Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,963   Posts: 1,523,245   Online: 955
      
Page 15 of 25 FirstFirst ... 59101112131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 247
  1. #141
    MartinCrabtree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Back in the hills
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    639
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    Our threads always go off topic.

    Rockwell is a resource.

    Some say a good one others a bad one. As are most resources.

    Pick your poison.
    Oh stop making sense.

  2. #142
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,090
    Images
    48
    "People crave something real, a physical object that is unique and that you can hold in your hand," said Masato Yamamoto, general manager of Fujifilm’s photo imaging products division, on the sidelines of the [new Instax Mini-90 Neo Classic] camera launch.

    "Film yields an authenticity that is often missing in a digital world."

    Fortunately, there are some people who really do get it...

    Ken
    "Hate is an adolescent term used to stop discussion with people you disagree with. You can do better than that."
    —'blanksy', December 13, 2013

  3. #143
    bobwysiwyg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI U.S.A.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,547
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    "People crave something real, a physical object that is unique and that you can hold in your hand," said Masato Yamamoto, general manager of Fujifilm’s photo imaging products division, on the sidelines of the [new Instax Mini-90 Neo Classic] camera launch.

    "Film yields an authenticity that is often missing in a digital world."

    Fortunately, there are some people who really do get it...

    Ken
    But sadly, more that don't.
    WYSIWYG - At least that's my goal.

    Portfolio-http://apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=25518

  4. #144
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    736
    Images
    32
    It's not that prints from digital files aren't authentic, it's just that the majority of people have the same mentality that we often ballyhoo on here of "I can press print and get 50 copies!".

    A) Anyone that editions their work at 50 is a dumbass.

    B) printing with inkjet is as difficult as printing in the darkroom...color inconsistencies, profiling, batch to batch paper variation that is generally more pronounced than we experience in the darkroom world...the only thing is that since more people have inkjet printers than darkrooms, we see (drastically) more people who don't really care about the true quality of the finished product. Don't you think we are a little biased here? We have all chosen to be members of what is billed as an "exclusively analog" photographic community of printers and photographers, for better or worse. By that very fact alone, we all care 100% more about our finished product than 98% of the photographic community. My father exclusively prints via inkjet now...but to make a single print that he is willing to put his signature on is an hours long ordeal, requiring extensive collaboration with his printer (whom, I might add, is descended from a 3 generations long family of printers, both lithography and silver based). He will make a visit to her lab all day and come home with two or three prints...no different than any discerning professional darkroom worker.

    C) I'm really sick of people disrespecting digital photography as a medium because of its intrinsic lack of a concrete original between shutter-press and print (Polaroid, eat your heart out). Digital cameras didn't hurt standards of quality in photography, and there aren't any more bad photographers than there were in the past, it's just that the needle is no longer hidden in a haystack, it's submerged in a pool of shit the size of the Pacific Ocean. Archival pigment prints have projected lives beyond that of both Ciba and RA-4 (even CA-II). Also...we can whine but when was the last time you were able to get a color print done on 310gsm fiber-based paper without using color-carbro-Ilfo-BBQ-EDTA-Fresson-Transfer-Chromeoil?

    D) I don't know about y'all but I hate touching my negatives...

    E) I think people would use film more if they saw more work that they enjoyed which was made on film. Some annoying rich guy yelling about nonsense isn't going to have much actual effect on anything.
    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.

  5. #145

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,230
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    "Film yields an authenticity that is often missing in a digital world."

    Fortunately, there are some people who really do get it...
    Let's be fair: Some of us "get" it, but disagree. I like film, obviously, and in many ways the process leaves me as a creator feeling in closer contact with the work than digital does, but I don't find this "film-only authenticity" to be a real phenomenon. I understand that you do, and this is one of those subjective things where reasonable people can differ.

