Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,962   Posts: 1,558,295   Online: 992
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by SchwinnParamount
    ...The problem is that in his mind, he believes he was doing DARKROOM work. That philosophical mind-shift is the proverbial 'slippery slope' IMHO. Therein lies the rub doesn't it?
    Yeah, Ok I'm with you there. And James too. Perhaps the terminology [color=black]'analogous' with[/color] darkroom methods is a way of giving it value (I'm not sure), or perhaps the concepts/terms/methods are copied because they are tried and proven to be efficient and productive. Or perhaps it's just an easier way to get experienced photographers to relate to the completely different methods.
    Once again - I don't know. It does bother me a smidgen, also. But then, copying is a form of flattery. And with regards value, I take a little consolation in believing that chemically processed prints will as they do currently, have an innate value higher than that of digitally processed prints (for certain types of work and, all other factors being equall); and I think this is likely to be true for a long time. The degree to which that will be significant, over time remains to be seen as there may be a shift towards the other factors that make up quality in a photographic image when it comes to perceived value.

    Meanwhile, I'll also continue to prefer the meditative process of printing in the dark, as opposed to coming out of the virtual darkroom with my eyes shot, repetitive strain injury and feeling like I've just gone six rounds of DOOM III with a teenager. :o

    But that's just my preference ...

    Eric - hope you leave the screen saver going .

    best, John
    Last edited by John McCallum; 02-08-2005 at 03:01 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12
    Joe Lipka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Cary, North Carolina
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    809
    I think the blog is merely a continuation of Brooks' assertion that now is the best time to be a photographer because of the flexibility and number of choices that one has to create images. You can lock yourself in the darkroom for an afternoon, work in the relatively bright light of a yellow bug bulb for your alternative printing processes or just sit down at the computer for a half hour and maybe knock out a print or two before dinner.

    We have choices. That is a wonderful thing to have.

    As for output and the relative value of same, check out the blog directly below the "half hour" blog. Nobody really cares how much effort you put into an image. All they are interested in is the image. Content, not medium is the message.

    My opinion. Feel free to disagree.
    Two New Projects! Light on China - 07/13/2014

    www.joelipkaphoto.com

    250+ posts and still blogging! "Postcards from the Creative Journey"

    http://blog.joelipkaphoto.com/

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,243
    Images
    9
    The "pretty picture" crowd do not care about the medium. The Collector and educated buyer do. I assume Brookes is aiming his wares at the first and not the former. In my opinion it is like comapring McDonalds to Good Steakhouse. Yep both are beef but which is better beef?
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  4. #14
    James Bleifus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Sonoma County, CA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    255
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Lipka
    I think the blog is merely a continuation of Brooks' assertion that now is the best time to be a photographer because of the flexibility and number of choices that one has to create images. You can lock yourself in the darkroom for an afternoon, work in the relatively bright light of a yellow bug bulb for your alternative printing processes or just sit down at the computer for a half hour and maybe knock out a print or two before dinner.

    We have choices. That is a wonderful thing to have.

    As for output and the relative value of same, check out the blog directly below the "half hour" blog. Nobody really cares how much effort you put into an image. All they are interested in is the image. Content, not medium is the message.
    The thing I like about Brooks' blogs is that they don't quite seem thought through. They're thoughts out loud that haven't fully reached a conclusion. That leaves a lot of room for me to consider whether I agree or disagree with him and it leaves him a lot of room to contradict himself.

    I agree with your observation, Joe, that he was highlighting new choices and opportunities for photographers. Where I disagree is his use of language. Saying that working on the computer, i.e. the digital darkroom, is the same as working in the darkroom is a mistake. The experience is completely different. Had he said digital darkroom I wouldn't have thought twice about the blog.

    Nor did I feel that his previous blog was fully considered. People don't care how much effort you put into an image if they don't like the image or your work. If they like the image they love little anecdotes about how you were hanging on the side of a cliff, using your antique camera, etc.

