Have you ever created a custom shape graduated mask with a variable opacity and a defined feathering on an adjustment layer?
Nope, I do photography not graphic arts......
Have you ever created a custom shape graduated mask with a variable opacity and a defined feathering on an adjustment layer?
Nope, I do photography not graphic arts......
When are they going to finally see that we are all doing the same thing, with the same desires and goals? We simply use different tools!!
When are computer imagers going to get it? Why cant they just acccept and embrace their differences?
This isnt a dead argument, its an emerging one.
"can someone point out the practical advantage of a print that lasts 500 as opposed to 150 years" Nowhere in my post did I insinuate that a print that lasts 150 years was "worthless" You asked for a practical advantage and I merely pointed a couple out that to anyone who is aware of the various mediums in which we work would not need to ask for. I'm sorry I don't know your level of experience and I apologize if my remarks came across as condescending. But as you said you have never set foot in a wet darkroom so I doubt very much if you're qualified to beat on this dead horse with the rest of us. If someone is telling you that your inkjets will be around in the same condition or very near the same condition 150 years from now as they are today I suggest you find another mentor because the one who is telling you this is leading you astray. Now with that said let me encourage you to continue working in what ever medium you chose. What's important is you're creating and that's what it is all about.
Jumping back to the crux of Kirk's original post:
" the big debate that is waged in this forum over the validity of archival ink prints is a complete non-issue in the art photo community here. I suspect that this is true in other major metropolitan centers also. All the major galleries are selling them and the museums are actively collecting them."
If process and archival quality are non-issues, are the more prominent museums, collections, and galleries now collecting/showing b/w RC prints with the same seriousness as fiber-prints and inkjet prints?
(This is a serious question, not baiting or a set-up for some future arguement. For decades, RC was not considered a "valid" process for fine art photography for some of the same reasons that some now criticize inkjet prints for. If inkjet work has found acceptance, has it opened the door for RC?)
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
"When are computer imagers going to get it? Why cant they just acccept and embrace their differences?"
When are chemical imagers going to get it? Why cant they just acccept and embrace their similarities?
Uh, what is a "chemical imager?"......
why don't you all agree?? Jorge is the list fascist. he decides what is and what isn't and there are no deviations from his well laid-out norms (normas in spanish works better). accept it. don't waste space arguing about it. go to museum exhibits, look at the processes on display and ask - in the real world, does his views hold sway? (I've been to three this weekend - nary an analogue process in sight). Is he going to set the world alight with his work? I doubt it. How can I say that when I haven't seen any? Easy, he talks about process, not vision, and he spends too much time defining by exclusion - he's a reductionist. His work will best be displayed in those old craft centres - 'hey Dad, is THAT how they used to do it?' Let the bloke be, the last wimper of the dinosaur as the climate changed.
LOL....well I rather be the list's fascist than the list's fool.... :-)
>>LOL....well I rather be the list's fascist than the list's fool.... :-)
you are proving that the two categories are not mutually exclusive...
you are proving that the two categories are not mutually exclusive...
And you are proving that more often than not they are.... ;-)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks