Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,936   Posts: 1,585,628   Online: 745
      
Page 26 of 28 FirstFirst ... 16202122232425262728 LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 278
  1. #251
    MurrayMinchin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Coast, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,196
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    99% of photographic art is about seeing. The capture is merely a photomechanical process.
    Egad. That, to me, implies a rigid process, like getting prints made at a drug store. There are many ways the 'hand of the artist' can influence the final work;

    What film? Developer? Exposure development combination? What paper? What developer, stop, fix combination? Toner(s)? Dodging? Burning? Sharp or unsharp masks? Presentation?

    That's a very condensed list as I'm on my lunch break!
    Last edited by MurrayMinchin; 08-09-2013 at 03:19 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    _________________________________________
    Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.

  2. #252
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayMinchin View Post
    Egad.

    What film? Developer? Exposure development combination? What paper? What developer, stop, fix combination? Toner(s)? Dodging? Burning? Sharp or unsharp masks? Presentation?

    That's a very condensed list as I'm on my lunch break!
    I think the point Clive is making is that all the things you listed are related to the "craft", they are all learnable, even industrial, processes and tools.

    The "magic" of good photography is in seeing, and I'll add deciding, how to use the tools and processes we have available.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  3. #253
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,658
    Images
    48
    The problem around here is that everyone always wants to include in their definition of Photography the parts that they enjoy and may be good at, while excluding the parts that they find tedious or uninteresting.

    If you can "see" but not effectively render, all you end up with is an imagined idea. If you can "render" but not effectively see, all you end up with is an inanimate object.

    To effectively communicate your vision, you must be able to do both equally well.

    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

  4. #254
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,682
    Images
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    The problem around here is that everyone always wants to include in their definition of Photography the parts that they enjoy and may be good at, while excluding the parts that they find tedious or uninteresting.

    If you can "see" but not effectively render, all you end up with is an imagined idea. If you can "render" but not effectively see, all you end up with is an inanimate object.

    To effectively communicate your vision, you must be able to do both equally well.

    Ken
    I do agree that you also need the skills to render, but not perhaps to extent often discussed on APUG.

    “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”

    Francis Bacon

  5. #255
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    I do agree that you also need the skills to render, but not perhaps to extent often discussed on APUG.
    What you need is the skills to render YOUR vision into reality. If your vision tolerates or requires mis-exposed negatives, dirt, dust, hairs and scratches, by all means, work with that. If it requires f/64-esque exposure, processing and printing skills, do what it takes to develop that technique. I think the critique many folks don't succeed at articulating of the former is that some if not many practitioners of the former do it out of laziness and lack of skill, rather than understanding the how and the why, so it isn't repeatable in the long run - you can't build a portfolio of considered work if you don't know how you got that one image to look the way it does. The critique of the latter is very easy to articulate - being super-technical lends itself to sterile imagery because the photographer is more concerned with making sure the tree bark of THAT tree renders Zone VI 1/2 than paying attention to a harmonious composition. If it comes down to it I'd rather look at an image with emotional content that is technically rough than an image that is technically perfect but unengaging, but if I have the choice, I want an image whose technical delivery enhances the emotional delivery. I shouldn't be distracted from emotional content by technique, one way or the other - neither should I look at a print and think, "wow, I can't tell you anything about the picture because I'm constantly distracted by its flaws" nor should I think "well, that was a perfect step-wedge in the form of a landscape".

  6. #256
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,682
    Images
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    What you need is the skills to render YOUR vision into reality. If your vision tolerates or requires mis-exposed negatives, dirt, dust, hairs and scratches, by all means, work with that. If it requires f/64-esque exposure, processing and printing skills, do what it takes to develop that technique. I think the critique many folks don't succeed at articulating of the former is that some if not many practitioners of the former do it out of laziness and lack of skill, rather than understanding the how and the why, so it isn't repeatable in the long run - you can't build a portfolio of considered work if you don't know how you got that one image to look the way it does. The critique of the latter is very easy to articulate - being super-technical lends itself to sterile imagery because the photographer is more concerned with making sure the tree bark of THAT tree renders Zone VI 1/2 than paying attention to a harmonious composition. If it comes down to it I'd rather look at an image with emotional content that is technically rough than an image that is technically perfect but unengaging, but if I have the choice, I want an image whose technical delivery enhances the emotional delivery. I shouldn't be distracted from emotional content by technique, one way or the other - neither should I look at a print and think, "wow, I can't tell you anything about the picture because I'm constantly distracted by its flaws" nor should I think "well, that was a perfect step-wedge in the form of a landscape".
    I agree completely and well said.

