Originally Posted by Maris
You have voiced this opinion in at least one other thread. You have voiced your opinion, but it appears that you are in a minority.
Perhaps we should rather use the term of photographer as the person using the camera. Not everyone has the time, equipment, experience or the money to print, particularly in color. It is not necessary for the person taking the image be a printer. As we have stated previously a transparency is in fact a finished product. It need not be printed, but if that is the desire of the photographer it need not be done by that individual. Many of us that use the services of a printer give direction as to how the image should be printed.
I for one feel very fortunate to take transparencies and have had the opportunity to use the services of one of the best and best known color printers (Bill Nordstrom) in the United States for the last 11 1/2 years.
Wow,that's fascinating, camera-worker !! Still chuckling... A pity that HCB, and all the other great photogs who did not print themselves cannot tell us what their opinion is about your suggestion ? !!
Originally Posted by Maris
A suggestion tho which earns a certain respect, it is at least an artisans consequently focussed view on "making photographs".
Really , Maris, to have this sight on photographers is strange enuff, to say the least. But the idea of renaming a certain group of photogs to make visible what is in your weird understanding a deficit, that reveals an enormous amount of arrogance.
A la recherche du temps perdu: www. bersac.de
Times are changing. There is a revolution in the making of highly mimetic pictures with electronic methods replacing the photographic medium for ordinary illustrative purposes.
Originally Posted by rfshootist
Now, when the identity of photography is under challenge, it is a good time to question the rusted-on assumptions and conventions that be-devil photography.
There were a few users of camera obscuras and camera lucidas but general camera use up until the end of the 1980's was fairly reliably associated with photography. This was not based on a conscious decision of camera users but by an accident of history and technology. Film was the only thing you could put into a camera then. Things are very different now and only a tiny fraction of camera use (or camera-play) involves photography. Most camera use involves CC TV, broadcast TV, videotape production, home camcorders, and electronic still imaging. Camera use does not now (or ever) automatically make one a photographer.
The priority in the process, as implied at the start of the thread, is that one ends up with a photograph. The maker of the end product is principle photographer. The other stuff in the chain of production, the stuff that gets consumed and discarded on the way to the final photograph is interesting, necessary, but subsidiary.
The old convention that subject selection and camera clicking credits one as the photographer needs serious questioning. This is a good time in the history of picture making to be having an illuminating debate.
Thanks rfshootist for your wit and insights.
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.
Originally Posted by Maris
the original question referred to the prorities at printing and shooting and did not at all touch the process itself.
I cannot see, why all the historical changes in technology should force us now to think about the role of the person behind the camera, if it is a photographer or not. This is a basic question, opposite to what you said not depending on any medium or process.
That only those who do the whole process should be called photogs is solely based on your own narrowed definition of what a photograph is and what a photographer is.
This is the attempt to invent the world of photography new, driven by a , for which reasons ever, puristical narrowed POV, necessarily ending in the arrogance of contemptous elitism.
Maybe you should waste some thought about how impudent I and others could keep your idea to let us classify as a non-photog.
It is too far out to really offend me, it was only the arrogance behind your statements which made me comment.
You should better go back to your darkroom and do there what you have to do, and leave other photogs alone with your revolutionary classifications.
And if you ever should run out of decent negs because you did not find time for photographing, call me, I'll send you some.
A la recherche du temps perdu: www. bersac.de
"My priority now seems to be involved with seeing and exposing film as a departure from making prints. The adventure lies in seeing for me. Has anyone else observed this tendency?" Miller
This has been good to think about. For me, working falls into one of two categories.
When I'm working on a project, a documentary for instance or making pictures for a specific purpose, I seldom print until the shooting is done. While each image needs to stand on its own, the body of images takes on a life of its own, and when the time come print I seldom pick up a camera. This suits my temperament, I suppose.
When life is more normal, either doing work with shorter gestation ( weekly or daily ! ) I'll acummulate the developed film and make proofs and work prints in a day, then work on finals as needed.
I sure do appreciate what Donald has brought up.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Nothing is wrong to call “shooters” camera-worker and to call workers in darkroom “printers”. It is wrong to call camera owners photographers. When my brother in law got a camera I said once “look my brother became a photog”?. He smiled and said “I am not a photographer, I just take pictures”. So he is a camera-worker, true, even he know it. Photography is not “a part of photography” or collective exercise. When Michelangelo was forced to paint Sistine chapel, disappointed he called for assistance the whole army. Very soon after he started all was kicked out and he locked himself in until HE declared “my work is done”.
So in case of collective photography who declare “work is done”?
Or someone else…..
And usually work is actually never done, but camera-worker is a photographer. Hex man.
One that like just to shoot has something predatory inside him and use camera for a silent attack which make him feel fine, and I am just repeating what is generally known.
when i became a parent 6+ years ago, my priorities changed from shooting-processing-printing to shoooting+processing ( or if it was chrome or color negative film- just shooting+lab'ing ).
after 6+ years i see better, and know my equipment better process my film better and i am finally at the point where i say to myself "its just film" ...
can you please cool down and identify yourself not as WE or ALL OTHER PHOTOGRAPHRS. What you write and think is your personal and you have your name which is not WE..
As you posted: “I cannot see, why all the historical changes in technology should force us now to think about the role of the person behind the camera,…”
If –YOU- cannot see it does not means no one can see. Get a grip with it. If Y-O-U disagree it is fine too. Sorry just could not resist.
I can easily see how changing your priorities has helped to refine your work as a photographer. Both aspects (image-making and print-making) are important, but the degree that one has more importance over the other is an individual thing and has nothing to do with whether one is a "real photographer" or not. There will be a point when translating what you see for others to understand rises in relative importance.
Originally Posted by Donald Miller
We each bring and take from the medium of photography what we each need. For me, it is the seeing, and the learning to see, that is the main driving source of my photography. It has been this way for me since a photo class I had with Thomas Joshua Cooper over 25 years ago. I have reached a point where a camera is not required 100% of the time -- just the joy of seeing can now over-ride any disappointment of not being able to photograph a particular light on the landscape.
For myself, producing the hand-made print is only slightly behind the actual camera-use...they are almost equal. Prints are the way I share what I have learned about seeing with others. The prints are also the feedback I receive to establish benchmarks along the my path of learning. Selling prints is an ego-boost, of course, and the sales helps to by more film and printing supplies.
I am not too worried about the lables (photographer/camera worker/artist, etc). Such lables have nothing to do with why and how I work -- and only slight importance to my relationship to others. Calling them photographs or prints or photographic prints is just a sematic exercise. As long as one can communicate, the actual words used are not that important to me.
SO, Donald, after several months, do you feel the same?
I agree with the sentiment that started this thread. I hardly get to print anyhing, now that i am without an exposure unit and a viable means to process my negs one would wonder why I bother, but the act of setting up the camera and to maybe record what I SEE makes me go out and do it more. I love the actively seeing part.
Too bad i can't afford to have my BW negs processed and printed. Ah well that is what storage envelopes are for.
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004