Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,944   Posts: 1,557,721   Online: 1254
      
Page 20 of 25 FirstFirst ... 10141516171819202122232425 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 247
  1. #191
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,007
    I don't read anyone saying that film is (necessarily) art or that digital (necessarily) isn't - that's a huge straw man. Either can be, either might not be. My position is simply that they are different arts, albeit that can also be merged in mixed media relatively easily.

    And for some of us driving is the point, not the destination. Not so much here in the suburbs of metro Atlanta but when I lived in Tennessee, and still when I go back to visit, I'd often enough just go driving in the mountains with no destination in mind, wind through some curves, feel the air through the sunroof and windows, run through the gears and end up exactly where I left never having stopped along my big loop. I'm far from alone in doing that sometimes.

  2. #192
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    764
    Images
    33
    Roger, I totally agree...I think the same logic applies to going for a nice walk in the early evening...

    But I don't think that sort of logic applies at all when discussing the "real" (haha) Fine Art (capital F and capital A) world.
    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.

  3. #193
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,465
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Does it matter what tools get it from scene to wall?
    That depends on each individual, and whether any of the obvious differences between the two tool sets matter to them.

    For example...

    If 'blansky' manages to tame the newborn and creates a stunningly insightful portrait, Mom isn't going care how that scene made it to her wall. As far as she's concerned, she's thrilled and 'blansky' is a freakin' genius.

    However, if Ken has finally decided to spend $10,000* to buy that vintage Ansel Adams Clearing Winter Storm that he always wanted, it's probably going to make a BIG difference to him how that scene made it to his wall. The process differences between the hand-made-by-Ansel-in-1980 version and a negative-scan-and-inkjet-in-2013 version could not be more meaningful.

    In the first example, process could not be more irrelevant. In the second example, process could not be more critical. But in both examples, the core differences between the two photographic processes do still exist. That's a fact that is not open to interpretation.

    As noted earlier, one does not dunk CCDs into D-76 in order to extract images...

    Ken

    * or whatever, I didn't actually Google it...
    "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. #194
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Now Ken, what if Ansel had been alive and scanned in the neg, did the print, signed the back. Would it then still matter as much?
    K.S. Klain

  5. #195
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,430
    Images
    343
    Meanwhile, poor old ken Rockwell doesn't know what he started.

    “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

  6. #196
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,465
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Klainmeister View Post
    Now Ken, what if Ansel had been alive and scanned in the neg, did the print, signed the back. Would it then still matter as much?
    I dunno'. That never happened. Maybe it would have, or maybe not.

    If pigs had wings, would the phrase "rolling around in the mud" with them have any meaning?



    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

  7. #197

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,876
    I don't know where you can objectively draw the lines around these definitions though. You can keep going and going. What if someone said he wouldn't spend $10,000 on an Adams print because the materials he used were all pre-packaged by Kodak? Some oil painters still mix their own paints from scratch, etc. Ken, it seems to me your argument is really one of tactile involvement in the process of making pictures.

  8. #198
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,465
    Images
    48
    My $10,000 wants the original AA version, because the differences in the two processes matter to me. What matters to you... is up to you.

    Of course, YMMV...

    And my original issue wasn't tactility. It was provenance, in the sense of direct linkage between the subject and the medium used to record it. This provenance is asserted by the fact that the process underlying it when using film is real-world, not abstract.

    Ken
    Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 08-27-2013 at 05:33 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Missing word...
    "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

  9. #199
    MatthewDunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    77
    It seems like a lot of people are twisting Ken's argument into what they want it to be and then proceeding to knock down their own modified version.

    Personally, I think both analog and digital are "photography", they both can be "art", and they are equally capable of creating compelling, emotional images. I truly believe that. Having said that, the processes of getting there are not the same. They may feel similar and they may be trying to accomplish the same thing for the same purpose, but at a step-by-step process level, I think the considerations that go into the image-making are just different.

    That may be a distinction without a difference to some and if all you care about is the end-product and whether it is compelling, emotional, honest, etc., than that is fine - a completely valid perspective. But I think it's hard to make an argument that the processes are not, if nothing more than at a physical, "what you actually do" level (i.e. stand in a darkroom vs. sit at a computer), different.
    "Once the amateur's naive approach and humble willingness to learn fades away, the creative spirit of good photography dies with it. Every professional should remain always in his heart an amateur." - Alfred Eisenstadt

  10. #200
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,465
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewDunn View Post
    It seems like a lot of people are twisting Ken's argument into what they want it to be and then proceeding to knock down their own modified version.
    Could not agree more with you (and Loretta...).

    I sit here in stunned astonishment at my inability to get across the exasperatingly simple concept* that the two processes are not the same. This is the most fascinating display of human nature I may have ever seen.

    And almost as astonishing to me is the fact that this conversation is taking place on one of the world's preeminent analog film discussion forums. And probably THE preeminent darkroom forum on the planet.

    If EVER one would have thought the concept of different (not better, not worse, just different) would have resonated, one would have expected it to resonate here.

    But I guess not...

    Ken

    * CCDs versus D-76, for gawd's sake. Think really, really hard about that for just a moment...
    "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



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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