Sorry but I see this as self-regarding and narcissistic. Communication matters more than technique. If anything, this insistence on non-digital technique looks like a crutch or, at worst, a simple gimmick.
Exactly. Who determines what is a masterpiece anyway? A viewer/buyer and it is purely subjective. If one presents a truly successful image, the way it was printed may be secondary. The creator may want to make that distinction based on personal preference/beliefs but the buyer/viewer may not be concerned with that at all. When I look at some of Ralph Gibson's images online, I would buy them if they were printed on toilet paper with an inkjet. The images, to me, stand on their own regardless of how they were printed and that's the bottom line. To say that digital imaging "cheapens" the craft of darkroom printing is total BS. Like I've said before, if anything, it should be shown alongside to demonstrate its superiority, if it is indeed so obvious. But, at the end of the day, another boring landscape is just that, regardless of how it was printed. It may be a beautiful print but would anyone buy it? How does one measure "success" to support one's unshakeable beliefs?
Originally Posted by BetterSense
Last edited by MaximusM3; 10-12-2010 at 11:14 AM. Click to view previous post history.
oh...and Ralph Gibson should re-phrase his statement to "I don't believe that digital PHOTOGRAPHY has yet produced an artist of my caliber and vision". The problem is elsewhere and not in the final print.
Last edited by MaximusM3; 10-12-2010 at 09:09 AM. Click to view previous post history.
i could never do this ...
but i am glad someone can ...
best of luck !
I do appreciate the OP's skills and talent, but I think that sort of isolationism is tilting at windmills. The long term view is that we want analog to survive along side digital. It's not a war, it's a medium, and plenty of people like both.
It should be the other way around. Digital folks should be saying, "I don't want to exhibit where old handmade analog images are sold", mimicking the photosecessionalists and their disdain for comparison to traditionally accepted art.
I think analog compares well with digital on a wall. I recently put a 100% analog cyanotype in to a fundraising exhibit of all digital photos. As humble as I tend to be, I think it looked realllllllly nice on the wall in comparison. Not many of images sold even though the prices were low. Most of the sold images had a little blank colored sticker beside them to indicate they were sold. Mine had a sticker with someone's name on it, so apparently someone wanted to make sure someone else didn't take the only handmade image at the event.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Why limit yourself??? We are in a minority anymore, and I think that any opportunity to allow people to see traditional imagery alongside contemporary digital is a great way of showing the differences and varied nature of this medium overall. Have at it if you are comfortable in your direction and stick firmly with your beliefs. Personally, I don't really think it matters.
Personally, I think the content matters more than the process, but it's your work (nice work as well), and if it helps you sell your work then more power to you. From my personal experience, the gallery attending public really doesn't give a hoot how or why it was made.
Are we really?
Originally Posted by clayne
I'm not sure that we are. The sea of crap has been with use since, at the latest, the 1960s. I haven't noticed that it would have increased (disproportionally - the tide is rising higher and higher not just as far as photographical output is concerned).
It could be though. But once the tide has risen above a certain level, any further increase goes unnoticed. And as far as i am concerned, we already have reached that level well before the digiwave.
But that as an aside.
I think too much focus is put on the process, the materials. I don't mind that digital isn't a 'noble process'. I don't believe in noble processes.
I want to see images that are worth seeing. And that is a far bigger problem: that sea of crap.
So if anything must be said about the process, the materials too, i would perhaps welcome the digiwave, its "cheapness", and how that sea of crap is drained (still too slowly) by prints not lasting very long.
Yep..I think it's called "extreme dilution of talent" and "everything has been said and done". I will make a musical analogy: the state of the music scene is the same but why? What's out there that's NEW and will stand the test of time and people will go see live in 20 years? Nothing. The most successful live acts over the last 5-10 years? Van Halen, The Police, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, Genesis..get the picture (pun intended)?
Originally Posted by Q.G.
instead of discussing the purist notions of darkroom/versus digital printing, the issue is one of image relevance and whether the mind behind the camera is bringing forth anything new, exciting, relevant, something we have not seen before, to excite us. Much has been said and done in the world of photography, like in music, and it is a fact that digital has simply made it easier to produce ungodly amounts of "garbage". Sifting through it to find something meaningful is also harder but we need to remember that "uniqueness" is elusive at this point.
sea of crap only since the 60s ??
there has always been crap, even when it was being made with a plate ... now there is a little more of it.