    I actually find instant film to be a lot like digital, in that the process is sort of a magical black box, and I think it's cool in its own way but doesn't have much in common with darkroom work. I'd actually say in some ways it's more "detached" or "alienated" from the photographer than digital, precisely because it *is* so much of a black box---apart from Polaroid backs on system or LF cameras, the actual controls applicable to the process are almost always very limited, and the controls you can apply after exposure are basically nil.

    To me, that stuff only gets really interesting when you start to look at things like emulsion transfers and experimenting with the "goop" side of peel-aparts. Your mileage may, obviously, vary.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  6. #146

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,230
    Images
    21
    (The Platonic original of a photograph)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    It's an attempt to define the behaviors of the medium in existential terms. What it truly physically is, and not merely by how it's perceived and/or used.
    I've been thinking about this post and why I find the perspective it addresses to be so strange at a gut level, and after a couple of days of pondering, I think it's because of the deployment of absolute phrases like "[w]hat it truly physically is" in a setting where I'm pretty sure they don't mean anything objective.

    That is, you're talking about the "truth" of photography in terms of a kind of optical magic, in which the information in a bunch of loose photons is captured wholesale as a physical, concrete image. We all know that doesn't happen---the photo loses polarization, timing information, and the wave properties of light, for a start, and that's without considering optical imperfections of the lens or spectral and sensitivity limitations of the capture medium---but you write as if it's very viscerally clear to you that *those* departures from perfect accuracy are not important, while *other* departures are enormously important.

    Which, y'know, take your gut feeling and run with it! I'm not going to argue that you shouldn't have that attitude to the medium. But I don't see that it has any special claim to being The Way Photography Really Is, or that any particular choice of the cutoff point between "not important" and "enormously important" is intrinsically more right than any other.

    It seems to me that most of the contributors here want to define it simply by how they use it. That, I think, is why there are so many different definitions, and angst over a sense that no one else understands what it really is except for "me". When one constructs a definition solely around one's own unique interaction with the medium it's not surprising that one ends up with an almost infinite number of interpretations.
    Agreed, absolutely. I kind of think that these different interpretations are all we've got, though, unless you abstract your concept of "the medium" away from photography and into general visual art.[1] While we can try to understand one another's interpretations and get out of our own confined assumptions, I think the idea of a transcendent Grand Unified Theory of Photography is a fiction, and epistemological arguments about it are founded on sand.

    -NT

    [1] What distinguishes photography from painting, I submit, is *solely* the process; it's possible for a technically skilled painter to make a viewer say "wait, is that a photo?", or an inventive photo printer to make a viewer say "wait, is that a painting?", which by itself almost proves that you can't really distinguish the two media purely on viewable characteristics of the image. The two certainly speak the same language between the creator and the viewer, and what can be said about one in terms of image and communication can be equally said about the other. Discuss?
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  7. #147
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,090
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Lange View Post
    C) I'm really sick of people disrespecting digital photography as a medium because of its intrinsic lack of a concrete original between shutter-press and print...
    It's not disrespect, Chris. It's simply clarifying the differences between the two processes for those who insist on burying their heads in the sand and denying that there are any differences at all. There are differences. Obvious, demonstrable differences. Whether those differences matter to you... is up to you. For some, perhaps even most these days, they don't matter. But for others, they do.

    Ken
    "Hate is an adolescent term used to stop discussion with people you disagree with. You can do better than that."
    —'blanksy', December 13, 2013

  8. #148
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,127
    Images
    340
    When digital photography appeared I had no problem with it and found it a great addition to analogue to further the boundaries of what could be achieved. The problem I had was when it was hijacked by marketing men to make money and put digital as a technological replacement over film.

    “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

  9. #149
    Dinesh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,572
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    The problem I had was when it was hijacked by marketing men to make money and put digital as a technological replacement over film.
    Why should that bother you?
    Kick his ass, Sea Bass!

  10. #150
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,127
    Images
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by Dinesh View Post
    Why should that bother you?
    Because I don't feel it is an ethical development of photographic technology. A personal view of course.

    “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



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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