Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,503   Posts: 1,543,420   Online: 853
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    To answer the original question, a "photograph" is an image on a piece of paper as a painting is an image on a canvas.

  2. #22
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by firecracker
    I just have to disagree. It's usually the opposite. If the artists didin't convey truths, then they would be just some kind of propagandists at their best.

    "Accuracy" is not the right word, but perhaps "right feeling" is because it ultimately touches your heart.

    Just out of curiosity, do you know why satire political comedy has been so popular in the Bush years in the U.S.?
    It seems that you want to evict false artists from your Republic. It is not EITHER truth OR propaganda. Sorry Plato, but you're victim to the dreaded either/or fallacy.

    Case in point: fiction. Stories about unicorns are not necessarily making claims to truth, neither are they a machine of brainwashing. They are make-believe, just like when you and your buddies were kid and you pretended that a box of cardboard was your space shuttle.

    Some artists tell true statements (e.g. a novel that says that Napoleon was the Emperor of France), some artists tell false statements (e.g. a movie showing that the moon had an eye that was pierced when the first rocket crashed on its surface), some artists tell fictions (e.g. that there was once a King called Whatnot who was lord over the land of Something), some artists tell propaganda (google for a song called "Bush was Right" by the Right Brothers).

    Satire is popular because there are so many idiots like the Right Brothers trying to shove propaganda down people's throat.
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by digiconvert
    Ok this will sound like sour grapes at the start but stick with me ...
    At last weeks college night we were discussing our work (not a lot of it going on as it happens ) and my 'oppo' with the 5D and the IS lenses et al. is showing his landscape project work to our lecturer while I am showing my war graves work. The 5D guy is GOOD he produces really classy prints from his latest printer, I am still working my way through MF and darkroom but I am not totally incompetent and I am pleased with some of my work.
    Anyhow everyone likes our work, the lecturer gives me some advice on my BW print and praises one of the shots from my Lubitel but comments that the 5D pic is beyond improvement. However what really got up my nose was that 5D guy gladly recognises that he spends about 4 hours in PS with his final images and that he takes a SPARE 1Gb card per shoot so that he is bound to get a good shot somewhere. He explains that the sky in one shot was not what he wanted so he 'swapped it' for a better one in PS - as I said the finished article is really good, better than I produce and I have no gripe with the lecturer or 5D guy BUT what's the point in shooting a scene then making it better with part of another scene. Why not just buy in a stock of photos and manipulate them ? It would be cheaper than a 5D plus all of the support gear !
    As a sort of therapy I went out today with 2x36 films in the 35mm and took photos of landscapes (It was tranny film so I get through a fair bit since I bracket) but it struck me while I was doing this that I could put the camera on AF/green rectangle mode and shoot away hoping to get a good shot - it seems that for a lot of digi photographers (NOT all) who have never used film this is the way they shoot, if it's no good then thank God for photoshop and put it right.
    So after the rant I return to my title, a photograph to me has to have "some of me" in it. I need to have thought about it, considered the exposure, differential focus, metering etc. etc. if APUG weren't here to give us all support and film based photography DID wither away (it won't) the world would be a really poorer place.
    Sorry for the rant but I do feel better now and welcome your views.
    Cheers CJB
    Let me begin by saying that I do not have digital anything in my photography equipment. That being said let me go on and say this. A photograph can amount to many different things. For some of us a photograph is a creative expression and the means by which we arrive at the expression is secondary to the expression.

    Who is to say that someone Photoshopping is any different then someone burning in a sky, dodging a shadow, retouching a negative, or bleaching a print? Just because one is done in a manner different than another seems to make a poor argument.

    If one were to choose to argue that difference as being sufficient, then why would retouching a negative be any more or any less "proper" then burning or more likely dodging a print...let alone, for heavens sake, masking the negative.

    Should we throw people like Howard Bond, Charles Phillips, Alan Ross and others that dye dodge or mask negatives out of our community because they are not adhering to "proper" or "traditional" methods?

    Should we throw those real rebels like Misha Gordin or Jerry Uelsmann out of our community because they combine images and present prints that are not literal renditions of objects or scenes found in reality?

    I would hope not.

  4. #24
    dianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Denton, Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    13
    There's a huge market for digital/photoshop out there. We just have to accept that and go on doing what we believe in. Not everyone has the same understanding we do.

    I can tell when I'm looking at a digital image. The human eye can resolve 120 megapixels. I don't keep up with digital technology, but I'm guessing the high end cameras record 20 megapixels. I think at some level my eye sees pixellation, even though it's not obvious. Then there are the shades of gray. Digital records a discrete number of shades per "photosite" on the image sensor. Our eyes are used to seeing more variation. Film's shades are continuous, not discrete, more like what the eye sees. Film capture and traditional printing, when done well, can make the image feel three-dimensional. That's what digital lacks, and that the main reason why I shoot film.

    I'm curious, if digital technology ever exceeds what the eye can resolve, if I'll still be able to tell the difference.

    I don't think of digital images as art, at least what I've seen thus far. There was a digital exhibit at the Amon Carter a few years ago - a photographer retraced the Lewis and Clark expedition and took digital photographs along the way. My husband and I were both unimpressed. The images were flat and on some level, the color balance didn't seem right. I seem to recall they were inkjet prints. No offense meant to the photographer (I don't remember his name) - it was a great idea for a collection of images, but I wish it had been done on film and printed the old fashioned way.

    Keep doing what your gut tells you is right. Make photographs that are beautiful to your own eye and everything else will fall into place.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by digiconvert
    Analogue photography is by it's nature fraught with imperfection - like other traditional arts you get better from keeping and noting your mistakes.
    It's called life. The problem is usually the tendency that some people believe, the newer the better.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by mhv
    I am sorry, but you deserve a full philosophical slap on the face for that statement! Realism and claims to truth in depictions are not at all universals, and Albertian perspective is surely not the best representation of reality. In current Western practices of art, yes, so-called "straight" photo is a potent statement of truth and accuracy in representation, but when Alberti brought up his new technique of representation with points de fuites and converging lines, not everyone got it right at first. There is a certain level of cultural entrenchment that comes with the issue of realism.

    To show that I'm not a damn relativist, just compare a drawing of a cube made according to the standards of Renaissance perspective, and one made according to axonometric projection, as is used in technical drawings and blueprints. Which one is more realistic? The one that gives you an optical illusion or the one that reproduces faithfully all distances between every points?



    Sure is. I'm just blockheaded enough to believe that there are some facts, also.
    Uhhh, Excuse me. Why did I receive the glove to the face? Although I may be somewhat "unrefined" and definitely "assertive by any standard" by my own judgements . . . but please, a slap to the face! And a full philosophical slap at that. Por Favor, ¡Qué desgracia! Tis "not I" who continues to compare apples to oranges. An honest mistake by the way, I was actually in search of "enlightening conversation". Dabbling in dribble is not my forte. ;-) En Garde!

    Cheers.

    Dann
    Last edited by DannL; 04-11-2006 at 10:26 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by mhv
    Case in point: fiction. Stories about unicorns are not necessarily making claims to truth, neither are they a machine of brainwashing. They are make-believe, just like when you and your buddies were kid and you pretended that a box of cardboard was your space shuttle.
    That's exactly my point: it's the truth to the kids' vision, not accuracy in any physical sense in the eyes of others. But when the kids' vision is perceived by the audience, it's no longer just a piece of cardboard that these kids are playing with. And I think, mhv, you're in the audience already.

    I was responding to the post of "straight photography" as being the best approach to represent the reality, but I don't think it is. It's not about the method or a techinique. But that doesn't mean Ansel Adams' photos miss out the truths from the reality: They indeed seem to contain some.

    It's not an either/or kind of argument. That's my point. I think you and I are saying the same thing, essentially.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by mhv
    ISatire is popular because there are so many idiots like the Right Brothers trying to shove propaganda down people's throat.
    I'm not aware of the group you have mentioned. But satire pieces do what conventional news reportings can't these days.

  9. #29
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    729
    Photography is an invented word with an invented meaning. In spite of there being many ways to make pictures that superficially resemble photographs real photographs are unambiguously defined. See signature below. Original sources are decisive.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  10. #30
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by firecracker
    That's exactly my point: it's the truth to the kids' vision, not accuracy in any physical sense in the eyes of others. But when the kids' vision is perceived by the audience, it's no longer just a piece of cardboard that these kids are playing with. And I think, mhv, you're in the audience already..
    So were you meaning to say that if "straight" photographers weren't accountable to truth by some standard then they would be propagandist? I have a bit of a hard time understanding what it is you are exactly saying, and about what.
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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