What film for landscape and why?
Giordy
I have been researching the available film types on 4x5 for quickload
and readyload holders. I am a beginner so I don't know a lot about film
types, but I understand that most landscape photographers prefer Fuji
Velvia 50 or 100.
What is your favorite film for landscapes, and why?
Thanks
Giordano
Frank Pittel
: Hi all,
As most people here know I mostly shot landscapes. For B&W (which accounts
for better then 90% of what I shoot) I use Tmax-100 although I'm considering
switching to Efke, For transparencies I use Kodak's 100vs. I like the saturated
colors of 100vs but find velvia's colors saturated to the point of being cartoonish.
For C41 I use Fuji's NPS. I stopped using Kodak's c41 when they discontinued thier
Royal Gold and like the results I get from NPS.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
Matt Clara
news:1130334742.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Slide = Fuji Velvia : love those bright colors, very little grain, and
resolution is good enough for my purposes.
C41 = Fuji Reala : again, great, vibrant colors, very little grain, and this
time with excellent resolution--unfortunately not available in sizes larger
than 120.
B&W = Ilford Delta 100 : very sharp, great tonal differentiation, but not
good for high contrast scenes and prone to development problems if
everything isn't "just so".
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Mark McGilvray
I shoot only color and have pretty much standardized on Kodak E100G for two
reasons: first, the color fidelity is excellent; and, second, I scan all my
transparencies for digital output after work in photoshop and the film is
extremely fine grained. Adding color saturation to a high quality scan in
Photoshop is a snap - desaturation generally gives poor results. I have not
shot Velvia 100 or Kodak E100VS (a situation I intend to remedy shortly), so
all I can say here is shoot them and see what you think. I noticed a poster
in another thread says Velvia 100 should be shot at IS0 80 - I would
dedifitely test that.
I shot lots of landscapes with Velvia 50 that turned out well, but some were
"off" because ISO 50 here is best shot at ISO 40. Velvia's color fidelity in
the deep red to purple spectrum is deploreable. The film is VERY contrasty
and I noticed horrible results at high altitude with landscape shots of
distant mountains. I picked up several images that were high contrast, lost
much shadow detail, and had a blue-green-grayish color cast that looked
awful. BTW I used a good local lab, film from a reliable vendor, and B+W
filters as appropriate. The phenomenon regretably proved repeatable. Shots
of near objects under the same conditions were fine. It seems to be more
than an air quality issue.
Cheesehead
contrast
is just fine if I develop in the Jobo. But when I use the Yankee tank
it
tends to look more like a common Plus-X result. That is, not quite
enough contrast.
(HC-110(b) is my standard developer.)
This coming or perhaps next weekend I'm doing some similar testing with
Fuji Acros 4x5.
Mark Westling
I don't want QuickLoads.
Nothing found at B&H, Badger, etc.
Thanks,
Mark
"Cheesehead" <dplotu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130511766.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gregory Blank
in the US, one reason I implored them to do so when
I reviewed the Film for View Camera Magazine.
But I guess they had/have other plans than to make more
money producing the product.
Its a great film Btw.
In article <gcs8f.60745$WR2.12088@fed1read03>,
"Mark Westling" <MarkWe...@cox.net> wrote:
> Does anyone know where I can get some Fuji Acros in regular sheet packages.
> I don't want QuickLoads.
>
> Nothing found at B&H, Badger, etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Mark Westling
http://www.unicircuits.com/shop/index.php?cPath=27&osCsid=e31810dffac342dc5dcc2b0b44c88928
But it's pricey, about $1 a sheet...
"Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote in message
news:greg-45E4A8.1...@news.isp.giganews.com...
Mark Westling
100 from B&H!
"Mark Westling" <MarkWe...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:VRs8f.60747$WR2.43008@fed1read03...
Gregory Blank
"Mark Westling" <MarkWe...@cox.net> wrote:
> Actually now that I checked, $1 a sheet is about the same price as 4x5 T-Max
> 100 from B&H!
>
>
> "Mark Westling" <MarkWe...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:VRs8f.60747$WR2.43008@fed1read03...
> > It's available direct from Japan via:
> > http://www.unicircuits.com/shop/index.php?cPath=27&osCsid=e31810dffac342dc5d
> > cc2b0b44c88928
> >
> > But it's pricey, about $1 a sheet...
But then you pay shipping and there is no guarantee the film won't be X
rayed in customs. If you go through the regular channels at least there
is that guarantee. To me although I like the film its not good enough to
risk when as good products are easily available without hassle and
paying for the shipping.
Larry Heath
As an aside to the above question, would anyone like to make comments, or
suggest some do's and don'ts on using Polaroid type 55 film and scanning the
negatives for landscape work? Any thoughts or comments on this general
process would be welcomed.
I have been run out of my darkroom since Charley came through last year and
have gone traditional capture using the Type 55 and digital output (16x20)
on a Epson 4000. I would like to go back to doing wet chemistry development
for B&W film, just don't have the available space right now or in the near
future it seems.