    “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”

    Francis Bacon

  7. #257
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    The problem around here is that everyone always wants to include in their definition of Photography the parts that they enjoy and may be good at, while excluding the parts that they find tedious or uninteresting.

    If you can "see" but not effectively render, all you end up with is an imagined idea. If you can "render" but not effectively see, all you end up with is an inanimate object.

    To effectively communicate your vision, you must be able to do both equally well.

    Ken
    I do see people who do that, what I'm talking about is art versus craft. My intent is not to say craft is unimportant just to say that there is a difference between art and craft. We might dodge skillfully. We might dodge artistically. Or we might dodge both skillfully and artistically. The last is the best. The second is ok. The first though only works when you get lucky or are told what to do.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  8. #258
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    765
    Images
    33
    As a 22 year old who shoots everything from 35mm to 4x5, maintains a stable of Hasselblads, Nikons, and a Leica, as well as a fully featured dedicated darkroom with a dialysis-grade temperature control and archival storage boxes for his prints, and an avid collector of photo books (new and old), I resent the sentiment that all young people are versed only in the ways of the 'gram and canon digital rebels.

    That said, most people of my generation are ignorant fucking dumbasses when it comes to just about anything with a history longer than ten minutes.
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  9. #259
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,658
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I do see people who do that, what I'm talking about is art versus craft. My intent is not to say craft is unimportant just to say that there is a difference between art and craft. We might dodge skillfully. We might dodge artistically. Or we might dodge both skillfully and artistically. The last is the best. The second is ok. The first though only works when you get lucky or are told what to do.
    I see craft and art as mutually inclusive. Or mutually enabling. Remove either from the equation... and you are left with nothing whole. Only some part of the whole.

    To say that to dodge artistically is better than to dodge skillfully belies the fact that the former is dependent upon (inclusive with) the latter. The latter enables the former. The former prompts cultivation of the latter. One cannot dodge artistically (i.e., render one's artistic vision effectively) until one can dodge at a sufficient level of skill to even make such a rendering possible. If one successfully dodges such that the result matches the desired artistic outcome and one has no dodging skills, then that outcome was a fortuitous accident not likely to be repeated.

    If one wishes to express oneself in a painting, one kinda' needs to first learn how to paint. At least well enough to effectively render that expression to one's artistic satisfaction. The only other alternative would be to render the expression ineffectively, which is probably not what any party to the work would want.

    When a child first learns to walk, he doesn't do so from the blocks of the Olympic finals in the 100-meter dash. He must first master the basic skills of walking to eventually enable that end result. And, truth be told, most children—most of us—will never see the Olympics.

    But a very, very few will...



    Ken
    Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 08-09-2013 at 06:57 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Damned hyphens, again...
    "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

  10. #260
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,011
    Images
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Lange View Post
    As a 22 year old who shoots everything from 35mm to 4x5, maintains a stable of Hasselblads, Nikons, and a Leica, as well as a fully featured dedicated darkroom with a dialysis-grade temperature control and archival storage boxes for his prints, and an avid collector of photo books (new and old), I resent the sentiment that all young people are versed only in the ways of the 'gram and canon digital rebels.

    That said, most people of my generation are ignorant fucking dumbasses when it comes to just about anything with a history longer than ten minutes.
    Most people your age wouldn't have the resources (financial) to acquire and ten have experience with anything more than digital, how did you amass such things? I will not assume until you tell me.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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