Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,763   Posts: 1,484,033   Online: 1277
      
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 115
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    144
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    it would be ez to take this to another extreme and suggest that unless someone mixed their chemistry and emulsions from scratch, or coated their materials or used a large format camera they arent real photographers ...
    Except this extreme is red herring.

    There are two exposures when making the final photograph.
    The first one is when making the negative, and the second one is when making the print.


    With the negative, you control composition, exposure, DOF and other properties.
    With the print, you control the final contrast, interpret the relations between darks and highlights, or you can go to the extreme and make surreal montages.

    The first one haven't changed that much with the modern technology, while the 2nd is - for many modern photographers - nothing but pushing the buttons.
    I download "nude packs", print them on a 3D printer and call them my work, there.

    This has nothing to do with emulstion, chemistry etc.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,273
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by jernejk View Post
    Except this extreme is red herring.

    There are two exposures when making the final photograph.
    The first one is when making the negative, and the second one is when making the print.


    With the negative, you control composition, exposure, DOF and other properties.
    With the print, you control the final contrast, interpret the relations between darks and highlights, or you can go to the extreme and make surreal montages.

    The first one haven't changed that much with the modern technology, while the 2nd is - for many modern photographers - nothing but pushing the buttons.
    I download "nude packs", print them on a 3D printer and call them my work, there.

    This has nothing to do with emulstion, chemistry etc.
    have you ever used a light meter ?
    it automates measuring the light so the photographer can make his / her exposure,
    they are handy if the exposure maker doesn't have the ability to read the light on their own

    have you ever pit a negative in a densitometer / exposure meter?
    you put the film in, it spins around and it pretty much tells you what to set the enlarger timer to.
    and you press a button and go through the motions of developing the positive.

    making photographs isn't always as you described.

    the extreme i described .. is an extreme, that's the point
    and it is just as of an extreme to suggest that someone
    who shoots chromes and takes them to a lab is just an exposure maker.
    or that a sensor isn't sensitive to light ...
    or that nothing but a portrait is a true photograph or ...
    there is a whole list of equally absurd things i have heard over the years.
    ( a leica is the only REAL camera? )

    do we need to label everyone ?
    labels are kind of lame ...


    getting back to your thread's title ..
    i don't think there is any such thing as "fine" art ...
    Last edited by jnanian; 12-03-2013 at 10:40 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #53
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by jernejk View Post
    There are two exposures when making the final photograph.
    The first one is when making the negative, and the second one is when making the print.
    I have to partially disagree with you. Many photographic processes are only one exposure the Daguerreotype,Ambro/tintype, Direct positive paper, Slide film,Instant film,etc.... The whole photographic discussion in analogue photography only deals with Neg/pos processes and leaves all direct positive processes out. A Polaroid is an automated process and many great artists used it. Come to think of it a minilab is an automated process as well so photographers using their own minilab are no longer artists because they use an automated process B.S..

    The important thing in art is the vision and only to a much lesser extant the execution. The vast majority of modern sculptures are designed by artists and made by others same could be said for most renaissance and Baroque artists only a small number of them did their paintings they had minions (sorry apprentices) who did it for them.

    If Automation is part of the artistic vision it's art, if the work lacks the artists vision or the photographer didn't have a vision when he made the image it's not.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    51
    This has nothing to do with emulstion, chemistry etc.
    I've been following along closely, trying to see all sides, and honestly, trying to figure out where I sit on the issue myself...this caught my eye.

    By this rationale, then, in these times when analog is little more than a niche...are you saying that there are no photographers left except those who shoot film, develop, and print? That any of the modern names in photography are nothing but pretenders?

    If that is indeed what you're saying, that's okay (I guess), but from the cheap seats out here, it seems to be straying perilously close to the realm of "the way I prefer is the only way".

  5. #55
    Hatchetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    437
    Images
    4
    I would pay a premium for a similar product that can't be recreated at the push of a button. It has some scarcity value. A high-quality darkroom print is probably worth a couple hundred bucks worth of labor alone from a skilled darkroom artist/technician.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    144
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold View Post
    I've been following along closely, trying to see all sides, and honestly, trying to figure out where I sit on the issue myself...this caught my eye.

    By this rationale, then, in these times when analog is little more than a niche...are you saying that there are no photographers left except those who shoot film, develop, and print? That any of the modern names in photography are nothing but pretenders?

    If that is indeed what you're saying, that's okay (I guess), but from the cheap seats out here, it seems to be straying perilously close to the realm of "the way I prefer is the only way".
    I'm not actually saying anything, just wondering.

    I know I can make an image which has the same visual effect and power (minus the final detail the darkroom print presents, but 99% viewers don't care to see anyway) effortless with my digital camera (yes, I do have it and use it) compared to hard work it takes to create similar image in the darkroom. Lack of effort means I can create huge volume of photos, which by definition means inflation and decreased value.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatchetman View Post
    I would pay a premium for a similar product that can't be recreated at the push of a button. It has some scarcity value. A high-quality darkroom print is probably worth a couple hundred bucks worth of labor alone from a skilled darkroom artist/technician.
    Something like swiss watches. Totally obsolete, yet still valuable.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    51
    In that case, I'd say that value, both artistic and monetary, depend entirely on what the viewer/buyer feels that they're viewing/buying.

    If they're looking at it based on the history/technique/etc. then those portions of the piece's past are crucially important, to the point that the actual subject matter has an importance quite possible ranking in the afterthough-to-irrelevant levels.

    If, however, the viewer/buyer is looking at the photo from a more pragmatic perspective of "do I like this photo", then the technique behind it only becomes relevant if that technique contributed meaningfully to the impact on the viewer (for example, if they appreciated the touches that only a specific process can deliver).

    From there, at least for me, it becomes pretty clear (again, by my subjective view) that 'value' exists entirely within the mind of the consumer, and when discussions of value arise, any evaluation from the creator are not, in fact, talking of the value as placed by the creator, but rather, that creator self-consuming their own work as a consumer who is interested in the history/technique/etc. and often assuming that others will, or should consume with the same considerations as their own.

    Just two more cents for the pot!

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    144
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold View Post
    From there, at least for me, it becomes pretty clear (again, by my subjective view) that 'value' exists entirely within the mind of the consumer, and when discussions of value arise, any evaluation from the creator are not, in fact, talking of the value as placed by the creator, but rather, that creator self-consuming their own work as a consumer who is interested in the history/technique/etc. and often assuming that others will, or should consume with the same considerations as their own.
    Well, this kind of view certainly has the spirit of our time, the time of consumer.

    One could however apply Kant's categorical imperative to art.
    Kant's philosophy was, that people need to do something not in exchange for any kind of personal benefit (even feeling good about yourself for doing the deed), but rather only because it is the moral thing to do.

  9. #59
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,309
    Images
    188
    The definition of "art" aside, there's no reason to assume it can't be created by a collaborative effort. I've no doubt that the photographers mentioned for not doing their own printing had great input into the final print. I doubt they'd sign the work, unless it met their vision.

    I no longer color print, but work closely with the lab when I have them done. There have been occasions when they've made a half dozen prints before I'm satisfied with the results. In the end, they match my vision, I sign them, and it is, most certainly, my work.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    51
    Kant's philosophy was, that people need to do something not in exchange for any kind of personal benefit (even feeling good about yourself for doing the deed), but rather only because it is the moral thing to do.
    I'm not sure I follow...could you elaborate on what you're trying to say there, and how it relates to the discussion?



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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