Christopher Burkett on Digital vs Traditional
Richard Webber
I read a recent interview with Christopher Burkett in ViewCamera
magazine. For those who don't know his work - he is a landscape
photographer who takes 8x10 transparencies and prints them onto
Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) using a technique called unsharp
masking. He is considered to be one of the masters of this
technique and he is also well respected (and collectible) for
his art.
In the interview he admitted frustration that people would look
at his prints and sometimes say things like "Oh, he must have
just cranked up the unsharp mask filter in Photoshop to achieve
this". The frustration seemed to be centered around the
implication that he had used digital techniques to create the
image. He was very keen to point out that he used traditional
methods and felt that this was somehow better - as if using
digital techniques would somehow have devalued his prints. It
was as if he felt that the traditional masking he does is not
"manipulation" and yet the same technique done digitally is.
"Manipulation" seemed to Burkett to be undesirable.
Even as someone who has spent quite a bit of time trying to
perfect unsharp masking using 4x5 transparencies and Ilfochrome,
I still don't understand his point. It seems to me that there
is a spectrum of manipulation that goes on in the photographic
process - starting with the capturing of the image on either film
or CCDs. I can see that people want to draw the line somewhere - e.g.
do you digitally remove something undesirable that was in
the original image? But in this instance Burkett is comparing
two identical manipulations purely on the basis of the technology
used to achieve it. The only conclusion that I can draw is that
he feels proud of having mastered the chemical and physical
process of silver masking - trying this myself does help me
understand that pride. But is it that Burkett feels threatened
by the digital revolution? Is it that he feels his skills will
be replaced by Photoshop? Having started to explore the digital
realm, I can already attest to the fact that there are plenty
of skills to be mastered despite the existence of powerful software
and fast computers. If I find that I can produce the results
I want using a digital darkroom then I may well be tempted to
sell my traditional darkroom. But then this is not my living,
so I don't feel threatened - rather I relish the opportunity to
learn.
Did anyone else read this article and did they draw similar or
different conclusions? I am interested in people's view on this
topic. Note that I am not really asking the age-old question of
"will digital replace traditional?" but rather the question
"does it matter how an image was manipulated to achieve the
photographer's desired depiction of the scene he or she witnessed?"
I have cross-posted this message to r.p.digital, r.p.darkroom and
r.p.technique.art since I think readers to all these groups may
have interesting opinions.
Richard
gary gaugler
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:02:38 -0700, Richard Webber <r...@cup.hp.com>
wrote:
>I read a recent interview with Christopher Burkett in ViewCamera
>magazine. For those who don't know his work - he is a landscape
>photographer who takes 8x10 transparencies and prints them onto
>Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) using a technique called unsharp
>masking. He is considered to be one of the masters of this
>technique and he is also well respected (and collectible) for
>his art.
>
[snip]
>
>Did anyone else read this article and did they draw similar or
>different conclusions? I am interested in people's view on this
>topic. Note that I am not really asking the age-old question of
>"will digital replace traditional?" but rather the question
>"does it matter how an image was manipulated to achieve the
>photographer's desired depiction of the scene he or she witnessed?"
>
>I have cross-posted this message to r.p.digital, r.p.darkroom and
>r.p.technique.art since I think readers to all these groups may
>have interesting opinions.
>
>Richard
My take was that his niche has been invaded. He no longer is
operating in a competition-free zone. I did not read much between the
lines to come away with this impression.
I certainly could be wrong.
There is another (local) photog who uses a Polaroid SX-70 and makes
"manipulated" prints via color laser output. The same effect can be
achieved using a chrome or neg and 20 minutes with PhotoShop. Then
output it to a film recorder. Big deal. But her writeup goes on and
on about how unique and special the whole thing is. Not.
Gary Gaugler
Gary Gaugler
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modern surfers use PC boards....you can too at
E-mail: gaugler @ calweb dot com
Paul Butzi
>In the interview he admitted frustration that people would look
>at his prints and sometimes say things like "Oh, he must have
>just cranked up the unsharp mask filter in Photoshop to achieve
>this". The frustration seemed to be centered around the
>implication that he had used digital techniques to create the
>image. He was very keen to point out that he used traditional
>methods and felt that this was somehow better - as if using
>digital techniques would somehow have devalued his prints. It
>was as if he felt that the traditional masking he does is not
>"manipulation" and yet the same technique done digitally is.
>"Manipulation" seemed to Burkett to be undesirable.
>
><large snip>
>
>But is it that Burkett feels threatened
>by the digital revolution? Is it that he feels his skills will
>be replaced by Photoshop? Having started to explore the digital
>realm, I can already attest to the fact that there are plenty
>of skills to be mastered despite the existence of powerful software
>and fast computers. If I find that I can produce the results
>I want using a digital darkroom then I may well be tempted to
>sell my traditional darkroom. But then this is not my living,
>so I don't feel threatened - rather I relish the opportunity to
>learn.
I think that the reason Burkett draws a distinction between
what he does (silver masking) and scanning the negative/firing up
Photoshop is that he is very concerned about having his work
viewed as a portrayal of what was there, as opposed to a
construction based only loosely on what was in front of the lens.
Given the constraints of silver masking, there are strict limits
on the sort of manipulation Burkett can achieve - and he counts on
that to deliver part of his message to the viewer of his work.
As soon as he fires up Photoshop, the limits are gone, and so is
part of his message.
>
>Did anyone else read this article and did they draw similar or
>different conclusions? I am interested in people's view on this
>topic. Note that I am not really asking the age-old question of
>"will digital replace traditional?" but rather the question
>"does it matter how an image was manipulated to achieve the
>photographer's desired depiction of the scene he or she witnessed?"
I don't think so, except in the sense that using only traditional
techniques might offer some assurance that the work was
representational as opposed to constructed. And, yes, I'm aware
of montage printing, etc. I suspect that, if people were to suggest
that Burkett's work was constructed using those more traditional
tools (multiple negatives/transparencies, multiple exposure,e tc)
he would react the same way as he does when it's suggested it was
done with Photoshop.
-Paul
Valburg
Richard Webber wrote: (excerpts only)
> I read a recent interview with Christopher Burkett in ViewCamera
> magazine. For those who don't know his work - he is a landscape
> photographer who takes 8x10 transparencies and prints them onto
> Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) using a technique called unsharp
> masking. (snip)
> It was as if he felt that the traditional masking he does is not
> "manipulation" and yet the same technique done digitally is.
> "Manipulation" seemed to Burkett to be undesirable. (snip)
> Did anyone else read this article and did they draw similar or
> different conclusions?
> "does it matter how an image was manipulated to achieve the
> photographer's desired depiction of the scene he or she witnessed?"
Richard,
Thanks for starting this thread; Mr. Burketts comments caught my
attention, too. At this point in the discussion which I hope will
follow your post, I'd just like to throw in that I have come to find
working digitally _far_ less mechanical, and far more intimate in most
waysthan traditional color printing. By intimate, I mean the level of
identification or immersion in the actual image, as opposed to carrying
out a mechanical process which, as an act in and of itself, has little
to do with imagistic experience. I can easily accept either as a valid
way of working; to my mind, the more important consideration is this:
which way of working do I (or you) find more engaging of my (your) heart
and mind, both in terms of process and that which is produced (couldn't
quite bring myself to just write "product" ;>) Resist all orthodoxies,
but do it with integrity!
Regards,
Mitch Valburg
Albert Nurick
In article <34297F...@cup.hp.com>, r...@cup.hp.com says...
> Did anyone else read this article and did they draw similar or
> topic. Note that I am not really asking the age-old question of
> "will digital replace traditional?" but rather the question
> photographer's desired depiction of the scene he or she witnessed?"
Time and time again we've witnessed new technology that simplifies a
previously difficult process.
Early examples of the technology often demonstrate significant
shortcomings versus the traditional techniques, but in time, the results
are often indistinguishable. Those who've invested the time to learn the
traditional techniques find their previously rare abilities to be now
much more easily attainable. Needless to say, they're often the first to
downplay the new technique.
The question ultimately becomes: What is Art? Is it the result, or the
technique, or the original vision?
I belive that the art is in the result, but its source is the original
vision. That's why I can't create a Monet, even though I have digital
filters that can simulate Monet's techniques.
The techniques required to move from vision to result are mechanics. The
artist should choose the best tools available, in order to realize his
vision with the least possible distraction, if his focus is the result.
If the artist believes that the mechanics of realizing his vision is the
actual art, he'll become fixated on the process. In my opinion, this
borders on performance art. Recently, I observed a street artist in
Austin create lovely surreal landscapes using cans of Krylon spray paint
and found objects. His art was beautiful, but the real beauty was the
process; it was remarkable to watch his works evolve before my eyes. I
believe that this young man's true art was in the performance; if I ran
across his works in a gallery, I wouldn't have given them a second look,
nice though they were.
I don't belive that Burkett falls into this category, nor do most
artists. With a few exceptions, I don't think the method of generation
matters, except as an interesting aside.
--
Albert Nurick
Partner, data.net communications
alb...@data.net
http://www.data.net
Steven T Koontz
Richard Webber <r...@cup.hp.com> wrote:
>I read a recent interview with Christopher Burkett in ViewCamera
>magazine. For those who don't know his work - he is a landscape
>photographer who takes 8x10 transparencies and prints them onto
>Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) using a technique called unsharp
>masking. He is considered to be one of the masters of this
>technique and he is also well respected (and collectible) for
>his art.
>
>In the interview he admitted frustration that people would look
>at his prints and sometimes say things like "Oh, he must have
>just cranked up the unsharp mask filter in Photoshop to achieve
>this". The frustration seemed to be centered around the
>implication that he had used digital techniques to create the
>image. He was very keen to point out that he used traditional
>methods and felt that this was somehow better - as if using
>digital techniques would somehow have devalued his prints. It
>was as if he felt that the traditional masking he does is not
>"manipulation" and yet the same technique done digitally is.
>"Manipulation" seemed to Burkett to be undesirable.
>
>Even as someone who has spent quite a bit of time trying to
>perfect unsharp masking using 4x5 transparencies and Ilfochrome,
>I still don't understand his point. It seems to me that there
>is a spectrum of manipulation that goes on in the photographic
>process - starting with the capturing of the image on either film
>or CCDs. I can see that people want to draw the line somewhere - e.g.
>do you digitally remove something undesirable that was in
>the original image? But in this instance Burkett is comparing
>two identical manipulations purely on the basis of the technology
>used to achieve it. The only conclusion that I can draw is that
>he feels proud of having mastered the chemical and physical
>process of silver masking - trying this myself does help me
>understand that pride. But is it that Burkett feels threatened
>by the digital revolution? Is it that he feels his skills will
>be replaced by Photoshop?
I imagine he does. and they will be.
>Having started to explore the digital
>realm, I can already attest to the fact that there are plenty
>of skills to be mastered despite the existence of powerful software
>and fast computers. If I find that I can produce the results
>I want using a digital darkroom then I may well be tempted to
>sell my traditional darkroom. But then this is not my living,
>so I don't feel threatened - rather I relish the opportunity to
>learn.
I too hope this continues to improve.image making should be about the
end result not the way its acomplished. I would hate to think that
someone wouldn't like one of my pics because it was shot with a
rolleicord and not a hassleblad.and this is what this amounts to,to
me. if either one can do what you want whats the diff?I can't afford
good enough digital stuff to replacemy wet darkroom but as soon as
good enough quality stuff is avalible for resonable prices I'll be the
first one out of the dark!
>
>Did anyone else read this article and did they draw similar or
>different conclusions? I am interested in people's view on this
>topic. Note that I am not really asking the age-old question of
>"will digital replace traditional?" but rather the question
>"does it matter how an image was manipulated to achieve the
>photographer's desired depiction of the scene he or she witnessed?"
