Lenswork - what do you think?

[David Luttmann]

You are welcome to your opinion. It is obvious I look for something more in an image than you do.

Could you explain what you're looking for? I am curious as to how you'd react if the image you loved said it was film, only to find out it was a mistake and that digital capture was used. Or, how you would judge an image you loved if the capture method wasn't stated.

I can understand having an interest in the methods, but to simpy state you won't buy a magazine regardless of the beauty of the images because of some preconceived notion or bias as to capture method sounds pretty shallow.

[roteague]

I can understand having an interest in the methods, but to simpy state you won't buy a magazine regardless of the beauty of the images because of some preconceived notion or bias as to capture method sounds pretty shallow.

Simple, I don't accept digital as a basis for fine art. My opinion. So, I choose not to support it, whenever possible.

Frankly, it sounds pretty shallow to me to decide that someone else's opinion isn't valuable, simply because it is different from yours.

[John Voss]

Jensen has made it clear repeatedly that medium of capture (geez, I hate that term) is just not considered at all when choosing the work to be published, and I believe him. In fact, Lenswork seems to impart its own look to everything that is published therein to such an extent that I doubt that some of the actual images look as good as they do in the magazine. Yes, there are some portfolios that don't appeal to me at all, but I continue to subscribe and will do so as long as I feel a bit of a rush whenever the brown cardboard Lenswork package shows up in the mail box.

BTW, I was especially happy about Richard A. Johnson's portfolio, because I grew up within a few miles of the area he lives and photographs in and was delighted to once again see that you don't have to get to the iconic sites to do some very fine work.

[Greg Lockrey]

Simple, I don't accept digital as a basis for fine art. My opinion. So, I choose not to support it, whenever possible.

Frankly, it sounds pretty shallow to me to decide that someone else's opinion isn't valuable, simply because it is different from yours.

Not to stir the pot, I don't want to ruin my reputation as a guy who gets along, but I can say the same for film. If it's not done with a brush then it isn't really art but just merely a craft.

[JW Dewdney]

Everyone can have their say... that's the beauty of the forum, right? Other people can read responses and decide for themselves.

IMO - if it's not done with a brilliant mind -it's just craft. Regardless of medium... brushes, pixels and silver halide notwithstanding. Artists have always used whatever (even NEW) tools were available to them at the time. Granted - it's my opinion - but to dismiss digital (I don't work with the digi stuff, btw) would be to dismiss people like Atget and LeGray as artists, since they were working in a 'new' medium, which, at the time was definitely NOT considered the province of art.

[Ted Harris]

Simple, I don't accept digital as a basis for fine art.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but in this case I am scratching my head. How on earth can you tell if a well executed matted and framed image hanging on a gallery or museum wall began as film or digital capture? I just don't belive you can unless the artist tells you. If there is no label I challenge you to tell the difference. Further, if a work of art moves you will the initial emotion disappear once you learn how it was produced?

[JW Dewdney]

There's a name for that, Ted... but you won't hear it coming from me... though you may see my lips silently utter it from time to time...

[Brian K]

I think the true artist cares very little about how they got the look they wanted and only care about the end result. All the rest is just politics. A lot of Jackson Pollocks work never had a brush stroke, does that not make them paintings?

The problem that I have had with digital is that so many of the people doing it produced poor photography, however now many competent photographers are working digitally so there are some excellent images out there being produced digitally.

[Greg Lockrey]

A lot of Jackson Pollocks work never had a brush stroke, does that not make them paintings?

Yes, but most of them did before he became "commercial".

BTW Jackson Pollock has been a favorite of mine since I was 8 years old. I like his philosiphy about art. It doesn't need to mean anything but just nice to look at.

[Eric Brody]

Lenswork has been a beacon of excellence in the world of photographic journalism since its creation. I believe we all owe Brooks a great debt. He has published many wonderful portfolios that we would not otherwise see, he has promoted the careers of many deserving artists. He and Maureen do a great job.

I knew Brooks when he lived in the Portland area, prior to his move to Anacortes. The group in which he & I participated, Portland Photographers Workshops, now thrives as the Portland Photographers Forum. He has always been open to new ideas, probably enjoys being a bit controversial, but at heart is a photographer, who appreciates fine work.

Were it easy to do a magazine of Lenswork's quality over time, Brooks would have competitors. I see no other magazine out there that showcases portfolios, often of previously unknown photographers, has intelligent discussions, and continues to encourage great work, regardless of format of imaging source. It avoids equipment discussions, "boys with toys," that have so often permeated photographic discussions.

I do not always agree with him, and after 70 or so issues, he's bound to occasionally produce one that is not up to his usual standard, but I am happy when Lenswork arrives. I usually stop my other activities until I can read Brooks' article and Bill Jay's piece. I do not do that with any other piece of mail.

Eric