I'm afraid that I've lost the continuity here. Can someone re-state the subject we were discussing?
I thought it was something like "Color Photographs - And Digital:`Art'? Yes, or no?"
I think there is just as much of a chance of either medium being "Art" as there is in any other medium. This is like asking, "Oil Painting - "~Art"? - yes or no?"
I do not think there is enough information in the basic statement to make that determination. We might as well ask, "Rock. Diamond? - yes or no?"
Some of the arguments here are interesting, though. I can't quite digest the idea that the difficulties inherent in any media ... say knowledge of "color theory" are anything like a deciding factor. Is oil painting more `art' than charcoal drawing? - or even more difficult? To me, producing fine art is no more, or less difficult in ANY media.
As far as "Is it art?" I'll fall back on someone who could easily be called "The Accepted Expert In the Field", the "Dean" of all Art Critics, Clement Greenberg. He is, or was, one of the few "coherent" critics. He wrote repeatedly that he DID NOT KNOW precisely, or even imprecisely, "What art was". Even so, he could offer interesting "points to ponder" and lay the groundwork for interesting discussions ABOUT "Art". I will not suggest that *I* even come anywhere close to Greenberg, in his knowledge of art.
As far as "A reason for... (fill in the blank) in art." I, truthfully, do not have a clue, other than... I do this because I feel better when I do this than I do when I don't do this. If this hedonistic approach does not satisfy the "requirements" of any out there ... sheeesh. I don't know. So WHAT?
I have made photographs that "work" (acid test for success) in color, but DO NOT in a black and white print of the same negative... and vice versa. Why something "works" and something else does not ... I think if I could answer that question, with an answer universally acceptable... I could rule the world, or at least, the ART world.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
Hmm, David Ward argues in his recent book that it is harder to make a good color photograph than a good B&W photograph. That point is probably arguable, although valid IMO. That is probably because we are constantly bombarded with color photographs in this modern society, which makes it all the more difficult to make a color photograph which grabs ones attention.
Originally Posted by Will S
I don't concern myself so much about color theory; when I am out making images, I look for something in the scene that will set it apart, and grab ones attention. Sometimes, this can be a warm tone on a rock or wild grass, sometimes just a graduation of color from one area to the next - like on a horizon at sunset. Back in the days when I did B&W, I looked for tonal range, but find that isn't an something that concerns me with color - probably the reason I no longer do much B&W, this need to shift mental gears.
Use a #58 filter and your choice of B&W film...no need for paint.
Originally Posted by Will S
Where there is art there will always be controversy. Remember when the synthesizer was a threat to all music? It has now become legitimized as its own instrument and blends well with acoustic instruments. Nobody is fighting about it much anymore.
With film vs. digital, color vs. black & white, medium vs. large vs. 35mm, posed vs. candid, nikon vs. canon, on & on &on.....these are peripheral arguments which do not in any way help to define "art" or the quality of the work.
An artists tools and the way they approach creating is an individual style and choice which really doesn't have bearing on the art itself.
Every single one of the items I just mentioned (film, digital, B&W, color, etc.) have been utilized in the creation of great artistic work and have been recognized as such by those who are looking not at the creative process but the end result and what affect it has on the senses.
But, artists are opinionated and must constantly question the methods by which they work. That leads to growth, knowledge, and maybe even individual improvement in one's work. Those involved in any creative process become more self critical and opinionated as they evolve and that is how we grow and explore new avenues of creativity.
In all cases these arguments are really positive conflict if the result stimulates thought. So, as long as we can respect one another's right to an opinion, let the arguments continue to give us something to think about.
Originally Posted by arigram
Why in God's name would you want to paint a red door black? I think a lot of B&W photographers exist because they've never been able to technically master colour affordably in the darkroom. In the '70s (and earlier) you needed a patron to be able to afford to work in colour artistically.
Try Fuji NPS colour negative film if you want see what you can do with colour. Scans very well in Silverfast and has gorgeous colour (no, it doesn't look like Velvia, thank God.) Portra VC is interesting too.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Matter of taste Paul. I love Velvia, it's the only film I have found that truthfully represents color the way I see it.
Originally Posted by Skip
Why not? I mean the argument that red does not have to be red is just as valid as the argument it should be red to me.
Some people enjoy the process of abstraction by making B/W or, a better term, "monochromatic" images, others don't.
Also, in "B/W photography," there are "colors" you play with which we know as "tones." It is just that these colors are much more muted and "subtle" than the colors we know of. I think everything does not have to be super-saturated colors as we are already bombarded with the colors of the advertisement and other "loud" media in my opinion.
Originally Posted by Skip
Originally Posted by roteague
Absolutely a matter of personal taste - in your case, for the work you do, Velvia works well. NPS would lose itself in the atmospherics of your landscapes, whereas Velvia holds together. I shoot mostly Provia in transparency, but I have been enjoying the subtleties that NPS seems to excel in, in soft light.
Ask Jagger and Richards (The Rolling Stones). I think they were writing about depression, but you can decide for yourself. http://home.swipnet.se/~w-35264/lyrics/black.html
Originally Posted by Skip
Note the smiley in the original post. It was peripheral humor.
Sometimes it is really difficult to make people understand what you are trying to do in photography. It's difficult as it is to explain to common people why you shoot film, and even more difficutl to explain why you shoot BW film-
Here is an example:
A friend drove me one day to leave some film for developing and I tried to buy some BW but they didn't have any in stock
so he asks me:
Why do you want to shoot BW?
how else am I supose to get BW images?
well use a digital camera and desaturate on the computer
It's not the same
what do you mean? Both images are black and white and have no color.
well next time you want to drink some 100% orange juice,
make yourself that artificial sirup with the aroma of orange instead.
another little story
Another friend was trying to convince me that movies shot on HD cameras look better than those shot on film
so I said:
motion picture film can capture more gradations of light, more color nuances than HD cameras
so he said (this is hilarious):
yea, but you don't need so much colors, when a filmmaker sets up a scene, he will use maybe 5-10 different colors on the wardrobe and props, he doesn't need millions of different colors
another example of trying to justify using film:
So I say to some friends that I was considering buying a medium format camera.
They have no idea what is that, so I try to explain to them
you know those little box-cameras with a crank on the side that you use to turn film
laugter, yea, why don't you also use that big magnesium
flash thing (they were refering to the ilumination used in 19th century flash photography)
It seems to me that the digital age has gotten everyone semi-interested in technology, specially photography.
Photography was reserved before only for people who knew what they were doing.
Suddenly, digital cameras come, and everyone thinks they are experts on photography. Computer magazine journalists reviewing digital cameras, as if they have not hijacked photo technology expertise.
Those who have switched to digital after long years of using film, still have some perspective on what is what in photography,
but those who have never shot photography before they started spending on a new digital point&shit cameras really have no idea what is what.
Many people laugh at view cameras and think they deliver grainy outdated images or something.
Oh the ignorance