Thanks
Larry
Cheesehead
I'll ask him to seek more. (Since my APX is almost exhausted
and I really don't like TMax 100, this is my best shot.)
Collin
Mark Westling
"Cheesehead" <dplotu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130583928.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cheesehead
Calling them is always beneficial.
Jim & Abdi are good to work with.
I talked to Abdi today about getting in some Acros 4x5.
Collin
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Exchequer? Do you know about these guys?:
http://www.unicircuits.com/shop/index.php?osCsid=324647f2fa61e45557102c19c11cf87d
See you in the parking lot on 5th!
Lorem Ipsum
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132074141.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>O Mighty Cheesehead, what about other sources than Mideast Photon
> Exchequer? Do you know about these guys?:
>
> http://www.unicircuits.com/shop/index.php?osCsid=324647f2fa61e45557102c19c11cf87d
They think B&W is Neo-crap. It ain't. Bummer.
Cheesehead
You gonna show of you big lens for postagae stamp negs again?
Get a 4x5 and shoot real pictures! :0
Didn't someone *important* say "resolution is a bourgeois concept"?
:)
Behold the power of Cheeseheads
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
So, you need a negative the size of Vermont to get a good print? Those
of us who know how to develop film properly can get great prints from
small negatives. It's all in the fingers....
And, please explain how you can get great sports photos with your view
camera..or extreme close-ups of inaccessible areas...
Yes, what is the equivalent of 560mm for 35mm on a 4x5 or 8x10 system?
If a 180 is normal, multiply that by 11
You need a 2000mm lens!
And while you're still changing holders, I have taken 5 or more shots,
advancing my film with a stroke of my thumb...(I don't like motor
drives).
You know what we do with cheese? We make pizza!
Lorem Ipsum
> ya, ya, ya.
> You gonna show of you big lens for postagae stamp negs again?
> Get a 4x5 and shoot real pictures! :0
I shoot 4x5, then print to 2x2.5
Lorem Ipsum
news:1132155181....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> And, please explain how you can get great sports photos with your view
> camera..or extreme close-ups of inaccessible areas...
No problem. For sports, I'll use the Super-Technika and 360mm lens.
> And while you're still changing holders, I have taken 5 or more shots,
> advancing my film with a stroke of my thumb
A Real Photographer doesn't need to take but a couple shots.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Rugby games go on for hours. You never know when you may get an even
better shot...even if you get a good one early on..
Cheesehead
rule.
Sports/PJ? You've seen the great PJ work with a Speed Graphic of the
Hindenberg.
For closeups, just put on a 75mm Tominon and extend to > 150mm for >
1:1 macro work.
You can get your shots by the random shot-gun approach. That is, by
accident. I'll get mine by intent.
The lens I'd really like is one of those Super Symmar XL thingies. But
@ >$2000 it's
out of my budget. Much the same pricing as many over-priced Leica
lenses. :)
Cheesehead
(Going to Wisconsin this weekend & buying lots of curds. So don't be
jealous.)
John
wrote:
> You gonna show of you big lens for postagae stamp negs again?
> Get a 4x5 and shoot real pictures! :0
Surely you mean a 5X7 !
--
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer & Webmaster
http://www.puresilver.org - http://www.legacy-photo.com
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
out of large format.
Lorem Ipsum
news:1133215242.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, but I can get more out of that postage stamp than most people can
> out of large format.
Challenge! I love it. High noon by the clock tower. Seriously, make my
day. SHOW ME!
Or shut the fuck up.
Cheesehead
a) Composition is everything.
b) The detail captured is only a component of the composition.
Leading to these conclusions ...
a) The larger the neg, with quality lenses on either a given, the
better the perspective and rendering of reality.
b) Yes, a good 135 composition is more useful than a poor 4x5
composition.
c) But a good composition in 4x5 beats a good composition in 135 in
most respects.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Cheesehead wrote:
> Remember this (but you already know them), my little bald friend: :)
> a) Composition is everything.
When you have lots of time, it's easy. How well can you compose when
you have 2 seconds?
> b) The detail captured is only a component of the composition.
?????
Cheesehead
PJ work is dependent on a readiness for an unpredictable event.
That's why I don't do it. Some do it with excellence.
But it's a venue to which I am not suited.
And it's really an inferior form of photography. :)
to b)
Seems clear to me.
Resolution is not composition and does not determine composition.
It's merely a feature.
Collin
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Cheesehead
But really, isn't great PJ work clearly differentiated from great art?
And isn't PJ work really a product of our dysfunctional culture where
we look for the emotion of the moment?
There's little long-range thinking in that behavior. Isn't it then by
definition an existentialist expression?
Collin
Lorem Ipsum
> Note the smiley following the original statement. :)
>
> But really, isn't great PJ work clearly differentiated from great art?
Ansel Adams will go down in history not as an Artist, but a
photodocumentarian along with O'Sullivan. Documentarians are a bit
different from PJs because the later aims for a series rather than the
singular frame, although it's the singular photos that appear most
frequently to evince the work - but the same is true of Adams - he shot LOTS
of picturers of the same thing, but only one of the series is commonly
shown.
