Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,502   Posts: 1,543,376   Online: 784
      
Page 8 of 25 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131418 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 247
  1. #71
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,285
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    I actually heard you state that opinion more than once...
    The two processes are not mutually exclusive, they are just not the same. And because they are not the same process they produce different end results. Both physically and aesthetically. Which result suits any individual's needs at any given moment is up to each individual to decide for themselves. And that decision may change with each subsequent moment or need.

    Go back and reread our extensive PM exchange again. I can't be any more clear and consistent in this common sense position. Neither method is better or worse than the other. They are just not exactly the same thing. And asserting that they are, as you and others have repeatedly done in the past, does a massive disservice to both. As well as to the blindingly obvious realities of both.

    So tell me, when you have finished a portrait session do you normally disassemble your camera, then disconnect and remove the CCD sensor, then immerse it into D-76 diluted 1+1 for 11 minutes at 68F/20C with agitation for 10 seconds out of each 60?

    Why not??

    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

  2. #72
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    The two processes are not mutually exclusive, they are just not the same. And because they are not the same process they produce different end results. Both physically and aesthetically. Which result suits any individual's needs at any given moment is up to each individual to decide for themselves. And that decision may change with each subsequent moment or need.

    Go back and reread our extensive PM exchange again. I can't be any more clear and consistent in this common sense position. Neither method is better or worse than the other. They are just not exactly the same thing. And asserting that they are, as you and others have repeatedly done in the past, does a massive disservice to both. As well as to the blindingly obvious realities of both.

    So tell me, when you have finished a portrait session do you normally disassemble your camera, then disconnect and remove the CCD sensor, then immerse it into D-76 diluted 1+1 for 11 minutes at 68F/20C with agitation for 10 seconds out of each 60?

    Why not??

    Ken
    No I agitate it for 8 seconds at 72 degrees.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA
    Last edited by blansky; 08-21-2013 at 10:50 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  3. #73
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    72 degrees of inclination, I presume.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #74
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,285
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    No I agitate it for 8 seconds at 72 degrees.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA
    Aye blansky...

    But do you know which one of those chaps was playing you and which was playing me?

    I'll bet you do...



    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

  5. #75
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    72 degrees of inclination, I presume.
    Exactly, I'm inclined towards that.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  6. #76
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    Aye blansky...

    But do you know which one of those chaps was playing you and which was playing me?

    I'll bet you do...



    Ken
    Obviously I'm the John Cleese character.

    You on the other hand are just looking for an argument.

    No you aren't.

    Yes you are....................
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  7. #77
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,285
    Images
    48
    "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

  8. #78
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    The two processes are not mutually exclusive, they are just not the same. And because they are not the same process they produce different end results. Both physically and aesthetically. Which result suits any individual's needs at any given moment is up to each individual to decide for themselves. And that decision may change with each subsequent moment or need.

    Go back and reread our extensive PM exchange again. I can't be any more clear and consistent in this common sense position. Neither method is better or worse than the other. They are just not exactly the same thing. And asserting that they are, as you and others have repeatedly done in the past, does a massive disservice to both. As well as to the blindingly obvious realities of both.

    So tell me, when you have finished a portrait session do you normally disassemble your camera, then disconnect and remove the CCD sensor, then immerse it into D-76 diluted 1+1 for 11 minutes at 68F/20C with agitation for 10 seconds out of each 60?

    Why not??

    Ken
    You see whenever two people have a conversation/exchange with each other there has to be a couple of factors present for it to work. One is that both people must be relatively sane, have an ability at rational thought, maybe have a part of the empathy gene to see the other persons point of view etc etc.

    So when your pet peeve is that digital and analog are NOT THE SAME, and some of us say that it pretty much is, there has to be the ability to discern language and realize that of course NOBODY would ever say they are exactly the same thing. But what is meant and you know this, but can't let go of, is that in the evolution of photography from analog to digital, in each case, one part of the process replaced the other. For better or worse, depending on your point of view.

    The cameras recording device changed from film to a card. The developing process changed, the retouching part changed, the printing part changed and what was left was a print much like but obviously not exactly like the previous process.

    Rational people can follow this and when someone says that to them the process changed, but it still the same thing, only different, we get it. It's not a literal statement. Like my stick shift to automatic transmission analogy. Driving is NOT the same but in rational conversational reality it is. You still drive your car from A to B.

    As I said you love the analog process. Great. I love the digital one. And in the workflow, one process changed for another.

    So when you want to harp on about how it's not the same technically, it is not. It's the same but different.

    But to goal oriented people, since the print on the wall was always the goal and how you got there was fun/ a nuisance/work etc, for us nothing has changed. The subject to a bunch of mundane tasks to the print on the wall. Still the same.

    When I say to you, it's a beautiful day. I'm referring to the fact that I'm sitting on my back deck awash in sunshine, with two nude 24 years olds serving me wine, you have to have a few brain processes at work here. You have to assume that where I am it's nice and you get the meaning. You could be up to your ass in snow and don't feel the same way and so to argue with me would seem a bit strange because you have to have an empathy gene and sort of get it. Not the nude 24 year olds but the overall concept.

    So when I say the analog process and the digital one are the same for me, to argue and say NO THEY ARE NOT, is just a reflection of how YOU feel, which could be different because you love the analog process and enjoy the workflow. The world of language is not literal, it's nuanced.

    So in reality the fact that my nude 24 year olds are actually 44 year olds does not changed the overall concept of a beautiful sunny day.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  9. #79
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,285
    Images
    48
    Not ignoring you here... I'm at work right now... In a software development status meeting for an upcoming product release... Back later...



    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

  10. #80

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,274
    Images
    21
    (Blansky was addressing Ken N, but how could anything bad ever happen due to jumping into someone else's argument on the inet?)

    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    You are a "process" guy. You love the process and to you if we don't agree with you then we are not authentically experiencing photography.

    But some people are goal oriented. The process is semantics. They'll use the tools available to achieve the best print they think they can get because to them the print is the ultimate goal of the exercise. Now you can argue that in your world the print is better, but in my world and experience it is not, for many reasons.
    And even that distinction isn't at all sharp, because there are a bunch of different levels of "process" involved in photography. What you might call the high-level artistic process---see, visualize, capture, print---doesn't seem to me to be very different in different photographic media, but the "craft" processes are very different; not just between analog and the D-word, but between darkroom enlarging and cyanotypes, wet plate, liquid emulsion on an eggshell. Heck, the differences in process between rollfilm and sheet film are significant to many people.

    But what's the point in trying to draw a boundary in that set of craft- and medium-specific processes and say THIS side is all basically the same and THAT side is totally different (or "is not photography", "is inauthentic", "sucks", or similar sweeping generalities)? Is there something to be achieved through that argument, other than the usual chimera of "I won" bragging rights and the subsequent "No you didn't" meta-argument? It just seems to me like people are going to perpetrate images the way they want to, and call it whatever they call it, and so what?

    Personally, I long ago gave up on purism and will cheerfully shoot any old thing and print it any old way. Interestingly, if I look around the stuff I've chosen to put up in my office, almost all of it was shot on film. (The really good stuff, as opposed to "cute picture of the kid that coulda been taken with anything", is mostly large format, but it's not because my contact prints are technically awesome---they're actually pretty awful---but because I compose better on a big ground glass, I think. So the "craft" processes end up affecting my "art" processes, in the terms I used above; which I think is quite compatible with anything being said in this discussion.)

    -NT
    Last edited by ntenny; 08-21-2013 at 02:11 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: formatting typo
    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_



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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