Is it sinister deception?

[Thomas Gardner]

No where in our sports society does this two world venue sort of
thinking come into the equation.

Gotta nail you on this single point.

Many sports are divided into "women's" and "men's".

Sorry, you lose Why? Sports/Photography is the name of the game and all you've done is create two groups at the same track meet, Wet/Dry

One could make an arguement that because of the inherent physical
differences, it is unfair or un-sporting to allow men and women to
compete directly against eachother in certain sports.

Hence why in sports you have different divisions.

Expanding from this, could one not also make an argument that due
to the inherent differences between the two media, digital vs. wet
darkrooms, that it unsporting to allow digital darkroom works to
compete against the wet darkroom practitioners?

And there's nothing wrong in breaking the differences out and having them displayed side-by-side but eventually judged within their category.

After all, you see horses racing horses and cars racing cars...
not often (anymore) do you see cars racing horses.

Nope but I do see all manners, shapes and forms of horses running on the same track as I see different classes of race cars running on the same track. It's no different.

Due to constraints, you're not going to see classes mix it up but you'll not see one being excluded, just because it's a little engine as opposed to unlimited.

A drag strip is a good example. Funny cars don't run against top fuel, but they run on the same day.

I'm not advocating one direction or the other -- just stirring the
pot with some thoughts. What is the contest really judging? The
resulting print or the ability of the practicioner to create the
print? I suspect they say the former but the latter is the reality
in situations such as these.

I agree. It's a classic case of "the good old boys" network and they just don't want digital to come to the game.

And those
that are hugging the wet process with a death grip, need to relax.

The unknown can be frightening. The writing is clearly on the
wall; digital is here to stay and it is becoming vastly more
prevalent. To those who don't know how to work in the medium, I
imagine it is very daunting and perhaps even frightening when they
see (even if they won't admit) that it is where the world is going
and that they'll have to follow or find something else with which
to pay the rent.

After all, I remember how daunting it was the first time I ever
stepped into a darkroom.

I'll leave your above as an excellent thought to pondered

 

[Thomas Gardner]

That's why we decided to open our darkroom to girls when I was at
school. ;-P

Yeah! But the gals were on to you. That's why you didn't see too many in the darkroom

 

[gpb11]

Gotta nail you on this single point.

Many sports are divided into "women's" and "men's".

Sorry, you lose Why? Sports/Photography is the name of the
game and all you've done is create two groups at the same track
meet, Wet/Dry

Either I misunderstood or I did not communicate clearly.

I guess my boildown summary would be that I think digital and wet processing are sufficiently different that they should be in different "categories". Even in car or motorcycle shows there are different categories. And most shows will still have a "people's favorite" or "overall winner" that crosses all the classes.

So I think perhaps we are saying the same thing. That to ban digitally processed images is foolish and exclusionary; that the means by which an image is processed does not materially affect either the photographer's "eye" in seeing the image before clicking the shutter nor does it affect the photographer's ability to manipulate the image using accepted techniques to arrive at the final result.

Put digital into it's own category or class, but don't turn a blind eye towards the medium.

Think about livery owners at the dawning of the age of the automobile. Don't see many of them around these days.

-- Lew

 

[Wayne J]

I don't care about photo contest judges, but its kind of interesting to think about how digital will affect the purposes of photography. Photos have served the purpose of creating an accurate record of reality. The ability to modify photos digitally without the viewer being able to detect the modification degrades the credibility of photos as records. It doesn't matter whether the photographer says the photo is all chemical process, because (as Paul Pope points out) the photographer might be lying and the viewer would have no way of knowing that. A digital photographer who says "I did not manipulate this photo" has just as much credibility as a film photographer who says the same thing. The point is that the viewer must rely on the photographer, not the photo, as to whether the photo is an accuracte record. (To an extent this has always been true, but even more so in the digital era.)

The other side of photgraphy is the interpretive side. Obviously, digital has made it much easier to add high quality interpretations and even alternate realities to photos. My prediction is that becuase photos will become less trusted as records of reality, the interpretive side will grow in importance and acceptance. Maybe we'll know in 50 years?

