fake [aka digitalia] - actually that's my first [sic]
is 'fakery' artistically and aesthetically 'valid'?
in my collection of third party 'plugins' for p-shop i have several that can make incredibly accurate reproductions [colour and monochrome] of analogue film types and their 'look':
agfa rsx
fuji provia
fuji velvia
kodak ektachrome
kodak tmax
kodak tri-x
ilford delta
to name a few.
these filters reproduce the visual algorithm of the film type involved.
the question is asked with regard to flickr groups such as 'I Hate Digital!'
www.flickr.com/groups/70423225@N00/
PLEASE read the group description.
the group description includes this question:
Do you think digital and photoshop hurt the authenticity of photography?
[what is meant here by the catchall and reductionist term 'authenticity'?]
my question:
why pose this question?
it is tantamount to saying we should ignore the digital camera and rely only on 'film' cameras to make 'authentic' [sic 2] pictures.
should we throw digital cameras on fires like books that have been burned in the past decades?
this seems a ludicrous non question to me. or less than a non question, it seems to suggest an aesthetic hierarchy based upon nonsensical 'visual historical' values [sic 3].
has not digital photography done more than any other technical image
reproduction process to democratize photography?
is a digital 'photograph' any less visually arresting and valid than
an 'analog' photograph?
is the digital/analog opposition a false opposition involving a
reasonable amount of snobbery and aesthetic xenophobia?
i offer my own 'not cyanotypes' set. i do think these photographs have a certain beauty. i enjoyed the process [digital] of creating them. they seem pleasing to my eye.
that i did not produce these using the authentic 'cyanotyping' process seems a redundant and reductionist observation.
that i produced them seems the only important observation. the 'authenticity' [sic 4] of the method is of no importance whatsoever.
when the most seasoned and talented 'analog' photographer cannot definitively state that a photograph is 'analog' or 'digital' it seems to spell the death knell of the question.
i like fucking with digital.
i like the revolutionary visual freedom of photoshop.
i like the fact that you cannot tell if it is dig or analog.
i like that digital does not involve as much financial expense as
analog.
i like the freedom to express myself.
vive le difference!
ps - and the name 'i hate digital' as a flickr group!!
priceless!!
you do realise this is a digitised web based image sharing platform.
you would have to actually physically 'post' your photographs to each
other were it not for the digital revolution.
that seems a little long winded and costly.
and you would have to post to random adresses. and await a reply.
don't reduce the ability of self expression.
increase it.
you will decide what is pleasing and what is not.
flame off.
the|G|
James Kellam, J A Mortram, Ana.Caldas, and 13 other people added this photo to their favorites.
![a59 sunset [xpro]](http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2619/3984897906_ddddc6190a_s.jpg)
View 11 more comments
Ricky rake 45 months ago | reply
This Image is one of my favorites on YOUR VISIONS pool
Visited via 'Your Visions'.
rockczar 45 months ago | reply
~ it looks like this:
Dominique Guillochon 45 months ago | reply
diegophotographed 45 months ago | reply
Interesting.
T.Rex3000 [deleted] 45 months ago | reply
" Just make Art" I like that.
As a teen in highschool, as part of a graphic arts class, we were taught a little about photography, Mostly how to develop film.
It was interesting, but noxious and expensive.
Finding digital, and Photoshop has allowed me to be far more expressive and creative.
"I hate digital" Sounds like elitist snob knobbery.
" Hurt the authenticity of photography" Such lofty ideas, lead to a hard fall.
Respect
We loves it.
T
Михал Орела 45 months ago | reply
Seen in
Ways of Seeing
Zone Patcher 45 months ago | reply
Hi, I'm an admin for a group called The Pleasures of the Text, and we'd love to have this added to the group!
travelhaha 45 months ago | reply
Nice work^^
This excellently composed and captured Image is "The Chosen One"
This photo has been CHOSEN for "The Chosen One" Award
Please add this image to The Chosen One, Post 1 Award 2
And tag the photo with "The Chosen One"
Fusty Box 45 months ago | reply
I think I may have entered into discussion with you on this one before but circumstances have changed.
I have been a die hard analogue user for decades, I work mostly with medium format BW film with which I am able to produce high quality, large exhibition prints. I belong to a number of analogue groups but shy away from the ludicrously named 'I hate digital' kind. I like the qualities of film but try to keep an open mind.
I fully appreciate the scope of Photoshop, I can maintain far greater control over the finished 'print' than I could in a conventional darkroom - my end product is better for digital technology. so, yes, why is that cheating or fake? I regularly see bland work on flickr proudly displayed as 'Analogue. No photoshop' which, quite frankly, may have benefited from a little post-production.
On the 19th September I bought a second-hand entry-level digital SLR. Within two hours I had bought the camera, understood how it worked, shot, processed and posted this image:
I don't think it is any better or worse than a film based image though it is smaller (at 90MGB) than my preferred 135+MGB film-scan resolution ... but my god is that fast. A revelation to me. I shall continue to use film ... but I have my eye on a Canon 5D
Bring on the digital technology
+gAbY+ 45 months ago | reply
do I prefer Chaplin or monty python ? why one or the other?
we hate digital (and we listen to our ipods).
Lets do analog. Film and LP. And please, write letters, no emails.
and no mobiles. nothing. Phone on the wall.
boring.
..LG 45 months ago | reply
I dont really care what medium and how much PP is used , I am not impressed by those strutting around waving badges as if it some how makes them better than any one else .
I see ... I like ... or not
simples.
--
Seen on your photo stream. (?)
Silas Hotplate 45 months ago | reply
Nothing quite like poking a stick into a hornets nest is there Mr G ! :)
Old 'Lisa' in the background really intensifies the image.
In my humble opinion, it is the image the eye sees rather than the method of production that is important to me.
DraMan/ Roger Guetta 45 months ago | reply
Before digital, I manipulated the crap out of the emulsion of SX-70's,
while my ex wife manipulated the shit out of me.
Before SX-70's I manipulated 8 millimeter film stock by coating it with food colouring.
While I escaped my ex's incessant manipulatin' ways, I continue to
find blissful transcendance by fooking with anything that is remotely digital, pixilated or otherwise unanalog......and I'm damned proud of it!!
mooo_chelle 45 months ago | reply
The "I hate digital!" groups make me sad. I love film, but it I love digital too– it's much less expensive and very freeing. I don't see why people feel the need to make one medium superior to another.
I feel the same way about the Rolling Stones vs. Beatles debate.
andrej dutina 45 months ago | reply
oh fuck em mate... that's all
andrej dutina 45 months ago | reply
and by the way, I'm just listening Frank Zappa... it really helps you saying "oh fuck em mate... that's all "... try it on folks!
magneticart 45 months ago | reply
anuslog..digifool...who gives a damn- really...
You can shoot it on toothpaste.
If it tells a story, it catches the eye, it inspires someone,
then it's a good photograph.
the|G|™ 45 months ago | reply
props mags.
but now i want a toothpaste camera!!!
the|G|™
the|G|™ photostream
Julian Holtom 45 months ago | reply
The "I hate digital" group should see your most recent post and make something from that, such as "fucking (banal) cunts" perhaps!
weissfoto 21 months ago | reply
hear! hear!