| | | -
-
Once again I am convinced that unless you are shooting on a metal plate using Spirits of Judea, it's not a real photo. Heathens with your "fixers" and "negatives."
-
 Originally Posted by bjorke  Once again I am convinced that unless you are shooting on a metal plate using Spirits of Judea, it's not a real photo. Heathens with your "fixers" and "negatives."
ROFLMAO!!
-
 
Bjork's post did get me thinking.
One thing that is interesting to me is the apparent need for some of the more modern minded to attempt to homogenize all types of photography and photographic process as identical. It seems that if one is not willing to concede that an ink or electronic image is the same as silver or alternative process image, the refusal to do so is taken as a denigration of the newer media. As far as I am aware this attitude is unique to photography. Sounds silly, but I don't see wood carvers insisting their work is the same as stone, or water color artists howling that their product is identical to oil. Many painters practice both, but if someone were to insist to them that they were the same, an eyebrow would be raised.
The idea that all finite visual patterns are equivalent because they contain content is a bit droll to me.
The point of the print give way thread "exercise" was to prove that persons prefer an actual artifact from the artist over a mechanical or electronic reproduction. Obviously people do.
The "real" photography thing simply seems to be a chip on the shoulder of those uncomfortable about the acceptance, or some other aspect of their chosen process, and I think may be a different issue than what is being discussed here.
Last edited by JBrunner; 11-06-2007 at 01:51 AM.
-
 
Originally Posted by JBrunner One thing that is interesting to me is the apparent need for some of the more modern minded to attempt to homogenize all types of photography and photographic process as identical. It seems that if one is not willing to concede that an ink or electronic image is the same as silver or alternative process image, the refusal to do so is taken as a denigration of the newer media. As far as I am aware this attitude is unique to photography. Sounds silly, but I don't see wood carvers insisting their work is the same as stone, or water color artists howling that their product is identical to oil. I think I'd go further and argue that an alt process print is not the same thing as a silver print. A cyantoype, for example, is fundamentally different in all its physical attributes from a glossy silver bromide print. That doesn't make one inherently superior to the other, but it does make them different. Their inherent differences give them different visual and emotional characteristics, make them more or less suitable for different purposes, and tend to lead people to prefer one over the other.
Likewise an inkjet print or an online image is not inherently inferior or superior to a silver print: but they are different, and suited for different purposes.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
If you are interested about the Lenswork selection process, Brooks has just posted a podcast about editing in reference to this thread, where he... "edits" saying the word "APUG"  Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11 My APUG Portfolio
-
Originally Posted by mhv ... "edits" saying the word "APUG" Good point!
I mean really Brooks, if you (and 'Art Soft', but don't get me going on that one again) are going to farm APUG's fertile ground for inspiration, why not admit it? Think of it as a fair play list of ingredients.
Please disregard these comments if they'll result in any LensWork submissions of mine being flushed in the first round editing process
Murray
Last edited by MurrayMinchin; 11-06-2007 at 09:36 AM.
_________________________________________
Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.
-
Originally Posted by Ian Leake I think I'd go further and argue that an alt process print is not the same thing as a silver print. A cyantoype, for example, is fundamentally different in all its physical attributes from a glossy silver bromide print. That doesn't make one inherently superior to the other, but it does make them different. Their inherent differences give them different visual and emotional characteristics, make them more or less suitable for different purposes, and tend to lead people to prefer one over the other.
Likewise an inkjet print or an online image is not inherently inferior or superior to a silver print: but they are different, and suited for different purposes.
I agree, I just didn't list out every process and nuance available. That each is different, and carries it's own signature, is a wonderful aspect of photography.
-
Originally Posted by bjorke Once again I am convinced that unless you are shooting on a metal plate using Spirits of Judea, it's not a real photo. Heathens with your "fixers" and "negatives." Man, you are a funny guy! LMFAO
It's also funny how this battle never changes over the years. Ironically, I've been reading back issues of Lenswork (starting at #1), and I'm just on Issue 17 (1997-ish, I believe), and the opening Editor's comments by Mr Jensen are exactly on this topic with virtually no temporal displacement! It's very interesting to read these early issues and the comments concerning the introduction of digital photography.
Tim
-
Originally Posted by JBrunner I guess sitting down in a store and reading something cover to cover and then putting it back on the shelf is accepted practice, but I wouldn't feel right about doing it. YMMV. They don't get ya on the magazines ... they get ya on the coffee!
| |
Adv Reply
