It's a safe bet---

[John Kasaian]

that someone is going to announce that digi is superior to traditional, scans to enlargements, MF to LF, B&W to color, thermo-nuclear dye processes to ULF :rolleyes: and viceaversa (of course!) Then the fur is going to fly.

This is a laughable but disturbing human sentiment. Artists work in the mediums they enjoy---the mediums that give voice to the heart. It shouldn't matter if it is a cell phone camera or an ITEK satillite imaging device or pigments pounded from roots and applied to a cave wall in France or a Holga.

Establishing technical specs in order to set a standard for some scientific endeavor is one thing but I don't see how it has anything to do with making art. It does have everything to do with bigotry IMHO, by elevating one technology (and it's practioners) above and to the exclusion of others.

Such may be the way to build submarines and missles, but not (once again IMHO) the way to make photographs because it dosen't give voice to the photographer's heart (but rather the reverse!)

Take a photograph you find truly great and compare it to photograph you find mediocre. Aside from square inches, what numbers can you glean that make a formula by which you can consistantly repeat the success of the great photograph with any subject? If it can't be done with a photograph, how can it be applied to a camera (or "imaging device?")

I don't think it can.

I'll shut up and let the pros take over :D

[rwyoung]

Artists work in the mediums they enjoy---the mediums that give voice to the heart. It shouldn't matter if it is a cell phone camera or an ITEK satillite imaging device or pigments pounded from roots and applied to a cave wall in France or a Holga. :D

But what if I use a cell phone to pound the pigments and apply them to my Holga with my back to a French cave wall and am captured in the eye of an ITEK satellite imaging device? Is it art then?:p

[Vaughn]

Cameras (et al) are tools...for a particular job, some tools might be better than others -- for a specific end result. Since it is one of the functions of art to embrace the possibility of an infinite number of end results, there is no one camera, method or approach that can satisfy all. I like the analogy of the mind and the hand. A permanently closed hand is a deformity...so is a permanently open one.

Vaughn

PS Does the above make me a pro? Probably more of a diletante...LOL!

[Turner Reich]

I like the old movies shot in black and white but when a new movie comes out and is digital it is exciting also. Different tools for a different look, the discerning eye and appreciate what is viewed. I all comes down to education.

[Marko]

Aside from square inches, what numbers can you glean that make a formula by which you can consistantly repeat the success of the great photograph with any subject?

But... what do the square inches have to do with great photographs? Are you implying that Europeans (and just about everybody else) cannot create great photographs? :D

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . . . . . . .

... Aside from square inches, what numbers can you glean that make a formula by which you can consistantly repeat the success of the great photograph with any subject? ......

The amount of time, in thought, put into each image . . . . . I think that is the only true measure of success, at least for my approach.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[John Kasaian]

But... what do the square inches have to do with great photographs? Are you implying that Europeans (and just about everybody else) cannot create great photographs? :D

Nope, just trying to show an example of how many strive to assign a numerical value to art. Square inches is one way of measuring a photograph that gives no indication of content, but it is a value which some could use to claim superiority, be it lesser or greater than another photograph. The same could be said for lpmm test charts. The technical performance of a lens is one thing, art made with a lens is something different. The photographer who documented Chavez Ravine in Los Angeles (I forgot his name) with a Ciroflex took great pictures (IMHO) and argueing that those photos would have been somehow better if he'd shot a 'blad because Carl Zeiss optics are sharper than whatever was on that Ciroflex, or a Canon digi because pixels are better than grain, strikes me as rather silly. It would be like saying the Mona Lisa would have been better if DaVinci had used an Epson printer instead.

Art dosen't come from technology, Art comes before technology.
Thats my story and I'm stickin' to it :D

[John Kasaian]

Oopsy!

[Marko]

John, what I had in mind weren't Zeiss, Rollei or 'Blad, it was millimeters, square or not... :D

[Dick Hilker]

You make a great point, John, and echo what I've sometimes expressed here when I've reacted to the technophiles who seem more concerned with how many hairs can be counted with a strong loupe than what the picture is telling us.

While it's true that poor equipment and sloppy technique can distort or muffle the ability of a picture to get its message across, technical perfection alone can make for some pretty dull pictures.

Perhaps it would help if we considered photography as simply another form of expression, tantamount to the spoken word. In language, much can be conveyed with a sigh or a moan, a shout or a growl, whereas that level of expression surely has its limits. At the other end of the spoken spectrum, intricacy and elaborate construction can make our message nearly imposssible for others to understand.

In photographic terms, that snapshot passed around the office printed on copy paper may fully convey everything the photographer wants to share with his buddies: the carefully crafted print on archival paper with rich tonality and classical composition tells another story to a different audience. Both have their places when used appropriately.

