Inkjet and Hunington Witherill

[Kirk Gittings]

I've never seen his color work. I didn't even know he did any. What is his web address. I can't find it by googling.

[Kirk Gittings]

Whoa! I found it. That color work is downright scary. What is he thinking?

[David Luttmann]

Hey Kirk,

IOt's because his name is Huntington Witherill. Here is the link:

http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/

His B&W work is great. That is what I was looking at.

[paulr]

"I never quite understood why the argument of the ethics of manipulated images has everything to do with digital, it has been raging since well before the "digital revolution.""

This is exactly right; a dislike of manipulated images (wherever you choose to draw that line) has nothing to do with the analog/digital turf wars. Both kinds of tools have always been equally capable of having their way with nature. This will continue to be a question for the artist's personal ethos, not for his or her tools.

Personally, I'm more horrified by the choice of titles (Charriots of Desire???) than the choice of colors. I agree that his colors don't look photographic. But so what. Artificial color has been a part of photography since the 19th century, and people have been bickering about it just as long. And loud poster art has been with us for a long time too.

[John_4185]

[b]RJ Hicks[b] There is a difference between capturing the moment and creating the moment [...]

Indeed! A photograph's place in time is the singular characteristic that distinguishes it among the visual arts. I will not struggle here to give names for the various kinds of photography, but doing so is relevant when one considers a piece among images in general.

[Struan Gray]

Marshall oils? Autochromes?

"The reason academic debates are so vicious is because the stakes are so incredibly low."

[David A. Goldfarb]

Really, the B&W work shows a wonderful eye for finding the abstract in the everyday and the ability to bring out those abstract qualities through printing technique. The PS/color stuff looks like fantasy illustration of the sort one might find in the sci-fi paperback section. Let's hope it's just a phase.

[David Luttmann]

Frank,

I think that may be the point he is making. Some people are so concerned with the method of capture, that they even go as far as claiming anything not shot with film is somehow less valuable....less of a photo. Whether his B&W is shot with film or digital, and whether his B&W prints are output to silver or inkjet doesn't change the fact that the image itself is good. It appears most here recognize that.

As far as manipulation is concerned, this has been going on since the first shutter was fired and has nothing to do with capture method. Sometimes it works, in this case, I don't think it does.

Regards,

[Walter Foscari]

Regarding his b&w work I find his b&w Las Vegas work strangely appropriate. His manipulated images somehow work well for this fictional city. As for the others, besides his obvious technical skills and the initial wow, I can't find much meat really. IMHO of course.

W Foscari

[Bobby Sandstrom]

The answer is really simple and actually very clear. Ask yourself... I pose this question to kirk as he started the thread... Imagine you were holding in your hands a silver print on fiber paper and the same image shot on a digital camera and printed on an inkjet... Which looks richer, more dimentional, and more elegant?" As much as we'd like to squint and wish an inkjet had the impact as a fiber print, it just doesn't. I wish it did. I know Photoshop extremely well. My life would be WAY easier. However, I'm looking for the ultimate in results... I'm looking for what pleases me most. And, at the time, it happens to be traditional analog photography. Just my $.02.