Lenswork - Ouch!

[palewin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhv
Well Robert, it won't change your opinion that I say this, but you do realize that this exact same argument was used by painters against photographers all the time?
Sorry, but it is a different argument. As a landscape/nature photographer I have an implicit contract with the viewer that my images have not been falsified (for lack of a better term) in any way. Digital does not provide that safeguard, in fact, it encourages the breaking of it. Secondly, digital is a computer generated process, and as a result is entirely dependent upon the software algorithms to create the final image - an algorithm, under the current technology, is not up to the task (except for computer displayed images, or low resolution prints - like newspapers).

Robert: While each of us may have our preferences in art, wouldn't you agree that it is the market which defines "fine art" rather than each of us individually? I attend the AIPAD (Association of International Photographic Art Dealers) show annually in NYC, and without specific statistics, I would guesstimate that close to 1/2 of the work shown is either digitally captured or digitally printed. Since the show is made up of the dealers in "photographic art" that would seem to say that "the market" has decided that digital is indeed "fine art." Equally, if one looks at the recorded sales prices for contemporary photography, there is little price difference between digital and traditional work (you must limit this to contemporary work, since vintage prints from the "pre-digital era" still capture the highest prices, but this relates to the artist and time period, rather than the technology). So we as individuals may prefer traditional technology (obviously the APUG audience is composed of those of us with wet darkrooms and/or those who prefer to shoot film) we can't define what is, or is not, fine art.

And going back to my original post, related to LensWork publishing digital photography, many responses in this thread echo my own view, that while I personally prefer to work with film and chemicals, I can still be stimulated by visual work in any medium, be it sculpture, painting, or photography in any form. The fact that I then use this as a catalyst to produce my own imagery in "analogue" form doesn't diminish the status of the original work.

Finally, to reveal my own prejudices, I guess that with one daughter currently at university majoring in studio art I'm sensitive to discussions which IMHO seem to blur the line between the art produced, and the technology used to produce it. (Actually, while she currently is producing both sculpture and paintings, her current favorite is a printing/etching course, where she is fascinated by the combination of art in creating the etched plate, and the craft in making the print - the parallel to analogue photography is obvious. But if she one day starts to produce computer-generated art, I wouldn't feel that makes her less of an artist.)

[roteague]

Originally Posted by palewin

Robert: While each of us may have our preferences in art, wouldn't you agree that it is the market which defines "fine art" rather than each of us individually?

I don't know, does McDonalds define "food"? They sell a lot more "food" than everyone else; that is what the market wants after all. I see no difference between someone who uses the drive through at McDonalds and someone who shoots digital and calls it "fine art" - they are taking the easy way.

[Shawn Rahman]

Originally Posted by roteague

Sorry, but it is a different argument. As a landscape/nature photographer I have an implicit contract with the viewer that my images have not been falsified (for lack of a better term) in any way. Digital does not provide that safeguard, in fact, it encourages the breaking of it. Secondly, digital is a computer generated process, and as a result is entirely dependent upon the software algorithms to create the final image - an algorithm, under the current technology, is not up to the task (except for computer displayed images, or low resolution prints - like newspapers).

Robert,

I generally agree with you, and your work is superb testament that images need not be manipulated to achieve spectacular results. But for me, I'll add that I find the whole process of sitting behind the PC and manipulating an image so completely cold and boring.

I'd like to ask you to further elaborate your opinion on this statement that you wrote:

"As a landscape/nature photographer I have an implicit contract with the viewer that my images have not been falsified (for lack of a better term) in any way".

Agreed, but isn't filtering - in particular ND filtering - at odds with this sentiment? How about using fill flash? I ask this largely because Galen Rowell pretty much shared the same philosophy you did, but his use of ND filters and fill flash are well known, and some would say, disingenuous.

Your thoughts?

[roteague]

Originally Posted by hkr

"As a landscape/nature photographer I have an implicit contract with the viewer that my images have not been falsified (for lack of a better term) in any way".

Agreed, but isn't filtering - in particular ND filtering - at odds with this sentiment? How about using fill flash? I ask this largely because Galen Rowell pretty much shared the same philosophy you did, but his use of ND filters and fill flash are well known, and some would say, disingenuous.

Your thoughts?

There is a wide gulf between using filters to make an image appear on film the way the viewer sees it, and using a computer to falsify an image - after all, that is what cloning new skies, removing telephone poles, etc, are.

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by lenswork

How do we select work? Here is the short version. . .

Hope this gives a bit of insight into our process.
Brooks

Brooks, thank you, this is a fantastic bit of information!

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Originally Posted by roteague

Sorry, but it is a different argument. As a landscape/nature photographer I have an implicit contract with the viewer that my images have not been falsified (for lack of a better term) in any way. Digital does not provide that safeguard, in fact, it encourages the breaking of it. Secondly, digital is a computer generated process, and as a result is entirely dependent upon the software algorithms to create the final image - an algorithm, under the current technology, is not up to the task (except for computer displayed images, or low resolution prints - like newspapers).

OK, I knew I wasn't going to change your opinion, so unless we're starting a new thread elsewhere, I won't put forth my objections to this logic...

[rusty71]

Originally Posted by clay

I agree to a point with your observation about the web being the new democratic medium. But does anyone really have time to wade through the millions of pictures on Flickr?

It raises a point about the one advantage that printed magazines still offer a reader: the ability to sift through a lot the available work and cull out the best for us to look at. They act as gatekeepers, in other words. And that seems to be the real contention here. Some people don't like a lot of the Lenswork portfolios. So they basically have a beef with the gatekeeping aspect of the magazine.

(tongue is in cheek on that last remark)

I think the contention is whether it's worth the 10 or twelve bucks a month to pay for LensWorks' dubious position as a "gatekeeper" for photography.
I can pay 20 bucks a month for high speed internet access. I can look at an awful lot of photographs online. Plus, there are online "gatekeepers" such as jpg.com. Frankly the publisher's attitude bothers me. After all, 100 years ago someone was likely calling the work of Eugen Atget "Romantic junk photography of nostalgic ruins", to paraphrase. So in a sense you are correct. It's a personal preference on my part. I choose to be my own "gatekeeper" of photography.
Lenswork is a first class publication and it has many fans. I wish them luck in the future, and will certainly pick up a copy at the newstand if it suits me. But my subscription expired 2 years ago and I see no reason to renew at this point.

[pauledell]

I am a new APUG member and as such, I feel compelled to respond to critics of Lenswork and Brooks Jensen. I have subscribed to lenswork for some time. While there are some portfolios I don't care for, there many that I do like and am inspired with, even the digital prints), same goes for the editorials. I consider Lenswork magazine and Lenswork Extended the best productions around and will continue subscribing. (To each his own opinion).
That being said, I, along with the rest of you do believe the traditional film
and silver print processes are superior. I do have a DSLR and even scan some of my negatives and print digitally, but the wet darkroom still makes the magical prints.

Paul

[noblebeast]

quote HKR:"Agreed, but isn't filtering - in particular ND filtering - at odds with this sentiment? How about using fill flash? I ask this largely because Galen Rowell pretty much shared the same philosophy you did, but his use of ND filters and fill flash are well known, and some would say, disingenuous."

quote Roteague:"There is a wide gulf between using filters to make an image appear on film the way the viewer sees it, and using a computer to falsify an image - after all, that is what cloning new skies, removing telephone poles, etc, are."

I'll carry Robert's reply a step further: In the particular case of Rowell, ND filters and fill-flash were used to compensate for the limited dynamic range of the film he was using - especially limited when one considers how many "stops" our eyes are capable of processing, so in effect he was using them to better represent to the potential viewer what he was seeing with his own two eyes at the time the shutter was released.

The one thing of which I can be sure when I look at a Galen Rowell or a Robert Teague photo is that the photographer was there at that moment, in the chill of the morning or the heat of the afternoon/evening, waiting for the light to be right and releasing the shutter, and the resulting photograph is the best representation of that moment that the photographer's skills and intuition can produce.

And that, to me, has always been and will always be what photography is about. I was "tricked" more than a few times in the early days of digital imaging by photos that appered to be the dedicated work of a patient, talented photographer but that turned out to have been doctored and this has left a bad taste in my mouth. While on the one hand I can appreciate the skill required to doctor those images in such a way as to not be overtly apparent, I would be reluctant to purchase an image that was created mostly by typing orders into an electronic device. As a potential purchaser of a photograph, I appreciate and value the process by which a Robert Teague image is created over that of a 100 percent digital workflow. I know I can trust the first, I have doubts regarding the second.

Joe

[JBrunner]

Originally Posted by rusty71

I can pay 20 bucks a month for high speed internet access. I can look at an awful lot of photographs online.

I like Lenswork. Don't get me wrong. I look at images on line, as well, for my twenty bucks/month, but I'm not fooling myself that it is photography. They are images, facsimiles of photographs. The net, or a fine photo magazine is a wonderful way to peruse and expand ones understanding, especially if one lives where real photographs can't be readily viewed. That's where it stops for me. Some cold glowing phosphor, plasma, or LCD, or ink sprayed on paper isn't a photograph. A real print by a master photographer/printer is something entirely different to behold.