>
if all this is true than we should all be doing "straight" printing
and reshoot if dodging is required........true alot of people are
overdoing digital manipulations or are doing it poorly where it is
obvious that it was done.once people get over the novelty of this I
think it is a great tool. alot easier than making 15 test prints. alot
of times people give up before they realy get it right. I know I have.
and then after a scan that looks great after some work I'm back in the
darkroom.trying to do in there what I just did on the computer. be
nice if that step could be eliminated.but IMHO the printers still
don't equal the silver image in B&W......
>I have cross-posted this message to r.p.digital, r.p.darkroom and
>r.p.technique.art since I think readers to all these groups may
>have interesting opinions.
>
>Richard
"186,000 miles per second isn't just a good idea, it's the law!"Einstein
Gregory Blank
In answer to your question it should only matter to the
Artist/Photographer how the image is produced. No one can tell someone
else how to create. Art is subjective...therefore the only person to make
happy is the self. Although I consider myself some what of a purist. I
work in the photo industry for a mfgr. of enlargers and I shoot side work
as a photographer. I believe that as long as there is a desire among
photographers to traditionally create images the persons remain true
photographers. Maybe purists...... if they limit their print
manipulations to burning - doging.
Technique should never over shadow the subject....if every photographer
used the same procedures you would still have many, many view points. That
to me is what photography is about.
Technique though, differs from what media you use to create. Example oil
paint vs water color, apples and oranges. If you use a differant media
does anyone half way knowlegedable believe the product to be a photograph?
I think that digital has a place to work along side traditional
photography. As a tool to catalog and as a tool for commercial use but is
not true to the spirit of not completely knowing what you will get in the
development process.
This spirit is why I have continued to photograph for fourteen years....in
a competive field. To be always certain of your results seems to me to
take away a little of the fun, so to speak.
Michael McGuire
0]>
: I read a recent interview with Christopher Burkett in ViewCamera
: magazine. For those who don't know his work - he is a landscape
: photographer who takes 8x10 transparencies and prints them onto
: Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) using a technique called unsharp
: Richard
I haven't read the article, but I did see a show of his work a couple of years
ago. At the opening I asked him a leading question or two about digital
approaches to what he had done (which was quite splendid), and got a rather
negative reply. I'll point out that there is actually more to Burkett's work
than just the unsharp masking. I believe he combines this with individual color
separations much like what was done with dye transfer printing. This
rather arduous technique allows him to uncouple the chrominance and luminance
in an image to adjust contrast and saturation independently which you can't
do with normal chemically based color printing. There is a lot of darkroom
process involved along with specialized equipment like pin registration for the
stacks of film involved, lots of places for it to go wrong and no doubt a lot
of experimentation to win experience he needed to do this reliably.
Unfortunately I suppose for him, it is much simpler to do this all digitally.
Scanning automatically does the color separation and a transformation of the
color space uncouples the chrominance and luminance--built into PhotoShop and
available if not necessarily understood by everyone who has it. If the
scanner and printer are made right, the registration problem disappears, and
it's not something the user deals with. What's left to Burkett is not
inconsiderable--his vision and his taste in manipulating the controls.
Burkett sounds a lot like the painters of 150 years ago when photography
first appeared on the scene. Nobody likes to see his skills become obsolete or
to be challenged to reinvent himself. That's his problem--his solution may turn
out to be interesting.
Mike
--
Michael McGuire Hewlett Packard Laboratories
email:xmcg...@xhpl.xhp.com P.0. Box 10490 (1501 Page Mill Rd.)
(remove x's from email if not Palo Alto, CA 94303-0971
a spammer)
Phone: (650)-857-5491
************BE SURE TO DOUBLE CLUTCH WHEN YOU PARADIGM SHIFT.**********
Stan Krute
Hi Richard
Thanks for the post.
> Note that I am not really asking the age-old question of
> "will digital replace traditional?" but rather the question
> "does it matter how an image was manipulated to achieve the
> photographer's desired depiction of the scene he or she witnessed?"
Clearly, it matters to some artists/photographers. It may
even matter to some observers of art/photography products.
It matters not a whit to me, as both a producer and consumer
of imagery. What matters to me ... is ... the image.
I assume all other producers/consumers of art will come
to their own well-informed conclusions.
The right answer to this question, of course, is:
There is no right answer to this question.
Stanley Simpleton
always good at sniffing out the trick questions
Derek Clarke
>In article <342c2a1f...@news.halcyon.com>,
>
> I think that the reason Burkett draws a distinction between
> what he does (silver masking) and scanning the negative/firing up
> Photoshop is that he is very concerned about having his work
> viewed as a portrayal of what was there, as opposed to a
> construction based only loosely on what was in front of the lens.
>
> Given the constraints of silver masking, there are strict limits
> on the sort of manipulation Burkett can achieve - and he counts on
> that to deliver part of his message to the viewer of his work.
> As soon as he fires up Photoshop, the limits are gone, and so is
> part of his message.
What matters is the image, pure and simple.
If a particular style of image is achieved with great difficulty using
one method, and certain ease using another, then I'll go the easy way!
If you have been overtaken by technology, then adapt or go under.
If the difficulty of achieving a particular image is part of the
reason for producing that image, then that is just pretention, and
best laughed at...
Beakman
Richard Webber (r...@cup.hp.com) wrote:
: In the interview he admitted frustration that people would look
: at his prints and sometimes say things like "Oh, he must have
: just cranked up the unsharp mask filter in Photoshop to achieve
: this". The frustration seemed to be centered around the
: implication that he had used digital techniques to create the
: image.
It is very common for first-time Photoshop users to overdo the unsharp
masking. This results in very "crispy" pictures which look artificial.
This drives me crazy. There is a definite area between the soft
original, and an over-sharp print. If applied correctly,
unsharp-masking done in either the digital or analog domains is an
excellent tool which may enhance the image.
If people viewing Mr. Burkett's work are inclined to say that he must
have cranked up the unsharp masking filter in Photoshop, then I would say
that he has applied too much unsharp masking, and that it doesn't matter
whether it was done digitally or not. So, rather than taking offence
that someone might be accusing him of using digital means, he should
consider what sparked the comments in the first place.
David Fokos
--
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
David Fokos Platinum/Palladium Photography
bea...@netcom.com
NEW! Eight images now showing in the "Gallery" at www.bostick-sullivan.com
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Paul Butzi
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:11:57 GMT, bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) wrote:
>It is very common for first-time Photoshop users to overdo the unsharp
>masking. This results in very "crispy" pictures which look artificial.
>This drives me crazy. There is a definite area between the soft
>original, and an over-sharp print. If applied correctly,
>unsharp-masking done in either the digital or analog domains is an
>excellent tool which may enhance the image.
>
>If people viewing Mr. Burkett's work are inclined to say that he must
>have cranked up the unsharp masking filter in Photoshop, then I would say
>that he has applied too much unsharp masking, and that it doesn't matter
>whether it was done digitally or not. So, rather than taking offence
>that someone might be accusing him of using digital means, he should
>consider what sparked the comments in the first place.
Without wanting to take on the position of defending Mr. Burkett
(although I do have some sympathy with his position on lots of
things), there's more going on here than just unsharp masking.
His images are all made as 8x10 transparencies. His technique
is outstanding. The level of detail in his prints (which are
typically quite large) is incredible.
There's been a tendency in the photographic world, of late, to
equate sharpness and detail in the final print with "Just crank
up the unsharp masking in Photoshop. This leads people with,
shall we say, rather less than the requisite experience, to attempt
to duplicate work like Mr. Burkett's by making exposures using
the $25 Vivitar point and shoot they bought at the drugstore,
augmented by rather too much manipulation between the original
transparency and the print. The results are typically horrific.
There's a difference between 'sharpness', and 'detail'. There's
even a difference between 'sharpness' that's achieve by extraordinary
technique whilst exposing the original recording medium, and
'sharpness' that's achieve by postprocessing that recorded image.
If I were Mr. Burkett, I would be constantly evaluating the
potential for getting the same results more easily by digital
means. But to be honest, I'm rather of the opinion that at the
current state of the technology, it's a rather long jump to
digitally produce an image that's, say, 48"x60" on Ilfochrome,
that will compete with the technology that Burkett is currently
employing, even if you grant that the original recording medium
is an 8x10 transparency in both cases. I certainly can't
speak authoritatively, but perhaps some of Mr. Burkett's
frustration is that people are suggesting that what he's doing
is indistinguishable from a technique that he's evaluated and
decided is not capable of delivering the results he is getting.
-Paul
Ray N. Young
Roger Cole wrote:
> Good lord. I couldn't decide where to put my reply in this thread, and if I
> argued with everything that raised my hackles I'd be at the keyboard until next
> week. In any event, my feelings follow, with the usual YMMV qualification. I
> can't tell you what you consider art, or should consider art, but I can tell you
> what I consider art to be about. And I will :-)
>
> Art is first and always about _process_ not artifacts. I think the vast
> majority of "traditional" artists would agree with this, even if most
> photographers don't. It isn't the same as performance art, where the
> performance is the artifact, but all art is related. It most assuredly does
> matter how an image is created. If you have two identical images, one created
> in traditional silver and a wet darkroom, the other all digitial, even if the
> end results are indistinguishable, they represent two different arts! Note I
> didn't say either was superior, but they are different.
>
> This is a hypothetical example I've used in this sort of argument before, though
> it seems to always be misunderstood as well. Suppose someone invented a CNC
> machine that could work granite. So you get yourself one of these machines,
> hook it to your computer, fire up "Sculpture Shop" and program it to mill out a
> block of granite to your specs. You shove in the rock, hit the mouse button,
> and a while later out comes a carved block, exactly to your specs. Now, does
> this make you a sculptor? I would say it definitely does not. You would,
> however, be an artist! You would still need to know what you wanted the result
> to look like (the "composition" of this sort of art) and you'd have to master
> the tools of your art, the techniques, to get the machine to do what you want.
> You would be an artist working in a new medium, but you would not be a sculptor!
> This seems to me an almost perfect comparison with digital imaging. It is an
> art, it certainly can be valid in its own right, but it isn't photography as we
> have used the term for the past century and a half.
>
> >Burkett sounds a lot like the painters of 150 years ago when photography
> >first appeared on the scene. Nobody likes to see his skills become obsolete or
> >to be challenged to reinvent himself. That's his problem--his solution may turn
> >out to be interesting.
> >
> >Mike
>
> But painting didn't die out, did it? Further, even representational painting
> didn't die out. It may not be in vogue in the art world, but many people do it.
> Suppose someone made a painting that was so accurate it could not be
> distinguished from a photograph. Would this make them a photographer? Of
> course not, they'd be a very skilled representational painter!
>
> Personally, I have dabbled with digital stuff, and did a few little corrections
> to some pic files I've scanned. Some things are easier with digital, and I at
> least find some harder. Burning in, for example, is much easier for me to get
> right in the darkroom than on the computer. Masking is much easier on the
> computer. However, for me the bottom line is that I enjoy working in the
> darkroom. There is something almost magical about it. It's fun. I do not
> particularly enjoy working on images with the computer. It's boring. (To me of
> course.) If it should happen that I can eventually no longer get conventional
> materials, I will not re-invent myself or anything else, at least as far as
> "imaging" goes. I will simply give it up and devote myself to my other hobbies
> and interests.
>
> And yes, I read the article and I liked it.
>
> Roger Cole
> (Heading into my flame-proof cave. Og grab club. Og ready for flamers now!)
Of course using the arguments above, unless you do the darkroom printing
yourself, who is the artist? The photographer who captured the image,
or the printer who did the final enlargement?
Ray
John Youngblood
>>>> but perhaps some of Mr. Burkett's frustration <<<<
Paul,
I read the article and didn't get the idea that he was that frustrated.
