Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,931   Posts: 1,556,968   Online: 1019
      
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 567891011121314 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 132
  1. #101

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,049

    A positive approach, not a negative approach (no pun intended)

    Quote Originally Posted by SkipA View Post
    Should the accommodation and integration of digital techniques by analog film and process users continue, then the fears that Thomas Bertilsson expressed about the loss of analog processing skills and knowledge are likely to come to pass sooner rather than later. That's certainly not a way to promote knowledge of darkroom skills, and it is counterproductive to efforts to spread and grow that knowledge and skill.
    I can understand what you have said, but fail to understand how stopping the discussion of hybrid methods here in APUG drives that one way or the other.

    A much more positive approach is to take measures to educate the young about the excitement of seeing an image develop up in a tray for the first time. In another thread I suggested "If you want to encourage film use, have you considered being a photography merit badge counselor for the Boy Scouts? See http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Photography for the US description." There are many opportunities like this.

  2. #102
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    I can understand what you have said, but fail to understand how stopping the discussion of hybrid methods here in APUG drives that one way or the other.

    A much more positive approach is to take measures to educate the young about the excitement of seeing an image develop up in a tray for the first time. In another thread I suggested "If you want to encourage film use, have you considered being a photography merit badge counselor for the Boy Scouts? See http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Photography for the US description." There are many opportunities like this.
    It's the strong whiff of an analog "Counter-Reformation" that's off-putting in this approach.

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    I can understand what you have said, but fail to understand how stopping the discussion of hybrid methods here in APUG drives that one way or the other.
    I was speaking more generally than just with respect to discussion on APUG, but since you brought it up, APUG is the Analog Photography Users Group, so it would seem to me that discussion of hybrid and digital technique doesn't fit on this particular forum.

    Of greater concern to me were the environmental guilt-based justifications for substituting hybrid techniques for analog. Such thinking implies that analog processes are wasteful of resources and environmentally harmful. Continue to project that meme, and analog processes will soon be a thing of the past, viewed by society with the same contempt and disdain currently levied against smoking or being overweight. What's next? Persuade people that analog photography processes are like using tungsten light bulbs, driving an SUV, having too large a carbon footprint, and eating animals?

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,049
    Quote Originally Posted by SkipA View Post
    but since you brought it up, APUG is the Analog Photography Users Group, so it would seem to me that discussion of hybrid and digital technique doesn't fit on this particular forum.

    ... and by definition, hybrid techniques involve using analog technology.

  5. #105
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    ... and by definition, hybrid techniques involve using analog technology.
    ...but do not entirely involve using analog technology which therefore means that it is not in accordance with the charter of APUG:

    APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes.
    nor the terms of service:
    -Questions regarding digital techniques or digital techniques connected with traditional processes should be posted at hybridphoto.com (or the many other digital oriented sites).
    Its charter isn't:
    ...an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes or hybrid processes that have some aspect of analog photographic processes (i.e. silver based capture/printing or similar).

    Why don’t those that have issue with this realize, 1) Sean gets it, Sean is committed to investigating a seamless integration of DPUG with APUG - he has said that a few times now, 2) it looks costly (as he mentioned yesterday a few pages back), how about those that feel there is this urgent need for that to happen NOW, raise money to have that happen, Sean mentioned $10K, otherwise, simply login to DPUG and call it a day and wait for the technology to catch up (i.e. vBulletin 5) or other ways, which I think the solution is in our hands (i.e. $ raising…). I don’t do hybrid processes, but if there was a fundraiser, I would contribute, because I would rather see APUG succeed than folks attempt to change it in ways that it wasn’t conceived…
    Andy

  6. #106
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,589
    Images
    60
    I would have no problem with including links to certain DPUG forums in the headers of certain forums here on APUG.

    For example, something like: "Do you have a question about scanning? Try the 'Scanning' forum on our sister site, DPUG."

    Or: "Do you have a question about Digital Internegatives? Try the 'Digital Internegative' forum on our sister site, DPUG."

    Plus of course something similar on DPUG.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  7. #107
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,463
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carnie View Post
    When I sit in front of my computer with PS active I thank all those developers who made such an incredible program.. Yes I know it boils to on/off.

    But when I see the red ruby mask pop up to hold back areas I smile.
    When I can adjust my brush size and opacity I smile
    When I see colour corrections to local areas of the image I smile
    When I can make the image dance I smile

    A program is only as good as the operator.

    and lest I forget , 20 years ago I thanked my lucky stars guys like PE were on quality control making the film and emulsions ..
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
    Amen!
    Bob & Max,

    With respect for both of your darkroom (and PS) skill sets - which greatly exceed my own - I can only respond with what I consider to be the obvious. In your description of the above example, there are in fact no real Rubylith sheets in play. Nor are there real brushes being used. Nor even true optical opacity levels. (And what PE thankfully gave us all resulted in real emulsions, not virtual models of emulsions.)