> And isn't PJ work really a product of our dysfunctional culture where
> we look for the emotion of the moment?
Interesting. Emotion is dysfunctional? Anyway, photojournalism ain't what
you see in the daily newspapers.
> There's little long-range thinking in that behavior. Isn't it then by
> definition an existentialist expression?
An example of long-range thinking evinced in specfic photographs would help
your argument.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> But really, isn't great PJ work clearly differentiated from great art?
Henri Cartier-Bresson; Eugene Smith; Walker Evans; Ian MacEachern;
Dorethea Lange; Margaret Burke-White; Robert Capa; Bill Brandt,
... Frank, Dater, Arbus ...
> And isn't PJ work really a product of our dysfunctional culture where
> we look for the emotion of the moment?
The 'emotion of the moment' is dysfunctional? So what isn't: the
emotion of last week; maybe of next year?
'The Decisive Moment': Henri Cartier-Bresson.
Photography _is_ capturing the emotion of the moment and
putting a frame around it.
> There's little long-range thinking in that behavior.
At this instant I will think of 10 years from now: "Yes, teller,
I know I don't have the funds in my account now, but I will in
ten years."
"Live in the moment." - Buddha
> Isn't it then by definition an existentialist expression?
I have no idea. What is "existential expressionism?"
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
Nicholas O. Lindan
> "Cheesehead" <dplotu...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > But really, isn't great PJ work clearly differentiated from great art?
> Henri Cartier-Bresson; Eugene Smith; Walker Evans; Ian MacEachern;
Sorry, that was a bit rough.
On a serious side, I don't see why journalism <> art.
All art is journalism, some of a sort, some of a stretch.
Any good journalism is art.
Of course it depends what one means by art.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Photography is not and cannot be art. No kind of photography can be
art, precisely because it is bound to a particular moment and place, in
a natural causal relationship. Painting has no causal connection to any
time or place. That's why painting is art and photography isn't.
John Emmons
a load of crap...
You made more sense, although not much when you were still Scarpitti...
John Emmons
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133564753.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
just attack the person and call him a moron.
Read this, please, and then try again:
http://www.rogerscruton.com/books/aesthetic_under.html
Excerpt:
"In order to understand what I mean by saying that photography is not a
representational art, it is important to separate painting and
photography as much as possible, so as to discuss not actual painting
and actual photography but an ideal form of each, an ideal which
represents the essential differences between them. Ideal photography
differs from actual photography as indeed ideal painting differs from
actual painting. Actual photography is the result of the attempt by
photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and
methods of painting.
By an 'ideal' I mean a logical ideal. The ideal of photography is not
an ideal at which photography aims or ought to aim. On the contrary, it
is a logical fiction, designed merely to capture what is distinctive in
the photographic relation and in our interest in it. It will be clear
from this discussion that there need be no such thing as an ideal
photograph in my sense, and the reader should not be deterred if I
begin by describing photography in terms that seem to be exaggerated or
false.
The ideal painting stands in a certain 'intentional' relation to a
subject.[2] In other words, if a painting represents a subject, it does
not follow that the subject exists nor, if it does exist, that the
painting represents the subject as it is. Moreover, if x is a painting
of a man, it does not follow that there is some particular man of which
x is the painting. Furthermore, the painting stands in this intentional
relation to its subject because of a representational act, the artist's
act, and in characterizing the relation between a painting and its
subject we are also describing the artist's intention. The successful
realization of that intention lies in the creation of an appearance, an
appearance which in some way leads the spectator to recognize the
subject.
The ideal photograph also stands in a certain relation to a subject. a
photograph is a photograph of something. But the relation is here
causal and not intentional.[3] In other words, if a photograph is a
photograph of a subject, it follows that the subject exists, and if x
is a photograph of a man, there is a particular man of whom x is the
photograph. It also follows, though for different reasons, that the
subject is, roughly, as it appears in the photograph. In characterizing
the relation between the ideal photograph and its subject, one is
characterizing not an intention but a causal process, and while there
is, as a rule, an intentional act involved, this is not an essential
part of the photographic relation. The ideal photograph also yields an
appearance, but the appearance is not interesting as the realization of
an intention but rather as a record of how an actual object looked. "
Since the end point of the two processes is, or can be, so similar, it
is tempting to think that the intentionality of the one relation and
the causality of the other are quite irrelevant to the standing of the
finished product. In both cases, it seems, the important part of
representation lies in the fact that the spectator can see the subject
in the picture. The appreciation of photographs and the appreciation of
paintings both involve the exercise of the capacity to 'see as', in the
quite special sense in which one may see x as y without believing or
being tempted to believe that x is y.
Now, it would be a simple matter to define 'representation' so that 'x
represents y' is true only if x expresses a thought about y, or if x is
designed to remind one of y, or whatever, in which case a relation that
was merely causal (a relation that was not characterized in terms of
any thought, intention, or other mental act) would never be sufficient
for representation. We need to be clear, however, why we should wish to
define representation in one way rather than in another. What hangs on
the decision? In particular, why should it matter that the relation
between a painting and its subject is an intentional relation while the
photographic relation is merely causal? I shall therefore begin
by....."
