal.

Translation: you don't know enough about the topic at hand to attempt clarification and rebuttal.

If digital is not art, then film never was. And if the "digital"
direct capture process ruins an image because of Bayer or whatever
half baked reason film fans produce, then your eyes ruin everything
you look at.

yes, eyes MUST be digital !!

No, but at the moment of capture the retina works very much like an electronic sensor. So if Bayer ruins images (a common claim) then your eyes must ruin everything you look at.

Oh, about Photoshop...most of its commands come from darkroom
techniques invented before personal computers were a twinkle in
Bill Gates eyes.

you mean Wozniak and Apple. Listen, emulating something digitally
is a far cry from DOING the REAL and 'actual' action. I have
$10,000 mics here at the studio. yet some company has a program
that allows someone to sing through a $60 mic, then run it through
this horrible DIGITAL program and it is suppose to emulate the
$10,000 mic. Are you so thick to think it's the same thing? That
it sounds the same? What about the air / space around the mic,
much less the German built large diaphragm and tube.

Sometimes the digital emulation is better than the "real, actual action". Want to talk about unsharp mask in the darkroom vs. in Photoshop?

Why is it when you go to a art gallery you see much more film based
work then digital?

Because film has been around for over a century, while digital is less than a decade old as far as fine art is concerned.

Why is it that more art style photographers
artists (not weekend bird shooters or water drop photo
'technicians') are shooting film, even 35 mm over digital? Is it
they see, sense and feel the difference though you don't?

I don't think that's true at all, and challenge the claim. Prove that most "artists" still use film. They certainly don't from what I can see.

Why is it when I sit down to listen to a cd I begin to tire quickly
and find I don't enjoy the music as much? Why do people say the
same thing that have no idea why?

Why don't I care? Because the discussion is about imaging systems, not audio systems.

BTW, do you feel the same way when listening to SACD or DVD audio? Because the progress in digital imaging systems over the past 5 years is much more dramatic than the progress in digital audio over the past 20.

Digital dazzles 'some' people, but I gotta tell ya, some of us are
blessed enough to see / hear the difference. Some WON'T or can't.
Some are so addicted to their computers that they make a drug
addict look sane. They go on and on about digital. Some sit in
their basements looking at histograms and taking endless water drop
shots seeking the PERFECT one so they can dazzle their neighbors at
how perfect they must be because their $5000 camera took a perfect
water drop image! (well not really because they spent 6 hours
editing the so called perfection with PS) The whole time their kids
are outside in the sun longing for interaction or their wives are
talking to divorce attorneys.

Some people only see a difference between two images when you tell them that one is "analog" and the other "digital"...whether or not you've even told them the truth....

 

[Ryan McDaniel]

Still, I have to admit, you're great fun to play with,

Comments like that and you wonder why I have zero respect for you?

You're not worth my time. Goodbye Ed.

 

[echelon2004]

and you know what they say.

Do not argue with the stupid, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience
--
Anders

Some of my pictures can be seen at;
http://teamexcalibur.se/US/usindex.html

event photography and photo journalism

 

[tjack]

Some may find this offensive. For some odd reason it seems ok to
make light of certain religions and races, while speaking in this
way about the other more vocal minority groups wouldn't be so
readily tolerated on a public forum.

I'm not even a particularly PC person and your comment wasn't
overly negative, while certainly not flattering, you didn't seem to
wish to be cruel, however unenlightened it sounded. Also, it shows
a lack of understanding of Amish culture, and when viewed that way,
doesn't even make sense.

Like I said though, I'm not very PC myself and sometimes go for
humor before sensitivity, but certainly wouldn't do so on a public
forum. My point is more an observation about what is acceptable in
society today. It's funny to me that a comment about the Amish
would easily slip by, but had you said something about the Jewish
religion, I can guess that it may have been a different story.

Cool off. The Amish are famous for freezing history as the "best" way.

The beliefs and practices of the Amish were based on the writings of the founder of the Mennonite faith, Menno Simons (1496-1561), and on the 1632 Mennonite Dordrecht Confession of Faith. The faith group has attempted to preserve the elements of late 17th century European rural culture. They try to avoid many of the features of modern society, by developing practices and behaviors which isolate themselves from American culture."

That is EXACTLY what I was talking about, choosing an era in photography and calling it better than what has come along since. Making fun of the Amish would be something such as mentioning their clothes or buggies, I was using an actual article of their faith to illustrate, not denigrate, a point.

Rest assured that although this was NOT a slight on the Amish I do regularly make fun of other religions in ways that are deliberately insulting. Oddly enough, the Amish have never been that important to warrant that type of ridicule. I dislike the piously religious and consider religion the most destructive and sadistic force in human experience. if you can't stand the heat, get away from the fire.