Originally Posted by ret wisner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Vanguad
i agree, hybrid inkjetters pumping out magazine pages , calling themselves photographers. lol
get a dictionary and drop the photographer term ,a inkjetter not a photographer
is that a real photograph?...
no its a inkjet lol
Ret, You and Hans talk alike.
Regards
Bill
Van - try to find a wedding photographer who shoots film at all any more. Everyone
wants everything yesterday, and they want to sort out the shots on a screen. The
quality is a secondary issue to a lot of clients. Different generation, and they don't
seem to use albums much any more.
Van - I'd obviously rather do portraits on color neg and C-prints myself, but under the right circumstances Ciba can be stunning. One of the problems with the older
color neg films like Vericolor is that it wanted to turn all the neutrals into skin tones.
Ciba has its own idiosyncrasies, but with proper masking is capable of a much wider
gamut than neg prints. Things have obviously improved, however. Dye transfer would be the very best, but unless someone is literally royalty, I don't know of anyone ordering up wedding prints in this medium. The peculiar thing is that most
young people I have spoken to already know that digital cameras aren't going to
give the same color quality as a neg, but don't care. Relatively few of these wedding
photographers do much PS post correction. Instead, they promise the shots when
the couple get back from the honeymoon, or sometimes even the same day. The camera is supposed to do it all - then straight to the web, to share with friends and
family. Glad I'm not in that business! To do things "right" on inkjet would probably
be just as much time and work as in a darkroom, so in that respect things are
at a parity. So what young people seem to be paying for are just the shooting and
a disc. I think a lot of them will regret that at some point. It's a fast food culture.
ego is a ugly thingleave the art to the rest of us that understand it.
thats the point they are 100% minipulated, hence artDo you really think traditional oil paintings are not manipulated
digital or photography?Darkroom or inkjet?Whatever you say, except for the image of the plane, all were done 100% with camera.
Attachment 44752
Attachment 44753
Attachment 44754
Attachment 44755
no manipulation, neg photographed via digi canon on light box
are they art, no of course not they are real and no manipulation
Attachment 44756
Attachment 44757
Attachment 44758
Attachment 44759
and these art or not?
just a straight digital canon shot of neg on light box
so art is only art if the artists thinks its art
art is ego
yes, thats what im saying digital is not photography, no electronics in my work flow, there a difference, no batteries either, or preview screen, or inkjet machine or a computer.
No. Something is art if someone thinks it's art. The important question, though, is whether something is good art, and that, imo, comes down to taste. It's a different question than what has been important in art history, or with collectors, as these questions have fairly objective answers, whereas what counts as good art does not.
So ret wisner likes "straight" photography. That's fine. That predilection doesn't need justification or defense, but then neither does what others like.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
but in this discussion we are talking about photography
heres my take photography (pure photography) is not art. its untouched/non minipulated imagery with the best of intentions and is morally policed by the originator
digital inkjetting is art because it has no basis in reality due to manipulation and therefor only exists in the mind of the artist
inkjets are art and photography isnt
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks