Inkjet and Hunington Witherill

[James Bleifus]

Though I'm a fan of his work I am personally disappointed by the Witherill article. Speaking as someone who used to shoot digital I felt it was a tedious rehash, nothing new or insightful. I read it in Lenswork Extended and I now worry that the extended version of Lenswork may be losing steam. This article just didn't match the quality of other Lenswork extended articles, including Huntington's own in the previous issue.

I also found it problematic that a friend of his had posted it on APUG (although I was unable to locate the article on APUG or learn who the friend was. Perhaps the thread has been deleted.). That just felt like someone was trolling for negative responses so that they could publicize and complain about them and proclaim the article controversial. The Witherill piece seems a poorly considered endeavor from all angles.

Cheers, James

[Wayne]

I never saw the article on APUG, although I cant read every post-there was a thread about it though. Due to its content, and A being for ANALOG , I dont think the article itself would have been allowed to remain in the moderated forums anyway.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It was in APUG, it was not deleted and the guy got offended when I called him a troll. He was slightly scorched by some of the members but overall I would say he was ignored. Basically people in APUG have gotten used to someone every so often come on the forum and try to be the "voice of reason" and enlighten us with an open mind and sing the praises of digital.

[David Luttmann]

"It was in APUG, it was not deleted and the guy got offended when I called him a troll. He was slightly scorched by some of the members but overall I would say he was ignored. Basically people in APUG have gotten used to someone every so often come on the forum and try to be the "voice of reason" and enlighten us with an open mind and sing the praises of digital."

Can anyone else see the parallel here of finding a digital thread like this one, posted by a well known photographer discussing digital methods, discussed by another well known photographer discussing digital methods, only to have a few ANALOG users try to....we'll, read the quote above.

Where's that pot and kettle?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well the difference is that we dont go to digital sites and troll by singing the praises of film. It is people like you who and Witherill who cannot stand it that we just dont swallow all your claims.

In the end, who cares what you or anybody uses, you make the mistake of thinking me and others in this forum "anti" digital. Unlike Witherill and those of his ilk, you notice none here mentioned the article in phototechniques that Barnbaum wrote about traditional processes. We are secure in our chosen process, we dont need to justify it.

You also seem to forget that the piece by Witherill is about how digital is so much better ( BS) and expect those of us using analog to keep quiet. Let me remind you that this site was about and has been about LF and traditional processes long before people like you with minimal knowledge of them showed up.

So, your pot and kettle are right here.....

[David Luttmann]

Not really,

As Witherill is experinced in both conventional and digital, most people would value his opinion greater than say, someone who has no experience in digital output.

That said, don't chastise Witherill for appearing on an analog forum when you come to a digital thread and try to enlighten us to free us of our apparent ignorance. I would say a post from Kirk or Witherill carry's a little more weight than an attempted rebuttle from you.

Thanks Kirk for your post.....as usual, it became polluted by the anti-digital brigade.

Cheers,

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

As usual you miss the basic concept. APUG is designated an all analog site, this is a site that allows both and as such I can participate in any thread I damn well please.

If this thread had been started by you, someone who knows nothing about traditional processes, I would have gladly stayed away. After all as you say, some opinions carry more weight, yours carry little.

Until this site is designated an all digital site, you will just have to live with me participating in any thread I want to do so.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Oh and BTW, no more polluted than by the digitoid believers....

[Matt Powell]

If the only thing that matters is the result, then shouldn't the pages from a book be just as valuable and collectable as an "original print"? I understand the logic behind this sentiment, but it just doesn't ring true. Otherwise, a fine poster of Ansel's Moonrise would be worth as much as an original print.
The type of value you're talking about here is monetary - and that's built on scarcity. A poster isn't worth as much because there are millions of Ansel Adams mountains prettying up dentist's offices across the globe. If the poster were scarce, it would be valuable (and this is the case many times when dealing with antique movie posters or early Soviet propaganda posters and the like, posters where few have survived through the ages).

Likewise, digital prints from a respected artist sell fairly close to what traditional processes would have a couple of years ago. Then there are cases like Andreas Gursky - digitally-manipulated (and output on one of those LightJet machines, I think) work selling for sex figures on the secondary market.

How about sculpture - if one programs a CNC machine to knock out an exact replica of something made by hand, shouldn't that be worth as much as the handmade original?
If the CNC-machining is part of its concept and the item remains scarce enough to drive up prices, it will be.

[Matt Powell]

SIX FIGURES, I mean. Not...