--Wayne

 

[DavidP #28649]

As of this moment, you can't change a RAW file.

Canon also has a device (for the 1Ds) that somehow "validates" the authenticity of the RAW file, presumably for legal purposes.

I don't care about photo contest judges, but its kind of
interesting to think about how digital will affect the purposes of
photography. Photos have served the purpose of creating an
accurate record of reality. The ability to modify photos digitally
without the viewer being able to detect the modification degrades
the credibility of photos as records. It doesn't matter whether
the photographer says the photo is all chemical process, because
(as Paul Pope points out) the photographer might be lying and the
viewer would have no way of knowing that. A digital photographer
who says "I did not manipulate this photo" has just as much
credibility as a film photographer who says the same thing. The
point is that the viewer must rely on the photographer, not the
photo, as to whether the photo is an accuracte record. (To an
extent this has always been true, but even more so in the digital
era.)

The other side of photgraphy is the interpretive side. Obviously,
digital has made it much easier to add high quality interpretations
and even alternate realities to photos. My prediction is that
becuase photos will become less trusted as records of reality, the
interpretive side will grow in importance and acceptance. Maybe
we'll know in 50 years?

--Wayne

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh4.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___266214___CADVKE1___REG___CatID=0___SID=F36D46BDB90

The EOS-1Ds is the world's first digital SLR that can prove it's images are unaltered, original files. The Data Verification Kit DVK-E1, consisitng of a dedicated CompactFlash Card, a Card Reader, and special software for Windows 2000/XP is able to verify that EOS-1Ds image files are absolutely unaltered. the system is so precise, that even the slightest discrepancy is detected. This may well be a landmark for digital imaging in law enforcement and many other doccumentary uses.

When the EOS-1Ds user shoots with the verification system activated (P.Fn-31), a code is automatically generated based on the image contents and attached to the image. When the image is viewed, the data verification software determines the code for the image and compares it with the attached code. If the photo has been retouched in any way, the codes will not match, thus verifiying that the image is not the original.

As of this moment, you can't change a RAW file.

Canon also has a device (for the 1Ds) that somehow "validates" the
authenticity of the RAW file, presumably for legal purposes.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Wayne J]

Thanks for the interesting point. It sounds as if for the specialized law enforcement/evidence purposes, digital could be more credible than film. I wonder if artist/photographers who want their shots to be more appreciated as depictions of reality than as manipulations will adopt this to prove they did not manipulate the shot? It seems kind of far fetched, but you never know. -- Wayne

 

[andyfrazer]

Images and the accepted reality of the images is based upon the
limitations of the "old" world of the wet darkroom. If the bounds
of an image are pushed beyond the reasonable limitations of a "wet"
darkroom, then it's considered by many in "power" (photo contest
judges),

Hmmm. I've never considered photo contest judges to weild any sort of significant "power" over the photographic community, with the obvious exception of the contestents. The opinions of contest judges have little, if any, merit outside the contests, which have little impact on the photographic community.

to be unacceptable and they won't even accept the
submission as being a valid "photograph". Why should photographic
imagery, be limited by biggoted views of those that don't want to
accept the future?

Not always true. The one "contest" that I used to be regularly involed with, a local very well regarded camera club, accepts digital and wet prints equally. On the other hand, if it's a wet darkroom contest, you'd have to be out of your mind to expect them to accept a digital print, just as a digital print contest would not accept wet darkroom prints.

This, to me, is a clear case of "bias" and "prejudicial" behavior
and shows narrow minded, backward, I refuse to get with the truth,
thinking.

I think you reached this erroneous conclusion because your basic premise was based on a subjective and flawed assumption. You rarely hear anyone in "power" dismiss digital photography/printing as inferior to the wet printing, it's just a different animal.

The wet printers who dismiss digital photography as "just another form of graphic illustration" hardly weild any power...they're just a bunch of people who have invested a lot of time and money into their darkroom, just as you've probably invested a lot into digital photography so you may have developed an inferior view of wet printers.

Andy

 

[Paul Pope]

No ....
I do it all the time for clients who want it "shot on film"
They never know ...

hmm...

-- Lew

They're not excluding digital because of bigotry. They're
excluding it because digital reduces or eliminates any signs of
manipulation.

Those contests don't really care whether or not you use digital.
What they care about is that the image hasn't been manipulated.
With a wet process, manipulation often leaves telltale signs which
an expert can spot, and use to disqualify the photo. A well done
Photoshop job leaves no such marks. So because they can't
distinguish an original digital picture from a manipulated one,
they place a blanket ban on all digital pictures.

 

[gpb11]

about the 1Ds.

Where'd I leave that extra eight grand. Must be around here somewhere.



-- Lew

hmm...

-- Lew

They're not excluding digital because of bigotry. They're
excluding it because digital reduces or eliminates any signs of
manipulation.

Those contests don't really care whether or not you use digital.
What they care about is that the image hasn't been manipulated.
With a wet process, manipulation often leaves telltale signs which
an expert can spot, and use to disqualify the photo. A well done
Photoshop job leaves no such marks. So because they can't
distinguish an original digital picture from a manipulated one,
they place a blanket ban on all digital pictures.

 

[andyfrazer]

Thanks for the interesting point. It sounds as if for the
specialized law enforcement/evidence purposes, digital could be
more credible than film. I wonder if artist/photographers who want
their shots to be more appreciated as depictions of reality than as
manipulations will adopt this to prove they did not manipulate the
shot? It seems kind of far fetched, but you never know. -- Wayne

Good point. But for now the challenge is to make digital AS credible as film. I know two cops, both who work for different cities here in the San Francisco Bay Area, and both of them told me that all evidence photography must still be taken on film. It may be a while before police departments are able to spring for $8000 digital cameras.

But it's just a matter of time before this verification technoloqy becomes available at a lower cost.

Andy

 

[Calvin Chann]

There were enough

That's why we decided to open our darkroom to girls when I was at
school. ;-P

Yeah! But the gals were on to you. That's why you didn't see too
many in the darkroom

--

I don't mean to offend, but if you are offended, then maybe you're too sensitive or I've overdone it.

 

[Calvin Chann]

the short amount of time it took between exposure and finishing the fix. Not nearly enough.

That's why we decided to open our darkroom to girls when I was at
school. ;-P

Yeah! But the gals were on to you. That's why you didn't see too
many in the darkroom

--
I don't mean to offend, but if you are offended, then maybe you're
too sensitive or I've overdone it.

--

I don't mean to offend, but if you are offended, then maybe you're too sensitive or I've overdone it.

 

[Calvin Chann]

But David,

That you limit the digital photographer to no-post processing whereas a wet darkroom photographer would not be so limited.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh4.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___266214___CADVKE1___REG___CatID=0___SID=F36D46BDB90

The EOS-1Ds is the world's first digital SLR that can prove it's
images are unaltered, original files. The Data Verification Kit
DVK-E1, consisitng of a dedicated CompactFlash Card, a Card Reader,
and special software for Windows 2000/XP is able to verify that
EOS-1Ds image files are absolutely unaltered. the system is so
precise, that even the slightest discrepancy is detected. This may
well be a landmark for digital imaging in law enforcement and many
other doccumentary uses.

When the EOS-1Ds user shoots with the verification system activated
(P.Fn-31), a code is automatically generated based on the image
contents and attached to the image. When the image is viewed, the
data verification software determines the code for the image and
compares it with the attached code. If the photo has been retouched
in any way, the codes will not match, thus verifiying that the
image is not the original.

As of this moment, you can't change a RAW file.

Canon also has a device (for the 1Ds) that somehow "validates" the
authenticity of the RAW file, presumably for legal purposes.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

--

I don't mean to offend, but if you are offended, then maybe you're too sensitive or I've overdone it.