After all, this is one of the few photographers around making a good
living selling his prints. The interviewer is very keen on digital and
makes those "meaningful" composites that have so quickly become pretty
boring. He brought the subject up and Burkett was merely trying to
politely explain why digital was not an avenue that he planned on
pursuing in the near future.
I thought Burkett made a very good point about working with reality and
keeping a strong relationship with it, even while enhancing it, rather
than totally removing the viewer's ability to believe in the facts of
the imagery in front of them. If you're trying to portray the wonders of
nature and to convey an fascination with natural phenomenon, its makes a
lot more sense to do it his way. If you're trying to illustrate a
magazine article, then obviously a different set of preferences would
apply.
This often repeated argument about digital vs. chemical production of
photos often sidetracks the question of what point the artist is making
and to what audience they are speaking, and then what process best
accomplishes that objective. Having made a good sized investment in
digital technology I can understand the sensitivity when the suggestion
is made that older technologies may remain viable, however, the truth is
both have their well earned place.
There are a lot of examples of crafts that have continued in the face
of technological advances, however, and presumptions were made about
their demise that were later proved to be overstated. Painting itself
was considered threatened by photography in the last century, but there
is still an incredibly strong taste for painted canvas.
John Youngblood
Michael McGuire
0]>
: On 27 Sep 1997 01:00:41 GMT, mi...@hplmmcg.hpl.hp.com (Michael McGuire) wrote:
: >0]>
: Good lord. I couldn't decide where to put my reply in this thread, and if I
: And yes, I read the article and I liked it.
: Roger Cole
: (Heading into my flame-proof cave. Og grab club. Og ready for flamers now!)
No need for flame proofing. At least we've go a thread going here that rises
above the usual "my scanner's better than your scanner" stuff that goes down
here. Process is important. After all we are talking about photography, not
recording photometry. However when the results of two different processes
digital and darkroom become substantially identical, the value of the
difference between them, plus the appropriate token, will get you a ride on
the subway and perhaps sympathy from some curators (those who can, create,
those who can't, curate). In the mean time economics will prefer that less
costly process, and essential materials, like masking film in this case, may
disappear from the market from lack of demand. This has happened with dye
transfer materials.
There are in fact sculpture machines now. They use a uv setting wax to make
prototype solid parts from CAD program inputs. The result can be used to make
a mold for a bronze casting. Most people would call the result of such a
process, if done with artistic intent and input, and producing a reasonably
interesting object, sculpture. This may be quit annoying to the hammer and
chisel granite sculptor.
The point about painters is that indeed they did survive, and they quit
whining about photography and got back to painting, and eventually even quit
trying to disqualify photography as an art. There is a much greater difference
in process between photorealist painting than between darkroom and digital
photography. Many of the concepts in digital photography have as their source
direct analogs in darkroom process--many more than most people realize. So
when obsolete darkroom tech gets replaced with computational tech there is no
reason for much sympathy.
I have making prints in the darkroom for thirty years and have ramped up to
working digitally over that last ten. I prefer to work digitally when I can.
At this point to work in large format as I do, the darkroom is necessary to
bridge the cost/quality gap in acquiring images. Beyond that I don't much
enjoy the reek of fixer.
Ralph Brown
Ray N. Young wrote in article <342FFF...@PhotoGenesis.com>...
>Roger Cole wrote:
>
<snip - good stuff I don't agree with>
But actually, a lot of professional sculpture is effectively done that way,
except that rather
than a machine there are a bunch of artisans (artists?) in Carrera, Italy.
They get a small version
of the sculpture in some material, not necessarily marble, and blow it up,
often a lot, and make the
final sculpture out of marble. There have been discussions on how much of a
sculpture is the
work of the artist who signed it and how much the work of the people in
Carrera. When you go from
something a foot high to something 12 feet high, there's a lot of detail
that needs to be added.
Similarly bronze statues are often done in something like wax or clay, then
redone full size in
wax and the casting made from that. Generally, the people at the foundry do
the final work from the
model, sent in by the sculptor.
Having said all that, I'll go out on a limb - please no flames - and suggest
that while certainly
digital image manipulation is a different art from chemical photography, I
wouldn't be surprised
in a couple of decades to see chemical photography occupying the same sort
of space
as performances on early instruments holds in music. It's there, but not
mainstream.
Another analogy is something like gum prints or pin hole cameras. They have
some interesting qualities, but
generally people are using normal photo paper for printing and glass lenses
for their cameras.
Ralph
Roger Cole
This is a hypothetical example I've used in this sort of argument before, though
it seems to always be misunderstood as well. Suppose someone invented a CNC
machine that could work granite. So you get yourself one of these machines,
hook it to your computer, fire up "Sculpture Shop" and program it to mill out a
block of granite to your specs. You shove in the rock, hit the mouse button,
and a while later out comes a carved block, exactly to your specs. Now, does
this make you a sculptor? I would say it definitely does not. You would,
however, be an artist! You would still need to know what you wanted the result
to look like (the "composition" of this sort of art) and you'd have to master
the tools of your art, the techniques, to get the machine to do what you want.
You would be an artist working in a new medium, but you would not be a sculptor!
This seems to me an almost perfect comparison with digital imaging. It is an
art, it certainly can be valid in its own right, but it isn't photography as we
have used the term for the past century and a half.
>Burkett sounds a lot like the painters of 150 years ago when photography
Richard Webber
Roger Cole wrote:
[Snip, snip]
> Art is first and always about _process_ not artifacts. I think the vast
> majority of "traditional" artists would agree with this, even if most
> photographers don't. It isn't the same as performance art, where the
> performance is the artifact, but all art is related. It most assuredly does
> matter how an image is created. If you have two identical images, one created
> in traditional silver and a wet darkroom, the other all digitial, even if the
> end results are indistinguishable, they represent two different arts!
[More interesting observations snipped]
I found your post very interesting. I don't fully agree with your
views, but I find the ideas very stimulating. There may well be
aspects to which the fine arts are also performance arts, but I
don't agree with your extreme view that photographic (and other fine)
arts are only about process and not artifacts. As an example, my
brother-in-law started out as a painter (he had one in the
permanent collection at MOMA by age 19). He then moved to film
(working for a while with John Lennon and Yoko Ono). Now he is
a photographer who started by doing his own darkroom work, moved
to having it done by a lab and now has scans made, works on them
in photoshop and then has them rendered by a lab. For him it is
all about composition - what you put in the picture and what you
leave out. He wants control over the final image, but he doesn't
care how it is achieved. I think he is not alone amongst artists
in having this point of view.
I also don't agree with your distinction between digital imaging
and photography, at least not what I understood you to mean. I
think if you project an image onto film or a CCD array, it is
still photography - still "drawing with light". The medium for
capturing the projected image is interesting but not intrinsic,
in my opinion. If you use a view camera, you compose the projected
image onto the ground glass. How it makes its way to a final
print is irrelevant, as long as it is under your control. (All
IMHO of course!) I feel that your sculpting analogy breaks down
since the image is composed (presumably) on the computer and
then automatically rendered in stone. This is providing a physical
link between two steps of the process that was never there before.
Traditionally a sculptor might draw the image on paper in order
to "compose" it and then carve it in stone afterwards. There is
no physical linkage there - only in the sculptor's mind. But in
photography there has always been that physical connection between
the "captured" image and the final image. One is constructed as
a transformation of the other. What if the sculptor used an
electric saw rather than a chisel? What if he made a wax version
of the statue and then had it "scanned" and rendered in stone?
Would he be a sculptor still? I think the answer is yes. Noone
would claim to be a painter because they had an inkjet print made
from their photograph - yet it is rendered in ink.
Food for thought
Richard
Richard Webber
I can certainly see that Burkett would be concerned if people
thought that they could produce the same results with a 35mm
camera and Photoshop. It would be galling to see an apparent
commoditization of your skills, especially if the results are
vastly inferior.
I think, however, that technology is close to achieving Burkett's
output digitally. It would probably (though not definitely) be
necessary to start with an 8x10. But once drum scanned it can
be printed on a Lightjet 5000, which is capable of producing
images on both conventional (RA-4) papers as well as on
Ilfochrome. It generates a 305 lpi image which is
indistinguishable from an optically enlarged print (I have made
such prints). It is capable of producing output up to 4'x8'.
I haven't seen the Ilfochrome output yet - but I expect it will
not be long before the same quality of result as Burkett's could
be achieved. This would still involve considerable skill however.
My point here is that using digital techniques doesn't necessarily
imply a lower quality result than Burkett's.
Richard
Frederic Goudal
rc...@usit.net (Roger Cole) writes:
>
> Art is first and always about _process_ not artifacts. I think the vast
> majority of "traditional" artists would agree with this, even if most
> photographers don't. It isn't the same as performance art, where the
At least in french art means both process and artifact. Art has been
first about process, but language is not fixed, and in the 20th
century, the two are true.
You may judge a work from its technical quality, or from its
"emotional" (maybe) value.
What is sure is that at least what is important is the final aspect of
things, whe I see a work, I don't want to know which were the tools, I
want to be moved. When I go to the picture I can't care less if the
special effects are done by computer or with a true camera.
Discussion about change in the technique is interesting if there is a
real loss. But I don't think it is the case between digital and
chemical/optical. There are things that are better done with one
process, and some with the other one. If the two process are good, it
would be totaly stupid to choose the less practical.
The two process have different qualities. It is not because less work
is involved in one or another process that it is not good, the quality
of a work is neither the time or the energy you gave to it. Its the
final result.
f.g.
--
Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph that
meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and your
own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a pictorial
photograph.
Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography" the British Journal of Photography
1923, p 613
Frederic Goudal - gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr - http://www.insat.com/~filh -
Jean-David Beyer
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------62B061202872C50AC8424E4E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ray N. Young wrote:
> Of course using the arguments above, unless you do the darkroom printing
> yourself, who is the artist? The photographer who captured the image,
> or the printer who did the final enlargement?
>
There was a time when you were not thought to be a (photographic)
artist unless you coated your own plates and papers yourself (19th
century). You can go to far with anything. Nothing exceeds like excess.
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
--------------62B061202872C50AC8424E4E
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jean-David Beyer
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Jean-David Beyer
n: Beyer;Jean-David
adr: ;;;Shrewsbury;New Jersey;;United States of America
email;internet: jdb...@exit109.com
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------62B061202872C50AC8424E4E--
Beakman
John Youngblood (phot...@metro.net) wrote:
: I thought Burkett made a very good point about working with reality and
: keeping a strong relationship with it, even while enhancing it, rather
: than totally removing the viewer's ability to believe in the facts of
: the imagery in front of them. If you're trying to portray the wonders of
: nature and to convey an fascination with natural phenomenon, its makes a
: lot more sense to do it his way. If you're trying to illustrate a
: magazine article, then obviously a different set of preferences would
: apply.
Why is it that peole always assume that using digital means somewhere in
the photographic process will lead to a "removal of the viewer's ability
to believe in the facts of the imagery in front of them"? That control
is completely in the hands of the artist. One can use digital means
solely as a substitute for normal darkroom work, with the result being
the same as if you just brought the print out from the darkroom. Despite
what some people may think it is not necesssary to make unbelievable
images when one is working on an image digitally.
David
Beakman
Paul Butzi (use.my....@halcyon.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:11:57 GMT, bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) wrote:
: >It is very common for first-time Photoshop users to overdo the unsharp
: >masking. This results in very "crispy" pictures which look artificial.
: >This drives me crazy. There is a definite area between the soft
: >original, and an over-sharp print. If applied correctly,
: >unsharp-masking done in either the digital or analog domains is an
: >excellent tool which may enhance the image.
