Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,696   Posts: 1,482,508   Online: 977
      
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 82
  1. #41
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    Have a look at this image below by Ansel Adams. How would you feel about this same image if it never existed until last week. Say some guy just published it on the photo.net gallery. Said it was made of 5 digital photos merged together. Say he added the moon, added the clouds, removed some trees in several parts of the image, added a few more mountains, didn't like the church so added a different one. Then printed it out on an epson printer. Would it get the same amount of respect? Sure it would be a nice image, but it is a real photographic work?

    I've been accused a few times of romanticizing photography, and I don't think that is a bad thing. One of the things I find so powerful about 'St. Ansel's' image is the way it was created. 1 frame of film left, no light meter, a split second moment harnessed with incredible skills of visualization. And a REAL SCENE. NOW THAT IS POWERFUL TO ME. Yet so many say, the way an image is created is only a means to an end. They say, the final image on paper is the only thing that matters. I just can't see it that way.

  2. #42
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    But famously, that is one of Ansel's most heavily manipulated images. He exposed for the moon, and that was about the only thing that came out right. If I remember correctly there is local selenium intensification on the negative toward the bottom of the frame, and a fair amount of dodging and burning all over the image, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little local bleaching on the print to get the grave markers that bright. He did have more film, but apparently the light had passed before he could get off a second exposure.

    Everything was there, and I'm sure this is how he visualized the scene, but did it really look like that outside his mind? I'm not so sure.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #43
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    That's one of my main points - "Everything was there". He manipulated the tonal range which I think is acceptable for any photograph. It's in the realm of the mind to look at a scene and visualize different tones or removal of color, etc. I have no issues with that. It's when artificial worlds are created and passed off as a real place, then passed of as a real photograph.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Jan 19 2003, 02:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Some would say photography as a whole is a craft, not art&#33;&nbsp; The only true arts as art, are painting, watercolor, and sculpture. The rest is just craft which anyone can do (bolds by Jorge).&nbsp; this is a whole big controversay going on in the art world....what is art vs. what is a craft?

    so beyond the digital vs analog, what do you believe is ART?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    Yep, anybody can do it. Of course if that were really true, your or my prints would be identical to Paul Caponigros or Michael Kenna&#39;s. No big deal&#33; tomorrow I am putting together my prints and taking them to the galleries, since everybody can do it I suppose they will be well received and I will become wealthy.

    Just a little bit of sarcasm, if that statement were true then every painter would be a DaVinci, things done by those who are gifted are not so easily repeated and as always the experts make it look easy, but just try it. The perception that photography is "easy" is one of the greatest myths generated by those who wish to elevate their "art" at the expense of other mediums, and it is similar to the same perception that digital work is "easy". Nothing could be further from the truth, but then the truly gifted and experienced persons usually rise to the top and the rest just keep making statements like the one you mention.

    If I am to make an attempt to quantify "art" I would say is that work which stablishes an emotional connection with the viewer, be that positive or negative. Craft would be that work which serves a purpose, the work itself can be quite beautiful but does not engender an emotional connection. I can see a truly wonderful chair or table and be awed by its beauty, but is is still a chair to be sat on. Not so for Michelangelos Pieta.

  5. #45
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    I can teach craft to anyone that will follow my instructions in several short sessions. I cannot teach vision. I can help improve vision, but the student needs to be able to supply his/her own rudimentary vision. The image is the art and the craft should be supportive but invisible. It is that thing Jorge spoke of. Make it look easy.


    lee&#092;c

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    747
    I agree with what I call digital painting but I&#39;m sure somebody will point much of it could have been done before.

    On the issue that digital will make things easier and therefore devalue photography I disagree. I actually think you&#39;ll see the exact opposite. Digital will make the mechanical things easier. They won&#39;t let you take a better picture if you don&#39;t see it. Think of it this way. When cameras started to included double exposure protection that didn&#39;t mean better photographs. It just meant you had a little less to think about. If you believe digital will allow people to take more photographs that are basically techincally okay then you&#39;ll have a lot of boring photographs out there. Without the excuse of the techincal issues maybe people will figure out it&#39;s not the camera it&#39;s the person using it?

  7. #47
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Aggie, I see your given qualifications as no determiner of art or craft. I think that very few of us over any considerable period of time craft a print in exactly the same way. We continually refine exposures. Possibly seeing something more within the negative that can be conveyed in a stronger more compelling way. We, by and large, are not automatons. At least that is true of my efforts. I have heard other photographers express the same experience. So I guess that my experience is not unique.
    Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.

    Visit my website at http://www.donaldmillerphotography.com

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Jan 19 2003, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> craft has been described as anything that can be reproduced again and again. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    Is that so? well no two Stradivarius violins are the same, yet they were made by a craftman. By that definition then they are art. no? Or how about a Steinway piano, no two sound alike, even though the are all made the same over and over, so are they art or products of craft?

    By this definition then traditional photography is definitely an art, I can tell you not two of my prints are exactly the same. Close but no cigar, and if we are talking about alternate processes then it gets even more into the art definition. The variables are so complex that even if you try to make the prints exactly the same it is almost impossible. A few degrees in temp of the developer, a coating done differently, different dry times, etc..all contribute to the uniqueness of each print.

    Digital proponents say that once they have done all their curves etc, they can "push" the button and get 100 prints the same, how is that different from printing a poster? I suppose the "art" comes from manipulating those "curves" to achieve the desired result. As with traditional photography you and I might sit at a computer and start with the same image and end up with a totally different interpretation. So I do consider digital also an art, since it involves the emotional interpretation of an "object", the fact not withstanding that I can reproduce it identically afterwards.

    As Lee said, given enough time, patience and appropriate tools anybody can become a craftsman. Given the same amount of time, patience and tools you might become skilled in photography, but there is only one Adams or Caponigro or Hurrell.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    747
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Jan 19 2003, 09:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I like this,,,got you guys thinking,,now a second wrench.....craft has been described as anything that can be reproduced again and again.&nbsp; Art like the pieta is someting that would not be able to be rendered again exactly the same way.&nbsp; </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    I think this must be a modern view. Prior to factory production no two items could be reproduced exactly a like. Many craftsmen would actually modify the design with what they&#39;d learned from building the previous one.

    I also wonder how much of this is a North American view. In Europe I don&#39;t think "craftsmen" would have the same lack of standing. They would be considered artisians.




 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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