I just love that wonderful tactile quality that digital storage provides. Who want some flimsy flat piece of film or print paper. And just think of
what all those discs will be worth to Antiques Roadshow in few decades? But yes, so tactile ... you can play frisbee with em (ever try that with
a real print?)..Your retriever will have much more fun fetching a disc than a piece of film... or better yet, they're wonderful for skeet shooting.
Yes, just soooo collectible too....
I have 2 each of these great cameras!:)
Originally Posted by chip j
there's not much point in debating what the dead "masters" of photography would have done if they were living today, because if they were living today their collective experiences would have been different and they, more probably than not, would be different people. Do not seek validity in a medium because a certain someone used it, seek validity in a medium because it makes sense to you. Who gives a fuck if Avedon used a Rollei, or Cartier-Bresson used a Leica, or if Peter Lindbergh used Plus-X. If you think these people are great photographers because of what materials they had available, you are insulting their legacy, as well as displaying a completely inept perception of every aspect of photography.
If only I had a Super Ikonta B and a box of Portriga Rapid (with cadmium, naturally), then I could REALLY show those bastards from the 1950s what's what.
Seriously? That shit is weak.
We should take all the time that we've spent reading this mostly pointless thread and spend double that making photographs with whatever equipment is closest at hand, and not wondering if the ghost of Andre Kertesz is judging us for not using his preferred brand of film.
Smoking Gauloises to look French doesn't make you French, it just makes you look pretentious.
Actually, I think it just makes you smell really bad.
Originally Posted by Chris Lange
I agree with APUG Ken that there are differences and that the differences matter to me.
But whether or not something matters is different than whether or not it is valuable.
The least persuasive argument in favour of any process is one that says essentially that it is "just as good" as another process.
And as far as I am concerned anyone who thinks that it is only the subject and content of a photograph that matters is probably just looking at photographs on computer screens, telephones, televisions, magazine pages or maybe 4x6 prints from the drugstore.
what are they supposed to edition their work at ?
Originally Posted by Chris Lange
i am really at a loss seeing how a film - negative makes something "authentic"
but i understand it is the basis of what some versions of chemical photography are based on ...
It can. It depends on what one wants. If I were rich, I'd love to commission a painter to produce family portraits. I know, not the same thing, but for some people it does matter, and it is valid to them.
Originally Posted by markbarendt
My brother had a photographer use film at his wedding (though ti was more common when he married). He made sure he used B&W for some photos - it mattered to him and his wife. I know other people who would pass on a wedding photographer if any sort of B&W print was even suggested. it doesn't matter how good it looks or what "feel" it produces - different things matter to different people.
I know what you mean... I'm beginning to feel like I'm at work.
Originally Posted by MatthewDunn
So, am I the only one paying attention to people's style in this "argument" (rather, debate) and using it when interpreting their posts in other threads, especially the ones where their comments are mostly contrary?
(Damn, there doesn't seem to be a flame-shield smiley.)
Whether that's me or someone else you are referring to, regardless of their position or opinion I would cut them some slack.
Originally Posted by Truzi
People engaging in intense debate often adjust their positions because they learn something new, or someone else said something that clarified a certain facet of the issue in their thoughts, or they meant to say the same thing as they said earlier not realizing they actually didn't, or they even just momentarily drifted mentally and forgot.
Fortunately these discussions are really all in fun, even though they can get heated (albeit heated at a distance). Luckily this is not a court of law. And the death penalty is not in play here.
50 is a huge edition for any piece of art. 25 is still quite sizable. Unless you are a major figure in the art world who would command large prices even from an edition of 100 prints, it doesn't make sense from a value perspective to create such an edition. 10-15 is a far more sensible figure for any piece that exceeds 16x20". I am discussing this from a business/economics vantage-point however. Very little of what I have said in this thread is of any use outside of the context of that of a working artist who subsists on their art. To those of you who do photography simply because it is enjoyable and challenging, then you are free to work in whatever manner you wish, with whatever tools you wish...which is a beautiful thing.
Originally Posted by jnanian
Those of us with student loans who are trying to eke out a living without having to sling booze (for others, at least) have to consider the intrinsic value of our work from a multi-faceted perspective, however the fact that I use a film camera does not make my work more valuable. If this were the case then surely Richard Prince's xeroxed shit wouldn't sell for millions of dollars.
There are two reasons that I see for the value of Clearing Winter Storm.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
One is the reasons is the image, the other is the Adams mystique.
Adams, like other successful artists, marketers, hucksters; sold "us" on his process. (As evidence I offer his books.) Silver gelatin printing is only important in the market valuation of clearing winter storm because "that's how Ansel did it", its how the original was made. Anything else would be "a fake".
Elliot Erwitt and Steve McCurry don't need to worry as much about the exact how of processing as the Adams estate might.