Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,705   Posts: 1,482,813   Online: 1021
      
Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415161721 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 278
  1. #101

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Davis View Post
    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?
    Come on. Now you are being purposely obtuse.

    These are two SEPARATE topics.

  2. #102
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Crestview Hills, KY
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,869
    How are they separate? How are medium and imagery not tied together? Your original post was about your frustration that young photographers aren't aware of people that influenced the medium 70-100 years ago. I don't know what they have been showing you, and it may be Flickr type stuff, but maybe not. Are you aware of current trends in photography? Can you humor us and name three very influential photographers working within the past 10 years?
    Last edited by Greg Davis; 03-14-2013 at 01:31 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    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. #103

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    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.
    I am aware of those claims. I also remember all the other times they turned out not to be true, too.
    I trust Kodak not at all. Their outrageous history in this area is available for everyone to read.
    Wilhelm, I have a lot of confidence in. BUT, his tests are limited. They do not take everything into consideration. They can't.

    RC papers are no good. Don't use them for serious work. They are also visually inferior, but most people can't see it.

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    593
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    For the exact same reason that a violinist should not try to make his instrument sound like a tuba.
    So if someone is already doing a thing, no one else should try to do that thing using other equipment/techniques? Is this because it's automatically assumed to be inferior, or because you'd be stepping on someone else's toes, or some other reason?

    I have an image of a sunflower on my wall that I shot slightly OOF to emphasize color and form over detail. It looks like a painting, and I like it quite a bit. Should I not have produced that image unless I painted it (i.e., I should deprive myself of it because I can't paint)?

  5. #105

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    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?
    How long have you been in that bunker?

    What you're describing is mixed media art, with some photographic element. This has been happening since the 60s at least. You're moving into a more general "all art is crap nowadays" topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    For the exact same reason that a violinist should not try to make his instrument sound like a tuba.
    You've gone mad. I think this is a good sonic arts idea.

    I don't think YOU are paying attention.
    I'm doing the best I can.
    Last edited by batwister; 03-14-2013 at 01:41 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Davis View Post
    How are they separate? How are medium and imagery not tied together? Your original post was about your frustration that young photographers aren't aware of people that influenced the medium 70-100 years ago. I don't know what they have been showing you, and it may be Flickr type stuff, but maybe not. Are you aware of current trends in photography? Can you humor us and name three very influential photographers working within the past 10 years?
    I really don't believe you are confused, but OK.

    1. How you got there, platinum, silver, digital, does not matter. The final image is all that matters. I DID NOT say, anything goes under all circumstances.

    2. You have a responsibility to your buyers not to use materials you know to be garbage. Knowingly selling trash is called swindling.


    Where did I say "70-100 years ago"? You keep trying to put words in my mouth.

    As for photographers working in the last ten years... I see new work constantly. I will not play your silly game.

    Current trends in photography, now or at any time, cannot make the history of photography irrelevant.

  7. #107

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    What you're describing is mixed media art, with some photographic element. This has been happening since the 60s at least. You're moving into a more general "all art is crap nowadays" topic.
    Nothing wrong with mixed media. Just don't call it photography. It doesn't matter how long it has been happening. A mistake made for centuries is still a mistake.

    (Personally, I think mixed media is to art what the one man band is to music, but to each his own.)

  8. #108
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Crestview Hills, KY
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,869
    I never said they were irrelevant. I think you are putting too much emphasis on what you think other people should know in order to make photographs.

    People sell trash as art all the time. C-prints sell at auction for vast amounts of money despite their fading.

    As for the time period, you didn't, I did. As for my "silly game", I only asked for any three names. I looked at your work and can see the time period that influenced you, is it not fair for these kids to look at someone more current for inspiration? If you started in photography in the late 1970's looking at people working 20 years earlier, then why shouldn't they be looking at people working in the late 1990's and early 2000's?
    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

  9. #109

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,260
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    I am aware of those claims. I also remember all the other times they turned out not to be true, too.
    I trust Kodak not at all. Their outrageous history in this area is available for everyone to read.
    Wilhelm, I have a lot of confidence in. BUT, his tests are limited. They do not take everything into consideration. They can't.

    RC papers are no good. Don't use them for serious work. They are also visually inferior, but most people can't see it.

    i find it very odd you poo-poo what wilhelm says for rc prints, but you hold in high regard what he says for ink prints.
    all sorts of claims were made just a few years ago about archival ink/pigment sets, and they were all wrong. i have no confidence in what the institute has to say.
    its just said to sell media, nothing else, and to appease an industry in its infancy since the traditional industry was nearly dismantled.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    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?
    i can call my photographs anything i want.
    if i want to call them hand painted photographs,
    or bleached and tinted cyanotypes or hybrid prints
    i can do that. i can and also call them photographs ...

    so if you weren't talking about a photograph not being a painting from an artistic perspective
    what were you talking about ? there is a whole history of photography + drawing + painting + engraving being in bed with eachother
    are you suggesting these types of photographs have no "history" in photography ?


    a literalist is the last thing i would ever want to be ...
    Last edited by jnanian; 03-14-2013 at 02:13 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #110

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by moose10101 View Post
    So if someone is already doing a thing, no one else should try to do that thing using other equipment/techniques? Is this because it's automatically assumed to be inferior, or because you'd be stepping on someone else's toes, or some other reason?

    I have an image of a sunflower on my wall that I shot slightly OOF to emphasize color and form over detail. It looks like a painting, and I like it quite a bit. Should I not have produced that image unless I painted it (i.e., I should deprive myself of it because I can't paint)?

    This is beginning to get tedious.

    Do you REALLY think a violinist trying to make his violin sound like a tuba is going to produce important music?

    Great paintings are made by painters, NOT photographers trying to make their photographs LOOK like paintings.

    Great photographs result from photographers wringing the very best out of the photographic medium, not by trying to make the photographic medium imitate some other art form.

    If you think otherwise, then you won't mind your brain surgeon using a spoon instead of a scalpel.

    I seriously doubt you shot that sunflower out of focus on purpose.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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