a final thought, what is art anyway?
It's a mark we were here, a very old tool
The World's Oldest Known Drawing Is a 73,000-Year-Old Hashtag
many living things leave a mark
even Covid which is not considered alive...
a final thought, what is art anyway?
It's a mark we were here, a very old tool
The World's Oldest Known Drawing Is a 73,000-Year-Old Hashtag
many living things leave a mark
even Covid which is not considered alive...
Tin Can
I concur 100% with every part of Jason's quote above. If you want a few images that will blow you away large format will be a good vehicle for you. I'm making silver gelatin 4x5 contact prints and they are lovely to me and jewel-like. Then I scan the contact print
Garden of the Gods 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr
4x5 Sinar Norma 90mm Sinar Super Angulon HP5 in PMK+ contact print on Promaster VC RC. My first attempt at split printing. Multigrade dev
Flikr Photos Here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/
“The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”
― Mark Twain
Daniel that's stunning...and a perfect use of PMK!
Thanks John
I have about 90 negatives from a month long camper trip to all over Colorado made in fall 1992
This one is a keeper but I have a lot more to reprint when I have time
Flikr Photos Here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/
“The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”
― Mark Twain
I think the question originally posed combines at least two issues: first the argument that arose simultaneously with the invention of photography, "is photography an art or a craft?" and secondly, "what is art."
The "what is art" part can. for the sake of this discussion, be ignored. Given that one of the most recognized works of art is Duchamps's urinal, anything we want to think of as art IS art. So the use of film and a large format camera has nothing to do with whether the end product is art. I think we get further if we substitute the ideas of "creativity" or "expressing the photographer's idea."
Many of the posts deal with chemicals, equipment, or printing. These are all elements of craft. (Personally, although thankfully others always 'correct me', I think of myself as a good craftsman rather than as an artist.) Many times (and many threads) answer the question of why do we enjoy LF photography by saying "we enjoy the process" which to me indicates the craft side of the equation more than the creative side. Think of how many well-crafted, but ultimately dull, images we all make.
So, going back to the OP's comment, I tend to agree that digital capture (or film scanning) and PhotoShop allow for greater creativity, and ultimately more degrees of freedom in expressing an idea. This isn't a question of being familiar with the entire film exposure, development, and printing process, it is a question of degrees of creativity allowed. The digital world simply lets you do more with an image in terms of expressing feelings or concepts. So while I love the craft of LF photography, the process, and since some of my prints end up hanging in exhibitions, they are by definition "art," I do think that our love of LF does in some ways limit our ability to fully engage our artistic natures.
Peter, there is truth to this. The surrealistic work of Jerry Uelsmann comes to mind, done the hard way in a darkroom, before the invention of PhotoShop. And now we have the work of Pedro Meyer cited by the OP, who has used the tools of PhotoShop for his surrealistic offerings. Surely greater freedom.
I find the process is like dancing, that is to let your partner lead, you follow, and it will take you to places that both of you never thought you would go...
"Wet" processes seem to have a distinct "personality", but there are good and bad days, and sometimes those pesky planets have to align... ;-)
Steve K
Bookmarks