: >
: >If people viewing Mr. Burkett's work are inclined to say that he must
: >have cranked up the unsharp masking filter in Photoshop, then I would say
: >that he has applied too much unsharp masking, and that it doesn't matter
: >whether it was done digitally or not. So, rather than taking offence
: >that someone might be accusing him of using digital means, he should
: >consider what sparked the comments in the first place.
: Without wanting to take on the position of defending Mr. Burkett
: (although I do have some sympathy with his position on lots of
: things), there's more going on here than just unsharp masking.
My point was that if the unsharp masking, as applied by Mr. Burkett, was
applied to the point of distracting the viewer from the image, then it
seems to me that it would be counterproductive to his objective.
Enhancing the detail is fine, and if that is especially suitable to Mr.
Burkett's work, so much the better. But if it starts to look unatural
and becomes distracting then I think one should re-evaluate.
: If I were Mr. Burkett, I would be constantly evaluating the
: potential for getting the same results more easily by digital
: means. But to be honest, I'm rather of the opinion that at the
: current state of the technology, it's a rather long jump to
: digitally produce an image that's, say, 48"x60" on Ilfochrome,
: that will compete with the technology that Burkett is currently
: employing, even if you grant that the original recording medium
: is an 8x10 transparency in both cases. I certainly can't
: speak authoritatively, but perhaps some of Mr. Burkett's
: frustration is that people are suggesting that what he's doing
: is indistinguishable from a technique that he's evaluated and
: decided is not capable of delivering the results he is getting.
My belief, and I speak with some experience in this case, is that the
digital enlargement will be *superior* to the analog enlargement.
Furthermore, the greater the enlargement, the greater the superiority.
My comments refer to black & white, I don't know about color having never
tried it.
David L. Glos
In article <342FFF...@PhotoGenesis.com>, R...@PhotoGenesis.com wrote:
>Of course using the arguments above, unless you do the darkroom printing
>yourself, who is the artist? The photographer who captured the image,
>or the printer who did the final enlargement?
>
>Ray
To a large extent, I feel this way. I work both in color, and B+W, strictly
for my own amusement. For some reason, I just don't feel the same intimate
connection to my color work, which I have professionally printed, as to my B+W
work, whick I print myself.
David Glos
SPECTRUM
What percentage of the image would be manipulated before it no longer
represents the reality of the recorded moment ? Is this to be limited to
contrast adjustment, color tweeking? Or would it "allow" the removal of
unwanted blemishes ? The straightening of a stray hair ? Which were there at
the outset anyway .
--
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc.
1- 908 - 505 - 8393
http://www.spectrumphoto.com
!! World Field Photographers Association !!
"For the photographer who likes to live large ! "
Beakman wrote in article ...
>John Youngblood (phot...@metro.net) wrote:
>
>: I thought Burkett made a very good point about working with reality and
>: keeping a strong relationship with it, even while enhancing it, rather
>: than totally removing the viewer's ability to believe in the facts of
>: the imagery in front of them. If you're trying to portray the wonders of
>: nature and to convey an fascination with natural phenomenon, its makes a
>: lot more sense to do it his way. If you're trying to illustrate a
>: magazine article, then obviously a different set of preferences would
>: apply.
>
>Why is it that peole always assume that using digital means somewhere in
>the photographic process will lead to a "removal of the viewer's ability
>to believe in the facts of the imagery in front of them"? That control
>is completely in the hands of the artist. One can use digital means
>solely as a substitute for normal darkroom work, with the result being
>the same as if you just brought the print out from the darkroom. Despite
>what some people may think it is not necesssary to make unbelievable
>images when one is working on an image digitally.
>
>David
>--
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
`'`
Tim Green
Roger,
Nice post. Ted Hughes put it even more succinctly in "Crow":
"A pen is too light.
Take a chisel to write."
Total immersion in the process brings intensity and depth. This
suffuses the resulting art with something that cannot be obtained with
"quick" methods, and it *does* show. These are the words we carve in
stone and the images our inner eye can never forget.
Regards,
Tim
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|*** To reply replace 'jollynet' with 'netcologne' ***|
|-----------------------------------------------------|
| http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-greenti/Frame37.htm |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
Tim Green
glo...@ucunix.san.uc.edu (David L. Glos) wrote:
>For some reason, I just don't feel the same intimate=20
>connection to my color work, which I have professionally printed, as to =
my B+W=20
>work, whick I print myself.
Stragely, I feel the same although I do my own color work as well. Go
figure.
pbrlab
I generally use a scanner and Photoshop to save time in the darkroom. I
can quickly experiment with different effects without wasting time and
paper. I really don't have many problems with the move towards
digitization in photography from a moral or artistic standpoint but I do
worry that fewer people will be using the traditional methods and the
supplies will become more expensive and with less choice. I've been
told that many of the enlarger manufacturers are either already bankrupt
or well on their way.
Even though prices on computer equipment have dropped dramatically as of
late it is still a considerable cost to keep up with the technology,
whereas a good enlarger (or camera) will last a lifetime. This hobby
(business) is already expensive enough without having to upgrade every
few years.
Andy
Tim Green
"Ray N. Young" <R...@PhotoGenesis.com> wrote:
>Of course using the arguments above, unless you do the darkroom printing
>yourself, who is the artist? The photographer who captured the image,
>or the printer who did the final enlargement?
>
>Ray
This is the point where I normally start getting into trouble, as I
maintain that art photographers who don't make their own prints and
don't byline the printmaker are 50% plagiarists.
Ducking and running for cover =3D;->>
Regards,
Richard Webber
Tim Green wrote:
>
> "Ray N. Young" <R...@PhotoGenesis.com> wrote:
>
> >Of course using the arguments above, unless you do the darkroom printing
> >yourself, who is the artist? The photographer who captured the image,
> >or the printer who did the final enlargement?
> >
> >Ray
>
> This is the point where I normally start getting into trouble, as I
> maintain that art photographers who don't make their own prints and
> don't byline the printmaker are 50% plagiarists.
>
>
> Regards,
> Tim
What's interesting about this comment is that it is not true if you
have someone render a digital image for you, rather than have them
print it conventionally. This is because you
have applied your creativity in your "digital darkroom" and the
process of rendering it deserves no more artistic credit than those
who made the paper you are printing on.
Richard
Ed Aiken
Pushing the argument....If you photograph an "Artistic" subject (eg. the
Twin Towers in Manhattan) or a geologic evolution (the Grand Canyon), you
are either stealing from the talent of the Architect or THE CREATOR. You
must somehow distort the image or be a plagirist....right?....if not,
why?....does this mean that the more the excess, the nearer the photog gets
to art?.....if so, computer editing has finally made photography an
undisputed art form.
Ed
Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote in article
<3430E2D4...@exit109.com>...
> Ray N. Young wrote:
>
> > Of course using the arguments above, unless you do the darkroom
printing
> > yourself, who is the artist? The photographer who captured the image,
> > or the printer who did the final enlargement?
> >
Beakman
Tim Green (nc-gr...@jollynet.de) wrote:
: Roger,
: Nice post. Ted Hughes put it even more succinctly in "Crow":
: "A pen is too light.
: Take a chisel to write."
: Total immersion in the process brings intensity and depth. This
: suffuses the resulting art with something that cannot be obtained with
: "quick" methods, and it *does* show.
Here we see yet another common myth being propagated by someone I suspect
lacking firsthand experience. I refer, of course, to the myth that
"digital" methods are somehow "quick" methods and that this results in
inferior work. If you do the work quickly, it will be inferior -- just
like any other method. Anyone serious artist that expects digital
technology to save them a lot of time will be sorely disappointed.
I would guess that most of the people deriding digital methods and
propogating fallacies like the one above have never spent significant
time or effort to use those tools properly. I will bet that I put in
far more time, from the time I trip the shutter to the time I have a
final print of that image, than most of the "analog" people here.
David
--
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Tim Green
bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) wrote:
>Here we see yet another common myth being propagated by someone I =
suspect=20
>lacking firsthand experience. I refer, of course, to the myth that=20
>"digital" methods are somehow "quick" methods and that this results in=20
>inferior work.
No, of course not. That's why I carefully *didn't* say "digital".
Ultimately, it's a question of attitude and not of the technology of
the process.
Richard Kirk
bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
>Tim Green (nc-gr...@jollynet.de) wrote:
(munch)
>: Total immersion in the process brings intensity and depth. This
>: suffuses the resulting art with something that cannot be obtained with
>: "quick" methods, and it *does* show.
>Here we see yet another common myth being propagated by someone I suspect
>lacking firsthand experience. I refer, of course, to the myth that
>"digital" methods are somehow "quick" methods and that this results in
>inferior work. If you do the work quickly, it will be inferior -- just
>like any other method. Anyone serious artist that expects digital
>technology to save them a lot of time will be sorely disappointed.
(munch)
ooOOooo. This is getting interesting.
(1)
There seem to be two modes to photography. One mode requires you to
get the whole creative act into taking the snap. You don't set up a scene.
You don't arrange the lighting: you use what's there or you don't take
the picture. The creative act is seeing the scene developing, and getting
your camera exactly where 'it should be' as you press the shutter. Even
cropping the picture afterwards is cheating a bit. Having an automatic
advance to take several frames a second is cheating a lot. This is the sort
of photography that Cartier-Bresson was good at, and I'm not.
The other mode is to set up the scene in a studio. You control the lighting
and every item in the scene. You take a Polaroid to see that the scene
looks right before you load your plate. Your fire off many shots, and
select the best one. Then you crop the image, take it to a galley camera,
airbrush the faults off your model's legs, and so on. You end up with a
'perfect' picture, but there always seems to be 'something' in the spontaneous
pictures that you can't reproduce.
And of course there are all the shades in between.
This was true before any of this digital technology, and will doubtless be
just as true afterwards.
The same sort of thing exists with oil/acrylics and water colors. Water
color washes have to be put on in one go - if your leading edge dries then
you've had it. Any goofs are there for good. And the spontaneity and the
risk somehow gets it's way into the image. But 'overwork' an image and it
looks 'muddy'. Use Chinese white or Tipp-Ex and it howls at you.
Oil paints are mostly opaque. You can paint over something that goes wrong.
Even the great masters were doing it as X-rays show.
Even within these mediums, there are two modes. Impressionists use oils.
W. Rusell-Flint's images of women on country scenes are watercolors, but
always look a bit like a Pirelli calender to me.
There is the same sort of division with music. A live concert can be better
than a recording, or a lot worse. And so on.
So - it is not unreasonable that digital photography will have some people
who will try to impose their will on each individual pixel, and others who
will prefer to use a broad brush. I guess the fiddlers and the perfectionists
will come to digital imaging first attracted by its possibilities for endless
degradation-free erasing and retrial. The snapshooters, the watercolors,
and the performance artists will come too when they are ready. And digital
are will be richer when they do.
(2)
Total immersion happens everyday when programming.
There can be deep beauty in an algorithm. The tacky pictures of Mandlebrodt
fractals are nothing when compared to the jewelry of the tiny recursive
process that made them. You don't see that just by looking at the pictures.
--
Richard Kirk 01483-448869 (phone) 01483-448845 (fax)
Canon Research Europe Ltd, r...@cre.canon.co.uk
20 Alan Turing Road, Guildford, Surrey. GU2 5YF
Beakman
Tim Green (nc-gr...@jollynet.de) wrote:
: bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) wrote:
: >Here we see yet another common myth being propagated by someone I
: >suspect
: >lacking firsthand experience. I refer, of course, to the myth that
: >"digital" methods are somehow "quick" methods and that this results in
: >inferior work.
: No, of course not. That's why I carefully *didn't* say "digital".
: Ultimately, it's a question of attitude and not of the technology of
: the process.
I did notice that you avoided the word "digital", however, I would have
to say that within the context of the original message, your reply, and
this thread in general, it seemed to be pretty strongly implied, even if
erroneously.
Beakman
Richard Kirk (r...@cre.canon.co.uk) wrote:
: There seem to be two modes to photography. One mode requires you to
: get the whole creative act into taking the snap. You don't set up a scene.
: You don't arrange the lighting: you use what's there or you don't take
: the picture. The creative act is seeing the scene developing, and getting
: your camera exactly where 'it should be' as you press the shutter. Even
: cropping the picture afterwards is cheating a bit. Having an automatic
: advance to take several frames a second is cheating a lot. This is the sort
: of photography that Cartier-Bresson was good at, and I'm not.
: The other mode is to set up the scene in a studio. You control the lighting
: and every item in the scene. You take a Polaroid to see that the scene
: looks right before you load your plate. Your fire off many shots, and
: select the best one. Then you crop the image, take it to a galley camera,
: airbrush the faults off your model's legs, and so on. You end up with a
: 'perfect' picture, but there always seems to be 'something' in the spontaneous
: pictures that you can't reproduce.
I would suggest at least one other "mode" wherein much like the first
example the photographer "captures" a scene as is, but then uses that as
the basis for the final image. While I am not an ardent apostle of Ansel
Adams, I think it was he who stated, "The negative is the score, and the
print is the performance" or something close to that. I think that is
quite a reasonable approach.
As a photographic artist, I use my images to communicate with the viewer.
In my case I am mainly trying to evoke certain emotions. When I come upon
a scene I wish to photograph it is because I see within that scene the
potential for expression. It is more often than not that a straight print
from the negative will not yield a print expressing what I had in mind.
Therefore, for me, the art is a combination of noticing the potential in a
scene (call it previsualization or whatever you like), taking the picture
(framing, exposure, development, etc.), and then working with the image
until it expresses my original vision in the print. In this context
cropping is not cheating at all. In fact my images (for the most part)
are square, yet I shoot 8x10. I'm not going to have a custom-built 8x8
camera made just so that I can adhere to some totally arbitrary rule of
purism. By setting up your camera and choosing your lens you are
cropping, so I don't see any difference by choosing to crop later as well.
I guess for some people photography is a sport where certain rules must
be followed and then at the end everyone's score is tallied up and the
winner declared. For me, photography is not a sport. I have only one
objective and that is communication with the viewer through my art. As
far as I am concerned anything I can do to better express myself and
facilitate that communication is reasonable.
Paul Butzi
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:01:43 -0700, Richard Webber <r...@cup.hp.com>
wrote:
>Paul Butzi wrote:
>I can certainly see that Burkett would be concerned if people
>thought that they could produce the same results with a 35mm
>camera and Photoshop. It would be galling to see an apparent
>commoditization of your skills, especially if the results are
>vastly inferior.
Well, here I go again. I feel quite awkward trying to represent
Christopher Burkett's views - I'm not he, and everything I say
is mine, not his.
But, that said, I think that you've misunderstood the point
I was trying to make. I don't think Mr. Burkett is worried
about commoditization of his skills. Indeed, given the content
of his artist's statements (which I've seen in galleries showing
his work), and his statements in the VC interview, I rather suspect
that he'd be PLEASED to see more work like his.
Now, I'm going way, way out on the limb, here, but I think that
for Burkett, the value of his work is not in the 99% but in the
last 1%. What's I'm trying to express is that I think he feels
that much of the value, and nearly all of the expression of his
work is in the nearly infinite level of detail in it. It seems
to me that he's quite clear that his work is about the immanent
holiness of creation, and he wants people to apprehend it in his
work.
And I simply think that he's evaluated the current digital
technology, compared it to the results he's getting from his
current process, and found it wanting. So he's sticking with
the existing process. The man is not a moron or a Luddite -
he worked in the press world, and he's run and presumably
understands scanners. You don't get the results he gets
by following formulas for generating silver masks, you get
results like his by deep understanding of what's being done.
And when people comment to him that his work looks as if it
was done in Photoshop, it means that they haven't really
*looked* at it, and understood what it's about. I know
that I find it frustrating when my art doesn't communicate
in the way I want, and I'm sufficiently guilty of pride
to suspect that Mr. Burkett feels the same way (but
probably a whole hell of lot less often).
And, I think that he feels that the limits of what can be
done with his current process impose a sense of discipline
that he finds useful. We can argue a lot about whether this
makes sense, but it's clear that he feels it's useful, and it's
clear to me, at least, that he understands the capabilities of
the technology he's NOT using. I don't understand the
reaction to this. We rarely hear complaints when people work
exclusively in black and white - another form of limiting our
expressive range and then exploiting the discipline it imposes.
I've never heard anyone express the thought that Vladimir
Ashkenazy should have ditched his analog piano and taken up
with a digital polyphonic synthesizer - sticking with a concert
grand seems like a very similar choice, to me.
-Paul
Paul Butzi
>I think, however, that technology is close to achieving Burkett's
>output digitally. It would probably (though not definitely) be
>necessary to start with an 8x10. But once drum scanned it can
>be printed on a Lightjet 5000, which is capable of producing
>images on both conventional (RA-4) papers as well as on
>Ilfochrome. It generates a 305 lpi image which is
>indistinguishable from an optically enlarged print (I have made
>such prints). It is capable of producing output up to 4'x8'.
>I haven't seen the Ilfochrome output yet - but I expect it will
>not be long before the same quality of result as Burkett's could
>be achieved. This would still involve considerable skill however.
>
>My point here is that using digital techniques doesn't necessarily
>imply a lower quality result than Burkett's.
I'll post a response to this separate from my other response.
I think it's interesting that so much of the discussion of
digital imaging centers around the spatial resolution of the
images, especially the phrase 'indistinguishable'. I don't
believe, for instance, that a 305 lpi image is indistinguishable
from an optically enlarged print. 305 lpi works out to about
6 line pairs/mm, or at least that's what our friend Nyquist
would have us believe. But I believe that Mr. Burkett's prints
exhibit spatial resolution far in excess of that. And I believe
that (to him, and perhaps to others) that difference is
of great significance.
I've worked in the computer graphics world, and to my mind,
the issues that are hard are NOT spatial resolution. There's
a hardware availability issue centering around spatial
resolution, but it will surely pass.
But for me, the real issues are the shape of the color gamut
and the resolution within that gamut. 305lpi at how many
bits deep? I'm reminded of the arguments of audio CD's -
how many times were we told that 44KHzx8bits was 'so good
that increasing the sample rate or sample size would produce
no apparent improvement'? I heard it lots. But the fact is,
you CAN apprehend the difference. Hell, I can hear the difference
and I'm going deaf in one ear, and I'm on the seriously sloped
portion of the hearing degradation/age curve. There's a sense
of hopefulness in the digital world that you can get away with
rather less resolution and sample size than you actually need.
That said, I'm sure that people are going to categorize me as
a digital-phobe. They're wrong - I'm eagerly watching the
digital imaging being done, and anxious to give it a try. But
I'm not wading in with blinkers on, either. So far, the very
closest I've come to being seriously tempted is with David Fokos's
truly excellent post about digital production of negatives to
be contact printed.
Can a digital process duplicate the results I get in my darkroom?
Yes, probably, but at terrific expense. Can a digital process
duplicate the results Mr. Burkett gets in *his* darkroom? Probably
not yet, but very soon, perhaps.
Are the differences in capability important in an artistic sense?
Perhaps not for a large percentage of the artists out there. But it's
very important for someone who feels that much of the expressive
power of their work depends on maximum depiction of detail in the
world around them.
-Paul
Beakman
Paul Butzi (use.my....@halcyon.com) wrote:
: I think it's interesting that so much of the discussion of
: digital imaging centers around the spatial resolution of the
: images, especially the phrase 'indistinguishable'. I don't
: believe, for instance, that a 305 lpi image is indistinguishable
: from an optically enlarged print. 305 lpi works out to about
: 6 line pairs/mm, or at least that's what our friend Nyquist
: would have us believe.
They may be using a 305 lpi screen, but the true resolution of the
LightJet will be at least 16 times that, or 4880 dpi.
: But I believe that Mr. Burkett's prints
: exhibit spatial resolution far in excess of that. And I believe
: that (to him, and perhaps to others) that difference is
: of great significance.
: I've worked in the computer graphics world, and to my mind,
: the issues that are hard are NOT spatial resolution. There's
: a hardware availability issue centering around spatial
: resolution, but it will surely pass.
: But for me, the real issues are the shape of the color gamut
: and the resolution within that gamut.
Just a note to say that all my comments are with regard to black &
white. I'm not sure what happens with color.
: There's a sense
: of hopefulness in the digital world that you can get away with
: rather less resolution and sample size than you actually need.
: That said, I'm sure that people are going to categorize me as
: a digital-phobe. They're wrong - I'm eagerly watching the
: digital imaging being done, and anxious to give it a try. But
: I'm not wading in with blinkers on, either. So far, the very
: closest I've come to being seriously tempted is with David Fokos's
: truly excellent post about digital production of negatives to
: be contact printed.
: Can a digital process duplicate the results I get in my darkroom?
: Yes, probably, but at terrific expense. Can a digital process
: duplicate the results Mr. Burkett gets in *his* darkroom? Probably
: not yet, but very soon, perhaps.
I shoot in 8x10. I am using a 210mm Rodenstock-S lens with their special
ED glass. This is one of the very sharpest lenses available. My
negatives have remarkable detail (as an aside, I just want to say that I
continue to be totally blown away by the ability to zoom in on my image
and see little tiny specks of paint hiding in some shadow 50 feet away
from the camera. To think, some photons had to bounce off that paint and
make it's way through my camera lens and onto my film. Incredible!).
Anyway, as you would imagine, a contact print from those negatives is
pretty good. Well, I can tell you quite honestly that a contact print
made from a digital negative, itself made from that original analog
negative is not only as good, but better in terms of resolving detail
(through careful, and tasteful application of digital unsharp masking).
Furthermore, an enlargement as big as 16x20 (I haven't made larger yet, so
I can't speak from experience about even larger prints, though I have my
suspicions) is better than the original 8x10 contact print as well! As
Dave Barry would say, "I am not making this up". If anyone is in the
Boston area and would care to see a print, I would be happy to ante up
the proverbial goods, as they say.
Now when I talk about digital negatives, I am not talking about ones that
you make at home. I scan my 8x10 negs at 1333 dpi on a drum scanner
(resulting in a 125 MB image file), and film is output on an imagesetter
with a resolution of at least 3600 dpi.
Michael McGuire
0]>
: On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:01:43 -0700, Richard Webber <r...@cup.hp.com>
: wrote:
: >I think, however, that technology is close to achieving Burkett's
: >output digitally. It would probably (though not definitely) be
: >necessary to start with an 8x10. But once drum scanned it can
: >be printed on a Lightjet 5000, which is capable of producing
: >images on both conventional (RA-4) papers as well as on
: >Ilfochrome. It generates a 305 lpi image which is
: >indistinguishable from an optically enlarged print (I have made
: >such prints). It is capable of producing output up to 4'x8'.
: >I haven't seen the Ilfochrome output yet - but I expect it will
: >not be long before the same quality of result as Burkett's could
: >be achieved. This would still involve considerable skill however.
: >
: >My point here is that using digital techniques doesn't necessarily
: >imply a lower quality result than Burkett's.
: I'll post a response to this separate from my other response.
: I think it's interesting that so much of the discussion of
: digital imaging centers around the spatial resolution of the
: images, especially the phrase 'indistinguishable'. I don't
: believe, for instance, that a 305 lpi image is indistinguishable
: from an optically enlarged print. 305 lpi works out to about
: 6 line pairs/mm, or at least that's what our friend Nyquist
: would have us believe. But I believe that Mr. Burkett's prints
: exhibit spatial resolution far in excess of that. And I believe
: that (to him, and perhaps to others) that difference is
: of great significance.
:
snippage
"
: -Paul
It is not possible optically or physically that Burkett could do much better
than 305 lpi in his enlargements. Lets look at some plausible numbers for
doing what he does. Assume a 4x enlargement from an 8x10 negative to 40x50".
Assume he does it with a 300 mm f/5.6 lens that has diffraction limited
performance at 5.6 (not too plausible). The diameter of the lens at 5.6 is
300 / 5.6 = 54 mm. At 4x, the distance from the image to the lens is 1500 mm.
The image of a point on the film is a diffraction blur spot (Airy disk) whose
diameter is given by
d = 2.44 * (1500 / 54) * wavelength of light.
Assuming the middle of the optical spectrum (range 0.4 to 0.7), 0.5 microns,
the diameter works out to be 34 microns. So 25,400 microns/inch / 34 microns
gives 750 lpi--which by this criterion are just barely resolved. But it's
highly unlikely that his lens is diffraction limited at anything like 5.6.
Consensus is that modern large format lenses have their best performance
around f/ 16--22. So divide that 750 lpi number by 3 or 4. Of course it gets
worse for larger images, and I know he goes larger than 40x50. We haven't
discussed the effect of the same problem in shooting the pictures on the final
enlarged image.
Of course there is also no free lunch in digital imaging. In the scanning
process, optical limitations also obtain.
The resolution limits of human vision ought to be mentioned here. The generally
accepted figure for line pair resolution for high contrast targets is 1 line
pair cycle per minute of arc. In this situation it is just possible to tell
that what you are looking at are line pairs rather than a gray patch of the
same average brightness as the line pairs. A generally accepted viewing
distance is 300 mm. At this distance, the line pairs of a 300 lpi target
subtend 1 minute of arc. Vernier acuity is about 10x higher for high contrast.
However there aren't many images that are interesting to look at that feature
vernier scales or line pair targets. Burkett's certainly don't.
Paul Butzi
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:25:24 GMT, bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) wrote:
>Why is it that peole always assume that using digital means somewhere in
>the photographic process will lead to a "removal of the viewer's ability
>to believe in the facts of the imagery in front of them"? That control
>is completely in the hands of the artist. One can use digital means
>solely as a substitute for normal darkroom work, with the result being
>the same as if you just brought the print out from the darkroom. Despite
>what some people may think it is not necesssary to make unbelievable
>images when one is working on an image digitally.
You're right, of course. There's no guarantee that a photographer
using traditional processes has not performed some substantial
distortion of the reality being depicted. Likewise, there's
no guarantee that the digital photographer will perform such
a distortion.
I think in general, though, that the 'consensus' opinion right now
is that people who are doing 'traditional work' (and I use that term
with great reservations) do not perform such distortions, simply
because the vast majority of such workers don't know how to do it
effectively - Jerry Uelsman notwithstanding. In general, rightly
or wrongly, people believe that in the digital darkroom, such
distortions are easy and commonplace. And they generally believe,
probably wrongly, that people who are drawn to digital methods are
so drawn because of the availablity of the tools that make distortion
easy. And they believe that the digital process is much less
painstaking than the traditional one - something which David has
done a great deal to show simply isn't the case. His process of
producing digitally enlarged negatives is probably *more* painstaking
that the 'traditional' analog process I currently use.
If I can quote from the article, Burkett states "Mm-hmm. Well, I
already have people going into galleries saying "Oh, well, that's
just been digitally tweaked. And it makes a big difference to them
when they find out it hasn't been digitally manipulated." Burkett
then goes on to say that it becomes more believeable because there's
a direct physical link to the scene, and more drivel that I just
plain don't agree with. But I do connect with his major point - that
right now, if he uses digital means to produce his work, people
consider the detail (which he feels is integral to the meaning of
his art) to be an artifact of the process, and not an intentional
statement about how the world has been created.
It will be some time before enough photographers with a 'traditional'
eye (and after viewing David's images I would place him in this group)
will produce enough excellent 'traditional' work (again, excellent
like David's) using digital or hybrid analog/digital processes that
this misconception fades.
-paul
Beakman
Paul Butzi (use.my....@halcyon.com) wrote:
: You're right, of course. There's no guarantee that a photographer
: using traditional processes has not performed some substantial
: distortion of the reality being depicted. Likewise, there's
: no guarantee that the digital photographer will perform such
: a distortion.
: I think in general, though, that the 'consensus' opinion right now
: is that people who are doing 'traditional work' (and I use that term
: with great reservations) do not perform such distortions, simply
: because the vast majority of such workers don't know how to do it
: effectively - Jerry Uelsman notwithstanding. In general, rightly
: or wrongly, people believe that in the digital darkroom, such
: distortions are easy and commonplace. And they generally believe,
: probably wrongly, that people who are drawn to digital methods are
: so drawn because of the availablity of the tools that make distortion
: easy. And they believe that the digital process is much less
: painstaking than the traditional one - something which David has
: done a great deal to show simply isn't the case. His process of
: producing digitally enlarged negatives is probably *more* painstaking
: that the 'traditional' analog process I currently use.
[snip]
: It will be some time before enough photographers with a 'traditional'
: eye (and after viewing David's images I would place him in this group)
: will produce enough excellent 'traditional' work (again, excellent
: like David's) using digital or hybrid analog/digital processes that
: this misconception fades.
Thanks for the kind comments regarding my photos, Paul. I appreciate
it. And even though my images tend to be a little on the "surreal" side,
that is primarily a function of what I choose to photograph, how I frame
the shot and make the exposure.
Your points are well taken. I can show someone one of my photos and if
they know that I've used Photoshop they will think that I "created" the
effect in Photoshop -- that is, until I show them my 8x10 negative! :)
If my images were more traditional, then there would never be any suspicion.
So this "guilty until proven innocent" is a bit disturbing, though not
surprising. It sounds to me like people don't necessarily have a problem
with digital tools, per se, but rather they have a problem with the way
that some people choose to use them -- and at this moment in time, it
seems that perhaps the majority of people using Photoshop are the sort
that like those "objectionable" manipulations.
The only real solution is for more "traditional" photographers to start
trying their hand using Photoshop so that we become the majority!
Best regards,
Ralph Brown
So, maybe what we are really discussing here is the difference between a
natural pearl and a cultured one. Some people really will pay a lot more for
a natural pearl. I'm not one of those, however, aesthetics is more that what
you see. There is a component in enjoying something that is related to the
history of the object, Napoleon's personal brandy glass would be more
impressive than an identical one used by one of his generals.
Ralph
Paul Butzi wrote in article <3433b554...@news.halcyon.com>...
>On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:25:24 GMT, bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) wrote:
>
<snip>
Paul Butzi
On Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:17:03 GMT, bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) wrote:
>Paul Butzi (use.my....@halcyon.com) wrote:
>Thanks for the kind comments regarding my photos, Paul. I appreciate
>it. And even though my images tend to be a little on the "surreal" side,
>that is primarily a function of what I choose to photograph, how I frame
>the shot and make the exposure.
>
>Your points are well taken. I can show someone one of my photos and if
>they know that I've used Photoshop they will think that I "created" the
>effect in Photoshop -- that is, until I show them my 8x10 negative! :)
>If my images were more traditional, then there would never be any suspicion.
Aha! You see? even you are subject to the 'Burkett effect'.
:-) -or- :-P
Seriously, though, I think that a lot of the vigor of Burkett's
reaction is understandable when you realize that much of the intent
of his art is not to portray reality in a 'Super-real' way, with
higher internal contrast and saturation, but to try to get people to
realize that the world can really *look* like that, if they'll just
wake up and pay attention. And for him, it's quite literally a
religious issue. The link between his images and reality is a
paramount issue for the art he's working so hard to create. When
someone assumes that the 'super-real' nature of his work is
*constructed* by him, using artificial means, that's pretty
upsetting because it means that his work is being misinterpreted.
When someone walks up to one of his prints, and says "I remember
once, I was feeling really *connected*, and the world really did
look like that", his art is being validated.
So I think, perhaps, that I get a glimmer of what he feels. I know
from experience that it's a painful feeling to put a lot of work into
your art, and then feel that frustration when people don't connect.
>
>So this "guilty until proven innocent" is a bit disturbing, though not
>surprising. It sounds to me like people don't necessarily have a problem
>with digital tools, per se, but rather they have a problem with the way
>that some people choose to use them -- and at this moment in time, it
>seems that perhaps the majority of people using Photoshop are the sort
>that like those "objectionable" manipulations.
>
>The only real solution is for more "traditional" photographers to start
>trying their hand using Photoshop so that we become the majority!
Hey, I'm tempted. If you're telling me that at 16x20, digitally
enlarged negatives can look like contact prints, I'm very tempted.
So where do I find an image-setter that can do the output for me?
And how do I get good scans of my negatives?
-Paul
Brian McNeill
The thoughts on the effect of the images definitely are on the money. For
digital imagining output give Bill Nordstrom a call at Laser Light
Photographics: 508-799-3996. I don't have his email address handy at
the moment.
>use.my....@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) writes:
>>Paul Butzi (use.my....@halcyon.com) wrote:
>-Paul
--
Brian McNeill McNeill Photography 1511 Hatfield Valley Road
bm...@jtan.com Voice 215.368.3326 Hatfield, PA 19440
Fax 215.368.6807
J. D. McDonald
Roger Cole wrote:
>> Suppose someone invented a CNC
> machine that could work granite.
No sweat. Just money.
> So you get yourself one of these machines,
> hook it to your computer, fire up "Sculpture Shop" and program it to mill out a
> block of granite to your specs. You shove in the rock, hit the mouse button,
> and a while later out comes a carved block, exactly to your specs. Now, does
> this make you a sculptor? I would say it definitely does not. You would,
> however, be an artist!
You've hit the point of almost all such artistic debates: words, meaning
of.
It's like "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it
make a sound", which, in essence, simply is an argument about the
definition of the word "sound".
In other words, these are meaningless questions. The **only** meaningful
questions in art are "do you like it" and "how much will you pay
for it".
Doug McDonald
Paul Butzi
>Roger Cole wrote:
>>> Suppose someone invented a CNC
>> machine that could work granite.
>
>No sweat. Just money.
>
>
>> So you get yourself one of these machines,
>> hook it to your computer, fire up "Sculpture Shop" and program it to mill out a
>> block of granite to your specs. You shove in the rock, hit the mouse button,
>> and a while later out comes a carved block, exactly to your specs. Now, does
>> this make you a sculptor? I would say it definitely does not. You would,
>> however, be an artist!
>
>
>You've hit the point of almost all such artistic debates: words, meaning
>of.
>It's like "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it
>make a sound", which, in essence, simply is an argument about the
>definition of the word "sound".
No, it's an argument about whether there is really an objective
reality, or not.
>
>In other words, these are meaningless questions. The **only** meaningful
>questions in art are "do you like it" and "how much will you pay
>for it".
Well, if that's how you feel about, I guess that definition of art
works for you.
As far as I'm concerned, the only real answer to the question "What is
art?" is the one given by Louis Armstrong when asked "What is jazz?".
The answer, of course, is "If you have to ask, you'll never know."
-Paul
Roger Cole
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:30:28 -0400, Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com>
wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------62B061202872C50AC8424E4E
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Ray N. Young wrote:
>
>> Of course using the arguments above, unless you do the darkroom printing
>> yourself, who is the artist? The photographer who captured the image,
>> or the printer who did the final enlargement?
>>
>There was a time when you were not thought to be a (photographic)
>artist unless you coated your own plates and papers yourself (19th
>century). You can go to far with anything. Nothing exceeds like excess.