Is the democratization of photography diluting the experience for those of us who take it more seriously? I suppose that depends on why we make our photographs. If we make them for our own satisfaction and as expressions of our artistic observations, it shouldn't matter at all. However, if we approach photography as a competitive sport, checking to see who has amassed the most points and obsessing over critiques, the tidal wave of new work might seem threatening.

I'm sure all of us who regularly enter juried shows have wondered, "What was he thinking?" when we've seen the judges' decisions. It's only natural to be hurt when a piece we've worked so hard to create is passed over in favor of something we view as inferior. But, having just completed my first assignment as a juror, I'm much more understanding of their problems and can better appreciate the process. With perhaps hundreds of entries to evaluate in a few hours, it can be a daunting task and, as a result, the decisions made might not be the same as they would if more time were available. I'm beginning to feel that these shows are more about getting your work hung in front of a group of potential buyers than they are about deciding "who's the fairest one of all."

On the other hand, a thoughtful, well-qualified critique can be a very effective way to gain a better perspective of how well we're expressing ourselves and, in a practical sense, how our work is perceived by others. Some may not care about others' opinions, but if we hope to at least pay our own way in photography, we have to recognize that people generally buy what they like -- even if it is only because it'll look well over the sofa!

[Dan Fromm]

John, you'll never make any money as long as you bet that whatever I do is wrong. Not because I'm right but because the oddsmakers got it right.

Seen last spring on a t-shirt on a kinda cute but a bit topheavy young waitress in Marcelo's restaurant in Ajo, AZ:

I am always right
You are always wrong

Cheers,

Dan

[John Kasaian]

Good points!
I'd like to add another thought---photography gear is mysterious and expensive . Buying a kit seems to be a traumatic experience for most people and stressing over gear is a popular pass time around here---hey it's fun and optics especially have myriad variations to consider---but I've noticed a tendency for buyers to seek an "ultimate" of some type (sharpness, bokeh..you name it) which is illusive at best---just about everything has trade-offs involved and the specs used to tout one piece of gear over another I find are more often than not absurdly beyond registering any advantage unless the result is viewed with something like an electron microscope. "Magic Bullets" are best found within, not on eBay. Where this mindset leads to banality is when the poor photographer dosen't take photographs because he can't decide what camera or lens or film to buy because "there has to be something better that will make my job easier (like making something isn't supposed to be an effort) or will make the print superior (if viewed under a microscope!) All this leads to arguements which condemn of some technbique or process because others are touted as being somehow superior (and possibly using one criteria they are, but what has this to do with getting the job done, if the "job" is art?)

I think the analogy of Paul Revere's horse is appropriate. For the famous "midnight ride" Paul needed a horse to carry him through every middlesex (what the &@%#! is a "middlesex?") village and farm. It is reasonable that Paul needed a healthy horse---healthy enough that the poor thing wouldn't drop dead before the mission was completed. It also stands to reason that the horse would be ride-able and not a bronc that would plant Paul head first in the middle of the road, and that the horse responded to simple cues like 'stop' 'go' 'left' and 'right' and come equiped with a saddle and bridle. Such is really all old Paul needed.

What was truly neccesary was for Paul to step across the back of the horse and ride. Just as what is truly neccesary for the a photographer is to take photographs. Arguements over say a gray horse being superior to a brown horse, or a registered horse being better than a mustang strike me as being as silly as saying that a Commercial Ektar is a superior lens to a Dagor or a Deardorff is to a Gandolfi or 8x10 is to 4x5 or film to digital or B&W to color(or vice-versa!)

Don't get me wrong---I love to shoot txp and fp-4 in my 8x10 'dorff and Commercial Ektar---it really is a set up that tweaks my creative juices---but what works for me (and I can recommend for the very reason that it does work for me) may not work for you. For me to "knock" your preference for say 5x7 Sinar with a digital back seems a bit ludicrous. And to even say that my kit "works" isn't even honest in that whats doing the work in this case isn't really even the gear! The camera keeps light out, the shutter lets light in, the film kind of just sits there getting a sun tan. All the mental work of "seeing" the picture and the physcal effort involved in getting the picture on film belongs to the photographer.

[Dick Hilker]

Paul Revere's "middlesex" wasn't referring to some sort of quirky sexual preference, John, rather Middlesex Count just north of Boston where he did his nocturnal meanderings. Come to think of it, there are some pretty quirky places up there today!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Buying a kit seems to be a traumatic experience for most people and stressing over gear is a popular pass time around here---

Aren't you being a bit unfair John? The forum format lends itself for these type of discussion, but I don't think it necessarily means the persons participating obssess over the gear in real life.

Most of us who have been doing this for many years know that a little judicious good technique and knowledge of the negative materials we use will overcome any MTF, resolution, L/mm, blah, blah story these theoretical constraints create. My latest flame war was precesily over this and I am sorry I did not present a perfect example that would probably have ended the pissing match right away. So here goes.

Here are two pictures, one taken with an angulon 159 and one taken with a super symmar 150 XL. In print as well as in the scans you cannot tell which was taken with which.

The angulon is a tiny uncoated lens probably made in the 1940s or 50s. The SS is a modern lens with all the coatings and super duper modern manufacturing techniques possible...yet, in the end they both take great pictures. Why did I sell it? simply because I wanted a tad more movement than the angulon could give me, or I will still be using it.

So my take is this, going back to your Paul Revere example. Those who ride horses, make their living on top of them and depend on them have different requirements than those who just buy them to have them, race them or look at them.. :)

[katie cooke]

The amount of time, in thought, put into each image . . . . . I think that is the only true measure of success, at least for my approach.

That, combined, with the amount of time, and thought, put into each image by a viewer who enjoys it, or is intrigued, or inspired, or perplexed, or otherwise moved by it.

[Vaughn]

Aren't you being a bit unfair John? The forum format lends itself for these type of discussion, but I don't think it necessarily means the persons participating obssess over the gear in real life.

Good point -- it is like going to the beach in the summer and commenting about how obsessed everyone is about showing skin because one assumes that all the scantily dressed people dress like that all the time.

Vaughn

[John Kasaian]

Aren't you being a bit unfair John? The forum format lends itself for these type of discussion, but I don't think it necessarily means the persons participating obssess over the gear in real life.

Most of us who have been doing this for many years know that a little judicious good technique and knowledge of the negative materials we use will overcome any MTF, resolution, L/mm, blah, blah story these theoretical constraints create. My latest flame war was precesily over this and I am sorry I did not present a perfect example that would probably have ended the pissing match right away. So here goes.

Here are two pictures, one taken with an angulon 159 and one taken with a super symmar 150 XL. In print as well as in the scans you cannot tell which was taken with which.

The angulon is a tiny uncoated lens probably made in the 1940s or 50s. The SS is a modern lens with all the coatings and super duper modern manufacturing techniques possible...yet, in the end they both take great pictures. Why did I sell it? simply because I wanted a tad more movement than the angulon could give me, or I will still be using it.

So my take is this, going back to your Paul Revere example. Those who ride horses, make their living on top of them and depend on them have different requirements than those who just buy them to have them, race them or look at them.. :)

Hey Jorge, I certainly don't want to argue with you:eek: but my idea is to avoid being unfair. Your print skills are very impressive and ULF rocksbut those are the tools and talents you use to make art (darn good art) but if everyone else copied you to the extent that people copy Ansel Adams and Edward Weston what would become of the spark of originality?
Here's another example:
Sculptor "A" is passionate about marble
"B" feels the same about granite
"C" about wood
"D" about plastic

Given an arguement about which medium is best, "A" argues that his has the durabililty of stone and allows the accurate rendition of the finest detail without chipping or splinters.
"B" responds saying that marble is too soft and so is not archival and obviously inferior.
"C" comments that stone is to heavy and expensive. Art needs to be displayed at different locations to be truly enjoyed and stone needs a crane while a couple of husky dudes can more a wood statue. Whats more, wood is a renewable resouce and therefore "greener"
"D" answers that for art to truly be appreciated it needs to be seen by as many people as possible. With a plastic mould, exact duplicates can be quickly and cheaply produce so anyone could afford to take one home, plus colors can be moulded into the plastic its self, making the statues more accurate imitations of reality. Besides cutting down trees hurts the ozone.

All these sculptors make good points but they 1) neglect to argue the merits of the statue, which strikes me as a more meaningful topic than the medium, and 2) don't credit themselves with the skill with which they've mastered the medium they've chosen.

New technology pops up all the time and for the very reason one might consider it an advancement, another might consider it a threatening regression---but in art it appears that technology isn't the fulcrum on which the imagination rests. Oh it can open up new creative frontiers for some, but older frontiers remain and are still embraced by artists whose explorations in those frontiers will continue to speak from the heart. If that weren't the case then nobody would be buying (or selling) pencils, pastels, oil paints or B&W film.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Hey Jorge, I certainly don't want to argue with you:eek: but my idea is to avoid being unfair. Your print skills are very impressive and ULF rocksbut those are the tools and talents you use to make art (darn good art) but if everyone else copied you to the extent that people copy Ansel Adams and Edward Weston what would become of the spark of originality?
Here's another example:
Sculptor "A" is passionate about marble
"B" feels the same about granite
"C" about wood
"D" about plastic

