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


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!'


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!!


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.



1 fave
Taken on October 5, 2009