Where those photographs taken on a Velvia, by any chance? Or was it B&W film of some sort?Originally Posted by Brian Ellis
Where those photographs taken on a Velvia, by any chance? Or was it B&W film of some sort?
individual states have been going the opposite way for years.
jpg files and ink jet prints is what some of the "local" habs-stuff has become...
( local meaning some of the new england states )
[QUOTE=Kirk Gittings;781662]It has long been by contention that photography is a manipulative process, turning three dimensional realities into two dimensional images. I'm not sure that how we get there, grain or pixels, makes much difference. I happen to prefer the complete silver process, always have, and will continue to do so. I'm sure that it will outlast me.
What I find disconcerting in such situations is the amount of deceit that is obviously going on with film shooters claiming that they don't manipulate images when they obviously do. They are trying to artificially maintain a divide and elevated position of being more "truthful'' than digital photographers when the difference is simply a matter of degrees (maybe). Frankly I think such claims are pathetic. I freely acknowledge that my film based prints are manipulated (as it always has been) because I am an artist, but I feel like I am in a minority in being truthful about this.
However, I would be the first to admit that my images are manipulated, along with my fellow proponents of "straight photography". One need look no further than Ansel's numerous incarnations of his iconic images.
So, let us concentrate on image making, with less emphasis on process. There are no winners in this debate, only some with louder voices.
Maybe not to the NSA but there are many kinds of digital media that are effectively obsolete to most of us. A few are listed here:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/dpm/dpm-e...dia/tapes.html
Digital obsolescence is a real problem and the readability of the media is just part of the issue. Stewardship is required to keep digital info from evaporating (hence the Library of Congress effort linked to by Marko above). Stewardship of cans of film is in some ways easier than stewardship of their digital counterpart.
I know this is veering off topic but there's a perception that digital info somehow has greater permanence than nondigital info and this is far from being proven in practice.
...Mike
Digital information definitely has both greater permanence and greater reproducibility than non-digital information. In fact, the vastly greater permanence is due precisely to the ability for flawless reproduction.
It should be noted that this is entirely separate issue from the permanence of the media. Digital media is indeed less permanent than non-digital one (keeping things in context, in reality there is no such thing as "digital" or "non-digital" media - they are all optical, magnetic, ceramic, celluloid or whatever other physical material is used as a base), but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because this is the first time in human memory that we have such a complete separation of information from its container/media.
The real key to information permanence lies in the process rather than in material and process can be - should be! is! - adjusted along the way. Stewardship of cans of film requires physical storage and upkeep, along with actively establishing and maintaining conditions optimal for minimizing the decay of the carrying substrate. It is physically impossible to preserve it forever, simply because that's the nature of the material.
Information, on the other hand, can be preserved indefinitely - theoretically - given appropriate stewardship, which in this case includes only the replication process and, occasionally, file format conversion (which is, again, also just a process).
IOW, given equal amount of qualified care invested in preservation of both digital and non-digital content, there is really no contest and no question of digital information somehow "evaporating". If there is a problem with digital information, it exists between the chair and the keyboard, as the old saying goes.
Just the same way you get the message before you buy a bottle of Heinz Tomato Ketchup.
David Cary
www.milfordguide.nz
As matter of fact, the whole analogy image industry is gone.
Film photography along cannot revive.
Ketchup is ketchup, and there's no way I can taste it by watching a commercial on tv, or hearing one on the radio (do these media still exist?), or reading about it in print, but what little I know about your photos and Liks, I know from looking at the images. I've had photographers at art fairs pitch me their film spiels, and I can assure you they wasted their breath. If an image doesn't capture my attention, its making is of no interest to me. I don't know if Lik's images are made with film, or digital, and I don't care; they're not my cup of tea. For me, the image comes before everything else- the artist, the process, the sales pitch, etc. Maybe I'm a hard sell.
Uh, um, this is the large format photography forum, right? Home of the dying breed and last bastion of the film user posse, right? Process is irrelevant? Nobody cares about that in the modern age of digital enlightenment, huh? Wow, well best I chuck my view camera down a cliff and buy a digital P&S. Poor old QT Luong lugging all that 5x7 gear and Astia into 58 US parks: what a waste of energy.
But of course it wasn't. He took the time to explain why it was important. His process inspired me. In turn my process has inspired nearly ALL the photographers with an internet connection in my backwater country. Landscape photography was almost non-existent in Trinidad before 2000. So, yes, people do care, and the ones who do, inspire others.
>>Ketchup is ketchup, and there's no way I can taste it by watching a commercial on tv<<
Unless I wire up your brain to respond to my ketchup advert. We're all floating in Descarte's vat, after all...
--Darin
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks