An interesting clash of process vs product.
A lot like "he cheated" when he photoshopped his digital to look like analog or he deliberately messed up his printing to look like ???
Is it that amateurs are interested in process and pros are interested in product?
Is it that he didn't pay his dues?
Is it that he made a bunch of money and someone else didn't?
Is he really hurting the reputation of analog/LF?
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
The process is irrelevant. I like to originate on film, but at the end of the day it is the final image that matters. Not how it is made, how long it took, or what it costs.
“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”
Yep. No news there. People get paid well for making shitty movies, TV shows, etc. Thomas Kinkade made a shitload off of shit.
Originally Posted by CGW
I was wondering how long it would be until you trotted out your favorite saying.
Art without commerce is a hobby.
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.
Everything's commodity ?
I think this is a very American view where something has to have a price tag to have value. I don't believe in that. Art has transformative powers and without it, life is just existence. Good art is everywhere and you don't have to pay an admission to enjoy it. It's part of the human experience it.
Originally Posted by CGW
Going back to read the first post, it appears to me that the OP may have misunderstood what he was seeing and what the photographer wanted to accomplish. The accusations of trickery and fakery followed. (Edit: Actually, it was asserted from the start, in the thread title.) Is this possible, and would that explain all this umbrage over what amounts to the photographer's vision, like it or not? I'm sure no one could any longer support the claim that there was any trickery or fakery involved at all. What constitutes trickery and fakery too is a matter of opinion, unless one maintains that any manipulation of an image to satisfy the photographer's vision amounts to trickery and fakery. If that is the case, then is arranging your subject or the light or your camera to achieve a certain effect also trickery and fakery?
No one likes all photographs or every artist's style. That's no cause to accuse someone of employing trickery and fakery.
Last edited by SkipA; 08-07-2012 at 02:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by lxdude
Seemed doubly applicable here, especially given the prissiness and rancor washing around Clendenin's Olympic shots. Guess it never dawned on the disbelievers that these striking images might actually help the analog cause rather than harm it. The self-absorption level here is getting toxic.
I'll take the tree, thanks.
Originally Posted by ColdEye
Then you should go, lest you become more ill.
Originally Posted by CGW
No, I fully understood what I was seeing, and I have a deep knowledge of photography both at the technical and artistic level.
Originally Posted by SkipA
What's being missed is that it's not the individula images etc that some of us find offensive, it's the passing them offas something they aren't. In effect they are a fiction based on the photographers misconcep[tions and should be treated as such.
If someone has work published in a publication like the LA Times then there's a need for honesty, the B&W images are a poor parody of photography 100+ years ago and that needs to be said.
The images remind me of some special effcts to simulate old film (cine) in Sony Vegas, I guess Premiere etc have similar
It's all the marketing bullstuff which is fake.
But shooting the large-format film was a relaxing and, most important, creatively rejuvenating experience. With no motor drive to capture three frames every second (as with my Canon 5d Mark II cameras), I was forced to slow down and think about each frame.
Thinking about composition has nothing to do with 100-years old cameras. A Canon 5d Mark whatever does not prevent you to compose carefully. A badly developed analogue photograph can hardly be judged, from the outside, as a creatively rejuvenating experience.
On the other hand, the obvious can always be stated. If the experience was creatively rejuvenating for the author, who are we to doubt about it? Maybe he really got younger. And if this creatively rejuvenating production sells for good money, who are we to say that those who spend this money have very little understanding of what a good picture looks?
The utmost obvious statement de gustibus non disputandum can also be added here.
But the fact remains that most of those reading that stuff will actually think that 100-years-old technology can only produce results that technically faulty.
If he had said: "I wanted to test waters with large format, old lenses, old techniques, and I am not very technically prepared with any of those, but I did find the path rewarding" he could have been sincere and genuine.
By just selling his bad technique as due to old technology he is "falsifying" the technical value of the technology he's not fully exploiting.
I think this is original critique. It's selling (counterfeiting) bad technique as old technology. The fact that he can sell this for good money make things worse.
Some people "sold" the Trevi Fountain to American tourists in the past, you know, there always is somebody ready to buy anything if you look carefully... (I understand the person who "bought" the Trevi fountain more though).
Modern crap art with a ridiculous "artist statement" can sell for huge money. That doesn't make art in the eyes of anybody but those who buy it, and possibly not even (considering that those buying are often just speculating on its raise in value, regardless of its artistic quality).