    For instance, I met with someone a little over a month ago who was very taken by the "romantic" (her word) image of me being up until 3AM the night before printing pictures in my darkroom/bathroom. I was tired as hell and didn't see it as romantic at all nor did she buy any of the work that I had printed the night before. But she did buy other pieces and I believe the darkroom story helped reinforce her decision, though that's not why I told the story. People love to know that you work hard if your work speaks to them. If they don't like your photographs they don't give a damn how hard you worked.

    Just my two cents.

    Cheers,

    James

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by James M. Bleifus
    ...People love to know that you work hard if your work speaks to them. If they don't like your photographs they don't give a damn how hard you worked.

    Just my two cents.

    Cheers,

    James
    I believe this is true. Of course we do (validly) say that it's not the method or effort involved or difficulty in achieving the photograph that counts primarily to the viewer. This is as it should be.
    But I think a sense of value is imparted by much talk about materials/effort/time and experience etc. And I still think that traditional methods give some advantage here. As mentioned, the significance of that advantage, and whether it will change over time remains to be seen. [size=1](& of course - just in my opinion).[/size]

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,187
    I listened to this in wonderment of what is happening to photography as art. It has many non-talented people convinced they are photographers. It is just too easy to do. The computer is doing the repairs and modifications to your digipic as you just click a mouse, without any thought on your part except that it looks great... or maybe not.

    On the other hand in the dark darkroom you have to physically do certain things to make the magic happen, the end result is not realized till after the light comes back on. You've manipulated raw materials to make this photo happen. Your work may not come out as expected but you will do whatever it takes to make it happen as you pre visualized it in your mind the moment you snapped the shutter. There is no UNDO option to reverse the process, it's final and limited. Limited to your talents and imagination, using real world objects in your photos, not the many computer programmer's talent to make that plug-in or filter.

    What seems to bother me more in ddigital is the fact that your image is forever lost in digital space never to be seen by the analog eye without the aid of todays technology, maybe not by tomorrow's but at least for today. It's a digital sand castle waiting for the tide to come in to wipe it out forever.

    Hold the CD up to the light, you see nothing. Hard drives crash, you loose it all. Change in media format, CPU technology, it's all gone unless you constantly convert everything to the new formats to keep up with the changes. Can you convert 20 years of photo files? Will you be able to afford it? Whatever happened to the 8" floppy?... the 5 1/4" floppy in 2 different densities?... 3 1/2" floppy is optional on many computers today.... and so will the conventional CD as we know it today be gone is at the snap of Bill Gates fingers. Maybe JPEGs and RAW files will not be readable? My negatives will be here for another 100 years. I can always put my negative on my fat belly while getting a tan and have an image in an hour or two or perhaps as opposed to a donut image of a CD. ummmmmm
    Anyone can make a Digital print, but only a photographer can make a photograph.

  7. #17
    JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    308
    Images
    10
    I'm still trying to digest the "naked photograph" piece. To me, it seems like an extraordinary amount of work to make and analog image, print it archivally, properly mount and matte it, then have it described as "naked".

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by paul ron
    ... I can always put my negative on my fat belly while getting a tan and have an image in an hour or two or perhaps as opposed to a donut image of a CD. ummmmmm
    He he.

    I didn't mean for my post to contribute to another round of digital bashing from the confines of our safe haven here at apug. Quite the contrary, Brooke's blog has no protest from me.
    Taking a wack at the digi methods whenever the opportunity arises, and expressing reasons why it is invalid as an artform could easily be read as .... erm overly defensive.
    In my opinion, there is no reason for traditional photographers to be defensive.
    Last edited by John McCallum; 02-08-2005 at 07:00 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #19
    James Bleifus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Sonoma County, CA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    255
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    :
    In my opinion, there is no reason for traditional photographers to be defensive.
    Hear! Hear!

    Cheers,

    James

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,243
    Images
    9
    "I can always put my negative on my fat belly while getting a tan and have an image in an hour or two or perhaps as opposed to a donut image of a CD. ummmmmm"

    Talk about wearing on's art. I wonder if that would work.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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