| | | -
Welcome to the forum Alden. I thought yours a sensible post, one with which, as a Lenswork subscriber, I can empathise. Like you, and most here, I enjoy the wet printing process. I also appreciate the relative durability and convenience of the traditional negative. I do however have an issue with the level of manipulation and falsification that digital working encourages, and which now seems, unfortunately mandatory, of course there are those that will argue that we have been employing such trickery in the darkroom for years, as indeed some have. Ansel Adams’ work forms a suitable example. As far as club house prejudice goes, surely that is now against traditional work? Since this site espouses traditional materials and working, one must expect a certain amount of bias in that direction, and make allowances for it.
-
 
 Originally Posted by Dave Miller  Welcome to the forum Alden. I thought yours a sensible post, one with which, as a Lenswork subscriber, I can empathise. Like you, and most here, I enjoy the wet printing process. I also appreciate the relative durability and convenience of the traditional negative. I do however have an issue with the level of manipulation and falsification that digital working encourages, and which now seems, unfortunately mandatory, of course there are those that will argue that we have been employing such trickery in the darkroom for years, as indeed some have. Ansel Adams’ work forms a suitable example. As far as club house prejudice goes, surely that is now against traditional work? Since this site espouses traditional materials and working, one must expect a certain amount of bias in that direction, and make allowances for it.
Thanks Dave,
Of course there will always be face painting zealots with the "my team rules".
I myself regret digital hegemony, or lets call it Market Social Darwinism, that sees the path of progress in terms of supplanting my prefered working materials. But I'm saddened to see the blame fall to contemporary users of this device because it captures photons differently or places ink on paper, as did the finest color dye transfer process. For printmakers digital is surely a great additional medium, given all the papers, and archival standards. Regretfully our monetary system eliminates our favorite materials. Other artists have not had this fate visited upon them near as much, and this might account for analogers hostility.
But support taken from LensWork because of digital capture? This is quite embarrasing. Imagine DeKooning shunning Pollack or Morris Louis for using acrylics. He would have only cheated himself of the experience of these enlightened artists. So I'll risk the wrath and call to my fellow analogers to rise up and exalt in the photographic acheivements of the "others".
-
And so my brave forging into dicy territory dies on the vine. As it should no doubt, somehow.
-
Hi Alden,
I believe the person with the militant anti-digital stand you were responding to doesn't drop in here so often anymore. I'd hazard a guess that many of us are in full agreement with you!
Murray
_________________________________________
Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.
-
Hi Murray,
Well, I wasn't looking to fuss and fight with anyone . I just noticed that several people stated they would not even deem to look at a publication because the work was digitally captured , and I honestly wondered if there was a genuine reason for this. Speaking strickly in terms of quality. As for manipulation of the real, thats something any medium or maker does. Perception alters.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Originally Posted by Alden Hi Murray,
Well, I wasn't looking to fuss and fight with anyone . I just noticed that several people stated they would not even deem to look at a publication because the work was digitally captured , and I honestly wondered if there was a genuine reason for this. As Murray alluded, there are/have been some zealots here who feel as you describe. But, once the images are published in the magazine, I, for one, absolutely cannot tell how they were made. LensWork homogenizes film and pixel based images when it publishes them as duotones. I am often disappointed when I read that a portfolio I like was taken with a digicam, but I don't like it any less for that fact. Though some would prefer that the tools used to make the 'graphs not be revealed, I personally like keeping score, and continue to be bouyed by the fact that many superb portfolios are still, indeed, made with film and printed traditionally.
-
Originally Posted by JBrunner . Some cold glowing phosphor, plasma, or LCD, or ink sprayed on paper isn't a photograph. So going by this statement a photo gravure isn't a photograph ...
-
Originally Posted by donbga So going by this statement a photo gravure isn't a photograph ... Out of context, spindled, folded, and mutilated.
-
Originally Posted by JBrunner Out of context, spindled, folded, and mutilated. Hardly, it was a response to what I inferred from your post. BTW, less than 5 minutes to make a reply, I didn't think it would be that fast.
-
Originally Posted by donbga Hardly, it was a response to what I inferred from your post. BTW, less than 5 minutes to make a reply, I didn't think it would be that fast. The comment refers directly to images published in magazines, reproduced from original prints. You aren't going to find some inane argument about what constitutes a photograph nowadays from me. If you want to rip out the pages, frame'em up and call them photographs, knock yourself out.
| |
Adv Reply
