Digital BW, The Print

> > Keith,
> >
> > > >>Fist, photography always has and always will be about
> artificiality and
> > > >>manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how real
> and
> > > >>true is that...?).
> > > >
> > > >I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about
> accurate
> > > >reproduction of a scene.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not since I left Pleasantville have I seen a B&W image that
> actually
> > > accurately depicts reality.
> > >
> > > B&W imagery is axiomatically an abstraction of reality..
> >
> > That's not true...it is different from some people's vision of
> reality, but
> > it IS reality, just an aspect of reality YOUR sensors don't see.
> What's
> > there, is in fact, there.  But none the less, it's only tonally
> "different".
> > That doesn't make it an abstraction at all.
> >
> > Is IR not reality?  Just because you can't see in that spectrum,
> doesn't
> > make it not reality, or make it "an abstraction of reality".
> >
> > Austin
>
> Actually, it is true.

You BELIEVE it's true, and I strongly disagree with that.

> Photography is an abstraction.

Photography CAN be an abstraction, but that does not make all photography an
abstraction.

> One of the
> definitions Webster's uses for abstract is "expressing a quality apart
> from an object." Photography expresses a 2D quality apart from most
> objects' 3D reality.

Every sensor you have only senses "some" quality.  Because you only have the
data from that one sensor doesn't make that data abstract, it's still real.
Does someone who can't hear, not live in reality?  I believe your
application here is entirely wrong.  Because one only senses one aspect
(like IR, or UV or grayscale), such as a  particular spectrum, doesn't make
it "abstract".

By your interpretation, ever sense we have, vision, hearing, taste etc. is
an "abstraction", and in fact, there is no reality.  Fact is, we can only
sense what our sensors allow us to sense, that's it.  Every sensor has
limitations, and "expresses a quality apart from an object", period.  That
does not mean what it senses is an abstraction.  You're arguing what is
reality.  Is what you sense reality, at least from your prospective?  If so,
then what ANY sensor senses IS reality, as far as that sensor's prospective.
It's when you manipulate that sensors data that you make it abstract.

Data can be "corrected" to make it more usable to the processing system that
is processing it, namely in our case, our eye, and that doesn't make it
"abstract".  Just like you do tonal corrections to the data, because the
system that is sensing the scene REQUIRES tonal correction to convert from
it's sensing view to yours.  Of course, there comes a point where this
correction can cause distortion...at least from your prospective, the
original scene and your "representation" of the scene become divergent.

> It gets better in B&W, which expresses a grayscale quality apart from
> most objects' full color reality.

There is no "full color reality" by your argument.  And as I said, I
disagree with the whole premise you bring up, though I understand the
arguments on both sides intimately.  I've done a LOT of work in the area of
sensors and machine perception.  Reality is only what YOUR sensors allow you
to perceive.

> To argue that photography is *not* abstract is less than wise. You put
> yourself in the position of arguing with the acknoledged experts in
> the field, Stieglitz, Adams, Weston, etc. who all come down on the
> side of photography being abstract.

What makes their "understanding" any more valid than anyone else's?  Not
everyone agrees with them, BTW.

Photography CAN be abstract, but not all photography, by definition, IS
abstract IMO, in a practical sense use of the word.  There is a level of
accurate representation.  Technically, you can never accurately represent
anything physical, accurately...but there is a humanly acceptable level of
representation that is accepted as being accurate.  There are also different
aspects of accurate...a photograph has many aspects to it...relative
dimensional accuracy, tonal accuracy...  It certainly is more accurate at
some aspects than others, that's for sure...and that's true with any sensing
system.

I disagree with calling EVERY photograph abstract, and believe that when it
becomes "abstract" it then moves from photography to graphics art.

Austin