By the way, by 'representational art' Scruton means what you mean by
'art'.
John Emmons
photography not being art were a load of crap. Which is true. Whether you're
a moron or not wasn't the question. As for "try again" you should take some
of your own advice, instead of glibly tossing out other opinions as your
own.
Why in the world would I take the word of a British conservative political
writer on matters of art?
Particularly one that writes his "editorials" while being paid by the
tobacco industry?
He's simply redefining words that have already been defined better by
others.
John Emmons
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133566962.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gregory Blank
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote:
> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote
> > "Cheesehead" <dplotu...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > But really, isn't great PJ work clearly differentiated from great art?
> > Henri Cartier-Bresson; Eugene Smith; Walker Evans; Ian MacEachern;
> > blah, blah, blah....
>
> Sorry, that was a bit rough.
>
> On a serious side, I don't see why journalism <> art.
> All art is journalism, some of a sort, some of a stretch.
> Any good journalism is art.
>
> Of course it depends what one means by art.
To be classified as skilled, it takes an art to create, whatever one
creates, even if it equates to destruction.
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
www.gregblankphoto(dot)com
David Nebenzahl
> Once again, the typical response. If you don't understand something,
> just attack the person and call him a moron.
>
> Read this, please, and then try again:
>
> http://www.rogerscruton.com/books/aesthetic_under.html
>
> Excerpt:
[...]
Bingo! This sentence, for me, says it all:
> ... The ideal photograph also yields an appearance, but the
> appearance is not interesting as the realization of an intention but
> rather as a record of how an actual object looked.
Which I translate to mean: a photograph is a record, made by a machine,
of how something looked, but lacks *intention*: intention is the
essential element of what we commonly call "art". A shorthand
description of the artistic process, which involves the
intentional--meaning springing from the artist's mind, not the workings
of a mechanical, chemical or other process--creation of an image or
other work. Ergo, photography ain't art.
Intentional manipulation of photographic images (combinations with other
media, PhotoShopping, etc.)? Dunno--that's a gray area.
--
The French Revolutionary Calendar (in use 1793-1806):
* Vendémiaire (from Latin vindemia "vintage") Starting Sept 22, 23 or 24
* Brumaire (from French brume, "mist") Starting Oct 22, 23 or 24
* Frimaire (From French frimas, "frost") Starting Nov 21, 22 or 23
* Nivôse (from Latin nivosus, "snowy") Starting Dec 21, 22 or 23
* Pluviôse (from Latin pluviosus, "rainy") Starting Jan 20, 21 or 22
* Ventôse (from Latin ventosus, "windy") Starting Feb 19, 20 or 21
* Germinal (from Latin germen, "seed") Starting Mar 20 or 21
* Floréal (from Latin flor, "flower") Starting Apr 20 or 21
* Prairial (from French prairie, "meadow") Starting May 20 or 21
* Messidor (from Latin messis, "harvest") Starting Jun 19 or 20
* Thermidor (from Greek thermos, "hot") Starting Jul 19 or 20
* Fructidor (from Latin fructus, "fruits") Starting Aug 18 or 19
Nicholas O. Lindan
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > http://www.rogerscruton.com/books/aesthetic_under.html
> > Excerpt <paraphrased by NOL>:
> > [A painting is art because it was made with an intent to convey something.
> > A photograph is not art because it does not require intent.] Or
> > something like that ...
OK, I will agree. A surveillance video is not art. Not that it will
stop anyone from mounting an exhibit of surveillance videos at MOMA.
I amuse myself with the conceit that I act with intent. Therefore
my photographs are art [cough].
> Why in the world would I take the word of a British conservative political
> writer on matters of art?
As compared to the average usenet poster?
Giordy
You have a strange definition of art.
Frank Pittel
: > That's why painting is art and photography isn't.
: You have a strange definition of art.
Can we all ignore the troll. If we don't this thread and many other idiotic
threads will go on forever.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
John Emmons
Sometimes Mr. Scarpitti's nonsense just begs to be refuted, I know he only
posts to start fights, sorry I fell for it.
John Emmons
"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:soCdnYx2O5aO9wze...@giganews.com...
John Emmons
sort of authority on the definition of what art is goes a bit beyond the
pale.
John Emmons
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote in message
news:X_6kf.8947$wf....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Nicholas O. Lindan
> You've got a point. But referring to [Scruton], a discredited
> political hack, as some sort of authority on the definition of
> what art is goes a bit beyond the pale.
Scruton ... Scruton, the name sounds familiar. He wouldn't
happen to be Screwtape's nephew by chance?
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
....................and you?????
He is a professional philosopher,
....................and you?????
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> uraniumc...@yahoo.com spake thus:
>
> > Once again, the typical response. If you don't understand something,
> > just attack the person and call him a moron.
> >
> > Read this, please, and then try again:
> >
> > http://www.rogerscruton.com/books/aesthetic_under.html
> >
> > Excerpt:
>
> [...]
