View Full Version : The potential of analog
In this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=21338 Struan talks about some of the unique capabilities introduced by digital technology.
I've become interested in the other side of the coin: the unique capabilities of traditional photographic processes ... ones that I might not have noticed if they weren't set in relief against the newer technology.
The situation reminds me of the relationship between painting and phtogography in the early nineteenth century. Photography shook up the painting and illustration world, because because it was so much better at depicting the world naturalistically. This disenfranchised most of the traditional artists whose stock in trade was naturalistic description. But it liberated everyone else. People started thinking, "if photography does that better, then what can painting do bettter?"
This likely accelerated the development of abstraction in painting ... and all the variants that are as much about paint as about what things look like. The blow from photography encouraged painting's rebirth.
There's a whole range of alchemy possible with traditional photographic materials that has barely been tapped. My friend Anne McDonald paints on photo mural paper with bleach and developer, and every vial of liquid from her victorian medicine cabinet to create her installations. She collaborates with the materials, the chemistry, the sun, and with sheer chance, and in the process is inventing a new language. Some of her pieces are reproduced here: http://www.anneardenmcdonald.com/noflash/body_trans/page_1.html although you can really only appreciate them fully in person.
You could mimic something like this with other processes (including digital ones), but you wouldn't be able to create it for real, the way she does. Her process is a dialog with the materials, and because of this, the materials play a part in her inspiration and also in guiding the process. Their mysterious and unpredictable qualities are as important as her intent.
Her work with this medium isn't photography, but it's as pure a celebration of the beauty of photographic materials as I've seen. She seems to be returning to some of the roots of the medium--obsessed visionaries working into the night with these strange materials, with no instructions, no rule book, and no idea what's possible.
Gordon Moat
29-Nov-2006, 13:09
Polaroid manipulations might be an extreme example of what you describe. The process could be mimicked in software, but the randomness would disappear, as would the hand-made one-off nature of the final results.
Another off the top of my head is long time exposures. The results are not what you can see with your eyes at a location, hence the unique aspect of the results. Sometimes the colour shift of certain films can give a unique look to the final images. Again, a similar look might be possible with enough time in software, though the idea of creating an image in-camera still holds some merit amongst viewers of the results.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)
Doug Howk
29-Nov-2006, 17:42
Photography in the 19th Century was a catalyst for change among artists who had been attempting to portray reality thru painting, etc.. Photography could do it so much better, which is one of its strengths. Digital imaging software has its strengths too; and, at some point, its practitioners will concentrate on those strengths. The work of Jerry Uelsmann, for example, is easily created digitally; so photographers who wish to create a fantasy world can do it more efficiently digitally. Traditional photography needs to explore its strengths, which include alt photo processes; and not worry about mimics.
bruce terry
29-Nov-2006, 22:25
Quote, Paulr: [I] ... Struan talks about some of the unique capabilities introduced by digital technology. I've become interested in the other side of the coin: the unique capabilities of traditional photographic processes ... ones that I might not have noticed if they weren't set in relief against the newer technology.
___________________________________________________________________________
Paul, you have truly hit the nail smack on the head! The more I use my cousin's instantly-gratifying and instantly-manipulatable digital imager the more I love the whole, slow, soulful process of making a PHOTO-GRAPH. This kind of Ying-Yang should help analog photo-graphy get 'rediscovered' and eventually settle into well-organized niche market for those looking for ... soul.
Bruce
Maris Rusis
29-Nov-2006, 22:51
The potential of analog photography does not lie in how the pictures look.
Electronically controlled picture making machines, even at this early stage of their development, can replicate the physical appearance of visual art executed in just about any medium. Grain, sharpness, resolution, tonal range are already under superb control.
The crucial advantage of analog will continue to be that certain classes of subject matter cannot be depicted. Dreams, fantasies, and imaginings, provided they can be described in sufficient detail to generate an electronic file, can be easily printed as pictures. Not so for analog. An actual photograph is as good a certificate of the reality of something as the thing itself. The reason is of course that a photograph is generated by the physical arrival on the light-sensitive surface of something that was once part of the subject matter.
The thesis that all images are equivalent if they look exactly the same cannot hold. An ultra-detailed digital picture of a dinosaur or an angel may be worth an admiring chuckle if it is well done. After all the mere existence of the picture guarantees nothing more certain than a computer operation happened. But a genuine Kodachrome of either dino or angel guarantees existence and that would deservedly have, in one hit, a stunning world-wide intellectual impact.
In the world of the mid to far future digital will be seen as a medium of fiction; never existed, didn't happen, never looked like that. Analog, because of its irreducible dependence on a physical link between picture and subject, will be seen as the medium of fact.
tim atherton
29-Nov-2006, 23:13
I've finally figured out what's wrong with photography. It's a one-eyed man looking through a little 'ole. Now, how much reality can there be in that? -David Hockney
tim atherton
29-Nov-2006, 23:19
Dreams, fantasies, and imaginings, provided they can be described in sufficient detail to generate an electronic file, can be easily printed as pictures. Not so for analog.
Duane Michaels has been doing a pretty good job of just that with analogue for most of his career.
Dreams, fantasies, and imaginings, provided they can be described in sufficient detail to generate an electronic file, can be easily printed as pictures. Not so for analog.
Duane Michaels has been doing a pretty good job of just that with analogue for most of his career.
I can't think of a subject or theme that wouldn't be equally approachable with silver or pixels.
The most profound distinctions are likely to lie where something innate about the process steers the work, or shows up in the finished product. Like in Anne's murals, where the silver paper reacts unprdictably, or in the ideas Struan describes, where digital tools encourage manipulations of time that would probably never occur to you in a darkroom.
The work of Jerry Uelsmann, for example, is easily created digitally; so photographers who wish to create a fantasy world can do it more efficiently digitally.
But then who would buy it if every 14-year old could do it on his mom's computer?
But then who would buy it if every 14-year old could do it on his mom's computer?
This is the old "my kid could do that" protest of modern art. Yeah, maybe your kid could copy a Mondrian painting, too, but that was never the point. It's not valuable because it was hard to make (like a ship in a bottle, or 10-layer wedding cake) but because of the unique vision it represents.
This is the old "my kid could do that" protest of modern art. Yeah, maybe your kid could copy a Mondrian painting, too, but that was never the point. It's not valuable because it was hard to make (like a ship in a bottle, or 10-layer wedding cake) but because of the unique vision it represents.
No. this is the old "Jerry Uelsmann's photos are interesting BECAUSE they're analog photos and not digital" protest. What makes his photos interesting isn't that he's creatively manipulated some images -- there are lots of artists who do that with photoshop, some better than others -- but because he's done it purely in a darkroom without digital enhancements.
At least for me . . .
No. this is the old "Jerry Uelsmann's photos are interesting BECAUSE they're analog photos and not digital" protest.
it's the same protest. the implication is that the work is interesting because of how it's done; specifically because the process is especially unusual or difficult. Uelsman's work might hold some of that appeal for people, but I don't believe it's why he's famous and widely collected. For one thing, the novelty of that kind of cut 'n past negative compositing wore off some time in the nineteenth century. Same with the idea of using it to create symbolist, imaginary landscapes.
Uelsman became the poster child of this kind of work (and there has always been a fair amount of this kind of work) because people like his images. Personally, I've never been a big fan, but that's completely beside the point.
tim atherton
30-Nov-2006, 13:03
it's the same protest. the implication is that the work is interesting because of how it's done; specifically because the process is especially unusual or difficult.
I recently discovered an interesting test.
I've been browsing - and occasionally buying - old photographs of ebay.
On a simple sidebar search in collectables/photographic images/pre-1950 you can set some basic criteria:
Photo type (i.e. process - ambrotype, daguerrotype etc
Subject
B&W or Color
In my own searches I realized I couldn't care less what the process was - I've bought albumen prints, silver gelatin prints, gravures, ambrotypes.
My main search criteria is purely subject - landscapes, seascapes, portraits or whatever. I'm looking for interesting images first and foremost. Something that catches my eye.
But I would imagine there are some (possibly, a higher percentage on the list?) who would search for process type first and that subject would be secondary?
Which would be your main criteria
In fact it's quite fascinating to see what's there - I imagine probably the biggest ever representative sample and "old photographs" displayed in one place - from attics, old suitcases, second-hand book stores, antique shops, flea market dealers etc. There are tens of thousands on any one day.
What's also interesting is that - just like today - there is a high percentage of crap... tons and tons of really really bad Ambrotypes, Platinum or albumen prints etc. The digital explosion may have increased the volume of bad photos out there, but imo probably not the percentage. For every Atget or Marville or Frith there were also hundreds of others wielding a big camera using a fussy, complicated process and still producing dross :-)
The implication is that the work is interesting because of how it's done;
Yes. Exactly. And this should not come as a suprise. Like I said, which would you prefer: a handcarved sculpture or a machined one? A handblown piece of art glass, or a molded one? A handwoven piece of lacework or carpet, or a machine woven one? etc etc. The process is an inseparable part of the result.
And, as it becomes easier and easier for anyone to make similar compositions as Jerry's using a computer, then the perceived value of such digital work will inevitably fall too - much to the benefit of the photogs who stick to pure analog.
Jim collum
30-Nov-2006, 15:52
Yes. Exactly. And this should not come as a suprise. Like I said, which would you prefer: a handcarved sculpture or a machined one? A handblown piece of art glass, or a molded one? A handwoven piece of lacework or carpet, or a machine woven one? etc etc. The process is an inseparable part of the result.
And, as it becomes easier and easier for anyone to make similar compositions as Jerry's using a computer, then the perceived value of such digital work will inevitably fall too - much to the benefit of the photogs who stick to pure analog.
What set's Jerry's images apart from a 14 year old's isn't how difficult it is.. it's the vision of the artist.
Frankly, the actually act of taking a photograph can be done by anyone... i can hand a camera to a 5 year old, and they can take a picture. The ease at which this can be done is irrelevant to the final image. Likewise, a 5 year old can throw paint at a canvas.. but as said.. that does not a Jackson Pollack make.
Given the choice between a print that takes 10 minutes to produce, but exhibiting breathtaking beauty, or a perfectly crafted image taking days of backbreaking labor and decades of practice to create, but producing a technically perfect boring image.. i'd take the first.
I don't want to discount the pleasures of appreciating craft. I think it often adds to the enjoyment of art, especially certain kinds of work that come out of craft-dependent tradition (stone sculpture, etc.). But I think it's a mistake to let that appreciation for finery distract from the point of the whole enterprise, which is the expression of a particular vision.
This is what sets the fine arts apart from disciplines like basket weaving and woodworking.
QT Luong
30-Nov-2006, 16:05
Arguably, photorealistic paintings could have been produced much more efficiently by photographic processes. However, they would not be paintings.
As the saying goes: Content is King.
I don't hear anybody seriuosly attempting to distinguish literature based on the instrument of creation - a goose feather, a fountain pen, a typewriter or a computer. Much less by the pre-press production method of printing process itself.
Since its introduction, a personal computer has touched and more often than not profoundly changed almost every aspect of human life. Text and number crunching were just the first in line because they were the least resource-intensive. The rest followed and now happens to be the time for media convergence, photography included.
Not the first time in history and certainly not the last. It's called progress.
Marko: I'm not sure if "progress" really applies to art. After all, stone lithography and woodcuts are still with us and are as valid a fied of art as ever - and perhaps even more of an art form since they were divorced from purely commercial purposes long ago (and the same can happen with analog photography.) The computer has indeed made the creation of text and number crunching more accessible but the example is not apt since were talking about an art form and neither of those are really perceived as such.
Paul: Far be it for me to say that basket weaving and woodworking aren't art forms where personal visions can be expressed!
And Jim: I am not suggesting that form is superior to substance - vision certainly is important. But the art is in the <i>expression</i> of that vision, the method in which it is created and communicated is an integral part of that vision. As I have mentioned before, today it is possible to use photoshop plug-ins to create "paintings" that are virtually indistinguishable from hand-painted ones - and yet no one suggests that the computer generated "painting" is an equal substitue to handpainted ones. Why? Because what counts isn't just the image that is made, but also HOW it is made. That is not just a matter of craft - the method of creation is an integral part of the perceived value of the end result. Why? Perhaps this is part of our reaction to mass production and mass society - we want a sense of authenticity by collecting "real" things (things perceived to have been made by human hands) as opposed to mass produced things. Whatever the reason, this is tendency which exists. That's why people like analog over digital watches, handwoven carpets over machine woven ones, etc.
And as it become easier through technology to "fake" things - did you know that computers can now compose original symphonies? - this demand for the "real" thing will increase. Or so I predict.
Paul: Far be it for me to say that basket weaving and woodworking aren't art forms where personal visions can be expressed!
oh, they are, but that's not the core of the tradition.
artisans steeped in the tradition of these crafts try to conform as perfectly as possible to a certain style. their work is judged on how fine an example they can make of a shaker table, for instance. this is different from the wood being seen as a blank canvas to be used for creating something new.
of course there are woodworkers who DO work out of a fine art tradition, using the materials to express a vision. but I'm not talking about limitations of wood ... just about different approaches and goals in making things.
Marko: I'm not sure if "progress" really applies to art. After all, stone lithography and woodcuts are still with us and are as valid a fied of art as ever - and perhaps even more of an art form since they were divorced from purely commercial purposes long ago (and the same can happen with analog photography.) The computer has indeed made the creation of text and number crunching more accessible but the example is not apt since were talking about an art form and neither of those are really perceived as such.
Art is a thing of the mind and should not be tied to any particular process but to the original vision/sound/verbalisation. Progress applies to technology which in turn provides new means of expression for the art but it does not supplant it. Photography is photography, no matter what technology is used for capturing the moment in time and it did not replace painting, after all. Those turned to be two different art disciplines. The computer did replace the typewriter, on the other hand, because it was a new technology which provided new, more efficient and more liberating way of expressing the same art.
On the other note, I'm not sure if I understand it correctly, but what you are saying sounds like you're denying literature and poetry the status of art because... why? Because they are these days predominatnly created AND presented using a computer?
You know, every time throughout written history there were howls of protest whenever a new technology emerged, including the press AND the photography. Especially photography!
Once upon a time, there was a fellow called Nedd Ludd. He made a name both for himself and others like him by taking this militant anti-technology stance to the extreme.
But guess what, the sky is still far above and will likely remain there even when the next big technology wave sweeps the computers as we know them away. My educated guess is that art will remain alive and well beneath the sky as well when that happens.
Oren Grad
30-Nov-2006, 22:26
artisans steeped in the tradition of these crafts try to conform as perfectly as possible to a certain style. their work is judged on how fine an example they can make of a shaker table, for instance. this is different from the wood being seen as a blank canvas to be used for creating something new.
There's a place in between, in some cultural settings and art and craft traditions where subtlety of expression is prized over in-your-face, ab initio creation - but where a master is considered no less "original" for working within constraints that seem narrow to an observer from outside the tradition.
I think that in-between place is where most work really happens. It's where craft is important, but it's purpose (and decisions regarding it) is about serving the vision.
Sometimes the vision is best served by a rigid tradiition that provides a broad common language. I think of Weston making nothing but 8x10 contact prints in his early years, Cartier Bresson using nothing but a 50mm lens and printing full frame, Shakespeare writing nothing but sonnets, the Ramones writing nothing but up-tempo, sub-3 minute pop songs.
And good work that seems badly crafted by traditional standards often comes from this place. 70s street photographers didn't want their prints to be pretty, for reasons central to their vision.
P.S.
the tab in my browser truncated the name of this thread to "potential of anal"
Art is a thing of the mind and should not be tied to any particular process but to the original vision/sound/verbalisation. .
Well if you equate art with just sound/vision/verbalization, then passing gass is an art form! (just kidding!) Perhaps in an idealized world art can exist as just an abstract notion but in the real world, how a piece is made and how it is presented has a significant impact on its perceived artistic qualities (which are subjective anyway)
Progress applies to technology which in turn provides new means of expression for the art but it does not supplant it. Photography is photography, no matter what technology is used for capturing the moment in time and it did not replace painting, after all. Those turned to be two different art disciplines. .
Exactly. And the same applies to digital vs. film photography. These are two different art forms; one is not the "progressed" version of the other. There's no reason therefore to assume that one will/should/must supplant the other. And part of the art form of analog photograhy is the process/craft of its creation process - the darkroom.
The computer did replace the typewriter, on the other hand, because it was a new technology which provided new, more efficient and more liberating way of expressing the same art.
On the other note, I'm not sure if I understand it correctly, but what you are saying sounds like you're denying literature and poetry the status of art because... why? Because they are these days predominatnly created AND presented using a computer?.
Well I don't want to pick on you analogy of the typewriter which I don't think is apt. The art in the poem is not in how it is presented. The art in an image DOES and must include how it is presented. These are apples and oranges.
But anyway, to the main point: First, I'm not denying that computer-generated art exists. I merely say that analog photography and digital photography are two different art forms and one need not supplant the other, and that even if digital photograph could replicate analog photography in every aspect as far as the end result is concerned (identical images) still there would be a demand and a cache for analog photography specifically BECAUSE of its analog nature. Just as there are lots of computer artists who use photoshop to generate creative work, but that has not replaced and cannot replaced hand-paintings. The process of hand-painting and skill involved in it gives the hand- painting some extra perceived artistic value that photoshop (rightly or wrongly) still does not possess.
You know, every time throughout written history there were howls of protest whenever a new technology emerged, including the press AND the photography. Especially photography!
I'm not sure if anyone here is a Luddite who is howling in protest about digital photography's impact on analog photography. I for one am even thankful for it. For one thing, I do use digital (for color photography, snapshots, web photograph) Also, digital has has made analog photo gear much cheaper to acquire. Also, I predict that digital photography will evolve itself out of existence. Also, I think the impact of digital will be limited to commecial photography, where there's a benefit to be obtained from the fastness/cheapness of digital (fastness/cheapness isn't a value appreciated in the art world as much.) Also, as digital photography becomes more and more ubiquitious and easy to made, I think there will be a reaction and a rising demand/appreciation for "real" analog photographs. etc. etc.
I don't deny that digital photography is an art form - but digitally-created image and an analog created photograph are simply two different things precisely because of how they were made, and how they were made is a distinguishing factor that has an impact on their perceived artistic value - just as a digital painting and a hand-painting are different.
Sure, the production of film and paper may fall due to digitial technology - perhaps even significantly - but all that means is that the price of film/paper will go up - and that's a good thing too, really, because it will make analog photography to be perceived as even more of a high-flutin' art form!
but digitally-created image and an analog created photograph are simply two different things precisely because of how they were made
All things are different from all other things. The quesion is how fundamental are the differences. Calling something a whole different art form (like the difference between painting and sculpture) requires some deep fundamental differences, compared with more minor technical details (like oil vs. acrylic).
Sculpture and Painting get whole different departments at the museum; oil and acrylic just get slightly different captions. The curators and historians of the world have voted already, and in their view digital and analog photographs just get slightly different captions. If that-- typically, the process name is based on the final form. Few collections distinguish between C-prints made from negatives and ones made from digital files. Because who cares?
Few collections distinguish between C-prints made from negatives and ones made from digital files. Because who cares?
For now. But remember, quality digital photography is merely a decade or so old, and the technology changes with lightening speed. In another decade, there may no longer be such a thing as a digital still image. But the analog photo will still be there, with all of its connotations and perceived values (which will only have grown)
In another decade, there may no longer be such a thing as a digital still image.
how do you figure?
Jim collum
1-Dec-2006, 12:06
For now. But remember, quality digital photography is merely a decade or so old, and the technology changes with lightening speed. In another decade, there may no longer be such a thing as a digital still image. But the analog photo will still be there, with all of its connotations and perceived values (which will only have grown)
i know things change a lot in 10 years.. but why would digital imaging go away?
tim atherton
1-Dec-2006, 12:08
I merely say that analog photography and digital photography are two different art forms and one need not supplant the other, and that even if digital photograph could replicate analog photography in every aspect as far as the end result is concerned (identical images) still there would be a demand and a cache for analog photography specifically BECAUSE of its analog nature. Just as there are lots of computer artists who use photoshop to generate creative work, but that has not replaced and cannot replaced hand-paintings. The process of hand-painting and skill involved in it gives the hand- painting some extra perceived artistic value that photoshop (rightly or wrongly) still does not possess...
I don't deny that digital photography is an art form - but digitally-created image and an analog created photograph are simply two different things precisely because of how they were made, and how they were made is a distinguishing factor that has an impact on their perceived artistic value - just as a digital painting and a hand-painting are different.
The Gursky print mentioned in a separate thread is, as I recall, made from traditional LF negatives, scanned and worked on in photoshop and then printed digitally. Most and probably all of this could have been done "by hand" in a traditional colour darkroom/lab - though certainly more laboriously.
One of those photographs from the edition (and it is classed as a photogrpah by the auction houses, galleries and museums) sold for $2.48 million. If that doesn't demonstrate cache, demand and perceived value (both artistic and monetary - any major museum or collector would take such a print as a major acquisition), I don't know what does...?
Doug Howk
1-Dec-2006, 12:11
As long as digital image practitioners are satisfied with merely imitating every other visual art form, there will continue to be confusion among the general population about what is a digital image. Its similiar to pictorialist period of photography when photographers tried to emulate painting. This ended when Weston, Strand & others realized that photography could be an art form without trying to emulate other art forms. Digital has many strengths including not being hindered by reality, and (most importantly) digital display. Why waste paper when your best viewing medium is digital display?
Jim collum
1-Dec-2006, 12:14
. Why waste paper when your best viewing medium is digital display?
that's not necessarily true. i output my digital images to hand coated Pt paper.. and there's a significant difference between that and what's displayed on a monitor.
tim atherton
1-Dec-2006, 12:21
As long as digital image practitioners are satisfied with merely imitating every other visual art form, there will continue to be confusion among the general population about what is a digital image. Its similiar to pictorialist period of photography when photographers tried to emulate painting. This ended when Weston, Strand & others realized that photography could be an art form without trying to emulate other art forms. Digital has many strengths including not being hindered by reality, and (most importantly) digital display. Why waste paper when your best viewing medium is digital display?
which, of course, is the subject of the parallel thread to this one...
how do you figure?
Why display a still image when you can (soon) just as easily display a moving image?
Jim collum
1-Dec-2006, 14:27
Why display a still image when you can (soon) just as easily display a moving image?
i guess i don't understand. we can choose to capture/display a moving image now, and that hasn't decreased the desire to shoot still images. what will change in the next 10 years that will remove photography as a artform/craft ?
Well I don't want to pick on you analogy of the typewriter which I don't think is apt. The art in the poem is not in how it is presented. The art in an image DOES and must include how it is presented. These are apples and oranges.
I disagree, very strongly.
Photography is photography, an art of picking and freezing a moment in time. Its art lays in composition, framing, timing and tonality. "Digital" and "chemical" are just references to various technologies used to obtain, and even present the image.
You are assuming that main, if not the only method of displaying photography is a framed print hanging on the wall. One could as easily argue that the number of people able to view such a display is miniscule compared to the number of those reached by a book or any other publication. Especially so for photography, whcih is arguably most at home precisely in a book.
Once in the book, there is very little if any chance to tell how a photograph was captured, not to mention processed and printed. But the art of the image itself still remains. Where is the difference, then, and, more importantly, what has the craft done for the art itself?
And all that without even trying to discuss the impact of various "hybrid" approaches, in all its possible combinations between the three distinct phases of the process - capture, processing and printing.
Now, I am arguing all this with an eye on the value of the art and not the price of the artefact, which is good for investment banter but has nothing to do with art per se.
For now. But remember, quality digital photography is merely a decade or so old, and the technology changes with lightening speed. In another decade, there may no longer be such a thing as a digital still image. But the analog photo will still be there, with all of its connotations and perceived values (which will only have grown)
Somehow I have trouble understanding the logic of this statement. There is either a natural progression of technology or there isn't. Art is either independent of technology or it is not. I see no reason why should such a general principle be so selective, even preferential when it comes to one specific method of presenting art.
Why display a still image when you can (soon) just as easily display a moving image?
Because digital or analog, these are different art forms.
Struan Gray
4-Dec-2006, 14:50
I don't feel any sense of awe when I see an image come up in the developer and can't honestly remember ever having felt one. I realise this makes me a bit of an oddity among photographers, and perhaps contributes to my unromantic attitude to process.
I feel that with most photography the capture medium has significance only to the photographer. I like to read biographies of photographers, writers and artists, so this is not the same as saying the medium is irrelevant, but if everything is in focus and the shutter speed is reasonably fast, the nuances are less important than the central message.
