Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,937   Posts: 1,585,640   Online: 808
      
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 78

Thread: 8x10 negs

  1. #51
    roy
    roy is offline
    roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Sussex
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,306
    [quote="jdef"]Well, that's encouraging, but what about the "soul" of these prints?

    I believe it is still there because all you are doing really is to manipulate the material just the same as if you were making an enlarged negative under the enlarger. In a manner of speaking, you are exchanging one tool for another. The finished product is still going to be the Kallitype or Salt print or whatever, that you have made. The manipulation to produce the required negative is carried out in camera with subsequent development to provide the correct density range, just as would be the case if you had to make a big neg by enlargement where you could dodge and burn etc. Does it matter if the negative is made of film, OHP material or even paper as can be the case ? YOU are making the finished print and your 'soul' would have gone into that.
    IMHO that is !!

  2. #52
    roy
    roy is offline
    roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Sussex
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,306
    [quote="jdef"]I also believe that there is ample opportunity to exploit hidden potential in the digital domain.

    In the eyes of the Royal Photographic Society (and I am unaware of the views of the Photographic Society of America) a print is a print, is a print and they are not concerned as to how it was made. They view the image and not the method. It is up to individuals such as the members of this forum individually, as to where they consider the integrity lies.

  3. #53
    clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,124
    Images
    8
    Hi all:

    Been eating turkey for a few days, but when I got back,my inbox had a message from Chicago Albumen Works that emphatically stated that they are NOT going to be discontinuing this paper, and in fact, that things are as good as they have ever been. So order away without fear of having this wonderful paper disappear!

  4. #54
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,594
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    "they are not concerned as to how it was made"

    personally I think that is sad. Anytime a human creates an artistic expressionc by craft, it should have more value to the human race than what a machine creates. I understand that a human is controlling the machines, but I guarantee you this is quickly diminishing. The digital mantra is "You no longer have to work or think to achieve great photos!". Sony's new digicam advert has a guy sleeping in bed, arm extended taking photos, the caption something like "take great photographs in your sleep". Software is in development that actually composes the photographs for digital camera users. Don't be fooled by the current "hard work" many digital users go through to achieve digital 'fine prints' (this will be a thing of the past soon judging by the current evolution of digital technology). Software filters such as "The Weston Filter", "The Ansel Adams Filter" will come about that will allow anyone with a 100megapixel camera to nail a specific style and tonal range with a few mouse clicks. This is where it's ultimately heading. So these photographic societies will end up applauding a computer composed image, adjusted by an Ansel Adams filter, then inkjet printed by machine. This will have value and be considered the same as a handcrafted image made by man? Why are people so afraid to place value on artistic human craft these days. Could it be corporate marketing by any chance? hmmm

  5. #55
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,594
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    "If a photograph is only appreciated for it's technical merits by other photographers, it is not of much artistic value"

    Sure, a technical 10 out of 10 does not make a piece of art and should never be all that matters. But it's the technical merits that digital imagers hide from everyone that scare and frustrate me. If you recall a soldier easily cut and pasted in photoshop to look like he's aiming his gun at an Iraqi child. The pyramids in Egypt shuffled around by National Geographic. The technical merit of creating fake shadows flooding out of a field of trees in a remote mountain location. The technical merits of added thunder clouds and lightning bolts cracking above a glowing mountain as a cut and pasted eagle escapes by a hair. I feel the new 'final image' that is 'all that matters' in this new age of digital imaging is becoming a digital sampling of sorts, with the artistic value of a cheap Britney Spears re-mix. Then to top it off it is stamped "Photograph" and given a rating of 10 out of 10 by 1,000's of photographers on those other websites out there. Call it a 'digital illustration' and I would be ecstatic to support that medium and embrace it, because it would stand on it's own as a powerful form of visual communication. But no, they are out for blood, corporate driven, and they feel traditional photography is for stupid luddites and will be replaced by digital... They will call it photography and there is nothing we can do about it.