>
> Bingo! This sentence, for me, says it all:
>
> > ... The ideal photograph also yields an appearance, but the
> > appearance is not interesting as the realization of an intention but
> > rather as a record of how an actual object looked.
>
> Which I translate to mean: a photograph is a record, made by a machine,
> of how something looked, but lacks *intention*: intention is the
> essential element of what we commonly call "art". A shorthand
> description of the artistic process, which involves the
> intentional--meaning springing from the artist's mind, not the workings
> of a mechanical, chemical or other process--creation of an image or
> other work. Ergo, photography ain't art.
>
> Intentional manipulation of photographic images (combinations with other
> media, PhotoShopping, etc.)? Dunno--that's a gray area.
>
Scruton's point is that even though there may be intention on the part
of the photographer, it is not essential, whereas intention is
essential in art. Without intention art is in fact impossible.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
You know nothing about what 'art' is. You're just another witless jerk
with a camera....
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.....
Lorem Ipsum
> Scruton's point is that even though there may be intention on the part
> of the photographer, it is not essential, whereas intention is
> essential in art. Without intention art is in fact impossible.
That is an important, pivotal point, and applies to all art. We know, for
example, that many artists have done works that "my five year-old can do",
but we also know from their other work that they 'intend' the particular
work, and thus make a legitimate, but not automatically valuable, statement.
Cannot the same be said of a photographer who has mastered his medium and
decides that a particular picture is 'intentional' so that the photograph
speaks to the discourse of photographic art?
David Nebenzahl
Aha; we approach the crux, the throbbing heart of the matter.
In answer to your question: almost. For me, it comes down to the simple
matter of what the artist has to do in order to create the work. In
drawing, painting, sculpture, etc., their hand creates the actual
contours of the physical work. Not so in photography, where the image is
created mechanically (meaning photochemically, digitally, etc.). So by
that (admittedly simplistic) definition, no.
I still ask the question that I believe M. Scarpitti has also posed:
even if photography isn't art, then so what? As he has said, and I
agree, it's sui generis, and certainly worthy of pursuing. Why does it
have to be exalted as "art" in order to be enjoyed?
John
<greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> To be classified as skilled, it takes an art to create, whatever one
> creates, even if it equates to destruction.
So what you're really saying is that your a fan of Sun Tzu ?
;>)
--
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer & Webmaster
http://www.puresilver.org - http://www.legacy-photo.com
Michael Gudzinowicz
The Art of Photography by Cameron Gaut:
Lorem Ipsum
news:suskf.1114$ew5.995@trndny04...
> The Art of Photography by Cameron Gaut:
>
> <http://www.modcam.com/thought/essays/photography.html>
Gaut's essay is weak.
He quoted Paul Anderson: "In order to determine if photography can exist as
fine art, we must define the term. According to Paul Anderson, in his book,
The Fine Art of Photography, fine art is "any medium of expression which
permits one person to convey to another an abstract idea of lofty emotion" "
Nonsense. Art need not convey emotion, be it lofty (whatever that means to
the author) or otherwise. Art is discourse that speaks to itself, and
sometimes to a public space at the same time. (Craft speaks to the public
space exclusively, disregarding the discourses of Art.)
The rest of Gaut's article is embarrassing.
Lorem Ipsum
Gaut was writing of Fine Art! Okay. I can let that art which appeals to
emotion be FINE Art. Romantic crap is just FINE.
I was speaking to Art.
John
> Nonsense. Art need not convey emotion
I disagree. The whole point of art IMO is to impress an emotion upon the
person perceiving the work. If you have no emotion then you have no art.
Which now explains why I no longer watch TV (no emotion only stupidity)
and rarely listen to pop music (the term "banal" comes to mind).
John
"Ninety-nine percent of photographs were never intended as art. They were
documents, records, mementos, press photographs, family pictures, surveys,
or evidence. Clearly, there is a line between functional photography and
photography purely for aesthetic consideration"
Yep. That about sums it up. Even studio photographer don't really think of
their portraits as art. I think we all try to add the creative insight to
our images however one has to provide what the public wants and that is
rarely anything particularly creative.
David Nebenzahl
I agree; his observations are trivial at best and sound like something
out of a freshman English class. For instance, on the page of his site
entitled "Thought", he has an article about television where he--get
this--argues that the real purpose of TV is to "sell you things you
don't need". Whoa! Stop the presses! What a revoltionary concept!
David Nebenzahl
> Lorem Ipsum spake thus:
>
>> "Michael Gudzinowicz" <m_gudz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:suskf.1114$ew5.995@trndny04...
>>
>>> The Art of Photography by Cameron Gaut:
>>>
>>> <http://www.modcam.com/thought/essays/photography.html>
>>
>> Gaut's essay is weak.
>>
>> He quoted Paul Anderson: "In order to determine if photography can
>> exist as fine art, we must define the term. According to Paul
>> Anderson, in his book, The Fine Art of Photography, fine art is "any
>> medium of expression which permits one person to convey to another an
>> abstract idea of lofty emotion" "
>>
>> Nonsense. Art need not convey emotion, be it lofty (whatever that
>> means to the author) or otherwise. Art is discourse that speaks to
>> itself, and sometimes to a public space at the same time. (Craft
>> speaks to the public space exclusively, disregarding the discourses
>> of Art.) The rest of Gaut's article is embarrassing.