I also feel that the central artistic tools in analogue photography are exactly the inhomogenities that the photographic industry has spent the last one hundred and fifty-odd years attempting to eradicate. These are the signatures of process, and eradicating them is merely perfecting the scourging vest that nobody knows you are wearing under your shirt.
I have a soft spot for photograms and direct manipulation of light-sensitive materials in ways other than with lenses. A local favourite is here:
http://www.dawid.nu/index.php?ID=47
Often though, these derive much of their power from the fact that the material clues they give out lure the casual glancer into thinking that they should be comprehensible as photographs. That may dissappear as the popular notion of what a photograph is changes in the digital age. They also allow only a very restricted range of expression compared to direct manipulation of paint, stone or terracotta, and I suspect one of the reasons that such analogue art making with photographic materials is not more widespread is that anyone with the requisite skill can do more with other media.
I disagree, very strongly.
Photography is photography, an art of picking and freezing a moment in time. Its art lays in composition, framing, timing and tonality. "Digital" and "chemical" are just references to various technologies used to obtain, and even present the image..
Handpainted paintings vs. photoshop images with filters made to look like paintings: Are these just paintings presented in different technologies? No. How the image is made has to be considered. Same goes in any art form. Is a sculpture made by a computer the same as a sculpture made by hand? Sure, there probably is a lot of skill involved in programming a computer to cut a sculpture - but is isn't the same as a hand-carved one. Again, how the art work is made matters. The skills involved in the creation of the image - from setting exposure of the camera to the dilution of developer etc. all count in creating the end result, and can all be appreciated as part of the art.
You are assuming that main, if not the only method of displaying photography is a framed print hanging on the wall. One could as easily argue that the number of people able to view such a display is miniscule compared to the number of those reached by a book or any other publication. Especially so for photography, whcih is arguably most at home precisely in a book...
No, I am aware that photos are displayed in a variety of forms. But for "artistic" photography, I can't think of any fors of display except as decor or some sort, or in photobooks. But even the images in photobooks, those are really derivatives of the actual print, and not the actual print (though some people also appreciate the art of the book itself, which is why there are so many photo book collectors).
Once in the book, there is very little if any chance to tell how a photograph was captured, not to mention processed and printed. But the art of the image itself still remains. Where is the difference, then, and, more importantly, what has the craft done for the art itself?
If I was looking at a book of sculptures, I would not necessarily be able to tell a hand-carved on apart from a machine carved one. But that doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist. This isn't to say one is "better" than the other of course - merely different.
i guess i don't understand. we can choose to capture/display a moving image now, and that hasn't decreased the desire to shoot still images. what will change in the next 10 years that will remove photography as a artform/craft ?
Photography will still be there. Analog, defintely. But digital photography will have evolved signficantly -- probably into something else. Display technology is no where near where it could be yet.
But even digital doesn't evolve, analog will still be there. I predict the ubiquity of digital will only serve to highlight the exclusive, hand-crafted characteristics of analog. If we live in a world where more and more people can easily recreate a Michelangelo's David using computers, the hand-carved one will only become more special, not less.
Handpainted paintings vs. photoshop images with filters made to look like paintings: Are these just paintings presented in different technologies? No. How the image is made has to be considered. Same goes in any art form. Is a sculpture made by a computer the same as a sculpture made by hand? Sure, there probably is a lot of skill involved in programming a computer to cut a sculpture - but is isn't the same as a hand-carved one. Again, how the art work is made matters. The skills involved in the creation of the image - from setting exposure of the camera to the dilution of developer etc. all count in creating the end result, and can all be appreciated as part of the art.
If I wanted to talk about computer-generated images, I'd be talking about Bert Monroy (http://www.bertmonroy.com/).
But we are talking about a moment in time captured on a light-sensitive medium by a photographer using a camera equiped with a lens.
What you don't seem to realize, or conveniently choose not to, is the fact that every single step of the way could be done either using digital or traditional means and that those methods could be freely interchangable.
Take for example the hybrid technique in which a photograph is captured using a digital camera and processed using Photoshop but then printed on traditional paper using digital contact negative. Then take the opposite example, where the image is captured using film which would then be scanned, processed using Photoshop and output using an inkjet.
Either example would represent an attempt by a photographer to express his vision of that particular moment/place/mood/event.
What would you have to say about the materials used then? And what about the process? Would it be art or would it be craft? Maybe both? Or perhaps none?
Maris Rusis
4-Dec-2006, 17:18
Cyrus, I have to agree with you virtually 100%. When the current hoopla about electronically controlled image making cools off you views will stand largely confirmed.
tim atherton
4-Dec-2006, 17:38
Handpainted paintings vs. photoshop images with filters made to look like paintings: Are these just paintings presented in different technologies? No. How the image is made has to be considered. Same goes in any art form. Is a sculpture made by a computer the same as a sculpture made by hand? Sure, there probably is a lot of skill involved in programming a computer to cut a sculpture - but is isn't the same as a hand-carved one. Again, how the art work is made matters. The skills involved in the creation of the image - from setting exposure of the camera to the dilution of developer etc. all count in creating the end result, and can all be appreciated as part of the art.
.
does a work of art have to be hand-crafted by the artist only? (or can it be crafted by someone else)
And how well does it have to be handcrafted? Is a work of art that is moderately well handcrafted (or even just handcrafted to a basic standard) always better than a similar work created on a computer, but into which, say, a lot more work has been put?
(for that matter, is an excellently crafted work of art always better than a moderately well crafted one?)
Jim collum
4-Dec-2006, 18:37
well.. i wishing doesnt hurt anything. i don't know where this grassroots movement is going to come from to motivate the cessation of digital imaging.. the quality of the image is going to only improve, and currently there's only a very small percentage that is pushing for something like this. that's not saying film will disappear.. just as platinum, van dke, and all the rest of the alt. processes haven't. but i don't think the chances are very high for film to replace digital at this point.
well.. i wishing doesnt hurt anything. i don't know where this grassroots movement is going to come from to motivate the cessation of digital imaging.. the quality of the image is going to only improve, and currently there's only a very small percentage that is pushing for something like this. that's not saying film will disappear.. just as platinum, van dke, and all the rest of the alt. processes haven't. but i don't think the chances are very high for film to replace digital at this point.
I don' think anyone is talking about the "cessation" of digital - only the separation of analog into an independent, distinct and desired art form. Digital may or may not evolve further as the technology evolves, but it won't replace analog just as painting, lithography etc were not replaced but continue to exist as a distinct & respected art form. Indeed, digital photography may have done analog photography a favor by lessening its commercial applications, allowing analog photography to be "raised" to the lofty level of a perceived "purer" art form!
If I wanted to talk about computer-generated images, I'd be talking about Bert Monroy (http://www.bertmonroy.com/).
But we are talking about a moment in time captured on a light-sensitive medium by a photographer using a camera equiped with a lens.
What you don't seem to realize, or conveniently choose not to, is the fact that every single step of the way could be done either using digital or traditional means and that those methods could be freely interchangable.
Take for example the hybrid technique in which a photograph is captured using a digital camera and processed using Photoshop but then printed on traditional paper using digital contact negative. Then take the opposite example, where the image is captured using film which would then be scanned, processed using Photoshop and output using an inkjet.
Either example would represent an attempt by a photographer to express his vision of that particular moment/place/mood/event.
What would you have to say about the materials used then? And what about the process? Would it be art or would it be craft? Maybe both? Or perhaps none?
The fact that hybrid techniques will/have evolved doesn't negate my argument in any way. There are lots of ways of creating images - like I said photograms don't even require cameras! I don't judge these as being better or worse, just as I don't judge digital as being better or worse than analog. However, even if a digital process and simulate an analog photo, it still won't be an analog photo. Similarly, just because a computer can simulate the chisel marks of a hand-carved statue, doesn't make the end result the same thing as a hand-carved statue. In fact I find it rather ironic that digital filters have been developed to replicate analog effects such as grain!
does a work of art have to be hand-crafted by the artist only? (or can it be crafted by someone else)
And how well does it have to be handcrafted? Is a work of art that is moderately well handcrafted (or even just handcrafted to a basic standard) always better than a similar work created on a computer, but into which, say, a lot more work has been put?
(for that matter, is an excellently crafted work of art always better than a moderately well crafted one?)
I guess it becomes a matter of personal taste which you prefer - a bad handcrafted thing versus a good computer-crafted thing. This is probably true of any art form - do you prefer a bad hand-blown glass vase, versus a good molded one? But in general, yes handcrafted things are perceived to have some value specifically because of its handcrafted quality - whether its woven carpets, cheese, or whatever. Its not just about the end product.
As for whether there's a difference between something crafted by the artist himself or someone else, well, just look at the sale prices of Weston pints that were printing by Weston himself versus other printers. It appears that people prefer the artist does all the work. This is true in the world of painting too, which is why the painters didn't like to advertise the fact that many used students and apprentices in their workshops to complete paintings.
tim atherton
4-Dec-2006, 20:16
guess it becomes a matter of personal taste which you prefer - a bad handcrafted thing versus a good computer-crafted thing. This is probably true of any art form - do you prefer a bad hand-blown glass vase, versus a good molded one? But in general, yes handcrafted things are perceived to have some value specifically because of its handcrafted quality - whether its woven carpets, cheese, or whatever. Its not just about the end product.[/I]
and yet digital photographs and digital art of different forms are very quickly being accepted as collectible by museums and institutions, and are generally being treated on par with analogue or traditional photographs and art?
Vis a vis photography as it stands now, digital photographs of different forms are collectible art and essentially being treated no different from analogue photographs
As for whether there's a difference between something crafted by the artist himself or someone else, well, just look at the sale prices of Weston pints that were printing by Weston himself versus other printers. It appears that people prefer the artist does all the work. This is true in the world of painting too, which is why the painters didn't like to advertise the fact that many used students and apprentices in their workshops to complete paintings.
Walker Evans is considered one of the most important photographers of the 20th century. Some of his work was printed by him, some by students of his or by lab workers. As far as I recall, the value generally isn't effected by that. As long as the work was competently printed how he wanted it, Evans was happy with it. For him continent was far more important than the process
However, even if a digital process and simulate an analog photo, it still won't be an analog photo. Similarly, just because a computer can simulate the chisel marks of a hand-carved statue, doesn't make the end result the same thing as a hand-carved statue. In fact I find it rather ironic that digital filters have been developed to replicate analog effects such as grain!
Most of the digital photography getting attention in the art world is making no attempt to "simulate" analog photography. Its freqent resemblance to analog photography is just a product of the similar capabilities of the materials. Most people are simply choosing between two different sets of tools to do more or less the same thing.
Photoshop filters that try to simulate film grain (or oil paint, or mosaics, or whatever) are a different story altogether. Just don't think this kind of nonsense is new. Cokin still sells a whole line of silly filters to get your analog photographs to look like other things; people have been printing photographs on canvas and gooping simulated brushstrokes over them since long before the days of photoshop; the pictorialists went to great pains to make their photographs look like Barbizon painting.
The fact that a tool can be used in an inauthentic way (and any tool can) doesn't say anything fundamental about the tool.
I don't feel any sense of awe when I see an image come up in the developer and can't honestly remember ever having felt one. I realise this makes me a bit of an oddity among photographers, and perhaps contributes to my unromantic attitude to process.
I never did either, but I was often struck with some awe when a print came out of the fix and and I turned the lights on ... and it happened to be beautiful. It seemed kind of magical that this thing could come into the world with nothing but some chemistry and a little sheparding.
That awe seems to be common but not universal. A student I knew once brought a kid she was babysitting into our college darkroom. She showed him the whole process with so much enthusiasm that I felt myself getting excited just listening to her exlain about stop bath. But the kid looked bored out of his mind. On their way out, I heard him say, "that darkroom wasn't very dark."
does a work of art have to be hand-crafted by the artist only? (or can it be crafted by someone else)
Anyone waxing all romantic (or all classical) about Michelangelo hand-carving his sculptures should read up on the history of his factory.
Jorge Gasteazoro
4-Dec-2006, 20:34
Cyrus, you are beating your head against a wall here. Remember the "process does not matter, only the final print." A very convenient way to ignore the work of those who choose a process precisely because it matters to enhance the final print.
I thought the intial post was troll to once more beat this horse to death, I am glad to have my suspicions confirmed.
I thought the intial post was troll to once more beat this horse to death, I am glad to have my suspicions confirmed.
It's easy to think anything's a troll if you don't bother understanding it. The initial post was a celebration of unexplored uses of analog materials.