    There is a bit of trust involved for me when it comes to photography as an art form. Most traditional fine art images are fairly straight. You have a sense of trust in the image and photographer that it is an artistic representation by the artist of something that is real. To know it was taken with 8x10 processed in pmk, printed on x paper is reassuring. I feel no trust with digital, with digital I feel trickery. I feel it in my gut, I can't believe in it. The photographer scanned the image into photoshop, then what did he do with it? In my digital imaging classes in college my professor enjoyed the trickery, and strived to make perfect images that no one would be the wiser they were heavily manipulated. For every straight digital photographer there must be 100's that want the "money shot" and will perform whatever heavy manipulation necessary to get it. Traditional photographers embrace the craft and typically enjoy describing the creation of their images. I find most digital artists run like hell from this, no they say, I do not need to tell anyone this image is a composite from 6 negatives because the final image is 'all that matters'... judge my final image regardless if it is real or not.

    Discussing this really pushes me to the limit of my mental abilities. I can only squeeze so much out my brain to cope with the vastness of this argument. One thing I enjoy is watching some of you brainy types really unloading on these discussions. I don't want them to be arguments, and hope no one thinks I'm trying to start an argument. Just like to explore this topic. Apologies I've derailed this thread off-topic. Sean

  6. #56
    roy
    roy is offline
    roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Sussex
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean
    I don't want them to be arguments, and hope no one thinks I'm trying to start an argument. Just like to explore this topic.
    We are big enough in this forum to be able to put our thoughts and opinions into print simply because the topic has been raised and it is one that will not go away. It does not stop any of us from continuing in the work we like doing irrespective of what other opinions are. Who knows, we may even be inspired by others' comments. I like to think that some of the modern technology has acted as a spur to those who are committed to more traditional ways of working.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    652
    Jdef: " a great photograph has value beyond technique. If a photograph is only appreciated for it's technical merits by other photographers, it is not of much artistic value."

    That is true. However, no work of any artisitc value has ever been created in any medium, including photography, that was not well crafted. And no great work of art in any medium has ever been created that was not excellently crafted.

    What is well-crafted? Craft that is consonant with the expression. A great photograph that was made as a work of photojournalism does not need to have the same print quality as an 8x10 contact print.

    Which brings me back to the original topic: If the intention of the photographer is to make 8x10 contact prints in a 'traditional' manner, they need to be printed as well as can be conceived if they are to have a chance of even being considered as serious art.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,652
    Digital is a different medium. The mistake is to call a digitally captured/manipulated image a photograph. Practitioners of the digital medium all too often make it their goal to fool people into thinking that the image they present is a photograph. It may be a work of art but it is graphic art. Is an image that contains audio or visual animation a photograph - a nude that winks at you? In the realm of the technically possible, such an image can appear to be a photograph/print hanging on a gallery wall; but it is a fake of a photograph for photography implies working within the limitations of the medium. As an artist, you may wish to expand/extend the medium in order to realize your creative vision; but you should not call it a photograph. Before digital, there were many inventions that made it easier to take a picture - auto-wind, auto-focus; but the end result was still a photograph with all that the word implies ( ie, trust by the viewer that it is a moment in time of reality). Just as in photojournalism, that trust is being undermined by the digital medium.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Cheshire, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by doughowk
    ... the end result was still a photograph with all that the word implies ( ie, trust by the viewer that it is a moment in time of reality) ...
    and nobody ever double exposed a negative or print, added a more dramatic sky at the printing stage, or manipulated a negative before printing, or the print? And no-one ever stage managed a 'news' shot?

  10. #60
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by efikim
    Quote Originally Posted by doughowk
    ... the end result was still a photograph with all that the word implies ( ie, trust by the viewer that it is a moment in time of reality) ...
    and nobody ever double exposed a negative or print, added a more dramatic sky at the printing stage, or manipulated a negative before printing, or the print? And no-one ever stage managed a 'news' shot?
    This last Saturday I was at the Amon Carter Museum and viewed the Edward Weston exhibit currently on display until the middle of Jan. One of the parts of the multi-sectioned display was of clouds that Edward photographed. The written information that accompanied this section indicated that this was the first of the cloud images he photographed that were more than just clouds to cover a bald sky. So, it seems that the moment in time is not very much of a reality even with someone like Ed Weston.

    Richard Avedon the other night spoke how photographs were not true but FAKE. They speak only to that one moment if they speak at all to that. In The American West, a book he produced 25 or so years ago, is not about the American West. It is about people that Avedon chose to REPRESENT the American West.

    One other thing, digital photographers really get pissed when you call what they do as PIXELOGRAPHY.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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