Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,170   Posts: 1,658,549   Online: 869
      
Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 134
  1. #91

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,155
    So you are saying the tools used are more important than artistic vision?

  2. #92
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,242
    Images
    48
    Perhaps the tools used alter the artistic vision?

    Ken
    "When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."

    — Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932

  3. #93
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Leigh B View Post
    Vaughn,

    The problem that I had with your comment is you have no idea what the shooter was thinking of when he tripped the shutter.

    You're basing your statements on total speculation.

    - Leigh
    No, actually, I just ask them...
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  4. #94

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    3,478
    Mr. Pixel - anything tangible evidence of "vision" has to be some kind of marriage with a specific medium. A potter requires clay. A fresco painter requires plaster. The two grow together. And having
    some kind of restraint actually greases the wheels, so to speak, because it gives one a direction.
    In the hypotethical argument, What would Ansel do today - maybe he would shoot and print digitally.
    But then his legacy would be something completely different, and possibly even a bellyflop. It's one
    thing to reproduce things digitally - either prepress or by inkjet etc. But the learning curve itself,
    and how one get to a vision in the first place, is just as important. For me, the hunt is just as important as the kill. And the darkroom is a real nice place to finish the chase. If someone prefers
    other methods, fine. No problem. And maybe they can mimic what I do. Good luck. It ain't that easy! But better to let each media do what it does best.

  5. #95

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,155
    I can imagine the same sort of comments from portrait oil painters as daguerreotype portraits became popular.


    "It's only real if it's done in oil." ;-)

  6. #96
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,857
    Ah, yes, Moonrise Hernandez... her parents were hippies, you know.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  7. #97
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,125
    Images
    345
    I can imagine that the printer’s skill is very akin to a painter who is working from a sketch. The sketch in this case being the negative.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  8. #98

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    3,478
    I don't get the relevance of your last comment, Mr Pixel. Sounds like one of those things some twenty-something would recapitualte. Oil painting is its own medium, watercolor works best at different effects, fresco at something else, and none of that looks like photography. Yes, there are
    a lot of folks who try to mimic painting with photography, and once in awhile visa versa, but you can't really substitute one for the other. All kinds of photo techniques have come and gone, and
    people still paint with oil. There must be a reason. But frankly, I don't give a damn. I do what works
    for me and what I enjoy. Some people don't like darkroom work. I do. That's reason enough.

  9. #99

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    I don't get the relevance of your last comment, Mr Pixel.

    Sigh....

    The point I've been trying to make is that I think artistic vision is far more important that the tools the artist uses. There have always been people that feel the tools used are more important.

  10. #100
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,059
    Images
    51
    The Steichen passage I was quoting in another thread, I thought would defend Moonrise as a good photograph...

    "When the photographer has something in front of him, chosen with his heart and his mind, and when he has brought to bear all the experience he has ever had, then he's prepared to press that button."

    That sure sounds like the Moonrise scenario.

    "...the moment you press that button that's it, you're through. What you can do afterwards is very limited."

    This must be where Ansel Adams proves Steichen wrong.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin