Comments on: April 22/08

By: EVRYDY » Blog Archive » April 27/07

EVRYDY » Blog Archive » April 27/07 — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:31:49 +0000

[...] So, I’m still thinking about how real things are important when it comes to photography. And I start sorting through all the prints in boxes I was sorting into my filing cabinet tonight, and all the contents of my locker from this year. And I came upon this picture. Jason Edwards was kind enough to let me purchase one shot of Polaroid 8×10 instant film, and I shot it when I was shooting the 8×10 negs I used to make prints similar to the image in the the post below. And well. I got a little emotional. [...]

By: Ian

Ian — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:21:26 +0000

Luddite.

By: malloreigh

malloreigh — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:06:43 +0000

i guess you’re not a cyborg like i am.
you’re right, it is a question of what’s important to the individual. something tangible like film does intuitively make more sense to a lot of people, feels more real and right; but with the digitization of every part of our lives (flying cars soon?) as a culture we’re becoming more comfortable and familiar with things that are not represented tangibly but rather must be interpreted by code-reading devices. yes, it’s true, it’s not like we’re living outside the matrix and have learned to look at code and see an image or words or information other than gibberish… but without eyes we wouldn’t be able to decipher a tangible (film) image either – so there’s just one additional intermediary in the digital process; other than that it’s really no different.
other than intuitively. because that is different – but then it becomes a question of heart, which is entirely subjective.

By: Dylan

Dylan — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:38:01 +0000

We have those display abilities, but it’s not something our body intuitively understands. I think that’s why I’m trying to concentrate on the recording process. That is our bodies are able to comprehend what analog photography records (image), and is incapable of deciphering what digital photography records (code). Without the display technologies. So yes, we have the technology to see it, but my body inherently doesn’t posses a language that understands the recording? I’m still working through a lot of these things. I guess it’s whether or not that process and middle step is important to individuals or not.

By: malloreigh

malloreigh — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:33:12 +0000

your talking about the intuitive appreciation of film images versus digital reminded me of the bit about ‘quality’ and its definition in zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance…
literary wanking aside, this essay contains a good amount of information that, as a primarily digital photographer, i was unfamiliar with. however, your point – that digital images are not ‘real’, because they are code that needs an intermediary display process – doesn’t make sense to me. we have those display abilities, so to me, digital images are just as ‘real’ or tangible as an image on film, with the marked difference that you don’t have to finish/remove your roll to ‘develop’ or view your photos…

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:30:13 +0000

nice! I can NEVER get my pics that nice.