I don't think a photograph's medium / process changes my opinion of it much, but it does effect my opinion of the photographer. A good photograph can be made with any method you want, in regards to composition and aspects of the scene. The exceptions I can think of are that the resolution of an image is largely determined by the process, and certain types of prints appeal to me more than others. I also have a general dislike of heavy photoshopping which distorts the original image, adds things which weren't there, or removes things.
A photographers chosen medium does effect my opinion of them, in that I find I have more respect for photographers who are really dedicated to their craft and aren't people who just casually take a camera out and happen to get a good shot. That's probably because I like getting into the minutia of a process and appreciate others who do the same.
I have and use, though not as much lately as previously, view cameras from medium format through 11x14. I also have and frequently use a D810 with Sigma Art lenses. The digital camera is always placed on a tripod. It's always used in live view mode. I employ the magnification and scrolling controls just like I would a loupe on view camera screens. Depth of field with the smaller format's lenses almost always obviates any need for tilt. Lens corrections in image editing completely eliminate any need for rise/fall and shift.
The only reasons I can muster to use the view cameras and wet process are negative and/or print life expectancy. Occasions when those are important to me have become more and more infrequent lately. Your mileage may vary.
Most normal people don't give a hoot about the equipment. They either like the picture or don't. Only we forum nerds care about things like f stop and pixels. God help us if we only discussed the quality of the image itself.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Only matters to me if the artist's image and desires do not match the process.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
I think Medium has it place in an artist final presentation, similar to dodging and burning, choice of toning or not, warm tone paper verses cold tone, glossy or matte. As long as the artist made a conscience decision to choose a specific medium and does it well then all is good. However if there are two equally good photographs and one was a medium that is more difficult to produce, I think that would have an edge or slightly greater appreciation of the artist effort.
Forgive me my ignorance of darkroom color printing, but it seems to me to be much more challenging to effectively dodge and burn than black and white. So I would surmise that making a large digital color print might be of better quality and reflect the photographer's intent better, seeing there are fewer hurdles to get over. But really, I don't give a damn how it is done. Just how it looks on the wall, be it in a gallery, museum, public building or private residence.
For those who opine that digital is not a medium, then how about ink, as in a printed book? It's just abstracted dots.
For me the medium makes a enormous difference. Daguerreotypes are of interest to me, but especially if they are pre 1846, without the preserver.
Tintypes are of relative interest to few although I am of the opinion that there is room for scholarship in the future here.
Very early salt prints are of interest but because of preservation issues they ae difficult.
Albumin or collodion prints are wonderful, although I prefer larger prints as opposed to CDV's.
Platinum prints are always appreciated but I do not care for Waterbury prints or photogravures much.
I am very unlikely to want to collect a press photo or a half tone print from an annual of photography.
A beautifully toned 1930's studio print is much more attractive to me than a 1970's soot and chalk glossy.
The material means with which a photograph is presented is very much a part of the appeal and therefore of the viewer's opinion.
Many of your examples are of instances where the photographer really had little choice of medium, it was what was available or popular at the time. I am not sure what you mean by 70's soot and chalk glossy, I can only think of press photos printed flat for reproduction, originals not meant to be viewed themselves.
Platinum prints can be extraordinary, as can carbon prints. But if the image doesn't appeal to me, the medium is moot.
Tools (film, digital, wet plate, alternative process or _ ) or method used to create an image has far less significance to the expressive qualities or abilities of any given image.
Much about what the image says or expresses more than the tools or method applied or used to create that image.
From a previous discussion:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...bigger-picture
Bernice
Bookmarks