    All of those tools and adjustments have been abstracted into numeric values being temporarily persisted in addressable system memory locations. And even the numeric values themselves are no more than an enormous collection of abstract binary state values correlated as meaningful by application of the ASCII algorithm. Further, should this temporary collection of numeric data be permanently persisted to a storage device, that device will never become a sheet of Rubylith, or a brush, or be able to have its opacity adjusted. Only the abstract pattern represented by the numbers will be retained for later decoding.

    And therein lies the crux of the issue. None of the above described tools is real. None of the real-world skills necessary to successfully manipulate those tools is required. Those skills are simply no longer relevant to the task at hand. Now the application of those imaginary tools becomes much faster, easier, cheaper, and more convenient via computerized manipulation of the abstract model. One doesn't need to use - or even know how to use - an Exacto knife to operate Photoshop.

    So to bring this thread subtopic back to the original subject of reconcilation, in good faith I pose the following question...

    Is the end realizaton of an artistic vision by an artist altered by the tools and processes used by that artist in that realization?

    There is currently another thread on APUG examining in part the hypothesis that as photographers move up the scale in format square inches their subject matter, and hence their vision, must invariably change to accomodate that shift in tools. I'm asking, does the move from real tools and materials to virtual tools and materials result in an analogous shift in vision by the practitioners of alternative photographic processes today, even if that move is at present only a partial one?

    Put another way, Michelangelo began his portion of David in late 1501 and spent over two years on his artistic realization. Would that final realization have been different if instead of chisels he had chosen some sort of programmable three-dimensional CAD-driven CNC surface grinder? Then outsourced the implementation of his concept to a team of CNC developers? Were something like that available in 1501 it might very well have also put a smile on his face. After all, David was a commissioned work for which he was being paid. In short order he could have then banged out as many dancing Davids as the market might have demanded.

    But would it have been the same David?

    Or did those two plus years of sustained, solitary, contemplative effort (with chisels) have an unavoidable effect on his final realization as he continually turned the concept over and over in his mind every day, slowly refining it as the work progressed? And could he have achieved a comparable contemplative effect if the virtualized realization had taken only two plus days?

    And might there be a similar consideration at work for hybrid alternative processes today? Is a hybrid PT/PD print capable of the same realization as a traditional PT/PD print, once one starts down the accelerated and much easier path of abstraction and virtualization?

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  8. #108
    coigach's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Inverness-shire, Scotland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,488
    Images
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post

    So to bring this thread subtopic back to the original subject of reconcilation, in good faith I pose the following question...

    Is the end realizaton of an artistic vision by an artist altered by the tools and processes used by that artist in that realization?

    There is currently another thread on APUG examining in part the hypothesis that as photographers move up the scale in format square inches their subject matter, and hence their vision, must invariably change to accomodate that shift in tools. I'm asking, does the move from real tools and materials to virtual tools and materials result in an analogous shift in vision by the practitioners of alternative photographic processes today, even if that move is at present only a partial one?

    Put another way, Michelangelo began his portion of David in late 1501 and spent over two years on his artistic realization. Would that final realization have been different if instead of chisels he had chosen some sort of programmable three-dimensional CAD-driven CNC surface grinder? Then outsourced the implementation of his concept to a team of CNC developers? Were something like that available in 1501 it might very well have also put a smile on his face. After all, David was a commissioned work for which he was being paid. In short order he could have then banged out as many dancing Davids as the market might have demanded.

    But would it have been the same David?

    Or did those two plus years of sustained, solitary, contemplative effort (with chisels) have an unavoidable effect on his final realization as he continually turned the concept over and over in his mind every day, slowly refining it as the work progressed? And could he have achieved a comparable contemplative effect if the virtualized realization had taken only two plus days?

    And might there be a similar consideration at work for hybrid alternative processes today? Is a hybrid PT/PD print capable of the same realization as a traditional PT/PD print, once one starts down the accelerated and much easier path of abstraction and virtualization?

    Ken
    I'd prefer to think that artistic imagination is iconoclastic - it is bigger than any of the 'boxes' it's put in. These artistic 'boxes' can be stylistic, political, techniques, whatever. My point is that artistic imagination is not a limited thing. If the 'box' is placed first, rather than as a tool and aid to the service of the imagination, then that art, whatever it is, will eventually become a product of the 'box', rather than of the imagination.

    I use film for my starting point for polymer photogravures, use a digital enlarged pos, then it's all old-fashioned hands-on with printing the plate. I see the enlarged pos as a really handy tool that helps me realise my imagination. And film too, I'm passionate about the look and feel of film and never want to use digital as my starting point for photogravures or for any of my 'straight' photography. But my point is that they're tools, not icons to be venerated. As I said, I think the artistic imagination is iconoclastic...

