Large Format vs Medium Format Digital

[paulr]

John, I suspect that at least a few of us were thrown by your phrase "attrocious quality," which suggests some kind of immuteable technical standards. I gather you didn't intend it this way.

FWIW I breezed through MoMA last week; mostly checked out De Kooning but agree that Iveković was great. I'll go back this week to check out the new photography before it closes.

[John NYC]

Anyway, this is a type of dialogue that's long in the tooth. Perhaps an interesting way of discussing it would have been not to condemn its 'atrociousness' but to open a dialogue about defining this style of production and where it might fit in one's own photographic agenda, and what Dan Leers might have been attempting with New Photography 2011.

Have you seen the prints in person?

[John NYC]

John, I suspect that at least a few of us were thrown by your phrase "attrocious quality," which suggests some kind of immuteable technical standards. I gather you didn't intend it this way.

FWIW I breezed through MoMA last week; mostly checked out De Kooning but agree that Iveković was great. I'll go back this week to check out the new photography before it closes.

Will be curious to hear your views on it.

If anyone is unsure if I am afraid of lo-fi work, please have no fear... and follow my tumblr stream of iPhone photos. I am addicted to just more than 8x10: http://johninnewyork.tumblr.com

[meerkat]

Have you seen the prints in person?

No, and I won't make the 2011 MOMA New Photography. I have seen many of the previous ones. As you know I live in Los Angeles (and represented in "This Side of Paradise: Body and Landscape in Los Angeles Photographs, 1865-2008") I won't be in NYC until March, so much too late for the 2011 version unfortunately.

I have looked at the reviews (but saw nothing in ArtForum, etc..) There was something in the NYT and the New Yorker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/ar...ma-review.html

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...aphy-moma.html

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/events...modern-art-art

Nothing mentioned about any technical problems or print quality issues with the work, and not in any layperson's web reviews either. http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/20...2011-moma.html

NY Art Magazine had a piece: http://www.nyartsmagazine.com/curate...-opens-at-moma

And so did Time magazine and PDN. But none were really reviews and were basically announcements (MOMA press releases.)

Although American Photo did interview Dan Leers: http://www.americanphotomag.com/arti...aphy-2011-moma

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/09/27/...photography/#1

http://www.pdnphotooftheday.com/2011...898#more-11898

[nonuniform]

I wish I could see this show. I studied with Stephen Shore, and he had such a lasting impact that's taken me years to shed!

As I recall, the Uncommon Places prints were quite a bit bigger than 8x10, but of course held their detail like nothing other than 8x10 film.

It's interesting to note that Shore shoots digital now (or at least did as of a couple of years ago).

Possibly.

One thing I can say is the quality of the prints in the current "New Photography 2011" show at the MOMA is atrocious for the most part. People seem to be using DSLRs and blowing them up poster size, but taking Stephen Shore type images and expecting the same effect on the viewer of Shore's barely enlarged 8x10s. Looks low quality. I can't believe some of this stuff is in there.

Perhaps they need either 8x10 or and IQ 180 :-) ... or maybe since they made it into the MOMA with half a dozen images even though they have jpeg artifacts and jagged edges, perhaps not.

[John NYC]

No, and I won't make the 2011 MOMA New Photography. I have seen many of the previous ones. As you know I live in Los Angeles (and represented in "This Side of Paradise: Body and Landscape in Los Angeles Photographs, 1865-2008") I won't be in NYC until March, so much too late for the 2011 version unfortunately.

I have looked at the reviews (but saw nothing in ArtForum, etc..) There was something in the NYT and the New Yorker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/ar...ma-review.html

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...aphy-moma.html

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/events...modern-art-art

Nothing mentioned about any technical problems or print quality issues with the work, and not in any layperson's web reviews either. http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/20...2011-moma.html

NY Art Magazine had a piece: http://www.nyartsmagazine.com/curate...-opens-at-moma

And so did Time magazine and PDN. But none were really reviews and were basically announcements (MOMA press releases.)

Although American Photo did interview Dan Leers: http://www.americanphotomag.com/arti...aphy-2011-moma

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/09/27/...photography/#1

http://www.pdnphotooftheday.com/2011...898#more-11898

You probably just could have stopped with "No, and I won't make the 2011 MOMA New Photography." But you decided that you'd couch your argument squarely in the appeal to accomplishment fallacy. And then go on to make some pretty obvious argument from authority fallacy examples, as well as the hasty generalization fallacy.

Since you are here -- whoever you are since you won't come out and say it yet even in your private message to me -- what I personally would find more valuable is talking about something that you know better than anyone else and that I definitely could learn from. And that would be showing us some of your work and giving us some insight on how you work, what is important to you, the types of decisions you make, what drives you to create the work you do, etc.. THAT is something I would be very interested in hearing. In another thread, we are all lamenting that a lot of the notable people who used to post on this forum are gone, and it has made the forum a less rich place to be. I'd love it if more people like yourself engaged here and talked about their own work.

[meerkat]

You probably just could have stopped with "No, and I won't make the 2011 MOMA New Photography." But you decided that you'd couch your argument squarely in the appeal to accomplishment fallacy. And then go on to make some pretty obvious argument from authority fallacy examples, as well as the hasty generalization fallacy.

Since you are here -- whoever you are since you won't come out and say it yet even in your private message to me -- what I personally would find more valuable is talking about something that you know better than anyone else and that I definitely could learn from. And that would be showing us some of your work and giving us some insight on how you work, what is important to you, the types of decisions you make, what drives you to create the work you do, etc.. THAT is something I would be very interested in hearing. In another thread, we are all lamenting that a lot of the notable people who used to post on this forum are gone, and it has made the forum a less rich place to be. I'd love it if more people like yourself engaged here and talked about their own work.

Hi John, just to make clear: this wasn't meant to be a debate over your personal opinion of a body of work in an exhibition. Sorry if it sounded as such. Your opinions are as valid as any, whether it's from a professional critic or a layperson. And I mean that sincerely. I am interested (and invested) in the perennial dialogue of what constitutes value in art, and how that value is established (esp by those 'in charge,' i.e., the professional art critics.) And how it is established over time and the paradigm shifts that occur in all mediums, particularly photography.

I mentioned a collection of photography (in published form) that represents my work primarily because I hoped those familiar with that exhibition and book would realize it's about 'conventional' photography, and not necessarily 'new photography' (at least in the sense that MOMA has represented these annual 'new photography' exhibitions.) That hopefully roots me in the arena of 'conventional' photographic production and with a vested interest in the 'quality' of the final print, etc.. Which therefore means that these issues of 'technical expertise' are of concern to me, yet on the other hand I'm also receptive to alternative approaches. And I assumed you posted a link to a body of your own work that was meant to imply the same. And so I responded in kind.

Dismissing a body of work because it doesn't conform to my personal agenda, my aesthetic sensibilities, or my current philosophies of my own work, I feel is non-productive. At least for me personally. And when I see comments about the 'atrociousness' of the execution of a body of work, it sparks the dialogue for me (and despite it being 'long in the tooth' it is still a dialogue that continues.) I doubt that either the artist or the curator does not know the difference between a 'conventionally well executed print' and one that has 'jpeg artifacts' and 'jagged edges.' And that promotes investigating the execution of said prints. Which in turn promotes inquiry about this whole notion of what constitutes 'value' in art production and its role as commodity (whether in public display or in private collection.) And who establishes that 'value.' And yes, I posted the links to reviews of the exhibit. I was curious if the technical issues you pointed out were being discussed elsewhere in respect to the exhibit's reception (and I was sincerely curious.)

But again, I'm belaboring a dialogue that has been going on for centuries. And so I'll stop now

I still would prefer not to identify myself. I gave a reference to my work and I'll leave it at that for now. My work is in the 'vernacular pictorial' or 'critical realist' camp (as defined by Benjamin Buchloh) You may find this essay of his interesting (The Politics of Representation, pg 17): http://books.google.com/books?id=JfM...page&q&f=false

And perhaps this article by Hilde Van Gelder: http://www.imageandnarrative.be/inar.../Vangelder.htm

Needless to say, technical 'quality' is paramount in this genre of realism, as it's important not to distract from content although any work will always be read within its particular venue, its physical representation (print size, print type, framing choices, etc.), and titling and captioning, etc.. As you well know, the connotations from all these factors are deeply imbedded. Which clearly had an affect on your own personal interpretation and response to the current New Photography exhibit.

