Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,011   Posts: 1,524,666   Online: 803
      
Page 21 of 25 FirstFirst ... 111516171819202122232425 LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 247
  1. #201
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,786
    I think it mostly does resonate here Ken. But most of us just nod silently. The ones who don't agree are more apt to speak up. That seems true in most things.

  2. #202
    MatthewDunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    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.
    Fortunately, I don't think it has anything to do with that. I think this thread has become an outlet for a harmless argument that won't go quietly into the good night because it is the very process of arguing (as opposed to the actual intellectual point of the argument) that has become fulfilling. Does anyone in this thread *honestly* care whether someone on the internet whose name you do not know and whom you will never meet in real life think that what you do is or is not photography? If so, I might suggest you have more significant problems that you need to attend to.

    This is about getting frustration and anxiety out in an anonymous way and without consequence. You can't (or at least shouldn't) kick the dog or beat your kids or your wife, but hey, yelling on the internet...sure. Oh, and could I get a side of "faux righteous indignation" every time someone doesn't agree with me?
    "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

  3. #203
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    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.

    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.
    I agree 100% and have stated so. I have done both processes. FOR ME one replaced the other for reasons I described. (30 years compared to 7)

    I know that there are process people that turn out stunning work.

    But Ken's initial argument and continuing argument goes beyond viva la difference to the point where one has worth and the other does not. Don't believe me read his earlier posts.

    So I simply added that a beautifully processes boring picture has little real value and a poorly processed impactful picture, no matter the way it was originated, can have incredible value ( not talking monetary). I agree value us a subjective term but you get the drift.

    And I don't think the genesis of photography had much to do with process, (just do whatever works), and more to do with the magic of stopping time and getting an image. The impact of the image. As much as Ken wants to love the glass plate, the originator cared about the image. It was all about getting the image.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  4. #204

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,561
    Ken, would anyone actually argue the processes are the same? I think if you just stuck to saying the processes are different (ie excluding the seeing), plain and simple, that's about all there is to it. All due respect, it doesn't seem like you really stopped there.

  5. #205
    MatthewDunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    But Ken's initial argument and continuing argument goes beyond viva la difference to the point where one has worth and the other does not.
    FWIW, I don't agree with that. If I see a compelling, emotionally-charged image, I could not care less how it was made. Asking whether or not it is digital or analog would be akin (to me) to asking the artist "what f-stop did you use?" (i.e. maybe technically interesting and a question worth asking once you have asked the 20 questions that were *really* worth asking, but...).

    I've looked at the work of a lot of conflict photographers recently (e.g. Tim Hetherington). I think "Restrepo" was basically shot on handy-cams from WalMart. Could not make less of a difference as the subject matter is so overpowering that the medium is totally transparent.
    "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

  6. #206
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,095
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    As much as Ken wants to love the glass plate...
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I think if you just stuck to saying the processes are different (ie excluding the seeing)...
    Sigh...
    "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. #207
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Ken, would anyone actually argue the processes are the same? I think if you just stuck to saying the processes are different (ie excluding the seeing), plain and simple, that's about all there is to it. All due respect, it doesn't seem like you really stopped there.
    That's what confused me. On PAGE 14 comment 135 he states that vive la difference and he gets it. Different people have different goals.

    Then on PAGE 15 comment 142 he's back at it. Talking about one having "authenticity".

    Anyways it's been fun.

    Later.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  8. #208
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,095
    Images
    48
    And you think those two expressions are somehow mutually exclusive?

    How about "authenticity" (in the sense we've been discussing it) matters to me, but not to you? And not mattering to you is just as valid a state as is the state of mattering to me?

    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

  9. #209
    MatthewDunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    ...Talking about one having "authenticity".

    Anyways it's been fun.

    Later.
    The problem is that you are making it hard for us to take your side when you engage in the exact same tactics that you accuse others of using...


    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    Sadly, that comment illustrated a lot about you.

    After pages of discussion and a sort of a meeting of the minds that different photographers have different goals and ideas of photography, you need a parting shot across the bow like that.

    An absolute obsession and an unwillingness to let something go.
    If you really have had your fill, it would seem that you are perfectly capable of stepping out of the thread without taking the same parting shot that seem to bug you so.
    "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. #210

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,561
    It's a slippery slope. My two cents, for some people the end result - a print of a photograph - is all that matters. For others, the process also matters, and it can affect the value of the final product. Beyond that, I'm confused as to whether Ken views digital/analog as different processes, or different media or different artforms. I completely understand Roger's feelings about manual transmissions, the experience of driving, etc., and the process of analog photography is somewhat (although not entirely) analogous, I suppose. But I'm not sure if that's consistent with Ken's argument or not.
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 08-27-2013 at 03:19 PM. Click to view previous post history.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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