>
>--
>Jean-David Beyer
>Shrewsbury, New Jersey
In their time, they probably had a point. I might have agreed had I been around
back then. However, I think there is a qualitative difference in that the
people who shot and printed on the new factory made stuff were still using the
same tools. They were no longer making their own tools, but the process was the
same, light falling on chemically sensitized material and chemically processed.
Roger Cole
Roger Cole
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:32:47 GMT, nc-gr...@jollynet.de (Tim Green) wrote:
>"Ray N. Young" <R...@PhotoGenesis.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course using the arguments above, unless you do the darkroom printing
>>yourself, who is the artist? The photographer who captured the image,
>>or the printer who did the final enlargement?
>>
>>Ray
>
>This is the point where I normally start getting into trouble, as I
>maintain that art photographers who don't make their own prints and
>don't byline the printmaker are 50% plagiarists.
>
>Ducking and running for cover =3D;->>
>
>Regards,
>Tim
Don't run, I need somebody to cover the flank!
Roger
Roger Cole
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:08:33 -0400, "Ralph Brown" <ralph...@fmr.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ray N. Young wrote in article <342FFF...@PhotoGenesis.com>...
>
>>Roger Cole wrote:
>>
><snip - good stuff I don't agree with>
Thank you!
[my stuff snipped again[
>But actually, a lot of professional sculpture is effectively done that way,
>except that rather
>than a machine there are a bunch of artisans (artists?) in Carrera, Italy.
>They get a small version
>of the sculpture in some material, not necessarily marble, and blow it up,
>often a lot, and make the
>final sculpture out of marble. There have been discussions on how much of a
>sculpture is the
>work of the artist who signed it and how much the work of the people in
>Carrera. When you go from
>something a foot high to something 12 feet high, there's a lot of detail
>that needs to be added.
In that case, I feel like it is also a collaborative work. Note that I also
think there is no "right" and "wrong" answer here, but this is the way I look at
it.
>
>Similarly bronze statues are often done in something like wax or clay, then
>redone full size in
>wax and the casting made from that. Generally, the people at the foundry do
>the final work from the
>model, sent in by the sculptor.
I think this would depend on what if any detail is added. If none is added,
then I'd look at it like processing E6. Just a finishing operation with no need
or use of input from the artist. If it is, then again it is a colaborative
work.
>
>Having said all that, I'll go out on a limb - please no flames - and suggest
>that while certainly
>digital image manipulation is a different art from chemical photography, I
>wouldn't be surprised
>in a couple of decades to see chemical photography occupying the same sort
>of space
>as performances on early instruments holds in music. It's there, but not
>mainstream.
I'll be happy with that, as long as I can get materials for it. I _like_ being
out of the mainstream anyway.
Roger Cole
Roger Cole
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 01:39:54 GMT, sko...@mindspring.com (Steven T Koontz)
wrote:
>>I have cross-posted this message to r.p.digital, r.p.darkroom and
>>r.p.technique.art since I think readers to all these groups may
>>have interesting opinions.
>>
>>Richard
>
>"186,000 miles per second isn't just a good idea, it's the law!"Einstein
Er, oops. I went back and checked and found the rest of the thread, or at least
what I looked at, to also be cross-posted, which I hadn't noticed. The reader
I'm using, Free Agent, doesn't make this apparent. No wonder I've been drawing
such fire! Oh well, in for a penny in for a pound.
Roger Cole
Roger Cole
On Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:47:37 GMT, bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) wrote:
>Tim Green (nc-gr...@jollynet.de) wrote:
>: Roger,
>
>: Nice post. Ted Hughes put it even more succinctly in "Crow":
>
>: "A pen is too light.
>: Take a chisel to write."
>
>
>: Total immersion in the process brings intensity and depth. This
>: suffuses the resulting art with something that cannot be obtained with
>: "quick" methods, and it *does* show.
>
>Here we see yet another common myth being propagated by someone I suspect
>lacking firsthand experience. I refer, of course, to the myth that
>"digital" methods are somehow "quick" methods and that this results in
>inferior work. If you do the work quickly, it will be inferior -- just
>like any other method. Anyone serious artist that expects digital
>technology to save them a lot of time will be sorely disappointed.
I have worked with the computer enough to know better. I don't think it is
quick and easy as such, though some things are quicker and easier to do in
digital. I know you are replying to another poster, but I wanted to point out
that I didn't say or even mean to imply that it was quicker or easier.
>
>I would guess that most of the people deriding digital methods and
>propogating fallacies like the one above have never spent significant
>time or effort to use those tools properly. I will bet that I put in
>far more time, from the time I trip the shutter to the time I have a
>final print of that image, than most of the "analog" people here.
>
>David
>--
I also didn't mean to deride it. I even said something to the effect of "still
art, and valid in its own right." I just think it represents a new and
different medium, related to but different from conventional photography.
Roger Cole
Roger Cole
>Richard Webber <r...@cup.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>I read a recent interview with Christopher Burkett in ViewCamera
>>magazine. For those who don't know his work - he is a landscape
>>photographer who takes 8x10 transparencies and prints them onto
>>Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) using a technique called unsharp
>>masking. He is considered to be one of the masters of this
>>technique and he is also well respected (and collectible) for
>>his art.
>>
>>In the interview he admitted frustration that people would look
>>at his prints and sometimes say things like "Oh, he must have
>>just cranked up the unsharp mask filter in Photoshop to achieve
>>this". The frustration seemed to be centered around the
>>implication that he had used digital techniques to create the
>>image. He was very keen to point out that he used traditional
>>methods and felt that this was somehow better - as if using
>>digital techniques would somehow have devalued his prints. It
>>was as if he felt that the traditional masking he does is not
>>"manipulation" and yet the same technique done digitally is.
>>"Manipulation" seemed to Burkett to be undesirable.
>>
>>Even as someone who has spent quite a bit of time trying to
>>perfect unsharp masking using 4x5 transparencies and Ilfochrome,
>>I still don't understand his point. It seems to me that there
>>is a spectrum of manipulation that goes on in the photographic
>>process - starting with the capturing of the image on either film
>>or CCDs. I can see that people want to draw the line somewhere - e.g.
>>do you digitally remove something undesirable that was in
>>the original image? But in this instance Burkett is comparing
>>two identical manipulations purely on the basis of the technology
>>used to achieve it. The only conclusion that I can draw is that
>>he feels proud of having mastered the chemical and physical
>>process of silver masking - trying this myself does help me
>>understand that pride. But is it that Burkett feels threatened
>>by the digital revolution? Is it that he feels his skills will
>>be replaced by Photoshop?
>I imagine he does. and they will be.
>>Having started to explore the digital
>>realm, I can already attest to the fact that there are plenty
>>of skills to be mastered despite the existence of powerful software
>>and fast computers. If I find that I can produce the results
>>I want using a digital darkroom then I may well be tempted to
>>sell my traditional darkroom. But then this is not my living,
>>so I don't feel threatened - rather I relish the opportunity to
>>learn.
>I too hope this continues to improve.image making should be about the
>end result not the way its acomplished. I would hate to think that
>someone wouldn't like one of my pics because it was shot with a
>rolleicord and not a hassleblad.and this is what this amounts to,to
>me. if either one can do what you want whats the diff?I can't afford
>good enough digital stuff to replacemy wet darkroom but as soon as
>good enough quality stuff is avalible for resonable prices I'll be the
>first one out of the dark!
By now everyone knows I think it _is_ about how it is produced, but the digital
vs. chemical question is not the same as Hasselblad vs. Rollei. It is still the
same process in the latter case, just a different brand of tools. Would anyone
seriously suggest a painting be judged on which brand of brush the artist used?
Not I! (Or maybe I should say, not EVEN I! :-)
>if all this is true than we should all be doing "straight" printing
>and reshoot if dodging is required........true alot of people are
>overdoing digital manipulations or are doing it poorly where it is
>obvious that it was done.once people get over the novelty of this I
>think it is a great tool. alot easier than making 15 test prints. alot
>of times people give up before they realy get it right. I know I have.
>and then after a scan that looks great after some work I'm back in the
>darkroom.trying to do in there what I just did on the computer. be
>nice if that step could be eliminated.but IMHO the printers still
>don't equal the silver image in B&W......
I don't think it matters how much it is manipulated, but Burkett may. What
matters for me in terms of what kind of art it is, is how it is manipulated. If
it is all chemical/darkroom, then it is one kind of art. If it is all digital,
another kind. If some of both, it is a mixed-media work. Note, however, even I
still consider it to be art.
>>I have cross-posted this message to r.p.digital, r.p.darkroom and
>>r.p.technique.art since I think readers to all these groups may
>>have interesting opinions.
>>
>>Richard
>
>"186,000 miles per second isn't just a good idea, it's the law!"Einstein
After some thought, I left the cross-posting in my response, at risk of being
severely flamed perhaps, especially if some of those folks come over to
rec.phot.darkroom to read the rest of the thread!
Roger Cole
Roger Cole
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:11:57 GMT, bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) wrote:
>Richard Webber (r...@cup.hp.com) wrote:
>
>: In the interview he admitted frustration that people would look
>: at his prints and sometimes say things like "Oh, he must have
>: just cranked up the unsharp mask filter in Photoshop to achieve
>: this". The frustration seemed to be centered around the
>: implication that he had used digital techniques to create the
>: image.
>
>It is very common for first-time Photoshop users to overdo the unsharp
>masking. This results in very "crispy" pictures which look artificial.
>This drives me crazy. There is a definite area between the soft
>original, and an over-sharp print. If applied correctly,
>unsharp-masking done in either the digital or analog domains is an
>excellent tool which may enhance the image.
>
>If people viewing Mr. Burkett's work are inclined to say that he must
>have cranked up the unsharp masking filter in Photoshop, then I would say
>that he has applied too much unsharp masking, and that it doesn't matter
>whether it was done digitally or not. So, rather than taking offence
>that someone might be accusing him of using digital means, he should
>consider what sparked the comments in the first place.
>
>David Fokos
>--
I don't think that is really what is happening, or what his objection is.
Thanks to Photoshop, thousands or perhaps millions of people are now somewhat
familiar with the term "unsharp masking" even if they don't understand the
darkroom process from which the name derives. Before this, people viewing his
prints might say something like, "Wow, what amazing detail! Wonder how he did
that?" Now, thanks to their familiarity with the term and general effects, they
just say, "Oh he must have used Photoshop and the unsharp mask filter." He
apparently feels like they insinuate that such sharpness and detail isn't much
of an artisitic acomplishment, since they were done with just a mouse click. I
think they are implying the same thing, and I do feel like it is a shame.
Roger Cole
Ralph Brown
Roger Cole wrote in article <343535ac...@news.usit.net>...
<various snips snipped>
>I'll be happy with that, as long as I can get materials for it. I _like_
being
>out of the mainstream anyway.
>
>Roger Cole
>
At the risk of really changing the thread, can I bring up dye transfer
prints?
This seems to me to be a case of a technology that IMHO created truly
unmatched images, but appears to have died due to the mainstream flowing
down easier (much easier) paths. I would argue that in the case of dye
transfers, not only is the process truly appealing (at least to me), but the
results are quite distinguishable from more automated methods.
Of course I suppose my use of a dye sublimation printer and Photoshop
wouldn't be viewed as essentially the same thing ;->
Ralph
Roger Cole
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:20:24 -0700, "Ray N. Young" <R...@PhotoGenesis.com> wrote:
>Roger Cole wrote:
>
>> Good lord. I couldn't decide where to put my reply in this thread, and if I
>> argued with everything that raised my hackles I'd be at the keyboard until next
>> week. In any event, my feelings follow, with the usual YMMV qualification. I
>> can't tell you what you consider art, or should consider art, but I can tell you
>> what I consider art to be about. And I will :-)
[most of my long winded stuff snipped]
>> And yes, I read the article and I liked it.
