#811 ;yes no maybe so?
If there are any young photographers out there that might be confused about what to think when confronted with photographic work that has been intentionally abused by improper technique, then maybe a little "information theory" can help...
Imagine that two people are speaking to each other on a telephone line with low "noise." If there is low noise, then when one person speaks the other will hear his words and message with little or no distortion. On the contrary, if the telephone connection were to experience difficulties in transmission then the original message would be hindered by noise (dropouts etc) that would prevent the listener from acquiring the full unobstructed words of the speaker. The important part to understand is that the original words between speaker and hearer have not changed in either example, but the message has still been altered and distorted in the latter example by the noise on telephone line or "channel" itself.
When a photographer processes film with inappropriate chemistry and the intention of creating distortion, then he is doing the equivalent of adding noise to a telephone line. The main content of the original image (message) between photographer and viewer does not change, but bad processing distorts the presentation of the original image while proper processing does not.
All of this may seem sort of obvious at first, but there is a subtle point to be made. A photographer with a clear message and photographic vision shouldn't want any distortion to hinder communication with the viewer. However, a photographer with an unclear message probably won't care how much "noise is on the channel." [source]