 

[mjbauer]

Nope, that argument doesn't hold water.

Sure it does. Just because you don't agree, the glass doesn't stop
holding water.

You go to an auto show and guess what, there are vehicles of all
sorts on display that are clearly "NOT" and automobile.

If it's declared a B&W photo contest, then anybody producing a B&W
image of light, should be allowed to enter if they can pony of the
fee. Anything less is "Photographic Discrimination".

The old school of the "Wet" process is going have to get use to
this. Just like the wide open range was fenced in an horses have
been supplanted by motoized vehicles. And as long as people are
accepting of this clear cut case of "Photographic Discrimination"
it will continue.

I am confused by your use of the term photographic biggotry (sic)?

Other than my addtion of an extra "g", there's no confusion.
Bigotry in the dictionary means "closed to new ideas". Where's the
confusion.

It isn't a battle, its a new technology we like it and use it and
there are contests that only allow digital images
( http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/ ) and no one accuses them of
being a bigot?

Sure it is. If you want to ignore the written attitudes, that's
fine but it's still a battle. As to no one accusing..... weeell, I
consider any photographic contest that excludes any form of the
photograpic process to be bigoted and an invalid contest. So that
means I'm accusing them of reverse "Photographic Discrimination".
The only difference, one is excluding based upon a refusal to
accept new technology and the other is a refusal to accept that
which alread exists.

It isn't a war, a deception or whatever it is a choice. I just hope
it isn't made into an Oliver Stone film, "The Digital Knoll"

Now, in your humor, you've run over to a conspiracy case of a
presidential assasination. I guess I'm just not up to the speed of
your humor

One more strong point for digital, think how much easier it will be
to fake a landing on the moon! You could cut out the tedious
scanning for example. On to Mars!

Think of the money that would be saved

Thomas, first I would suggest you read your own posts. Why? well you attribute one of your statements to me and then refute it, pretty funny but it seems you responded to "it doesn't hold water", sorry, you said it, not me.

My reference to conspiracy came about because you seem to resent, even rail against what you perceive as bigotry, you accuse people of biggotry (sic) becasue they choose standards. Now I think that some are against digital, but I don't care I use my digital cameras all the time, but you don't resent (or seem to anyway) that you can have a digital only contest? Why take it personally?

Your dime
Mike Bauer

 

[Thomas Gardner]

Thomas, first I would suggest you read your own posts. Why? well
you attribute one of your statements to me and then refute it,
pretty funny but it seems you responded to "it doesn't hold
water", sorry, you said it, not me.

Please reread the statement again. You left a word out

My reference to conspiracy came about because you seem to resent,
even rail against what you perceive as bigotry, you accuse people
of biggotry (sic) becasue they choose standards. Now I think that
some are against digital, but I don't care I use my digital cameras
all the time, but you don't resent (or seem to anyway) that you can
have a digital only contest? Why take it personally?

I don't resent, where did you get that from. And if I do resent, please keep my resentment in context I do rail against bigotry but I assure you, it's not perceived as it's very real. Pseudo standards, or standards of convenience don't work with this hard nose of mine.

You commented that I don't resent a digital only contest. Where did I say that. I resent exclusion of any kind. If you have a photographic contest, then have it open to all. But when people have "wet" process photo contests because they have a problem with digital, sure I'm going to speak up and rightfully so.

 

[Thomas Gardner]

There were enough

Smiiiii-lin!

 

[Thomas Gardner]

I guess my boildown summary would be that I think digital and wet
processing are sufficiently different that they should be in
different "categories".

No they're not. They are a study of light; photography. And when you exclude one form over the other, then you're holding one form in higher esteem then the other. When you speak negatively about one form over the other then your discriminating. Not good. If you're going to have a "photographic" contest, then open it too all and have your categories and knock this nonsense off about this is an exclusive club.

Judge the different images and get use to the fact that film's not alone anymore. That's the real crux of the story.

Even in car or motorcycle shows there are
different categories. And most shows will still have a "people's
favorite" or "overall winner" that crosses all the classes.