[John NYC]

Hi John, just to make clear: this wasn't meant to be a debate over your personal opinion of a body of work in an exhibition. Sorry if it sounded as such. Your opinions are as valid as any, whether it's from a professional critic or a layperson. And I mean that sincerely. I am interested (and invested) in the perennial dialogue of what constitutes value in art, and how that value is established (esp by those 'in charge,' i.e., the professional art critics.) And how it is established over time and the paradigm shifts that occur in all mediums, particularly photography.

I mentioned a collection of photography (in published form) that represents my work primarily because I hoped those familiar with that exhibition and book would realize it's about 'conventional' photography, and not necessarily 'new photography' (at least in the sense that MOMA has represented these annual 'new photography' exhibitions.) That hopefully roots me in the arena of 'conventional' photographic production and with a vested interest in the 'quality' of the final print, etc.. Which therefore means that these issues of 'technical expertise' are of concern to me, yet on the other hand I'm also receptive to alternative approaches. And I assumed you posted a link to a body of your own work that was meant to imply the same. And so I responded in kind.

Dismissing a body of work because it doesn't conform to my personal agenda, my aesthetic sensibilities, or my current philosophies of my own work, I feel is non-productive. At least for me personally. And when I see comments about the 'atrociousness' of the execution of a body of work, it sparks the dialogue for me (and despite it being 'long in the tooth' it is still a dialogue that continues.) I doubt that either the artist or the curator does not know the difference between a 'conventionally well executed print' and one that has 'jpeg artifacts' and 'jagged edges.' And that promotes investigating the execution of said prints. Which in turn promotes inquiry about this whole notion of what constitutes 'value' in art production and its role as commodity (whether in public display or in private collection.) And who establishes that 'value.' And yes, I posted the links to reviews of the exhibit. I was curious if the technical issues you pointed out were being discussed elsewhere in respect to the exhibit's reception (and I was sincerely curious.)

But again, I'm belaboring a dialogue that has been going on for centuries. And so I'll stop now

I still would prefer not to identify myself. I gave a reference to my work and I'll leave it at that for now. My work is in the 'vernacular pictorial' or 'critical realist' camp (as defined by Benjamin Buchloh) You may find this essay of his interesting (The Politics of Representation, pg 17): http://books.google.com/books?id=JfM...page&q&f=false

And perhaps this article by Hilde Van Gelder: http://www.imageandnarrative.be/inar.../Vangelder.htm

Needless to say, technical 'quality' is paramount in this genre of realism, as it's important not to distract from content although any work will always be read within its particular venue, its physical representation (print size, print type, framing choices, etc.), and titling and captioning, etc.. As you well know, the connotations from all these factors are deeply imbedded. Which clearly had an affect on your own personal interpretation and response to the current New Photography exhibit.

Fair enough. And well said.

[federico9001]

the large format certainly wins for spatiality ever - compared to the best MF digital systems.

[Greg Miller]

It should, but reality may be different.

Come back from shooting a basketball game and have about 700 frames to convert from RAW to Jpegs after a quick edit to dump the junk.

RAW conversion takes time and the the computer groans and moans for an hour or so as it is doing the conversions. During this time I am checking exposures and tweaking for conversion, doing a few at a time as gym lights strobing change color and even exposure a bit during the few hours shooting.

Takes a lot of memory and computer space but if the larger file sizes will give me better quality to sell and publish, it is generally worth it.

Seems every time you turn around the computer needs to be updated or replaced just to run the basics... not like the old Osborne or Kaypro tho I don't think they have a plug in to work with the newer programs anyhow.

But the D800 is not targeted to sports shooters. It is targeted to landscape & studio photographers who don't shoot 700 frames in one session. Sports shooters are much more likely to be using the 12MP D3S or D700.