Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,908   Posts: 1,521,473   Online: 906
      
Page 10 of 28 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314151620 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 278
  1. #91
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,623
    Images
    14
    Sandy King who IMO is the worlds leading authority on Carbon Printing is someone you should talk to as I find your claim troubling. He works in traditional and digital methods and someone who I admire for his stubbourness in printing only with true carbon.
    You also may want to have this discussion with Charles Berger who frequents here or Todd Gangler,or John Bentley who work in Tri Colour Carbon for stability reasons.

    If indeed any print coming off any type of inkjet technology could last the test of time, the company would have found the archilles heel of colour printmaking and its continuing issue of archival longevity.
    I would then quite willingly do a youtube video and eat my hat , in humble apology to you. I would be the first to then reinvest my company's assets in equipment to buy this new wonder printer... Sadly I am holding my breath on that happening any time soon.

    I do think that some day your claims would become a reality , now I am talking stability that makes 50 years look like chump change. If you can point us to the imaging machine specs that you are making your claim then please do so.
    There may be people here who may think your claims are correct, I am just not one.



    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    I think you are confusing terminology. Inkjet manufacturers make no claims about the longevity of carbon inkjet prints. They DO make claims about PIGMENT inkjet prints, but carbon inks come from other manufacturers that the makers of inkjet printers would prefer to see disappear.

    And I find your claim that a lot of carbon pigment is more permanent than a little bit of carbon pigment to be somewhat questionable.

  2. #92
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Crestview Hills, KY
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    I DO insist however, that what is represented as fine art photography not be printed on newsprint, mounted on plywood with Elmer's glue and covered in oil paint.

    ...this "my technology is better than your technology" nonsense is a big waste of time for everyone. All that matters is the final image.
    This seems contradictory to me. If the final image is all that matters, then why can't it be printed on newsprint and glued to plywood then painted over? If it is a good image, so what? Perhaps the materials are just as important to the piece as the image itself?
    www.gregorytdavis.com

    Did millions of people suddenly disappear? This may have an answer.

    "No one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -Matthew 24:36

  3. #93

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    606
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    How about sharing that web site with me? It might be what I have been searching for.
    Here is the thread I was referring to. Obviously, most of the threads on the side are about digital photography, but there seems to be no shortage of knowledge about analog techniques and photo history in general:

    http://photography-on-the.net/forum/....php?t=1283050


    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    As to the second paragraph, WHERE DID YOU GET THAT!!?? I never said anything about anyone being ignorant fools
    I got it from this:

    "NB: I picked APUG for this discussion because there appear to be no people on digital photography forums with the depth and experience needed to participate in such a discussion: i.e., They never heard of Stieglitz or Weston either."

    You couldn't find anyone, so you concluded there wasn't anyone. I'm sure many people here could have suggested one or more sites if asked.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    And in defense of the people here, I see very few who "don't like digital photography". I see people who have decided to continue to use analog materials for very rational, concrete reasons.
    There are many people here who believe that analog is right for them, but recognize digital as a valid technology that may be right for others. Unfortunately, I see more and more threads here that are filled with utter contempt for anything and anyone "digital". Give me a dollar for every "digisnappers"/"digipix"/"digimon"/"digital isn't photography" comment, and I could retire to Tahiti.

    A few weeks ago, a member started a thread to talk about how someone had found a way to use a common device, already carried by millions of people, as an accurate incident light meter. I thought it was wonderful: carry one device instead of two, and take the money you would have used on a separate meter and spend it on a lens, or film, or to help pay the mortgage. Alas, the device in question was "digital", and was therefore anathema to any "real" photographer. The idea was ridiculed; apparently you're not a "real" photographer unless you carry a "real" light meter. I'm still trying to understand why a device that does exactly what a light meter does, with the same level of accuracy and ease of use, isn't a "real" light meter. Apparently there's some kind of "Turing test" for equipment that I'm not aware of. Maybe the digital-haters run in packs, and I've been unlucky enough to cross their path more often, but the pack seems to be growing in size.

  4. #94

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by alarickc View Post
    Maybe maybe not. As an eighteen year old just starting to take photography seriously and just learning how to print I am making it a point to learn how to make my prints archival. As it stands now I print on RC paper; one it's cheaper and two Ilford cooltone is only in RC. (And yes I realize that FB is more archival, though the more recent generations of RC look like they may hold up nearly as well.) But I would never criticize someone for using less permanent materials, even for "fine art". As I recall da Vinci's Last Supper was painted on increadably unarchival plaster exposed to the elements. Yet I think we can all agree that, to put it bluntly, doesn't suck. I think it's closed minded to judge the validity of art based on weather it will be long lasting or not. If that was the case the only truly valid art would be carved from solid granite or shaped from flawless diamond.
    1. Da Vinci did not know his materials were impermanent. This knowledge was unavailable during that time. Even if he did know, so what? That doesn't make it OK to knowingly use garbage materials today.

    2. You have a responsibility to your buyers NOT to sell art you made on materials you know to be inferior. If you are not going to sell it as art, print on anything you want.

    3. The makers of RC papers have been claiming "new, improved and less destructive" for the entire forty + year history of these trash papers! It was a lie then, it is a lie now. Are they better? Absolutely. Supremely better. Are they good enough? Not by a mile. They are simply a better grade of trash.

    4. From an art standpoint, RC papers are also visually inferior to FB. You won't see this for a while. Maybe for a few years. But the difference is there, and eventually you will see that it is not a small difference. I just hope that when you have that ability, all the good fiber papers aren't gone.

    RC paper is the best boon to utility photography ever. I used tons of it, for contact sheets, commercial prints, tests, research, everything I did not intend to sign and sell as art.

  5. #95

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,904
    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    1. Da Vinci did not know his materials were impermanent. This knowledge was unavailable during that time. Even if he did know, so what? That doesn't make it OK to knowingly use garbage materials today.

    2. You have a responsibility to your buyers NOT to sell art you made on materials you know to be inferior. If you are not going to sell it as art, print on anything you want.

    3. The makers of RC papers have been claiming "new, improved and less destructive" for the entire forty + year history of these trash papers! It was a lie then, it is a lie now. Are they better? Absolutely. Supremely better. Are they good enough? Not by a mile. They are simply a better grade of trash.

    4. From an art standpoint, RC papers are also visually inferior to FB. You won't see this for a while. Maybe for a few years. But the difference is there, and eventually you will see that it is not a small difference. I just hope that when you have that ability, all the good fiber papers aren't gone.

    RC paper is the best boon to utility photography ever. I used tons of it, for contact sheets, commercial prints, tests, research, everything I did not intend to sign and sell as art.
    kodak and the image permanency institute ( wilhelm ? ) would beg to differ.
    if processed correctly and toned modern rc papers have a lifespan that can match fiber prints.
    they will probably last as long as any ink or pigment / ink print made.

    that said, i believe half of what i see, and none of what i hear, even if i am the one saying it.

  6. #96

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post


    Sorry to post again, but you're making me excitable.

    Joel Sternfeld influenced a big move back to painterly compositional convention with colour work.
    Nadav Kander, Jem Southam, Burtynsky, Todd Hido - with his Hopper hotel room pastiches. They're all at it, and these photographers in particular have a massive impact on youngens. Very craft oriented too.

    I don't think you're really aware of what's going on in photography, aside from amateur photo sharing sites.

    I don't think YOU are paying attention.
    I am not talking about composition or style. I am talking about trying to make a photograph look like a physical painting instead of a photograph!


    As for "amateur photo sharing sites", I know you are trying to be insulting, but I never look at them.

    I think you are making yourself excitable.

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by moose10101 View Post
    Why shouldn't they? And is this limited to certain styles of painting, or is any manipulation outside of cropping, white balance, sharpening, and contrast adjustment considered inappropriate?
    For the exact same reason that a violinist should not try to make his instrument sound like a tuba.

  8. #98

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    why is it wrong for someone to make a photograph that looks like a painting? i do this often
    and didn't know i was doing something wrong. i am able to do this using an eletrick camera but i would rather use
    traditional materials ... emulsion painted onto paper ( or glass ), exposed, processed and then painted on again.

    photography is much more than grand landscapes and peppers and using a large format camera.
    it is a disservice to photography to say something should or shouldn't be done.
    I never said anything, from an artistic perspective, shouldn't be done.
    But if you are going to cover your photograph in paint, call it what it is, a painting (or more precisely, paint by numbers), but don't call it a photograph.
    Otherwise, if I were to glue one of my photographs to the front of a painting, why would I not be able to call myself a painter?

  9. #99
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Crestview Hills, KY
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,896
    At that point is should be called "Mixed Media" by all gallery standards.
    www.gregorytdavis.com

    Did millions of people suddenly disappear? This may have an answer.

    "No one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -Matthew 24:36

  10. #100
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    David, I'll come at this from a different point.

    Before I bought a Pentax 6x7, I didn't care about photography at all. It was just a way to document something, and that's all it was for me. The end.

    Then one evening as I was driving home, I was entranced by the bright moonlight. I wanted to photograph that. "How would that look like, photographed?" And so after futzing about with my point & shoot and talking to a coworker about it, I bought a Pentax 6x7. I still have it, still use it, and just got it CLA'd.

    Now, at that time I had no idea who Ansel Adams was. I became familiar with him as a result of reading his three book educational series. I started developing my own film because I didn't like what happened at the lab I was using. I started to print because the local labs closed down. And of course I learned about archival permanance because I had to (there are some things that you will learn only if you do it yourself). I've looked at other photographers not because of their photography, but based on the concepts they were trying to convey. And believe me, I honestly don't care about the majority of "famous" photographers. Most of them have produced what I consider to be garbage. That's just how I look at it, how my brain is wired. Eggleston sells for serious money, but that's not what I would buy, or how I would photograph.

    I'm guessing that the "kids these days" you are complaining about were never motivated by something outside of photography to go and photograph. When someone is motivated to photograph because they saw another photograph, then they've been motivated within, inside of, photography. It's mimicing another's action, monkey see, monkey do. It's not crying out, "look at this, I've found something! Come and see!" And since the "kids these days" haven't had any contact with someone working at it as a whole process. As has been mentioned, they click, send off a JPEG, and get back a print. They come to you, and now you, on behalf of your customers, wind up giving them a smidgen of guidance on what to do next. How many of them have any true personal, internal drive at all? That's the real question. I have discovered for myself that I must photograph. You should be asking the "kids these days," did they make that photograph because it's fun, or because they ------- well had to make it?



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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