Given an arguement about which medium is best, "A" argues that his has the durabililty of stone and allows the accurate rendition of the finest detail without chipping or splinters.
"B" responds saying that marble is too soft and so is not archival and obviously inferior.
"C" comments that stone is to heavy and expensive. Art needs to be displayed at different locations to be truly enjoyed and stone needs a crane while a couple of husky dudes can more a wood statue. Whats more, wood is a renewable resouce and therefore "greener"
"D" answers that for art to truly be appreciated it needs to be seen by as many people as possible. With a plastic mould, exact duplicates can be quickly and cheaply produce so anyone could afford to take one home, plus colors can be moulded into the plastic its self, making the statues more accurate imitations of reality. Besides cutting down trees hurts the ozone.

All these sculptors make good points but they 1) neglect to argue the merits of the statue, which strikes me as a more meaningful topic than the medium, and 2) don't credit themselves with the skill with which they've mastered the medium they've chosen.

New technology pops up all the time and for the very reason one might consider it an advancement, another might consider it a threatening regression---but in art it appears that technology isn't the fulcrum on which the imagination rests. Oh it can open up new creative frontiers for some, but older frontiers remain and are still embraced by artists whose explorations in those frontiers will continue to speak from the heart. If that weren't the case then nobody would be buying (or selling) pencils, pastels, oil paints or B&W film.

LOL... there are arguments and there are arguments.. :)

I think these arguments will always be with us, and the forum format lends itself to the proliferation of these arguments. Depending on how passionate you are about something things can go down hill in a jiffy. I frequent a wood working forum and on one post I made the mistake of mentioning I was going to use biscuits to glue the miter joints for my kitchen cabinet doors.... You should have seen the shit storm that ensued after my post. Now, I am a practical carpenter, I want to make something that looks good and works. Those guys went over the merits of miter joints for cabinets doors, both pro and con for about 5 pages.

WHat I learned from that experience is that you can argue theory and specs till you are blue in the face, but in the end it does not replace practical experience. Some predicted that my doors were going to fall apart since the miter joint is by nature a weak one. After two years the doors are perfect.

HAving said this, I think arguing aesthetics on forums is difficult, art is so personal that some will preffer the "message" in one medium over another. I think the best one can hope for is to find that medium which best fits our talent and vision. ANd this leaves us with the mechanics of the work. It is unfortunate that photography has a lot to do with equipment. IMO the problem lies when people with no experience depend on theoretical limits to make judgements about the feasibility of a medium....thus the pissing matches... :)

[Kuzano]

What the he11 is a CD?

[domenico Foschi]

Jorge, looking at the structure of the second image makes me think that a visit in Mexico, is way overdue.
Where do you find these treasures?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, looking at the structure of the second image makes me think that a visit in Mexico, is way overdue.
Where do you find these treasures?

They are all around where I live. In fact there are so many of them that I am bored to death with them. Given your talent I have no doubt you would make some great photographs. Come on down and I will be glad to show you around and take you to many great places.

[Bule]

If you'll permit an outsider's opinion, an important point that's not usually made in these discussions is that for most folks here and elsewhere, photography is a hobby, not a vocation, even if some few aspire to artistry. The hobby encompasses every aspect of photographing, and just like any other hobby, its participants enjoy discussing and arguing over it. I think it really is that simple. Otherwise, why start this thread, when there's no conceivable way it could contribute to the quality of your photographs? It seems that even arguing about arguing is worthwhile to some of us.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If you'll permit an outsider's opinion, an important point that's not usually made in these discussions is that for most folks here and elsewhere, photography is a hobby, not a vocation, even if some few aspire to artistry. The hobby encompasses every aspect of photographing, and just like any other hobby, its participants enjoy discussing and arguing over it. I think it really is that simple. Otherwise, why start this thread, when there's no conceivable way it could contribute to the quality of your photographs? It seems that even arguing about arguing is worthwhile to some of us.

WHy would you be an outsider?... :) You use a LF camera, you are part of the community...now if you are stitiching dslr images......go back ot the end of the line...LOL.. :D

You make a good point. I guess sometimes those of us who are trying to make a living at this get a bit frustrated.

[Bule]

Thank you Jorge, and don't let us happysnappers get to you. Besides, from what I can tell, the biggest market for B&W LF photography is other B&W LF photographers, so remember, the customer is always right.

[Ted Harris]

Bule, I wrote an article on exactly this point. IIRC it was late 2006 or January 2007. I'll see about putting it up in the free articles section of the View Camera website.

[Bule]

Thanks Ted, I'll look for it.