Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,925   Posts: 1,556,801   Online: 988
      
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 267891011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 132
  1. #111
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,770
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    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.
    I beleive it is much simpler and more visceral than that for many of us.

    I can touch, feel, smell, and manipulate traditional materials and tools in real space.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #112
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    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
    The unfortunate presumption here is that digital=easy. Master digital retouchers aren't hacks. Digital processes don't axiomatically de-skill photographers and printers. Since I doubt you've seen Bob's work, it's troubling that you all but say it's somehow "less" than the non-computer based printing and darkroom work he did for years.

    BTW, Michaelangelo didn't chisel David by himself, no more than Old Masters works didn't rely on underpainters.

  3. #113
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,770
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    The unfortunate presumption here is that digital=easy. Master digital retouchers aren't hacks. Digital processes don't axiomatically de-skill photographers and printers. Since I doubt you've seen Bob's work, it's troubling that you all but say it's somehow "less" than the non-computer based printing and darkroom work he did for years.

    BTW, Michaelangelo didn't chisel David by himself, no more than Old Masters works didn't rely on underpainters.
    That is a poor presumption, I spent years getting skilled at PS, NX2, InDesign.... It is hard work to become skilled.

    But to me that's irrelavant to the "should APUG allow digital (hybrid) discussion".

    I don't push the NAPP to help me with film development either.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  4. #114
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,676
    Images
    14
    Ken

    The designers/engineers of PS asked Photocomp specialists, Colour Correctors, Photographers what they would like to see in the program.

    I have worked in two worlds, one with a knife and ruby , and another with a mouse and masks.
    Daily I see the end result as being the same whether I work digitally or on an enlarger. I produce images meant to hang on walls.

    It has taken me 6 years to learn PS and I am still taking training, It took me about the same time to become a decent colour corrector and then PhotoComp Specialist.
    Those colour emulsions PE worked on are all gone, so is the ruby and knife, all I have to say is thankfully there is a Red Ruby Command on my keyboard.

  5. #115
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    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
    Ken,

    As a person with deep appreciation for hand-crafted art, I can certainly appreciate your point of view. At the same token, the reality in the year 2012 (and beyond) is what we all have to live with and make the best out of. I also concur with Gavin's (coigach) philosophy. For me, it is a question of balance. I do not want technology to replace and/or automate the creation of good art but simply to aid when there isn't another choice, or in the case of Bob Carnie, at a more industrial/commercial level, to become more productive and accommodate clients who now expect a faster turnaround and high quality output...and yes, make his life maybe a little easier (nothing wrong with that). Having said that, I'm certainly not going to knock down those who use technology to the fullest to craft something beautiful that rivals or beats a fully analogue product. I firmly believe that if Michelangelo, or Ansel Adams, had the tools we have available today, they would be in awe and happy to use them. They didn't use them because they didn't have them and had no other choices. From an artist's point of view, I place far more importance on capture, vision, a good image out of camera. Any other argument is futile if there is no meat in that department, in my opinion. Anyone who thinks that waving hands like a raving lunatic under an enlarger, versus a bunch of PS steps, guarantees a fantastic work of art, is delusional. I find both processes just as daunting, frankly, and I have plenty of images that are just crap and could not make a fine print under either circumstance.

    There is much value in learning how to make things by hand and certainly a great feeling of satisfaction, hence the reason why I just can't find much value in an inkjet print, no matter how beautiful. I still need to know that the artist had a hand in that print. Yes, he created the image, it's his vision, but for as compelling as the image may be, the print is a result of a fully digital process (or almost if it was captured on film) and not truly hand crafted. Also, every print will be exactly the same, as it is being spit out by a consistent inkjet printer, without the artist's "touch".

    Going back once again to the original topic, the value of an hybrid approach within the realm of alt. processes, is in the indisputable fact that few digital tools are used and are at the service of the grander task at hand. I mentioned gravure, as I have embarked on this journey recently, as Gavin did, and that is the perfect example. Here is one of the very oldest, most venerated, difficult, beautiful processes, which can still be used and promoted today by throwing in a sprinkle of digital. The final print is by no means cheapened by the use of a digital step, because in the end, a good digital positive does not assure, by any stretch of the imagination, a good copper plate, or a good final print. It is a labor intensive, highly physical, hands-on (literally, dirty with ink) process that requires time and dedication to master. I don't think that just because 50 years ago was even more difficult using only film, that the resulting prints are any more beautiful or valuable. There was plenty of crap then, just like there is now. It is the same with Sandy King's carbon prints or the many beautiful pt/pd out there. I firmly believe that there are no real shortcuts, even with the aid of technology, to capture a compelling image and make a great print that holds value for us, a viewer, buyer, a collector, whoever.

    Max
    Last edited by MaximusM3; 07-23-2012 at 08:20 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #116
    Dave R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    24
    Agree, reading about shooting film on hybrid/digital site is what got me more interested in film and alternative processes and what ultimately got me here. IMO (based on my own journey)
    A hybrid site will attract a certain amount of digital shooters who may have no idea about film and alternative processes, not unlike myself. who may find a whole new world of photography after being exposed to analog


    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    I personally find the distinction between analogue and hybrid very "artificial" as I find the distinction between APUG and DPUG very unfortunate.

    If I were the owner of this site I would have no hesitation in opening a "hybrid" section on this forum (on the same hierarchic level of "Darkroom" and "General discussions") and close DPUG altogether, or leaving it open for digital photography that is.

    Scanning is something that is necessary to be discussed by film users at the very least.

    At the moment DPUG is a moribund creature artificially kept alive by continuous reference made on APUG. On the other hand, APUG has many more users than DPUG, many of those able in hybrid techniques and willing to help. The hybrid conversation here would be as rich and instructing as the analogue conversation. This Berlin wall is unfortunate both for hybrid users (who don't find sufficient traces of life in DPUG and find censorship in APUG) and for analogue users, because a hybrid section here on APUG would bring, I am sure, many digital users to explore analogue techniques as well thereby expanding the user base, spreading the analogue gospel etc.

    To those who don't want to read the "hybrid" word on this forum I just say that they can ignore - through the bespoke site function in General Settings - Forum to exclude from view - the hybrid section (or the scanning section. I would prefer a hybrid section). They wouldn't see the hybrid posts in the "New posts", the "Today posts", etc. Moderators would move any conversation turning to hybrid to the relevant Hybrid section where it would go on normally instead of cutting it short and inviting people to go to another forum, where they typically don't even have an account (but even if they had it by default, it would still be a nonsense IMO).

    Considering the forum platform already gives users the possibility to totally and automatically ignore hybrid conversations I don't see why this topic should be banned from an analogue forum site.

    Hybrid process is partly analogue. Nobody would say that someone who brings his negative to be printed at Wal-Mart is not an analogue user, or doesn't belong here (!) because he doesn't print his own negatives with an enlarger or because his final product is only partly analogue.

    The site would have a massive increase in users, and would benefit the analogue photographic community as a whole more than it does now.

    More in general, I think the future of analogue techniques relies solely on hybrid techniques. Sales of film without scanners would be dead since many years. Digital negative printing can actually greatly promote analogue darkroom techniques. I think analogue materials can survive only with the towing of the digital materials.

    Hybrid is the branch where analogue is sitting.

  7. #117
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,435
    Images
    214
    Yesterday, I visited DPUG for the first time. I spent some time looking at the images in the hybrid gallery. There are some people doing incredibly nice work, over there. Some of the names will be familiar to those who visit APUG's galleries, and their work is as excellent as it is here. My visit left me more intrigued by the possibilities of hybrid image making.
    Still, I think APUG should remain true to it's core purpose. DPUG is just a click away, for those interested. Too many digital sites become inundated with posts that are gear driven, as opposed to image driven. There are enough venues to discuss whether the new Nikon out-pixels the new Canon...
    I will probably join DPUG. I would like to learn more about hybrid processes and, maybe, give some of them a try.

  8. #118
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,051
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by eddie View Post
    Still, I think APUG should remain true to it's core purpose. DPUG is just a click away, for those interested. Too many digital sites become inundated with posts that are gear driven, as opposed to image driven.
    Of course that never happens on APUG

  9. #119
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,435
    Images
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
    Of course that never happens on APUG
    I find this site less gear driven than most others. Then again, maybe I just skip those posts...

  10. #120

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,049
    If no hybrid technology is to be used/mentioned in APUG, I suppose the Photo Gallery should be removed since the photos posted there only got there via a hybrid approach.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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