Jorge Gasteazoro
4-Dec-2006, 20:47
It's easy to think anything's a troll if you don't bother understanding it. The initial post was a celebration of unexplored uses of analog materials.
Yes Paul, you are sooooo much more complex than I am.... :rolleyes:
As for whether there's a difference between something crafted by the artist himself or someone else, well, just look at the sale prices of Weston pints that were printing by Weston himself versus other printers. It appears that people prefer the artist does all the work.
But the fact remains that Weston's photographs remain Weston's photographs, regardless of who printed them.
Similarly, Steve McCurry's photographs (http://www.stevemccurry.com/main.php) remain Steve McCurry's photographs regardless of the fact that many of them were processed by his assistants, often using digital workflow.
Doug Howk
5-Dec-2006, 05:29
It seems that for Digimagers (Digital Image Makers) the continued existence of traditional photography is an inconvenient truth. The Digimagers would prefer that we just die-off/retire or re-invent ourselves into some obscure artistic cubby-hole leaving photography to those who can mimic it best. But beware, with the tsunami of images from digi-snappers, you can be replaced by a software program that can select/edit from the millions of images available creating that perfect view. In fact, who needs a human touch to just push a button. Place a high-quality video cam in some scenic location that has interesting change of seasons, then provide a data feed to a web-service for those who wish to sit back in their living room watching moonrise over Hernandez on their HDTV. Where is the artist/human in these scenarios of the future of digital? No thanks. I'll keep honing my craft with the hopes that there will be those who appreciate a fine art print made the traditional way.
Jim collum
5-Dec-2006, 06:23
It seems that for Digimagers (Digital Image Makers) the continued existence of traditional photography is an inconvenient truth. The Digimagers would prefer that we just die-off/retire or re-invent ourselves into some obscure artistic cubby-hole leaving photography to those who can mimic it best. But beware, with the tsunami of images from digi-snappers, you can be replaced by a software program that can select/edit from the millions of images available creating that perfect view. In fact, who needs a human touch to just push a button. Place a high-quality video cam in some scenic location that has interesting change of seasons, then provide a data feed to a web-service for those who wish to sit back in their living room watching moonrise over Hernandez on their HDTV. Where is the artist/human in these scenarios of the future of digital? No thanks. I'll keep honing my craft with the hopes that there will be those who appreciate a fine art print made the traditional way.
The only people that i've seen worried, or even think, of this scenerio, are film photographers. If someone wanted another Moonrise, then they can do that with film as well.. go sit and park yourself in the same spot as Ansel, and wait decades until the right light, position of the moon etc are there.. then snap. You still wouldn't have it.. this image didn't exist in reality. it was *highly* manipulated. Wouldn't it be easier to head down to a Barnes and Noble and buy a poster? What would you, or a 'Digimager' (where do these silly titles even come from... i don't now of a single photographer who's moved 100% to digital ever refer to someone shooting with film as a 'Filmiger') do with another copy.. whether it be captured with film or with a digital camera? Hundred of photographers (both film and digital) lined up in Yosemite to film Halfdome with the moon... the exact alignments that occured when Ansel took that shot. have you seen any of those images being sold for tens of thousands of dollars?
Ok. so a digital photographer want's to set up a digital video cam to run, and then create the next greatest image. Where do they put it? The number of locations and angles of view necessary are almost infiinte.. this scenerio just isn't possible.
I shoot both film and digital. I have friends who just shoot digital. As far as I know, they don't belong to some secret society trying to figure out ways of destroying the film industry (ok.. i could be wrong about this, they are an odd bunch :) ... they're too busy getting up at 4am and hiking to some remote location and waiting/praying for the right mix of light and composition to occur. Is it an issue to go back and fake the light/color in photoshop? no idea, but i know film photogaphers do the same thing by using highly saturated chrome film, and then taking it back and pushing up the magenta when printing on high contrast, highly saturated Cibachrome. Or not eve doing this themselves.. just handing the chrome to the local pro lab and saying please print with +20 magenta.
Then what do we do about those people sitting in their computer room, creating non-existent landscapes with their computers and flooding the market with them? You can do this today.. hell, I could do this 15 years ago. Do you see them being sold anywhere? And if you do, are they any more popular than the Velvet Elvis' you see in Flea Markets? The good ones (and believe me, it's *very* hard to produce a good one) end up working for Dreamscape or Pixar... and there are much fewer of them around than any field of analog or digital photography.
jim
It seems that for Digimagers (Digital Image Makers) the continued existence of traditional photography is an inconvenient truth.
I'm sorry, but this is a bunch of mindless, paranoid drivel. Most of the 'digital image makers' I know are traditional photographers who depend to one degree or another on traditional materials. They just happen to be open to other options.
I'm working on a color project right now that I'm shooting on film. I'm scanning the negatives and making workprints on a cheap desktop printer. As I go through the editing process, I'm beginning to face the question of how to make the final prints. I have three general options: darkroom c-prints, digital c-prints, or digital ink prints. It's a beautiful thing to have these choices, all of which are potentially gorgeous. My final choice will based on which look I prefer and which workflow I prefer.
There's nothing remarkable about this approach. I think it's fairly typical of how people are using digital materials these days. If it threatens you, then you're the one with the problem ... not the people using the tools available to them, as artists have been doing throughout the millenia.
Struan Gray
5-Dec-2006, 08:22
If I wanted to talk about computer-generated images, I'd be talking about Bert Monroy (http://www.bertmonroy.com/).
The interesting thing about Monroy's images - to me - is not just that he is using the tools of computer imaging, but that he is also using the grammar of computer imaging. Despite being 'handmade', his images look like they were generated by an algorithm because of his choice of lighting, and the way he uses gradient fills to make shadows and texture instead of traditional painterly techniques. At high magnification his images look like 90s computer game backgrounds. I assume this is deliberate.
Photography has always suffered from a cultural cringe with respect to painting. It's sad to see analogue photography piling cringe upon cringe, especially in a thread intended to celebrate analogue photography's distinct character. Analogue is not simply NOT(digital), which I thought was Paul's original point.
I love well-made things. Chippendale furniture, C16th Venetian glass, Leica cameras, good photogravures. But I also love the world of ideas and concepts. Sometimes the two spheres intersect, sometimes not. No big deal.
Jorge Gasteazoro
5-Dec-2006, 08:48
I'm sorry, but this is a bunch of mindless, paranoid drivel. Most of the 'digital image makers' I know are traditional photographers who depend to one degree or another on traditional materials. They just happen to be open to other options.
I'm working on a color project right now that I'm shooting on film. I'm scanning the negatives and making workprints on a cheap desktop printer. As I go through the editing process, I'm beginning to face the question of how to make the final prints. I have three general options: darkroom c-prints, digital c-prints, or digital ink prints. It's a beautiful thing to have these choices, all of which are potentially gorgeous. My final choice will based on which look I prefer and which workflow I prefer.
There's nothing remarkable about this approach. I think it's fairly typical of how people are using digital materials these days. If it threatens you, then you're the one with the problem ... not the people using the tools available to them, as artists have been doing throughout the millenia.
It is not so much drivel as saying the process does not matter and then turning around and saying, well I will take the pic and then use the process that best makes my pics look prettier......I doubt any of us are "threatened" by you and your choices, in fact since you are waiting to see which one process will fit better it is an indication you have no clear vision of what you want your work to look like. Typical of those using digital and the reason why you tell us the process does not matter. A fuzzy idae all around.
Doug is simply saying that by the vociferous reaction to any comment about digital not being the same as traditional photography that many of you would wish we would shut up and stop telling people the king is naked....I agree with him...
Anyone waxing all romantic (or all classical) about Michelangelo hand-carving his sculptures should read up on the history of his factory.
I was just using it as an example of hand-create form of art versus a computer-simulation of the same thing. The point is that the hand-carved one (whether by Michelangelo himself or otherwise) is perceived to have a separate and distinct value, even if a computer-generated one could precisely replicate it. Similarly, even if a digital photograph can look just like an analog one, it still isn't the same thing. In short, the end product is not all that matters but how it is created also matters.
Frankly I don't see what the big controversy is about this point, really. I'm not saying that digital is "bad" or "less artistic" or anything of the sort - just that analog photography is and will continue to be a valid, respected and viable art form, just as lithography, wood block printing and even oil painting continue to be with us. Heck, look at me - I'm even getting into photo-etching.
But the fact remains that Weston's photographs remain Weston's photographs, regardless of who printed them.
Similarly, Steve McCurry's photographs (http://www.stevemccurry.com/main.php) remain Steve McCurry's photographs regardless of the fact that many of them were processed by his assistants, often using digital workflow.
Of course they're stil Weston's photographs. Who said otherwise?
and yet digital photographs and digital art of different forms are very quickly being accepted as collectible by museums and institutions, and are generally being treated on par with analogue or traditional photographs and art?
Vis a vis photography as it stands now, digital photographs of different forms are collectible art and essentially being treated no different from analogue photographs
I don't think anyone said that digital photos should be treated as lesser to analog. Are calotypes not "on par" with tinotypes or dags or silver-gelatin? Why should digital photos be not "on par" as far as artistic merit goes? But even if they are considered to be "on par" as far as museums and collectors may be concerned nowdays, the fact remains that the processes involved in each are different - and I simply predict that over time that difference will become more of a consideration especially as digital photography becomes more ubiquitus and fewer of us "traditional" types are around in proportion to the digital photographers.
I predict that a reaction (backlash) to digital will develop too (which has already exists - just look at apug!) This is a natural social phenomenon. Artisanal cheese is in huge demand, not because it is more cheesey, but because it is artisanal. Digital watches - once the "hot" thing to own - are now considered to be less "classy" than analog ones. William Morris "arts and crafts" furniture was a reaction to industrialization and mass production, etc etc etc. Technology creates a backlash. In short, the development of digital will, instead of supplanting analog, create a niche for analog instead - a niche that will exist and probably even grow as more people get into analog photography via digital. That's my prediction. Its not a judgment on the artistic merits of digital photography.
Most of the digital photography getting attention in the art world is making no attempt to "simulate" analog photography. Its freqent resemblance to analog photography is just a product of the similar capabilities of the materials. Most people are simply choosing between two different sets of tools to do more or less the same thing.
.
I wasn't suggesting that digital photographers are/should be trying to simulate analog photographers. The point was that EVEN IF hypothetically the end product is the same, the process counts too. I would certainly HOPE that digital photogaphers would use the characteristics of digital to their full benefit!
Then what do we do about those people sitting in their computer room, creating non-existent landscapes with their computers and flooding the market with them? You can do this today.. hell, I could do this 15 years ago. Do you see them being sold anywhere? And if you do, are they any more popular than the Velvet Elvis' you see in Flea Markets?
Of course not. The Velvet Elvis' are all hand-made! They have that artist's touch. Or something... ;)
SAShruby
5-Dec-2006, 09:44
IMHO art is not defined what process or technique you use to create art. Art is very complex definition what it is. It's an abstract word which represents individualism of person who created it.
With respect to analog process I can say, if paitings survived analog photographs, analog photographs will survive digital photographs and digital photographs would become obsolete to virtual reality photoimages, only because you want to hang something on your wall.
Simple as that.
Part of the confusion lies in the idea that the prints are created by a machine rather than created by hand. Having worked with a lot of traditional processes, and for a couple of years with digital ones, I'm starting to question just what "hand made" means with a silver print and what "machine made" means with an inkjet. I do spend more time physically handling the silver paper, but that handling has next to nothing to do with what makes the print succeed or fail.
I could teach any kid to do the burning and dodging and timing and agitating for any of my darkroom prints. It's only slightly more involved that what I have to go through to keep my stupid printer working. In either case, the the craft lies in the decisions that went into determining the final tonal values of the prints. The rest is just nuts and bolts. Some people love the nuts and bolts; others don't. I happen to like them, both the chemical and digital versions, but I'm very aware that they are not the reason behind the whole enterprise. They're just there to serve it.
As far as assigning value based on the amount of hand work, I see this as a pretty minor factor among many. There's much more tradition behind assigning value for artistic reasons, or for market reasons (like edition size, age of print relative to age of work, etc.).
Andy Warhol set up his factory precisely to question the notion that art was about handicraft. His work was about glorifying the mechanical output of his vision. Love it or hate it, it's old news now, and his work sells for big piles of money.