>>
>> Roger Cole
>> (Heading into my flame-proof cave. Og grab club. Og ready for flamers now!)
>
>Of course using the arguments above, unless you do the darkroom printing
>yourself, who is the artist? The photographer who captured the image,
>or the printer who did the final enlargement?
>
>Ray
>
In that case it is, at best, a colaborative work.
Example: My niece recently wanted to enter a shot she took of her pet iguana in
the regional fair's (Appalachian Regional Fair) competition. She took the
negative to Wal-Mart for a machine 8x10 and was predicatibly disappointed. She
asked me to print it for her, which I did. It was in color, on one of the Kodak
Gold films. It had some mixed lighting, most being outdoor light through the
window, and the rest being just enough flourescent from the opposite side to
give a little green cast to some shadows. I spent hours making testing and
making the final print. I dodged a few of the more troublesome shadows using
filters as dodgers. I burned in the head of the iguana, which was lighted by
almost direct sun and would blow out with any reasonable exposure for the rest
of the print. She was delighted. She also still owes me the home-cooked dinner
she promised!
Now, who's work was this? I willingly let her claim it, since there is almost
no money and little recognition in this fair (she didn't win anything. To give
you an idea of how paltry the awards are, I entered two prints and they both won
third place in their catagories, BW Landscape and BW Seascape. I won two white
ribbons and $4. Yes, four dollars, two each!) Still, I think that iguana print
was at least half mine.
Roger Cole
Roger Cole
On 1 Oct 1997 01:14:21 GMT, "Ed Aiken" <eai...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> Pushing the argument....If you photograph an "Artistic" subject (eg. the
>Twin Towers in Manhattan) or a geologic evolution (the Grand Canyon), you
>are either stealing from the talent of the Architect or THE CREATOR. You
>must somehow distort the image or be a plagirist....right?....if not,
>why?....does this mean that the more the excess, the nearer the photog gets
>to art?.....if so, computer editing has finally made photography an
>undisputed art form.
>
> Ed
>
Maybe for a man made structure there is some substance to that. But I think the
point of photography as art is to show _how the artist sees_, whether it is
something already there or something created. Jerry Ulsman's composite prints
are about as made-up as anything digital. You aren't plagiarizing the architect
or God, any more than a pianist who performs his own interpretation of a
classical work is plagiarizing the original. He shouldn't claim to have
composed it, however, and I wouldn't claim to have created a landscape or
building! (Unless I had used a lot of manipulation to create an image of
something that clearly didn't really exist outside my vision, again as in
composite prints. Bruce Barnbaum does some excellent multiple negative
printing, which often looks as if it could be a normal print from a single
negative. He has, essentially, "created" a landscape or whatever.)
Roger Cole
Roger Cole
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:41:29 -0700, Richard Webber <r...@cup.hp.com> wrote:
>Roger Cole wrote:
>
>[Snip, snip]
>
>I found your post very interesting. I don't fully agree with your
>views, but I find the ideas very stimulating. There may well be
>aspects to which the fine arts are also performance arts, but I
>don't agree with your extreme view that photographic (and other fine)
>arts are only about process and not artifacts. As an example, my
I didn't think of it as extreme. I don't think I did say that it was _only_
about process, though I see how it could look that way. Rather, I think for
real art process is primary. The end result (artifact) is important, in part
because it helps define the process. Example from my life: In 1991 I got on a
health binge and got into bicyling. Eventually, I got into road racing, stictly
lowest level amateur but fun and very competitive. I never won, but I did have
a few top-five finishes. Crossing the finish line is important, but secondary
to the method used. If I simply followed the pack around a course in my car,
then accelerated across the finish line waving my arms in the air, they'd
probably call the cops to give me a breath test! Just wouldn't be the same. It
isn't art, but it seems a similar point to me.
>brother-in-law started out as a painter (he had one in the
>permanent collection at MOMA by age 19). He then moved to film
>(working for a while with John Lennon and Yoko Ono). Now he is
>a photographer who started by doing his own darkroom work, moved
>to having it done by a lab and now has scans made, works on them
>in photoshop and then has them rendered by a lab. For him it is
>all about composition - what you put in the picture and what you
>leave out. He wants control over the final image, but he doesn't
>care how it is achieved. I think he is not alone amongst artists
>in having this point of view.
No, but I think he has changed mediums, more than once. He knows where he wants
to get, presumably, and experiments with different mediums to get there.
Nothing wrong with that, and I don't object to digital imaging per se. I just
think it represents a new medium, rather than an evolution of or revolution in
an older one. And surely it lends itself to what, IMO, amount to mixed media
works, shot on film, scanned, manipulated, output perhaps on photo paper as some
printers do now etc.
>I also don't agree with your distinction between digital imaging
>and photography, at least not what I understood you to mean. I
>think if you project an image onto film or a CCD array, it is
>still photography - still "drawing with light". The medium for
>capturing the projected image is interesting but not intrinsic,
>in my opinion. If you use a view camera, you compose the projected
>image onto the ground glass. How it makes its way to a final
Ok, but if so, then we need a new terminology to describe conventional
photography. Of course digital does meet the meaning of the strict linguistic
derivation of photography. But I still maintain that the two (digital and
chemical) are different enough to warrant different labels, and be considered
different media.
>print is irrelevant, as long as it is under your control. (All
>IMHO of course!) I feel that your sculpting analogy breaks down
A point, as you say, of opinion. I don't think it is irrlevant at all.
>since the image is composed (presumably) on the computer and
>then automatically rendered in stone. This is providing a physical
>link between two steps of the process that was never there before.
>Traditionally a sculptor might draw the image on paper in order
>to "compose" it and then carve it in stone afterwards. There is
>no physical linkage there - only in the sculptor's mind. But in
>photography there has always been that physical connection between
>the "captured" image and the final image. One is constructed as
>a transformation of the other. What if the sculptor used an
>electric saw rather than a chisel? What if he made a wax version
>of the statue and then had it "scanned" and rendered in stone?
>Would he be a sculptor still? I think the answer is yes. Noone
>would claim to be a painter because they had an inkjet print made
>from their photograph - yet it is rendered in ink.
In your example, I think it would depend on whether the computer was used to
change the wax model in some way. If so, he would be working in a new medium,
though assuredly related to conventional sculpture. I think if you hold a
cutting instrument, saw, chisel, whatever, and manually guide it in making a
"sculpture" then you would be a "sculptor." But not if a computer did all the
carving. You are right about not claiming to be a painter, but suppose a
painter photographed his painting and had it printed on photo paper. Would he
be a photographer? Maybe, I am not sure myself.
>Food for thought
>
>Richard
Thanks! I don't mind disagreement at all, as long as we can refrain from being
disagreeable. You did.
Roger Cole
Samoht Yrag, Elyod
John Villinski wrote:
>
> Roger Cole wrote:
>
> > >--
> >
> > I don't think that is really what is happening, or what his objection is.
> > Thanks to Photoshop, thousands or perhaps millions of people are now somewhat
> > familiar with the term "unsharp masking" even if they don't understand the
> > darkroom process from which the name derives.
>
> Well, Roger,
>
> You seem to realy be enjoying this thread, and I have enjoyed your
> comments, as well as the others. One of those everyone has an opinion
> type discussion. I personally think that the most important aspect of
> "art", whoever that is, is what is the commitment one has to the form
> being produced, how involved that person is in the creation. But I
> think this has already been said.
>
> The real reason for this post is "What the hell is unsharp masking?" I
> never heard of this til this thread (and the article of course)" DOes
> someone want to explain it to me, or better yet point me in the proper
> direction to read about this myself. Does this only apply to color
> printing, or can this be done in B&W?
>
> TIA,
> John Villinski
> --
> The sooner you get behind, the more time you have to catch up.
I KNOW CHRIS PERSONALLY, HAVE WATCHED HIM WORK, VIEWED MOST OF HIS
PRINTS, AND OWN A FEW. THESE PRINTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES AND IF YOU
HAVE THE OPPERTUNITY I RECOMMEND VIEWING THEM YOURSELVES. I THINK THAT
YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS NO CONTEST.
Roger Cole
>Roger Cole wrote:
>>> Suppose someone invented a CNC
>> machine that could work granite.
>
>No sweat. Just money.
>
>
>> So you get yourself one of these machines,
>> hook it to your computer, fire up "Sculpture Shop" and program it to mill out a
>> block of granite to your specs. You shove in the rock, hit the mouse button,
>> and a while later out comes a carved block, exactly to your specs. Now, does
>> this make you a sculptor? I would say it definitely does not. You would,
>> however, be an artist!
>
>
>You've hit the point of almost all such artistic debates: words, meaning
>of.
>It's like "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it
>make a sound", which, in essence, simply is an argument about the
>definition of the word "sound".
>
>In other words, these are meaningless questions. The **only** meaningful
>questions in art are "do you like it" and "how much will you pay
>for it".
>
>Doug McDonald
Good! No real argument from me. I like conventional darkroom work, and I will
pay for the materials as long as they are available and reasonably priced. I
don't particularly like working on images with a computer, and will do it only
when I _need_ to as opposed to _wanting_ to.
Roger Cole
John Villinski
Richard Knoppow
John Villinski <~~jo...@hwr.arizona.edu> wrote:
A mask as refered to here is used to control the contrast of an
image. The mask is positive for a negative, and negative for a
positive. Because the contrast, density, and curve of the mask can be
controled it can be used to modify both the overall contrast and the
contrast curve of the original. A normal contast mask is sharp and
very closely registered with the image.
The un-sharp mask is just what it sounds like. It is a mask which
is either made in such a way as to be slightly blurred, such as by
exposing the masking film through the support of the original instead
of emulsion to emulsion, or separating a sharp mask with a spacer when
printing.
The unsharp mask controls the contrst of large areas just as a
normal sharp mask does, but, because of its unsharpness it does not
affect the contrast of fine details such as textures, leaving the
contrast higher for them. This gives the effect of enhancing the
detail and sharpness of fine detail along with reducing the overall
contrast of the original image. The degree of enhancement and size of
enhanced detail is determined by the degree of un-sharpness.
This kind of masking can be done with conventional film as described
above or with computer graphics programs.
It is equally applicable to B&W and color and to reproducing from
either negatives or positives as with making Ilfochromes from color
transparencies.
The key is learning how to control the variables, namely the degree
of un-sharpness, the contrast and density of the mask and the choice
of curve shape for the mask (mainly a choice of the masking film).
Negative color films already contain another kind of masking used to
correct the absorption characteristics of the dyes (that's why they
have an amber cast) and some positive films have a color correction
mask done in a different way (interlayer effects). These should not be
confused with a contrast correction mask.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Roger Cole
>wouldn't be viewed as essentially the same thing ;->
>
>Ralph
FWIW, I agree about die transfer. There are some people attempting to resurect
it, last I read. It is more trouble than I would personally care to go to, but
the results and the archival properties are unmatched and I hope it lives again.
Roger Cole
Roger Cole
On Sat, 04 Oct 1997 16:48:28 GMT, rc...@usit.net (Roger Cole) wrote:
>FWIW, I agree about die transfer. There are some people attempting to resurect
>it, last I read. It is more trouble than I would personally care to go to, but
>the results and the archival properties are unmatched and I hope it lives again.
>
>Roger Cole
>
Argh. Did I really say "die transfer?" I meant, of course, "dye transfer,"
although the "die" may have more accurately reflected the current state of that
beautiful art.
I have since received email informing me that there are other color process more
permanent than dye transfer. Ok. I knew there were others that were considered
"archival" but didn't know what was longer lasting than what once you got to
that point.
Roger Cole