>
> I agree; his observations are trivial at best and sound like something
> out of a freshman English class. For instance, on the page of his site
> entitled "Thought", he has an article about television where he--get
> this--argues that the real purpose of TV is to "sell you things you
> don't need". Whoa! Stop the presses! What a revoltionary concept!
Hmm; I drilled up (is there a less awkward way to say the opposite of
"drill down"?) to his website's top page, and guess what: he *is* a
college freshman. Well, maybe a sophomore: he's 20.
And I have to give him credit for a sense of humor: it was through a
link of his that I learned of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster), the only
reasonable response to those "intelligent design"-pushing idiot
shitheads in Kansas.
Gregory Blank
John <use...@puresilver.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:15:59 -0600, Gregory Blank
> <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
>
> > To be classified as skilled, it takes an art to create, whatever one
> > creates, even if it equates to destruction.
>
>
> So what you're really saying is that your a fan of Sun Tzu ?
>
> ;>)
I've read his book, and in the words of an friend of mine I am not a
fan of anyone. But I do appreciate Sun Tzu's thoughts as well as those
of Gichin Funakoshi, and perhaps more importantly Morihei Ueshiba.
and a lot of others.
Gregory Blank
John <use...@puresilver.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 21:51:48 -0600, Lorem Ipsum <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Nonsense. Art need not convey emotion
>
> I disagree. The whole point of art IMO is to impress an emotion upon the
> person perceiving the work. If you have no emotion then you have no art.
> Which now explains why I no longer watch TV (no emotion only stupidity)
> and rarely listen to pop music (the term "banal" comes to mind).
Time passes very quickly or very slowly with no reason.
When one has no reason, its hard to appreciate emotions be they intended
or not. People don't watch Tv for stimulus they watch it for the same
reasons they sat in their caves and watched the camp fire, moving
pictures and color. For fun Ask the average Tv junky to summarize the
last several shows they watched in 50 to 75 words, I bet you would get
"Blank" stares X-)
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Lorem Ipsum spake thus:
>
> > <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> >> Scruton's point is that even though there may be intention on the
> >> part of the photographer, it is not essential, whereas intention is
> >> essential in art. Without intention art is in fact impossible.
> >
> > That is an important, pivotal point, and applies to all art. We know, for
> > example, that many artists have done works that "my five year-old can do",
> > but we also know from their other work that they 'intend' the particular
> > work, and thus make a legitimate, but not automatically valuable, statement.
> > Cannot the same be said of a photographer who has mastered his medium and
> > decides that a particular picture is 'intentional' so that the photograph
> > speaks to the discourse of photographic art?
>
> Aha; we approach the crux, the throbbing heart of the matter.
>
> In answer to your question: almost. For me, it comes down to the simple
> matter of what the artist has to do in order to create the work. In
> drawing, painting, sculpture, etc., their hand creates the actual
> contours of the physical work. Not so in photography, where the image is
> created mechanically (meaning photochemically, digitally, etc.). So by
> that (admittedly simplistic) definition, no.
>
> I still ask the question that I believe M. Scarpitti has also posed:
> even if photography isn't art, then so what? As he has said, and I
> agree, it's sui generis, and certainly worthy of pursuing. Why does it
> have to be exalted as "art" in order to be enjoyed?
Yes, brain surgery isn't 'art' and it commands plenty of respect.
The term 'art' has been applied to that which is surely not art for so
long that it has begun to lose its meaning.
Cheesehead
If it's a developed skill, most anything can be called "artful".
If it's an emotive statement (what I meant by "existential expression"
earlier) then certaily PJ work is often more artful than is much of
portraiture.
If it's a clear and understandable statement through a medium other
than spoken or written language the photography *can* be art.
Time is a context, not a content. It doesn't define an item's "art"
quality, but perhaps limits its scope.
Cheesehead
Cheesehead
It depends upon randomness to determine content.
Collin
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
All photography does, to a greater or lesser extent. A photograph is
always a photograph of something (else). A photograph is contingent
upon the existence of some other thing. One cannot photograph the past
or the future, only what is 'now' and real. 'Art' has no such
restrictions.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> And that's the very reason I raised a criticism of PJ work.
> It depends upon randomness to determine content.
Randomness is the hand of God...
Lorem Ipsum
> "Cheesehead" <dplotu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> And that's the very reason I raised a criticism of PJ work.
>> It depends upon randomness to determine content.
>
> Randomness is the hand of God...
Randomness is the hand of Matt Clara.
Cheesehead
the content.
That's not *necessary* with any sort of portrait. Sometimes it is, but
not always.
It certainly does, but not in the method of capture.
A painting portrait is to display a person at a certain age or time or
event.
A sculpture portrait is to display a person with the same
characteristics, but 3-dimensionally.
Now those items like "The Thinker" are philosophical in content and are
not limited by time.
