new icn messageflickr-free-ic3d pan white
fake | by theG™
Back to photostream

fake

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|

2,222 views
1 fave
31 comments
Taken on October 5, 2009