Closer to home for photographers, I think about photogravure. In its traditional use as a mass-publication process, it produces work that's seen as mechanized reproduction (as with the printed copies of Camera Work). When used as an alternative process for small editions, it's seen as an incredibly labor intensive hand process. In either case, the process is the same; the difference is intent and edition size.
I see inkjet printing the same way. If the process is used to make small editions of prints, the amount of work per print is very high and it's essentially a hand process. If it's used for a large press run, the amount of work per print diminishes and it gets seen as a manufacturing process. This is also no different than traditional prints. Take a look at how a commercial lab will fill an order for 500 silver prints. Even if they aren't printed with a machine, they're basically done assembly line style with no individual attention. In all these cases the style of working, not the process itself, contributes any sense of added value.
Oren Grad
5-Dec-2006, 09:45
The interesting thing about Monroy's images - to me - is not just that he is using the tools of computer imaging, but that he is also using the grammar of computer imaging. Despite being 'handmade', his images look like they were generated by an algorithm because of his choice of lighting, and the way he uses gradient fills to make shadows and texture instead of traditional painterly techniques. At high magnification his images look like 90s computer game backgrounds. I assume this is deliberate.
This is exactly right, I think. His pictures have the tell-tale characteristic of looking too "clean" - even the carefully-rendered dirt looks too clean. I'm not up to date on the latest rendering algorithms, but my impression is that it's always been a huge challenge to make an image generated by a computer from scratch look naturalistically grungy.
Getting back to paulr's original point: analog is indeed wonderful for what it is, and will remain so. But I think things like painting on photo mural paper with bleach and developer are something else entirely - a sort of clever gimmick that wears thin very quickly. If you want to create a picture from scratch rather than capturing it optically from the world, there are other materials that are vastly more supple and expressive. For my taste, the really satisfying uses of photographic materials lie in a certain type of more or less naturalistic rendering of what we see in the world. YMMV, of course.
Digital watches - once the "hot" thing to own - are now considered to be less "classy" than analog ones.
Funny thing, those watches. The vast majority of the classy "analog" ones you mention are actually "hybrid" in our current parlance. While they do have the traditional-style display, with arms, sometimes even complete with roman numerals, the vast majority of them use all-electronic - aka "ditigal" - core.
Now, to compare them with our topic - what is the core purpose of a watch? Which type serves this purpose the best - the all mechanical one ("analog"), the all digital piece or the electro-mechanical ("hybrid") type?
And what is it exactly, in your opinion, that makes these hybrids so much more classy than the all electric ones?
Could it be the fact that they simulate the apearance of the old, mechanical, hand-made watch? You know, simulate, in the manner you mentioned that some plugins simulate (meaning "fake") the analog filters or even grain.
Funny thing, those watches. The vast majority of the classy "analog" ones you mention are actually "hybrid" in our current parlance. While they do have the traditional-style display, with arms, sometimes even complete with roman numerals, the vast majority of them use all-electronic - aka "ditigal" - core.
Now, to compare them with our topic - what is the core purpose of a watch? Which type serves this purpose the best - the all mechanical one ("analog"), the all digital piece or the electro-mechanical ("hybrid") type?"
Yes ironic isn't it - despite the fact that the digital stuff may be more accurate and precise, the analog stuff is preferred. And its not just my opinion - look at the latest Watch Magazine (yes, this magazine exists!) - all analog.
http://www.hrwatches.com/
SAShruby
5-Dec-2006, 11:21
Yes ironic isn't it - despite the fact that the digital stuff may be more accurate and precise, the analog stuff is preferred. And its not just my opinion - look at the latest Watch Magazine (yes, this magazine exists!) - all analog.
http://www.hrwatches.com/
I believe it is due to there is no much creativity you can do with digital than with analog. It is marketing and design driven. All you can do is the change how cover looks like, you cannot do too much with digits and backgroung. Sorry folks, it's all about marketing, design and future sales.
Nice watches are for the most bought and sold as jewelry, which is different in a number of essential ways from fine art.
There may be some swiss watches out there selling for the price of a Gursky. I suspect their value is attached primarily to the extreme rarity of a particular antique, or the extreme number of diamonds bedazzling it.
Dick Hilker
5-Dec-2006, 12:47
Would Michelangelo's paintings be worth more if he'd been restricted to tiny brushes? Would we value Adams' photos less if he'd scanned his negatives and printed them digitally? I don't think so. While it's romantic to associate long hours spent inhaling noxious fumes in darkrooms with the resultant prints, are the results of time at the computer to be despised because the photographer didn't have to stumble around in the dark?
To contend that there's a greater physical continuity from subject to print with analog is to suggest that the photochemical reaction of reflected light on a film is somehow more personal than its reaction on an electronic sensor. Stripped of sentimentality, they're simply different roads up the same mountain, where the view at the summit is the same. Yes, it's difficult to achieve a fine print in the darkroom. It takes years of practice. But, contrary to what analog photographers may think, mastery of print manipulation with a computer isn't something that can be achieved without much study and time.
So, let's not pretend that somehow one process ennobles the product more than another. Whether analog , digital or a blend of both, the proceses are no more than the means to an end. That end is the creation of a work of art. That art should be judged on its own merit and not in terms of how it was created or how long it took to create it or who created it.
Analog is wonderful. Digital is wonderful. But, as photographers we should remember that they're but tools in our hands. The act of creating art is essentially two-fold. The act is, in itself, fulfilling to the artist as he interacts with his medium and experiences joy in the process. With any luck, that joyous process yields a product that validates his efforts. The same holds true for every form of art and every photographic process.
roteague
5-Dec-2006, 13:37
Would Michelangelo's paintings be worth more if he'd been restricted to tiny brushes? Would we value Adams' photos less if he'd scanned his negatives and printed them digitally? I don't think so. While it's romantic to associate long hours spent inhaling noxious fumes in darkrooms with the resultant prints, are the results of time at the computer to be despised because the photographer didn't have to stumble around in the dark?
Well, you see that is the very issue. Many of us don't equate digital as being equal or even close to analog. If you do, then that is fine, but you need to accept that there are those that don't.
Analog is wonderful. Digital is wonderful.
Personally, I think digital is far from wonderful. I set digital images as flat (unsharp) and lacking in color. That is what my eyes tell me. Again, IMO.
Jim collum
5-Dec-2006, 14:25
Well, you see that is the very issue. Many of us don't equate digital as being equal or even close to analog. If you do, then that is fine, but you need to accept that there are those that don't.
Personally, I think digital is far from wonderful. I set digital images as flat (unsharp) and lacking in color. That is what my eyes tell me. Again, IMO.
I don't think that's really an issue of quality. that's an issue of aesthetic.. The fact that I like color negative better than chrome doesn't make it better than chrome in general.. just an aesthetic decision on my part. The same goes for someone who prefers b/w, digital color, etc. sort of like saying Martha Casanave's images are poor because she uses a pinhole camera, and not a super sharp lens. It's her aesthetic, and the quality of the image that stands out
Personally, I think digital is far from wonderful. I set digital images as flat (unsharp) and lacking in color. That is what my eyes tell me. Again, IMO.
That's a prejudice, not an opinion. If you based your opinion on looking at comparable examples you'd see something else. I'll let anyone take a look at my silver prints next to my ink prints, made from the same negatives. One enlarged in a darkroom with an apo lens, the other scanned with a desktop scanner. It might be an illuminating experience.
It's also irrelevent to the original point of the thread, which is that analog materials have a lot of potential that's completely untapped and unexplored. The more people start relying digital tools for routine image making (straight photography, etc.), the more we might see others inspired to go down totally new paths with the chemical materials.
Dick Hilker
5-Dec-2006, 14:31
When we're talking about something as subjective as art, Robert, we each approach it with our own biases and, unfortunately, our prejudices. When I use the term "wonderful," I express my reaction to being able to produce B&W and color prints of a size and quality never possible for me in a darkroom. It's not that I haven't tried, having had my first darkroom about sixty years ago. Never, before scanning my slides and negatives into the computer, have I been able to produce prints for which people pay hundreds of dollars. For a retiree, that's pretty wonderful!
Unless you've seriously tried digital printing and seen the results of a skilled photographer, you risk approaching the medium with prejudice. I continue to use film because I believe it captures the image with greater fidelity and clarity than current digital technology allows. Many who use digital cameras would disagree and many create beautiful images with a digital camera. I print digitally because my reasonably practiced eye tells me I can do a better job that way.
I'll agree that much of photography's reward is in the process and I have fond memories of many years spent in my darkrooms. But, as good as the results were then, today's are clearly better by any measure. And that's pretty wonderful.
I respect traditionalists in every medium, but I feel it becomes snobbishness when the olde ways are held in hushed admiration simply because they're old and the new are untried.
Jim collum
5-Dec-2006, 14:45
Unless you've seriously tried digital printing and seen the results of a skilled photographer, you risk approaching the medium with prejudice. .
Correct me if i'm wrong, Robert, but i thought all of your printing was digital
jim
naturephoto1
5-Dec-2006, 15:03
I can't think of a subject or theme that wouldn't be equally approachable with silver or pixels.
The most profound distinctions are likely to lie where something innate about the process steers the work, or shows up in the finished product. Like in Anne's murals, where the silver paper reacts unprdictably, or in the ideas Struan describes, where digital tools encourage manipulations of time that would probably never occur to you in a darkroom.
I know that I am coming into this discussion late, but I would have to disagree with you Paul for multi hour exposures which can be performed on film but as far as I am aware are not posible digitally. I am referring to such subjects as Star Trail images or night time images that can run from perhaps 30 minutes to hours. The images can be taken on film however they can be printed by either conventional or digital means.
Rich
Jim collum
5-Dec-2006, 15:11
I know that I am coming into this discussion late, but I I would have to disagree with you Paul for multi hour exposures which can be performed on film but as far as I am aware are not posible digitally. I am referring to such subjects as Star Trail images or night time images that can run from perhaps 30 minutes to hours. The images can be taken on film however they can be printed by either conventional or digital means.
Rich
that's probably correct.. using normal commercial digital cameras.. however.. almost all astro photography has moved into using digital (cooled sensors).
roteague
5-Dec-2006, 15:21
Correct me if i'm wrong, Robert, but i thought all of your printing was digital
jim
I don't see digital photography and digital printing as being the same thing. They are two different technologies. To clarify, yes I print normally from a Chromira machine - partially out of choice, and partly because getting Ilfochrome chemicals to Hawaii is extremely difficult (I don't have a hazmat license for one thing).
FWIW, I don't mean that my opinion has any more validity than yours, it is just my opinion.
roteague
5-Dec-2006, 15:22
It's also irrelevent to the original point of the thread, which is that analog materials have a lot of potential that's completely untapped and unexplored. The more people start relying digital tools for routine image making (straight photography, etc.), the more we might see others inspired to go down totally new paths with the chemical materials.
I don't discount your original point. However, threads are like conversations; they tend to wonder around and change.
Jim collum
5-Dec-2006, 15:25
I don't see digital photography and digital printing as being the same thing. They are two different technologies.
FWIW, I don't mean that my opinion has any more validity than yours, it is just my opinion.
yea.. never thought you had that opinion.. i don't consider these as antagonistic discussions.. just fun to debate and exchange personal perspectives. would suck if everyone's were the same (as much as it would if everyone's images were the same)
jim
roteague
5-Dec-2006, 15:27
yea.. never thought you had that opinion.. i don't consider these as antagonistic discussions.. just fun to debate and exchange personal perspectives. would suck if everyone's were the same (as much as it would if everyone's images were the same)
jim
Agreed. I don't want, or intend these type of discussions to get personal. I'm the kind of guy that I may argue with you on things, but would still enjoy your company over beer.
naturephoto1
5-Dec-2006, 15:49
yea.. never thought you had that opinion.. i don't consider these as antagonistic discussions.. just fun to debate and exchange personal perspectives. would suck if everyone's were the same (as much as it would if everyone's images were the same)
jim
Certainly would be boring. :eek:
Rich
John Kasaian
5-Dec-2006, 16:01
Well, I actually prefer photographs made by children. I find them far more interesting, as well as drawings and paintings and sculpture.
When I look at some high dollar artwork the thought sometimes keeps running through my head that "Dang, this feller sure did a nice job of copying my kid's preschool craft project!"
There is a percieved atitiude that artistic freedom is freedom to "do" and not freedom "from" I go with the notion that artistic freedom is freedom "from"
Try going out to photograph with one lens, or even better go out and make a photograph of something within walking distance of where you sit reading this. Hey, limit yourself even further by shooting in B&W (who needs color?)with a barrel lens (why mess with shutters?)and leave your light meter at home (trust your judgement) Contact print using a bare lightbulb. Freedom from gear! Imagine the possibilities!
