Imagine you are violine player in philharmonic orchestra. And you practise for long time to learn how to play and finaly, after years of learning, you playing on concert, let say Beethoven's Fifth symphony. And if you make an error while playing everyone will hear it, you can not fix it... Now imagine you sitting at home with keyboard and computer and playing Beethoven's Fifth symphony. When you made error you click "undo" and fix the error. Then you save corectly played symphony on disc, take disc on concert, put disc in computer conected with speakers, and pres "play"... For me that is diference betven "classic" and digital photography. Agree or not?

-- hari dobri (hrsdo@yahoo.com), May 22, 2000

Answers

Well, yes. However, I think the difference extends beyond the ability to "change" the image.

Conventional photographers have been spotting out dust specks on prints for ages; this is really just another way of doing what the digital photographers do with computers.

One may argue that the digital photographers also manipulate the image to change gray tones or colors from what was recorded to what they envisioned when they made the exposure.

Again, who among us do not 'burn' and 'dodge' prints?

Digital is the next evolutionary step in imaging. Digital is not 'better' than silver-based photography; nor is it any worse. It is simply a new way to form images.

Digital has many advantages over silver-based photography, and, one day, all photography except for that done by some die-hards like myself will be digital. That is inevitable.

There should be no argument at to whether or not digital is "Art". Nothing is "Art". "Art" is an undefined word. The reason I say this is: if someone defines an object as "Art", there can be found at least one person who does not agree with the definition of said object as "Art". Since the designation of an object as "Art" is completely subjective; the word "Art" can have no meaning.

For example, some claim that the work of Robert Maplethorp[spelling?] is Art. I submit that it is not Art, but rather, trash. Now, who is correct? There is no logical means by which we can prove either position. So, any argument is moot.

My work is done in silver. My work will always be done in silver. But to the person who expresses their vision of the universe by digital means I say "100101" and "Live long, and prosper."

Jason Kefover

-- Jason Kefover (jkefover@york.tec.sc.us), May 22, 2000.

Not even close. As a musician who has performed with orchestras I can tell you that mistakes happen... and when they do, there is no turning back. But, as a photographer, I have re-printed many pictures, sometimes after they have been hanging on the wall for years. Of course if you sell something, then its out there and there is no turning back. If you aren't working against a deadline, then the visual artist has some time to get it as right as their eye will allow. The studio recording musician has nearly the same advantage. I've never done digital work... but it would seem to me that its justanother set of tools. In the end, its the internal vision that makes the difference between whether or not the image communicates or not. And I think that is the difference between Art and Trash.

cheers,

chuck k

-- chuck k (kleesattel@msn.com), May 22, 2000.

I don't agree either. For one thing, I think for the analogy to work, you would have to compare the musician to the printer and not the photographer. Secondly, and more importantly, For me, photography is all about the image, and not the camera, the paper, the chemicals, etc.

Thus, I am going to use whatever lets me realize that image the best. A traditional darkroom, a computer set up, a combination of the two, whatever works.

A good image is going to be a good image. I don't care if you develop your film by holding it in a toilet bowl and flushing, if the results are satisfying to you, who cares.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), May 23, 2000.

I don't think it's a good analogy either. Digital music doesn't allow anywhere near the range of expression of conventional instruments, although things are improving at the "high end". (I'm thinking of MITs work with Yo Yo Ma's synthesised Cello here.) Whereas manipulating a digital image allows far greater control over the end result than any in-camera or darkroom techniques, even with low-end processors and software. Perhaps this says something about the relative complexity of music versus the visual arts. Or that music software is way behind (thanks to the restrictive MIDI format?)

I do find it interesting that Ansel Adams should have abandoned a promising career as a concert pianist to devote his life to photography, and that a great many other major photographers have had more than a passing interest in music.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), May 24, 2000.

Thank you all for interest. Do you people who telling that it is no matter how the photos is made, but the photos it self want to tell that goals justify means?

-- hari dobri (hrsdo@yahoo.com), May 24, 2000.

Art can be defined. It is a conscious act of creativity. The qualifier is "what you make of it". Totally subjective and by individual perception only.

-- DAVE DEMETRIOS (TEDEUM13@YAHOO.COM), May 24, 2000.

I can not agree with the definition of Art as "a conscious act of creativity."

I think this definition is too broad. For example, an inventor who comes up with a design for a machine that can efficiently and quickly raze a grove of trees to the ground to make room for a mall is engaged in a "conscious act of creativity."

Yet, I would hesitate to call the process Art.

This will be my last word on the subject, since this is a forum for the discussion of photography, not philosophy.

Regards.

Jason

-- Jason Kefover (jkefover@york.tec.sc.us), May 24, 2000.

Your example is not exactly true. If the musical performance is live, then yes, the mistakes are part of the program and you can't go back. But,photography is not a linear process like a musical performance. Unless, what you do is take an image on transparency film, and project it on a screen and say - that's it.

Once you step into a darkroom, whether it is wet or digital, you have deviated from your performance analogy - and everthing changes. In fact, your analogy in music can be used in a different way to illustrate the point.

If the musical performance is for the express purpose of making a recording, then there is take #2, take #3, take #4 etc. (bracketing?) until both the conductor, the producer, and the engineer are satisfied. Afterwards there is the editing session (darkroom or computer work) where the engineer, in consultation with the producer and conductor, may take passages from each of the takes to make the performance that shows up as the final master recording.

So you tell me - what's the difference between an edited musical performance and an edited photograph (both done digitally today)? I think your question / statement is basically meaningless.

Straight photography has it's own aesthetic as does digital photography. One is not better than the other - only different.

The range in digital photography is astounding, but, if your goal is the output of a "straight" photograph, the amount of manipulation you can do is not all that much different than what is achieved in a darkroom through different contrasts, dodging, burning, retouching the negative, making constrast masks, retouching the mask, print spotting, and all of the other photo manipulations that have been invented to better deliver the photographer's intended final image.

If you are talking about combining images to get photo illustrations - that is a completely different area where you can cross over from Jerry Uelsmann-like looks, all the way to something that appears to be hand drawn - and in fact it was, using a graphics tablet, touch sensitive pen, and possibly an air brush tool. Instead of pencils, pens, and a real airbrush. The skill required is the same. The computer doesn't make up for lack of skill - in fact, it makes the lack of skill more apparent. If anything, it is less forgiving. If you spend hours working on an image on a layer, and something goes wrong, you can go back in the image "history" to a certain point, but often you end up trashing the whole layer or effect and starting over. Much like throwing away a badly made print and making another. There is no less work, no less skill involved - in making a digital image - only different skills with the same amount of work.

In reality, AA was not to far off when he said that the negative (let's just say exposure) is the score, and the print (let's say final image) is the performance. Whether you choose to perform it in a wet darkroom or a digital darkroom, to me, is inconsequential. It is only the end result that counts - you don't get extra style points given or taken away for making it through a certain process.

-- franki (MrWango@worldnet.att.net), June 06, 2000.