A planned and executed photograph can accomplish the same thing.
That's what we talked about @ Cord -- photographs with clear content.
Some paintings are "art*; some are not. Same with photographs.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Cheesehead wrote:
> The content of PJ work is to use time (occurrence or event) as part of
> the content.
Partly true. PJ is primarily waht is 'newsworthy'. Reportage is a
broader concept, including interesting arrangements of objects,
lighting, etc. But it implies a rapid capture of what is present before
the light or the situation changes. It focusses on what is transitory,
and those who are good at recognizing situations quickly are the best.
> That's not *necessary* with any sort of portrait. Sometimes it is, but
> not always.
Perhaps. I don't get the point.
>
> It certainly does, but not in the method of capture.
> A painting portrait is to display a person at a certain age or time or
> event.
Not necessarily. A painting can capture a person 'in youth' or 'in age'
but not necessarily at 3:13 pm on Thursday, June 23, 1938. A photo can
only refer to 'now'.
> A sculpture portrait is to display a person with the same
> characteristics, but 3-dimensionally.
Perhaps. I don't get the point.
> Now those items like "The Thinker" are philosophical in content and are
> not limited by time.
Perhaps. I don't get the point.
> A planned and executed photograph can accomplish the same thing.
No. Photographs are not and cannot be works of art.Tthere is an
unbridgable gulf between photgraphy and art.
> That's what we talked about @ Cord -- photographs with clear content.
????
>
> Some paintings are "art*; some are not. Same with photographs.
No. No. No. Photographs are not and cannot be works of art.Tthere is an
unbridgable gulf between photgraphy and art.
Lorem Ipsum
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134082815.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> [... snip good article ...]
Good to find you in a conciliatory mode, UC. You are making sense.
Lorem Ipsum
"Cheesehead" <dplotu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134081112.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The content of PJ work is to use time (occurrence or event) as part of
> the content.
> That's not *necessary* with any sort of portrait. Sometimes it is, but
> not always.
In the late 1940's there was a Johnson & Johnson baby product ad with a
photograph of a cute, barebottomed baby boy. I was the model. Now if I
were to post that as my portrait, would you give it any credence? (I know,
toooooo much information!)
John
wrote:
> And that's the very reason I raised a criticism of PJ work.
> It depends upon randomness to determine content.
>
> Collin
I don't entirely agree. There is no doubt that chaos is a factor but so is
preparedness.
Cheesehead
Collin
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Cheesehead wrote:
> You beg the question better than anyone I know. :)
>
> Collin
Do you have any experience in philosophy? I don't mean theology, but
philosophy, especially aesthetics.
Lorem Ipsum
news:1134417451.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Do you have any experience in philosophy? I don't mean theology, but
> philosophy, especially aesthetics.
My friend, please don't go there. Show it in your pictures, your prints.
That's where the proof exists.
Cheesehead
With a baccalaureate degree.
One needn't have a graduate degree to identify a fallacy.
Collin
Cheesehead
And he knows more photo product history than do I.
But sometimes he does toot his own horn just a tad.
Here's my recent eye candy shot:
http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/IMGP1403800.jpg
Collin
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
What fallacy would that be?
The mere accusation of having committed a fallacy is not sufficient.
If one accepts certain criteria for 'art', one must apply them
universally. It is inconsistent, for instance, to accept photography as
art but not fossils. The grounds for rejecting fossils are reasonable.
If you accept photography as art, you must accept fossils, and most
people cannot do that. You cannot have it both ways. If photographs are
art, so are fossils. If fossils are not art, neither are photographs.
Any criteria that include photographs as art are so vague that fossils
must also be included.
But that is absurd....
Reductio ad absurdum
Lorem Ipsum
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134484886.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> If one accepts certain criteria for 'art', one must apply them
> universally. It is inconsistent, for instance, to accept photography as
> art but not fossils. The grounds for rejecting fossils are reasonable.
> If you accept photography as art, you must accept fossils, and most
> people cannot do that.
Huh? Elaborate, please. Fossils are natural artifacts. There is no human
hand in their making.
Lorem Ipsum
The ribbons are wrong, the table is blemished, and the arrangement would
make a pro scream.
Lorem Ipsum
news:11ptpuh...@news.supernews.com...
> The ribbons are wrong, the table is blemished, and the arrangement would
> make a pro scream.
And the table is tilted, the composition is too symetric, should be cropped,
and really, why a dead plant?
Nicholas O. Lindan
> One needn't have a graduate degree to identify a fallacy.
Sure does help when generating one.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Here's my recent eye candy shot:
> http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/IMGP1403800.jpg
"And you can send me dead flowers every morning
Send me dead flowers by email
Send me dead flowers to my website
And I won't forget to put roses on your grave" M. Jagger
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Precisely. that's why they're not art.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Please list WHY you think fossils are not art.
David Nebenzahl
Yeah, you lost me there too. Even though I buy your thesis (that
photography isn't art), this doesn't seem like such a good argument for
it, since photography, whatever it is, is the product of human
manipulation, while fossils are, well, just fossils--you know, created
naturally and all.