And you have all different kinds of vehicles at car shows that clearly aren't cars. No problem. So why are the those that are all wet having such a problem with digital?

Even the B&W people are going to shortly get pounded into the tarmac once printer companies figure out how to get an excellent black out of an inkjet printer.

So I think perhaps we are saying the same thing. That to ban
digitally processed images is foolish and exclusionary; that the
means by which an image is processed does not materially affect
either the photographer's "eye" in seeing the image before clicking
the shutter nor does it affect the photographer's ability to
manipulate the image using accepted techniques to arrive at the
final result.

Put digital into it's own category or class, but don't turn a blind
eye towards the medium.

Think about livery owners at the dawning of the age of the
automobile. Don't see many of them around these days.

But I think there's still a buggy whip manufacture still around

 

[Thomas Gardner]

Images and the accepted reality of the images is based upon the
limitations of the "old" world of the wet darkroom. If the bounds
of an image are pushed beyond the reasonable limitations of a "wet"
darkroom, then it's considered by many in "power" (photo contest
judges),

Hmmm. I've never considered photo contest judges to weild any sort
of significant "power" over the photographic community, with the
obvious exception of the contestents. The opinions of contest
judges have little, if any, merit outside the contests, which have
little impact on the photographic community.

If judges have no power outside a contest, then why the conversation. Of course they have power outside the contest. Why? The next time a person goes to submit an image, the power of the judge will be felt. This has to be taken into consideration if you like to enter contests, before the image is captured.

to be unacceptable and they won't even accept the
submission as being a valid "photograph". Why should photographic
imagery, be limited by biggoted views of those that don't want to
accept the future?

Not always true. The one "contest" that I used to be regularly
involed with, a local very well regarded camera club, accepts
digital and wet prints equally. On the other hand, if it's a wet
darkroom contest, you'd have to be out of your mind to expect them
to accept a digital print, just as a digital print contest would
not accept wet darkroom prints.

Sure, I understand that, I'm dense but light get in

My comments wrap around the concept of exclusion of one type for bigoted reasoning. But at the same time, in my book, you're a wack job if you have a contest and say that digital need not apply.

But you have to understand, I have an inordinantly high level of fair play. It seems those that put the shows on, only think they do but don't in reality. Nobody in clear conscience can have a photographic contest, B&W or color and exclude digital.

This, to me, is a clear case of "bias" and "prejudicial" behavior
and shows narrow minded, backward, I refuse to get with the truth,
thinking.

I think you reached this erroneous conclusion because your basic
premise was based on a subjective and flawed assumption.

Nothing is wrong or flawed in my thinking. It's just that my thinking doesn't agree with your's as it's definitely not wrong or flawed.

You rarely
hear anyone in "power" dismiss digital photography/printing as
inferior to the wet printing, it's just a different animal.

Okay, then let digital images into all photo contests and I'll go away happy. You do want me happy?

The wet printers who dismiss digital photography as "just another
form of graphic illustration" hardly weild any power...they're just
a bunch of people who have invested a lot of time and money into
their darkroom, just as you've probably invested a lot into digital
photography so you may have developed an inferior view of wet
printers.

Coming from a wet darkroom background from the early sixties, that's not a consideration. My Bessler 67C with dicroyic head and rollaway portable darkroom still sits unused in the garage and all film cameras, 35mm and Mimiya C330 are packed away in the storage shed. Nope full compliment of wet processing equipment and the experience to know how to use them today.

I'm the wrong person to say "Sigma" lenses blow and that digital isn't allowed

 

[Don & Linda]

I agree with you Thomas -- there have been several occasions here localy in California where we couldn't enter photography contests because we are using digital cameras -- art is art -- photos are photos -- regardless of how they come about.... It is biggioted!!! But it will change!

In posting a suggestion to a image question a thought came to mind.

In my mind, at that moment, in my mind, I realized the
"Negative/Darkroom" was old fashion and out of date.

What say you?

--
Don, Linda....