I've noticed that ever since I graduated to the 64 crayola box my coloring has suffered a marked decline in creativity. I suspect that the likewise limitless possibilities digital technology would artistically effect me for much the worse. The most attractive thing about LF that conviced my to mothball my Nikon F2 was that there isn't a system The most rudimentary skills (like following the instructions on the yellow envelope) and gear (thats a huindred years old and made out of wood fer gosh sakes) can yield wonderful photographs if the subject & the vision is worthy
My 2-cents. I'll slither back into my hole and cover myself over with leaves now.
bruce terry
5-Dec-2006, 17:03
Photo-graphs or pixelated-images, either, when we sanctify the picture printing process as holy grail and the seeing-of and taking-of the picture as mere foreplay we almost always end up with boring junk, really boring junk.
Painterly aside, what we See in our head and record with a camera lens and shutter is where the true Art is. The Craft, the process that follows, may bring forth the Art but won't make a purse of silk out of the ear of a sow, be that ear digital or analog.
On subject, as has been said and said, analog forces a slow and very thoughtful pace, makes you pick your fights carefully and enjoy the long ride. Digital-instancy on the other hand is on The Other Side, a galaxy away and the drug of choice for 99% of the rank-amateurs and the only logical choice for most professionals. Totally different worlds. Analog will stay around - if not for us oddballs at least as a salve for the increasingly-digitally-depressed.
Bruce
Jim collum
5-Dec-2006, 17:23
On subject, as has been said and said, analog forces a slow and very thoughtful pace, makes you pick your fights carefully and enjoy the long ride. Digital-instancy on the other hand is on The Other Side, a galaxy away and the drug of choice for 99% of the rank-amateurs and the only logical choice for most professionals. Totally different worlds. Analog will stay around - if not for us oddballs at least as a salve for the increasingly-digitally-depressed.
Bruce
I also think this is indivdually dependent. I don't shoot any faster now than i did before.. i dont' take any more images than previously. I started out shooting 4x5, which requires some patience when capturing.. either with film or digital. while digital may provide the ability to do this, the choice is still up to the indivdual.
So, let's not pretend that somehow one process ennobles the product more than another. Whether analog , digital or a blend of both, the proceses are no more than the means to an end. That end is the creation of a work of art. That art should be judged on its own merit and not in terms of how it was created or how long it took to create it or who created it.
Again, I for one am not suggesting that analog is "better" or more "enobled" than digital. But they are different, even if they manage to produce an identical print, becasue they are two different process, and that difference cannot simply be ignored. if you believe that only the end result matters, then we're just going to have to disagree since that's simply a matter of taste preference, and cannot be rationally proved or disproved as "right" or "wrong".
if you believe that only the end result matters, then we're just going to have to disagree since that's simply a matter of taste preference, and cannot be rationally proved or disproved as "right" or "wrong".
There IS no "right" or "wrong" in art.
Photography IS art.
Therefore, we agree to disagree.
On subject, as has been said and said, analog forces a slow and very thoughtful pace, makes you pick your fights carefully and enjoy the long ride. Digital-instancy on the other hand is on The Other Side, a galaxy away and the drug of choice for 99% of the rank-amateurs and the only logical choice for most professionals. Totally different worlds.
i see advantages to both, especially in terms of personal development. if i taught a begining photo class, i'd absolutely encourage my students to use digital hand cameras (although i've never owned one), simply because the volume of work they encourage, and the instant feedback, packs so much potential learning into the available time.
I also see huge advantages in slowing down and using a view camera, especially for people more accustomed to shooting from the hip. being forced to be deliberate gets people to see and consider things differently, and to learn a whole different set of lessons.
Of course point-n-shoot technology is nothing new, but these new digi cameras take the idea a couple of notches farther.
bruce terry
5-Dec-2006, 19:10
... I don't shoot any faster now than i did before.. i dont' take any more images than previously. I started out shooting 4x5, which requires some patience when capturing.. either with film or digital. while digital may provide the ability to do this, the choice is still up to the indivdual.
Very interesting Jim! You're in the middle boonies and you've setup and done your homework, both the creative part and the technical part - agreed those stages are beyond digital, for now. And you trip the shutter. So then you go ahead and fold things up and move on? Without peeking, making another exposure if the first one doesn't suit? How do you chose not to review your just-taken image when you can?
Curious Bruce wants to know!
Jim collum
5-Dec-2006, 19:21
Very interesting Jim! You're in the middle boonies and you've setup and done your homework, both the creative part and the technical part - agreed those stages are beyond digital, for now. And you trip the shutter. So then you go ahead and fold things up and move on? Without peeking, making another exposure if the first one doesn't suit? How do you chose not to review your just-taken image when you can?
Curious Bruce wants to know!
when shooting 4x5 digital, you have to review before you shoot. the laptop controls the scanning back... white balance, exposure. You can even use it to focus (and i've tested friends who shoot 4x5... this will focus more accurately than viewing the groundglass with a loupe)
for me, this is an advantage.. i went to Angkor and took it with me. when i left there, i knew that i had shots that were exposed and in focus. these were once in a lifetime shots, and i was able to ensure that i got them. if i were shooting film, i could have done the same thing, in about the same amount of time. with polaroid film. so i dont review it after.. but before. however, i was able to post a 4x5 shot to the web in Siem Reap on the same day i took it :) (ok.. that' more novelty than anything.. but friends and family appreciated seeing what was going on as it happened)
jim
bruce terry
5-Dec-2006, 21:17
... if I taught a begining photo class, I'd absolutely encourage my students to use digital hand cameras (although i've never owned one), simply because the volume of work they encourage, and the instant feedback, packs so much potential learning into the available time
... I also see huge advantages in slowing down and using a view camera ... being forced to be deliberate gets people to see and consider things differently, and to learn a whole different set of lessons.
Pardon the selective quoting Paul, but I'd like to enforce what you say:
Slowness: I was always very sparse with 35 and 120 negatives, then 8 years ago sold everything for 8x10 and discovered - as you point out - deliberate in LF is spelled in Capital Letters. A nerve/muscle issue now forces me to give up the Big One and return to 35mm, and the Slow of Big has led me to a tiny, rangefinderless, slow-setting Leica O as my only camera that more than ever demands infinite patience and careful thought. I love it.
Learning: Last year a cousin early-retired to a pretty town just south of us. Never taken a serious photograph in her life but decided eight months ago that Southport NC on the mouth of the Cape Fear River was a 2007 Calendar. She bought a mid-level digital and in two months took about a million pics. I reviewed many images with her on her laptop and you know what? She has the touch, the Eye, and her calendar is a success. If not for digital imaging she would never have started this journey, and she would not have discovered she was a good image maker right out of the gate.
Bruce
bruce terry
5-Dec-2006, 21:40
when shooting 4x5 digital, you have to review before you shoot. the laptop controls the scanning back... white balance, exposure. You can even use it to focus (and i've tested friends who shoot 4x5... this will focus more accurately than viewing the groundglass with a loupe).
Ask a stupid question, get an intelligent answer - shows how much I don't know. Hardly any time saved in the field I now see, but to have the first digital bullet out of the barrel hit the bullseye, then spin your 4x5 caliber Peacemaker back into it's holster? That's utopian!
Bruce
tim atherton
20-Feb-2007, 10:30
Photography:first utterance. Sir John Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society. "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". .
I thought the term Photography was first used by Antoine Hercules Romuald Florence in Brazil prior to this?
adrian tyler
20-Feb-2007, 11:14
i hope this isn't too far off topic, but from painting to photography, i can understand that that was a big breakthrough. but is photography somehow not photography? i can't understand this whole digital analogue trauma, and i sense deep down it is more about insecurity and fear than anything else, yet we are truly at the edge of some wonderful developments, pigmented inks, cotton papers, digital internegs for contacting...
i have been a reasonably diciplined yoga practioner for over 20 years, and never in none of the ancient scriptures does anyone differentiate between "mental" and "physical".
what i hope to achieve with a good picture is therefore resides in neither of these realms, sure i shove my hand about in the light and do duck impressions when making an analogue print, but my inner intuition guides me the same way on-screen. later i can go out and chop wood if the urge takes me, but what remains is the picture.
the idea.
Gordon Moat
20-Feb-2007, 12:11
Hello Adrian,
It seems that some people want to place hierarchies upon photography, or when defining photographers. In some ways I consider myself an artist who happens to use a camera, yet in other ways I define what I do as photography. I am formally trained in fine art (specializing in oil painting) and have a degree in Fine Art. People who run a much stricter hierarchy would probably look down upon my reliance on processing labs, commercial printing, scanning, and colour C-41 prints that come out of a machine.
I have done my own E-6 and B/W processing, yet I rarely do that now. I have done my own B/W printing, including learning how to do platinum prints, yet I rarely do that now. Most of my images that ever get printed end up in brochures, advertising materials, or magazines (often trade publications), with very few ever being displayed in galleries. I have a good exhibit history, and even a few awards, yet I don't call myself a fine art photographer.
In my view of photography, the one original is that piece of film. At a recent seminar I attended put on by APA, the commercial photographer doing the lecture mentioned Ansel Adams as one of his inspirations. He showed examples of Moonrise Hernandez on the lecture screen printed straight and with dodging and burning done to get the final image many of us know. The idea of the print as the performance is what the lecturer found inspiring, yet his application of that today relates to post processing due to his being a commercial photographer. So here we have an interpretation, a photographer who shoots with a beat up Crown Graphic, then scans on a high end scanner and post processes his images, which end up only printed commercially as offset prints in publications.
My own feeling and opinion is that I can enjoy a print in nearly any medium, since I feel a print is only a representation of that original bit of film (or digital capture). I can enjoy a well made B/W or alternative process print, yet when I see the same image in a book, or some magazine, I find it just as enjoyable.
I see the current situation as offering us many choices in expressing our creative vision. That commercial photographer, who has less than 10 years in the business, yet chooses to shoot with a Crown Graphic and one lens; then scans and post processes his images. Or those like Dan Burkholder who manipulate images in PhotoShop, then create negatives from which to print wonderful platinum prints. These guys don't seem to have a hang-up with the tools and choices.
Funny thing was that during that APA lecture from that commercial photographer, lots of those attending were amazed by a few things: 1. not shooting digital, 2. using large format, but not state of the art large format, 3. mostly using available light, though sometimes adding only one strobe, and 4. making a good living off technically inferior gear and an obvious lack of knowledge about tools in PhotoShop. Again, just my opinion, but it often seems that the people trying to put the most emphasis on the gear and methods they use emphasize those aspects as a way of marketing, or to attempt to put themselves higher up in a hierarchy of whom they consider to be photographers.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)
tim atherton
20-Feb-2007, 13:25
Hello Adrian,
It seems that some people want to place hierarchies upon photography, or when defining photographers. In some ways I consider myself an artist who happens to use a camera, yet in other ways I define what I do as photography. I am formally trained in fine art (specializing in oil painting) and have a degree in Fine Art. People who run a much stricter hierarchy would probably look down upon my reliance on processing labs, commercial printing, scanning, and colour C-41 prints that come out of a machine.
Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)
I read a couple of comments recently - one was that people like Thomas Struth and Jeff Wall are artists who work exclusively in photography.
The other was that there is lots of talk of "artists who use photography" but no-one ever turns it around and talks of "photographers who use art"....
scott_6029
20-Feb-2007, 14:56
To answer the question potential of analog, I would state the impact long exposures can have on film, both color and black and white, which I think was made earlier.
The other potential is:
1. Slowing down - at least I do with LF -
2. Big GG helps me see better - also upside down I think helps too, seriously.
3. Working with film and development can help one see the impact of light and contrast
4. Remember, it's not always about the final product, but the JOURNEY! There is more of a journey with analog (which commercial photogs may not like because of time demands - I perfectly understand this as they have deadlines).
5. Burn more calories standing in the darkroom than sitting on your butt printing digitally.
6. Gets you away from a computer screen.
7. You get to go back to the same place and shoot some of the same images because you screwed up initially.
8. It's fun.
9. It's not always predictable
10. fill in the blank
Yes, I can appreciate both a digital and analog image - It's about the image - foremost for me, but the craft has to be good, period. Good image, lousy print may work, but printed better certainly helps....and can make or break the image....So, the printed medium or way of capture, really doesn't matter to me if it's done well.