    That said, I understand the scope of APUG and really value APUG as a resource. For me, it's a pity there's no hybrid subsection to discuss alternative processes, but I'm willing to accept that. Unfortunately, for me, DPUG hasn't really filled that gap.

    As I said before though, I am appreciating the fact that we can have a good-tempered conversation about the issue here on APUG.

  9. #109
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    And might there be a similar consideration at work for hybrid alternative processes today? Is a hybrid PT/PD print capable of the same realization as a traditional PT/PD print, once one starts down the accelerated and much easier path of abstraction and virtualization?
    If the final product - the print - still requires knowledge and personal taste and ends up in a work which is the result of the skill and craft (or call it "artistic vision") of the photographer I think the answer of the above question is that the easier path of abstraction and virtualization does not matter, because what matters is the actual produce and its status as a work of craft, for the photographer, for Michelangelo, for most anybody else normally what counts is the appeal of the final work.

    My personal hybrid technique is scanning film. That does result in pictures being published on some textbooks, travel guides, or newspaper to illustrate some concepts. Those images go to some agencies which license them to some publisher which uses them in their publications.

    In the old analogue-only times, the slides (or copies thereof) would go to the agency, then to the printer, and the image would appear in the printed textbook without intermediate path of abstraction/virtualization.

    Nowadays the scan goes to the agency, then to the printer, and the image appears in the printed textbook and is exactly indistinguishable whether it is printed from a slide or from a scan of a slide. The question being: in which way the intermediate path of "abstraction and virtualization" affects the end result which, for Michelangelo like for a cook or a smith, and for me, is the only thing that matters?

    Digital photography is different from film photography because it affects the end result. When I use film I use it because it gives me more than digital in terms of resolution, dynamic range, ease of use, and it also costs less, gives less archiving problems etc. When I use digital I use it for some other advantages it has. This all has a very relevant meaning for my craft, it makes a difference in the final product.

    I use this analogue technique (film) only when and because it helps me doing things better, not because it helps me do things in a more complicated way *

    Certain posts in this thread seem to suggest the idea that complication and cumbersomeness in producing the final work are in themselves desirable and somehow express the meaning of the work, which is valuable because it is an expression of the manual skill/work of the maker, rather than finding its value in the final work itself.

    This reminds me how much nature photography has evolved. 60 years ago the only pictures we had of wildlife birds were pictures of stuffed animals (mostly in black and white, with the colours described by the caption). Then, around the '80, pictures begun to emerge of real animal activities taken in real natural conditions (nesting, "dancing", hunting etc.). Those images required weeks or months of work, and either a lot of attempts before capturing the image or hours and hours or days of patient waiting.

    Autofocus and motor drives made things easier. Then came infrared remote controllers, and photoelectric cells remote shutters. All this raised the general quality of the products, but still the best photographers do get the best shots. Nobody of them would go back to the old days of manually focusing a Novoflex photo-rifle while following a bird in fly. But that doesn't mean that it is the camera which takes the picture! Wildlife photography still requires dedication, intelligence, culture and a lot of craft, which are aimed to the final result which is the only thing that matters.

    Pictures taken with a Novoflex rifle would not have an additional value because autofocus was not used, I say. The first rule my first photography book taught me was: nobody cares about how difficult it was to get the picture, the only thing that counts is the picture itself.

    Artisans working leather goods in Italy still command high prices for their final products and you can be sure that they use CAD and lasers and everything the Devil invented in order to make their final product more and more appealing. Old crafts are not at odds with new and more practical tools. And their general public does not seem to devalue their products because of the added layer of virtualization (numeric control of cutting, or use of pantone for painting, or use of X-ray for quality control, or whatever).

    * The central point of the matter being the question if we use analogue techniques because they help us doing things better, of if we use analogue techniques because they help us doing things in a more complicated way.
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 07-23-2012 at 03:52 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  10. #110
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    Put another way, Michelangelo began his portion of David in late 1501 and spent over two years on his artistic realization. Would that final realization have been different if instead of chisels he had chosen some sort of programmable three-dimensional CAD-driven CNC surface grinder? Then outsourced the implementation of his concept to a team of CNC developers? Were something like that available in 1501 it might very well have also put a smile on his face. After all, David was a commissioned work for which he was being paid. In short order he could have then banged out as many dancing Davids as the market might have demanded.

    But would it have been the same David?
    Duplication has nothing to do with digital. A film negative can be printed an unlimited number of times. The fact that Henri Cartier-Bresson could bang out as many pictures of a certain shot as the market might have demanded does not make him less of a photographer and does not diminish the personal, individual qualities of his body of work. Digital photographic technologies are not radically different from analogue technologies. Analogue prints were and can be the result of an industrial process as well.

    I think there's a lot of "romanticism" around this dichotomy analogue/digital, we tend to give analogue work a patina of mystery/witchcraft which in fact isn't there.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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