| | | -
You may care about how your 'photograph' was made down to the deepest fibre of your being, but 95% of the people who will look at it without you there to explain its origins will only be judging it on content.
What was the original question in this post? Who is Art Soft anyway? Why has Art Soft only posted once? Interesting...
Murray
_________________________________________
Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.
-
 Originally Posted by rjas Personally, I think most of this false conception is caused by "master printers" hiding behind medicore photographs when they give it some fancy name like "Double Bubble Gum Platinum Palladium Gelatin Diaspora" print or something fancy. ???? Sensing some animosity here. I always find statements like this interesting. I've never understood why another's process should threaten anyone. I think a lot of the beauty of the processes you attempt to denigrate with your statement is that in most cases they can't be made by pressing buttons on a machine.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjas
Personally, I think most of this false conception is caused by "master printers" hiding behind medicore photographs when they give it some fancy name like "Double Bubble Gum Platinum Palladium Gelatin Diaspora" print or something fancy.
Sounds like a case of "those who can, do; those who can't, cast aspersions".
-
Originally Posted by billschwab  And how is it that photography, no matter how splendid, is not simply a poor reproduction of "real life"? Why would you argue this for only photojournalism? I wouldn't argue this only for photojournalism, that was merely the first example that sprang to mind. And there are probably many examples from the field of photojournalism that aren't simply reproductions of "real life".
Of course this then raises the obvious question: when and why is one photograph a reproduction of real life while another is more than just a reproduction and has meaning in it's one right? But that's been argued over for a hundred years or so, and I doubt it'll be answered satisfactorily in my lifetime...
-
I am very interested in the turn this thread has taken to a discussion of "reproduction" versus the "original print" and the experience of the viewer compared to the experience of the maker. (Does this deserve being its own thread? Has it been already and I've missed it?) I wrote about this very topic in the Editor's Comments of LensWork #73 (just in the mail yesterday, BTW) in which I asked lots of questions and for which I have no answers. It's a real stumper for my brain. I'll be anxious to see what answers develop from the collective experience here. In other words -- Warning, podcast topic-mining in progress!
Brooks
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Originally Posted by rjas What is it about touching a print that makes you suddenly realize the photographers vision? Do you sit around rubbing the surface of the print to find the photographer's true meaning? . Truly off the mark.
-
 
Originally Posted by rjas you can behold your master prints all you want, the fact of the matter is society a hundred years from now will remember the images that matter, no one will care in the least bit (except for self righteous analog photographers who care more about the medium than the content) what the hell it's printed on, inkjet paper, silver paper, cheapo magazine paper, toilet paper, etc. And don't even start with the archival battle - what are the chance of someone caring about any of our photographs which can last 200 years? I've got magazines from the 60's that still get the point across. Who cares, lets all get over ourselves.
Photographs are meant to be reproduced. If all we cared about was the intrinsic qualities of the first generation and one-off's why wouldn't we just take up painting? Or just stare at negatives all day? Screw the print, it's about content, not about type of paper you are using. As soon as you start concentrating on the aesthetic qualities of the printed material more than your vision you've totally lost the ball and as far as I'm concerned are spiralling towards the "only make one print and burn the negative" camp.
but I'm on the wrong forum to be discussing content....
disclaimer: I don't even own a digital camera, or a capable scanner, or a photo printer. I do have a darkroom though.
There is a disconnect here, and an assumption about my point of view that is entirely wrong.
That said, it seems that a cell phone should happily meet all the requirements for your image making.
We are talking amout two entirely different aproaches toward image making and viewing, I do view original very much like a painting.
A reproduction of a painting in a magazine is still a reproduction, same for a photograph. I have seen reproductions of French Impressionist paintings all my life. Last year in Paris, I had the privilege of seeing the originals. A completely different experience. Images of the originals in other media, are now merely reminders of that experience, although the base information is there in the reproduced image. I have carried the exact same experience in regard to seeing Adams and Weston prints, caring not if there are one or two hundred of those individual prints in existence.
Last edited by JBrunner; 11-03-2007 at 12:22 PM.
-
can't spell for s#!#
Originally Posted by MurrayMinchin You may care about how your 'photograph' was made down to the deepest fibre of your being, but 95% of the people who will look at it without you there to explain its origins will only be judging it on content.
Murray I can't disagree with this, Murray, however I don't make my photographs for that 95% percent, either. If one of that group stumbles on one somehow, and appreciates it for whatever reason, great, but I'm not losing sleep about reaching the "average" person. They are, after all, average.
Last edited by JBrunner; 11-03-2007 at 06:04 PM.
-
Originally Posted by lenswork I am very interested in the turn this thread has taken to a discussion of "reproduction" versus the "original print" and the experience of the viewer compared to the experience of the maker. (Does this deserve being its own thread? Has it been already and I've missed it?) I wrote about this very topic in the Editor's Comments of LensWork #73 (just in the mail yesterday, BTW) in which I asked lots of questions and for which I have no answers. It's a real stumper for my brain. I'll be anxious to see what answers develop from the collective experience here. In other words -- Warning, podcast topic-mining in progress!
Brooks Here's a new thread: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum50/4...tml#post540825
-
Originally Posted by billschwab ???? Sensing some animosity here. I always find statements like this interesting. I've never understood why another's process should threaten anyone. I think a lot of the beauty of the processes you attempt to denigrate with your statement is that in most cases they can't be made by pressing buttons on a machine. Hi, I deleted that post right after I made it because I realized it went over the discussion territory into personal jab territory. 
| |
Adv Reply
