Perhaps, but let us not forget that the manipulation of analog photographs through retouching and similar techniques extends back more than 100 years.
Originally Posted by Daniel_OB
Yes, I went to the Getty Museum in Los Angeles last weekend and saw The Old Order and the New: P. H. Emerson and Photography, 1885-1895. I was sorely disappointed that Emerson, who prided himself as wanting to preserve the rural countryside realistically, regularly removed dogs tails, trees, people, boats and anything else from his photographs. He also showed a predilection to inserting any object or person in to his photographs. When he made rotogravures, he would draw in faces or any other detail that was lost in the shadows [he had not captured the shadow detail to begin with*]. When he was criticized for doing these things, he dismissed the criticisms and said that he had done nothing wrong and that his photos were real and true!
Originally Posted by aldevo
* He did not follow AA's ZS!
Last edited by Sirius Glass; 07-05-2007 at 03:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Perhaps only original negatives, slides or digital RAW files are the only "images" that can be considered "true"?
hi murray --
don't know if i will have a place in history, but just the same ...
some of my documentary photographs are in the library of congress as well as libraries
around boston. i hope someone someday is able to learn from them,
the way i learned from photographic images i looked at in the 1973 world book encyclopedia
and guinness book of world records, my favorite books to read over and over again (cover to cover) when i was small.
I, like many others here, make negatives and prints casually, only for myself. Over a longish life, six 8x10 platinum-palladium contact prints and five 35mm silver prints truly satisfy me ... thats it.
So, to save the family a little time and guilt, all my unsatisfactory fluff-stuff (save a billion family snaps) is long-gone to the trash – the eleven images my only crumbs along my tiny photographic trail.
Please excuse me while I go look for another crumb someone might eventually remember me by.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
If I am "lucky", I will be a boring little footnote in a brief, but equally boring history of the Library of Congress Motion Picture Conservation Center in Dayton, Ohio. Any legacy I might have had with that institution, died when they relocated to Culpeper, Virginia and totally retooled the work flows, heavily biasing it toward d*****l.
As for my personal photographic work, I highly doubt it will survive my passing...
Honestly? In the grand scheme of things - zero.
Originally Posted by MurrayMinchin
Who here really thinks of themselves as doing this for posterity or history? I do this because I like creating things, but I can't say I've ever been motivated by posterity -- other than capturing shots of my family.
As a photographer, I have done a fair amount of wedding work. As a lawyer, I've done some divorce work. In B.C., when you start a divorce proceeding, you need to formally serve documents on the spouse, and then provide proof of service. Usually, you use a photograph of the spouse as an exhibit to an affidavit of service.
There is nothing so sad as when your client brings one of his or her wedding photos to use for this purpose.
Hmmm - place in history?
perhaps few people appreciate my work and majority think I was a mad one because I waste my time with photography.
So be it !
I was born and brought up in Iran, a beautiful country full of history.
k o m b i z z