Now when it comes to me personally paying money for a print or piece of art, I look at all aspects, image, craft and historical significance.
Do you pay more for a serigraph, lithograph, or giclee or original painting? In general one pays more for the original....So, craft, time involved, medium, etc, matter when purchasing an image to me and I value it accordingly.
How about a Poster anyone? :).
So, yes, who cares how it was captured, analog or digital, printed analog or digital (as long as the image and craft work)?
Dick Hilker
20-Feb-2007, 15:43
"So, yes, who cares how it was captured, analog or digital, printed analog or digital (as long as the image and craft work)?"
"The end justifies the means" and "There are many roads up the mountain, but from the top the view is the sams."
I feel this way, too, but to those for whom it's primarily about the journey, the methodology takes on the greatest significance. I feel like an artist with a camera, and especially so on forums where the greatest concern seems to be making the process as complicated as possible, perhaps to support that sense of hierarchy.
Amidst the convolutions of monitor calibrations and ICC profiling, I've ventured some rather simplistic solutions that work quite elegantly, but which are shot down primarily because they are so simple. Seems as though I've just noticed that the Emperor's naked!
Another expression that finds plenty of application for me is, "To plan ahead, you must know what is to be the end." Fitting the right tool to the job, whether to shoot 35mm or LF, means putting aside prejudices and deciding what kinds of images are to be seen in what venues and then mentally working back through the various steps to determine what format will best yield the desired result. If we're doing all this just for the fun and challenge of it, then we can work the other way around and use a minidigicam to record the Grand Canyon or an 8 X 10 to do sports photos. But, the important thing is to maintain a sense of perspective by knowing what is to be the end.
roteague
20-Feb-2007, 16:13
I feel this way, too, but to those for whom it's primarily about the journey, the methodology takes on the greatest significance. I feel like an artist with a camera, and especially so on forums where the greatest concern seems to be making the process as complicated as possible, perhaps to support that sense of hierarchy.
There is probably as many opinions on this as there are photographers.
How the image is created means a great deal to me, I do not do any of my serious work using digital cameras (for reasons I don't want to go into on this post). I do scan and print from a digital negative, simply because I have no intention of spending hours in the darkroom - I'm a photographer, not a printer - and I prefer to spend my time behind the lens.
Greg Lockrey
20-Feb-2007, 16:52
But then who would buy it if every 14-year old could do it on his mom's computer?
The "hard part" is being the first.
Art is not about the process but the result, and it's art only if it moves you. The process is just "craft".
Melchi M. Michel
20-Feb-2007, 17:29
This is an interesting post.
What I find most interesting in these types of discussions (i.e., those comparing digital, analog, and hybrid processes in some way) are not people's arguments for the relative merits of one material or tool versus another, but rather their discussions on how these tools and materials affect the creative process. Invariably, someone from one camp suggests that digital tools remove some aspect of the "craft" and/or someone from the other camp suggests that process and provenance are either entirely irrelevant or of only marginal significance with regard to the art.
While I don't see much point in arguing over which set of tools is "best" (just use the tools that work well for you), I find it silly to insist that the process whereby which a piece of art is made is irrelevant and that only the final product matters. With regard to consumers of art, this can easily be shown to be false. There exist many excellent copies and forgeries of famous paintings, for example, that are perceptually indistinguishable (to their buyers) from the originals. Yet the simple distinction between the labels of "original" and "copy" can mean a difference in millions of dollars for the seller. Other posters have pointed out analogous situations with respect to handmade versus machine made crafts.
The stranger thing however, is the idea that it should not matter to the artist. For me (and any true amateur) creating art is about "creating" and not "having created" I practice photography precisely because I like the process of creating photographs, not because I need to check accomplished photographs off of a list. And this has nothing to do with analog vs. digital. I would neither choose to have a robot take digital photographs or to have an assistant take analog photographs for me because that defeats the purpose, it removes me from the creation process. It's not that this breaks some rule (for some, the art may lie in directing the assistant or programming the robot), it's just that it would take the enjoyment out of doing photography (for me).
Brian C. Miller
21-Feb-2007, 13:09
How many times have you cropped your image? One thing everybody forgot is the medium of the analog film compared to the digital sensor. When I photograph with film, I know that I can take a portion and expand it to fill the entire print. When I use a digital camera, I know that I can't do that.
For instance, I have a 4ft panorama. There are active elements in it, including birds, planes, and a racing boat. The original format was 645 with E100S. What digital camera could replicate this? To my knowledge, none. The analog wins out with resolution.
The analog will win out with the natural look of film. Photoshop can add grain, but its nothing like film.
There are distortions to which film lends itself.
And as Melchi points out, there is the creative process itself. There is the process of the camera, the process of the film, and the process of the print. All are aspects of the art of photography, of producing a photographic work of art. All of this is an internal part of the artist using photography. The tool in the hand is part of the process, too. From sub-miniature to insanely huge, people identify the process with the tool in their hand. How many people are Nikon, Canon, or Leica freaks? The materials matter to the individual creative process.
How many times have you cropped your image? One thing everybody forgot is the medium of the analog film compared to the digital sensor. When I photograph with film, I know that I can take a portion and expand it to fill the entire print. When I use a digital camera, I know that I can't do that.
Here we go again...
As you say yourself, those are different mediums with different workflows. The fact that you can't do something using one of the those doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means that you dont' know how to do it.
For instance, I have a 4ft panorama. There are active elements in it, including birds, planes, and a racing boat. The original format was 645 with E100S. What digital camera could replicate this? To my knowledge, none. The analog wins out with resolution.
Are you referring to resolution or magnification? Either way, which film, which lens, which process, which workflow and which output medium are you comparing here with which digital sensor, which lens, which capture format, which processing application, which workflow, which output device?
To answer your question: the camera that easily comes to mind here is a Canon 1DsII. Not to mention Hassy and various PhaseOne backs...
The analog will win out with the natural look of film. Photoshop can add grain, but its nothing like film.
Whenever someone mentions "the natural look of film", the first thing that pops to mind is Velvia. Can anybody really confuse those colors with anything found in nature?
Also, can ANY negative film be considered "natural" at all?
So, it has to be a tranny then. So comes the next question: Which film? They all render colors and even detail differently. So, one of them has to be THE natural film. How about the rest, do we qualify them as less natural? If so, what is the gradation, and why does it matter in the first place?
There is the process of the camera, the process of the film, and the process of the print. All are aspects of the art of photography, of producing a photographic work of art. All of this is an internal part of the artist using photography. The tool in the hand is part of the process, too. From sub-miniature to insanely huge, people identify the process with the tool in their hand. How many people are Nikon, Canon, or Leica freaks? The materials matter to the individual creative process.
So how does that make digital any different? There is still the process of camera, then there is the processing of an image, then there is the process of printing. I don't see that as any more different than, say, the process of creating a dageurrotype.
It's still all art, it's only a different technology and the process of creation, that's all.
Dick Hilker
21-Feb-2007, 14:48
For me (and any true amateur) creating art is about "creating" and not "having created"
That so eloquently condenses the essence of the process -- thanks, Melchi! It is, after all, more about the journey than the destination. It seems the biases we hold are rooted more in our personal experience than objective lab tests of digital vs.analog. Those of us who formed our sensitivities in an analog environment are likely to see digital images as coarse and oversaturated, whereas the photographers who've come more recently to the field treasure the vivid, vibrant colors and the greater spontaneity of the image-capturing process.
I sometimes wonder how I might feel if I were younger and in a position to start over in photography: would I have the patience to labor for hours in a darkroom when a few minutes might produce a digital image at least as good? Would my portfolio improve if I weren't aware of the cost of film with each exposure and able to rapid-fire a digital camera?
I'm glad I eventually came to the analog capture/digital printing compromise because, for me, it's the best of both worlds and a way to pursue my art that has produced the best results ever. Will I ever change? Only if I'm convinced that newer tools can help me be a better artist. At my age, those changes better happen pretty soon!
Kevin Thomas
21-Feb-2007, 16:46
Surely it is the message and not the medium? Our hands/eyes control the tools, but our mind/heart/soul fashions the vision. Very few if only of use can claim to be original, but if we are true to ourselves we will be authentic!
Artists I feel should spend more time looking at their vision and less looking over the shoulder.
Create and be happy
Kevin
Brian C. Miller
22-Feb-2007, 11:00
Here we go again...Yeah, reading comprehension time. Digital devotee vs. everybody.
The fact that you can't do something using one of the those doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means that you dont' know how to do it.Cropping and resizing is terribly simple. I'm sure most people have figured that one out.
Are you referring to resolution or magnification? ... To answer your question: the camera that easily comes to mind here is a Canon 1DsII. Not to mention Hassy and various PhaseOne backs...The scene I reference was photographed from a distance of well over 1 mile (Mapquest (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&country=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=home&formtype=address&popflag=0&latitude=&longitude=&name=&phone=&level=&cat=&address=&city=seattle&state=wa&zipcode=), Alki Point to Seattle). The scene stretches from north of the Seattle Science Museum to the old Sears Tower. I can clearly see the windows on ships using a 22x loupe on the tranny, and its good on the drum scan. If you want to point me to an image where 3ft objects are discernable on a 16Mp back for a distance of nearly 1-1/2 miles, I'd appreciate it.
Whenever someone mentions "the natural look of film", the first thing that pops to mind is Velvia.I was thinking of film grain. I.e., the way an enlarged image looks on a print, from a negative. Its one of those peculiar things, such as bokeh. Like I wrote, Photoshop's addition of grain isn't something I personally like. It doesn't look like it came from film at all. The artificial grain isn't adjustable for size and density. (Maybe in your version of Photoshop, but not mine.)
Also, can ANY negative film be considered "natural" at all?
So, it has to be a tranny then.What's with the arbitrary exclusion? Is this a straw man argument? And then you go off about tranny varieties. In my process, I balance colors against a reference card. Don't you do that, too?
So how does that make digital any different? There is still the process of camera, then there is the processing of an image, then there is the process of printing. I don't see that as any more different than, say, the process of creating a dageurrotype.
It's still all art, it's only a different technology and the process of creation, that's all.Oh, please, could I see your dags? Please, please, please??? <serious>I'll send you a box of 4x5 film (your pick) and a pound of home-roasted coffee.</serious> I'll send your dags right back the weekend after I get them, even if its only for a day that I get to see them. <facetious>Really, I will! I'll treat them with care. Really! I won't drool on them, and I won't let my cat anywhere near them. I'll be good! I'll wear gloves and a clean lab bunny suit. OK, so maybe not a clean lab bunny suit, but how about one left over from Halloween last year?</facetious>
As for the creative process, some authors prefer writing a novel on a legal pad first. Stephen King spoke about using off-green paper in an old typewriter up in the attic for the first draft. If you're fine with digital, good on you. Yes, I have a digital camera. Yes, I have a scanner. Yes, I have an Epson 2200 printer. Whoopee.
No, I'm not going to spend $20,000 plus for a high-end digital camera or back, or go rent it if I don't need it. (As for renting, the way rentals work in my area is that the full price of the camera is charged on a credit card, and then the charge is rescinded when the camera is returned. I don't have a card with a $20,000+ limit.) I am not going to run after some goodie because someone else does. If you have the resources for that, fine. Peer pressure doesn't work on me. What I use has to deliver within my constraints, no exceptions. I'll use digital where it suits me, and I'll use analog where it suits me.
Nothing like a nice thoughtful response, huh, Brian?
Since you don't seem interested in an honest discussion, I'll have to dissapoint you - I am not terribly keen to participate in another meaningless, infantile this vs. that argument, and this shows all signs of turning into one.
Bye.
tim atherton
22-Feb-2007, 11:34
The analog will win out with the natural look of film. Photoshop can add grain, but its nothing like film.
.
what's "natural" about film? (among other things, Velvia anyone?)
roteague
22-Feb-2007, 11:40
what's "natural" about film? (among other things, Velvia anyone?)
One thing I've come to realize in the past few months, is that we don't all see colors the same way. I know that seems pretty basic, but I never really realized it, simply because Velvia does fit how I see color (with my eyes) - brillant and saturated.
tim atherton
22-Feb-2007, 11:52
One thing I've come to realize in the past few months, is that we don't all see colors the same way. I know that seems pretty basic, but I never really realized it, simply because Velvia does fit how I see color (with my eyes) - brillant and saturated.
I realise that Robert - it was just a fairly obvious example - probably not a good one (you could say in a way your vision is vision is possibly abnormal - in a purely scientific sense - some people only see in b&w or in two dimensions).
My point was, there is nothing "natural" about film. It's as artificial as digital, it's just that we've grown used to it over the years (colour transparency would probably look entirely and startlingly "unnatural" to someone who had only ever seen b&w plates....)
Dick Hilker
22-Feb-2007, 12:02
"we don't all see colors the same way."
Amen! I was never so aware of that as when I started making giclee prints for some local artists: even after satisfying my own eyes that the colors were a perfect match, there were still some who saw them differently
Do you suppose there could be regional, national or ethnic differences in how we see or hold preferences for color? As a New Englander, could my bias toward subdued shades be a result of what I see around me, compared to that of Robert Teague from Hawaii who prefers bright, saturated colors? Hmmmm . . .
roteague
22-Feb-2007, 12:08
I realise that Robert - it was just a fairly obvious example - probably not a good one (you could say in a way your vision is vision is possibly abnormal - in a purely scientific sense - some people only see in b&w or in two dimensions).
My point was, there is nothing "natural" about film. It's as artificial as digital, it's just that we've grown used to it over the years (colour transparency would probably look entirely and startlingly "unnatural" to someone who had only ever seen b&w plates....)
I think you are right Tim. I have a friend who is color blind, and I never could understand it. I may be unusual in how I see colors, that is entirely possible.
I also agree with you about there not being anything natural about film - every film is biased to some degree. I remember using different films because of the look of that particular film. In fact, even though I use Velvia almost exclusively, there are still times when I use Provia.
I realise that Robert - it was just a fairly obvious example - probably not a good one (you could say in a way your vision is vision is possibly abnormal - in a purely scientific sense - some people only see in b&w or in two dimensions).
My point was, there is nothing "natural" about film. It's as artificial as digital, it's just that we've grown used to it over the years (colour transparency would probably look entirely and startlingly "unnatural" to someone who had only ever seen b&w plates....)
Precisely. We've come to view grain as an acceptable artifact, and even then only to an extent. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many "fine grain developers" nor all those discussions about methods for reducing or smoothing the grain out.
Same with color. Our eyes are adaptive to color changes in the context of the surroundings, sort of Auto White Balance, if you will. Film is rigid and needs filtration to bring out the desired results. And on top of it, there is an issue of processing and subsequent manipultion in the case of negatives. Those are all fairly known properties of film as a medium.
The entire process of creating a photograph, regardless of the technology used, is highly subjective, starting at the moment we put an eye to the camera and start deciding about framing. There is nothing natural in having a stereo-vision equiped animal trying to translate a tiny portion of the world into a two-dimensional representation with grossly exaggerated or even elliminated colors and changed perspective, all of it either frozen in a fraction of a second or blurred with a multi-minute exposure.
But the results can be stunningly beautiful and that's why we call it art.
Please note that this is not a bashing or a put down of film, it is just an attempt to more or less objectively state the facts, and pretty much the same can be said of any photographic technique or technology. Preferences (should) have nothing to do with it.
It is from that angle of view that I find any attempt at bashing one method over the other so infantile as to be annoying (and that goes both ways equally). Somehow, and perhaps naively, I still don't expect to see that kind of behaviour on a board like this, populated mostly by seasoned, educated adults.
Whenever we fall back into one of these ritualistic arguments, one of the dead horses is invariably "the ends justify the means" vs. "it's all about process" ... or something to this effect.
I suspect in most cases the two sides are talking about significantly different things. On one hand there's the importance of process to the person using it; on the other hand there's the importance of process to the rest of the world, which only experiences the end result.
Some artists are strongly attached to one process or another. In some cases it might even be primary. I've talked to potters who would have no interest in making anything if they couldn't get their hands into the wet clay. Or my friend who I mentioned way back in this thread, who uses photo paper and chemistry to produce organic, unpredictable results. For some artists process simply a matter of comfort and habit. Hemingway always typed at the same old typewriter, standing up. Who knows, maybe he also wore a pair of lucky socks. Whatever worked for him. Other artists are less concerned about process and will use whatever tools they can get their hands on, to say what they have to say.
Among viewers (the rest of the world) there are some admirers of process who seem to focus on the craft aspect of the work they like. Often this only takes the form of annecdote ("I heard he spent nine years making this print, and then went insane from mercury poisoning!"). But most viewers are left with the thing itself-- the final object as a vehicle of the artist's vision, with the story of how it came into the world remaining the private business of the artist.
The importance of process will always be the subject of conversations. We'd do well to remember that it's a completely different conversation for the maker than it is for the viewer.
Scott Davis
22-Feb-2007, 15:28
Hemmingway standing up while typing was not a ritual so much as it was a result of a bad back injury (I think incurred during his service as an ambulance driver in WW I). The same typewriter though was very much a "fetish" type activity that had no specific rational basis.
Brian C. Miller
22-Feb-2007, 20:52
Nothing like a nice thoughtful response, huh, Brian?
Fallacies of Arguments (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/)
Yes, it is a thoughtful response. Don't expect less when you start with an ad hominem reply to my post. I would hope for better from educated adults. I received education about fallacies in high school and college. Surely you can formulate a reply without fallacies?
Brian C. Miller
22-Feb-2007, 21:21
what's "natural" about film? (among other things, Velvia anyone?)
Straw man argument, here. "Color" does not equal "grain." There is a natural pattern to silver particles within the emulsion. My edition of Photoshop gives only one type of "grain" pattern to an image. This may be improved in later editions, I don't know.
As for color rendition, I balance it out using a reference card and software. I use Profile Prism (http://www.ddisoftware.com/prism/about.htm). If a photographer wants more or less color saturation, there's the appropriate Photoshop controls or various film.
When I address the natural look of film and specifically grain, then that's what I honestly put forward as a natural aspect of real film. Many photographers adore a particular grain structure inherent in a specific manufacturer's film. I have read many times TMax decried for the grain of TriX or PanX, or Ilford over Kodak. Sometimes I like grain a lot and I shoot a half-frame PenF with Ilford. Other times I don't want grain and I use 4x5 with Techpan.
But the addition of grain via Photoshop is far too artificial for me. I consider the effect grotesque compared to real film grain. Again, my copy of Photoshop isn't the latest, so I don't know if that has been improved.
tim atherton
22-Feb-2007, 21:42
Straw man argument, here. "Color" does not equal "grain." There is a natural pattern to silver particles within the emulsion. My edition of Photoshop gives only one type of "grain" pattern to an image. This may be improved in later editions, I don't know.
When I address the natural look of film and specifically grain, then that's what I honestly put forward as a natural aspect of real film.
Straw man argument, here is that self referential? Because that's exactly what you are doing in your argument.
Colour was just one simple example. The vision you are extolling is quite limited. In this context, film is as artificial as digital. Neither is "natural" - both introduce artifice. One may be more pleasing to the for some (especially those who have grown used to a certain look or feel to a photogrpah) - one more pleasing to others, but neither is natural.
One further aspect of this (though a slightly depressing one) is that many of these are precisely the same arguments that were made first, when photography came along and then at a number of pivotal points when photographic technologies changed. What's intriguing is that if you look back through the accounts and journals of the various art and then photography societies of the day, you can see some of these arguments made almost word for word. Of course, they rarely made any difference. Photography persisted, film replaced plates, the box brownie brought photography to the masses and colour was taken seriously - no one managed to prevent those and many other developments, even though they tried hard at the time.
Now, I wonder when someone is going to suggest that analogue captures a real image whereas digital only captures a virtual one...
Fallacies of Arguments (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/)
Yes, it is a thoughtful response. Don't expect less when you start with an ad hominem reply to my post. I would hope for better from educated adults. I received education about fallacies in high school and college. Surely you can formulate a reply without fallacies?
Well, perhaps you should peruse that list yourself in a little more detail. Or, perhaps, you did and are now applying the knowledge.
I am, frankly, tired of all the petty little this vs. that flame wars against the entire technology and people who use it. I have made my point ever since I joined the board to not use ad homines and to not use profanities. But that does not mean I will refrain from disagreements or from voicing them, quite to the contrary. My response was not aimed at you personally but at your attempt to turn a topic of one technology's potential into an unneccesary bashing of another, by turning subjective preferences into some sort of "facts".
As it turns out, trying to discuss things with someone who is not interested in the discussion but is looking only for arguments is a fool's errand, therefore I am not the least bit interested in continuing this.
Now, I wonder when someone is going to suggest that analogue captures a real image whereas digital only captures a virtual one...
There is, actually, one fellow who has done this on more than one occassion on this very board. He put so much effort into the hypothesis that it simply kills any desire for discussion. But it could be a quite entertaining read for those so inclined. ;)
Maybe the issue is that analog captures a naturally invisible latent image, while digital captures an artificially invisible latent image. Or that the digital image is only virtually latent, while the analog image is actually latent. Or that it actually has to do with the Latin root of the word "image" which comes from "imitari" (to immitate) and implies nothing at all about transistors, thereby proving the traditional position correct and all others false.
See also the Anglo-Saxon root of the word "bullshite" which lies outside the intellectual bounds of the current discussion.
tim atherton
23-Feb-2007, 09:54
Maybe the issue is that analog captures a naturally invisible latent image, while digital captures an artificially invisible latent image. Or that the digital image is only virtually latent, while the analog image is actually latent. Or that it actually has to do with the Latin root of the word "image" which comes from "imitari" (to immitate) and implies nothing at all about transistors, thereby proving the traditional position correct and all others false.
See also the Anglo-Saxon root of the word "bullshite" which lies outside the intellectual bounds of the current discussion.
:-)
(ps - I want to grab me some of these images that are floating around waiting to be 'captured" - will a butterfly net do...?)
Robert Hughes
23-Feb-2007, 11:20
The hand-made vrs machine-made argument has been argued since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and hasn't lost steam yet. My wife is a handmade paper artist; she sheetforms papers one at a time. When we first met she showed me her studio with its manual tools. I foolishly remarked, "Gee, you could make this a lot more efficient with some computer control", and she nearly threw me out. Go figure.
roteague
23-Feb-2007, 12:05
Maybe the issue is that analog captures a naturally invisible latent image, while digital captures an artificially invisible latent image.
Or, maybe the issue is one of simplifying life.
I have a friend in Sydney, Australia who is a commercial photographer, he has worked in the darkroom and processed film for 40+ years. He went digital several years ago, because he found that doing everything on the computer simplified his work and life. For me, my career has been built around technology, I've been working with computers since the mid 70s (in one form or another), and I find shooting film gives me the same feeling, of simplifying life.
Dick Hilker
24-Feb-2007, 09:48
I find shooting film gives me the same feeling, of simplifying life.
Much as I love film and use it exclusively, it seems much more complicated to load a camera, expose the film, unload the camera, take the film to the darkroom, load the tank, mess around with the chemicals, dry the film, cut it up and then scan it into the computer, than it would be to plug a digital camera into the computer and instantly have an image to work with.
Maybe cutting a piece of wood with a fine handsaw is simpler and more soul-satisfying than zipping it through an electric table saw, but it's more time-consuming and probably not going to provide as uniform a cut. As we consider our reasons for preferring analog to digital, I think we shouldn't let romance cloud our objectivity. But then, should we have to be objective about such a subjective experience as making art?
roteague
24-Feb-2007, 19:40
I find shooting film gives me the same feeling, of simplifying life.
Much as I love film and use it exclusively, it seems much more complicated to load a camera, expose the film, unload the camera, take the film to the darkroom, load the tank, mess around with the chemicals, dry the film, cut it up and then scan it into the computer, than it would be to plug a digital camera into the computer and instantly have an image to work with.
Maybe cutting a piece of wood with a fine handsaw is simpler and more soul-satisfying than zipping it through an electric table saw, but it's more time-consuming and probably not going to provide as uniform a cut. As we consider our reasons for preferring analog to digital, I think we shouldn't let romance cloud our objectivity. But then, should we have to be objective about such a subjective experience as making art?
I don't process my own film, nor do I do my own prints. I pay someone else to do what they are good at, and I do what I am good at. I don't use film out of romance, I use it because I prefer the way film looks.
Dick Hilker
25-Feb-2007, 09:37
I don't use film out of romance, I use it because I prefer the way film looks.
I can't think of a better reason. As a successful professional photographer, you've needed to make business decisions as well as artistic ones and have found the best mix of resources for your particular circumstances. With the volume of prints you must sell and the extensive traveling you do, it's understandable that you would depend on others to do the production work.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.