Maybe you have a better example?
--
God willing, the many crimes of the Bush Administration
will eventually be printed in a nice leatherbound,
multi-volume edition that will look fantastic on my bookshelf.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Lorem Ipsum spake thus:
>
> > <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1134484886.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> If one accepts certain criteria for 'art', one must apply them
> >> universally. It is inconsistent, for instance, to accept
> >> photography as art but not fossils. The grounds for rejecting
> >> fossils are reasonable. If you accept photography as art, you must
> >> accept fossils, and most people cannot do that.
> >
> > Huh? Elaborate, please. Fossils are natural artifacts. There is no
> > human hand in their making.
>
> Yeah, you lost me there too. Even though I buy your thesis (that
> photography isn't art), this doesn't seem like such a good argument for
> it, since photography, whatever it is, is the product of human
> manipulation, while fossils are, well, just fossils--you know, created
> naturally and all.
>
> Maybe you have a better example?
This point you made:
"photography...is the product of human manipulation" is not quite true.
No human hand shapes the path of the photons. A LENS does it. The
parallel is nearly perfect. A fossil is an impression of some other
object. There cannot be a fossil of something that does not exist, and
an impression is always an impression OF something (else).
Remember what Scruton said about 'intention'?
"In characterizing the relation between the ideal photograph and its
subject, one is characterizing not an intention but a causal process,
and while there is, as a rule, an intentional act involved, this is not
an essential part of the photographic relation."
The 'manipulation' you refer to is not actually 'manipulation' in the
strict sense of the term, and 'manipulation' in the strict sense of
the term is necessary for 'art' to be 'art'. Painting, sculpting, etc.,
even with tools, are still 'manipulation'. Changing the shutter speed
or pointing the camera north instead of south are not 'manipulation'.
Look it up for details.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how+are+fossils+formed&btnG=Google+Search
no_name
Why not?
no_name
> "Cheesehead" <dplotu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>>Here's my recent eye candy shot:
>>http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/IMGP1403800.jpg
>
>
> "And you can send me dead flowers every morning
> Send me dead flowers by email
> Send me dead flowers to my website
> And I won't forget to put roses on your grave" M. Jagger
>
Although I think you've taken some liberty with the lyrics.
no_name
> Lorem Ipsum spake thus:
>
>> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134484886.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> If one accepts certain criteria for 'art', one must apply them
>>> universally. It is inconsistent, for instance, to accept
>>> photography as art but not fossils. The grounds for rejecting
>>> fossils are reasonable. If you accept photography as art, you must
>>> accept fossils, and most people cannot do that.
>>
>>
>> Huh? Elaborate, please. Fossils are natural artifacts. There is no
>> human hand in their making.
>
>
> Yeah, you lost me there too. Even though I buy your thesis (that
> photography isn't art), this doesn't seem like such a good argument for
> it, since photography, whatever it is, is the product of human
> manipulation, while fossils are, well, just fossils--you know, created
> naturally and all.
>
> Maybe you have a better example?
>
>
Photography in and of itself is not art. What you do with photography
can be.
Are pigment, linseed oil and canvas art?
Not until one is mixed with the other and then applied to the latter.
... and often enough, not even then.
Cheesehead
I began by offering a variety of different definitions for art.
You've stuck with one and continue interpret my statements in that
light
rather than by the context where my point began.
You may reject these alternative definitions, and that's acceptable.
And you've not proven your conclusion to me as yet ...
"Any criteria that include photographs as art are so vague that fossils
must also be included. " Hecne you beg the quesiton by always
answering
with your own conclusion rather than some sort of proof.
(I posited a point yet to be disproven -- that time is a matter of
context rather
than content.)
At this point all that exists in this discussion is our disagreement.
And have a (politically incorrect) Merry Christmas,
Collin
Gregory Blank
no_name <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote:
>
> Photography in and of itself is not art. What you do with photography
> can be.
>
> Are pigment, linseed oil and canvas art?
>
> Not until one is mixed with the other and then applied to the latter.
>
> ... and often enough, not even then.
I like the fact this is stated concisely. Shows you have given the issue
the due thought it deserves and I agree.
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
www.gregblankphoto(dot)com
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
no_name wrote:
>
> Photography in and of itself is not art. What you do with photography
> can be.
>
> Are pigment, linseed oil and canvas art?
>
> Not until one is mixed with the other and then applied to the latter.
>
> ... and often enough, not even then.
Photographs are not works of art. Period.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
uraniumc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This point you made:
> "photography...is the product of human manipulation" is not quite true.
>
> No human hand shapes the path of the photons. A LENS does it. The
> parallel is nearly perfect.
So if I make a print and dodge the shadows with my
hand, it's art, but if I use a piece of cardboard attached
to a wire, it's not art. Also, if I get the exposure right it
the first place and don't need to dodge, it's not art.
Thanks! This is really clearing things up!
Lorem Ipsum
<b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:1134529754.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
oooo are u gonna get burnt for that 1
If you make the print entirely by dodging - no negative in the enlarger -
that can be Art. If you are REALLY good at dodging, you can be a
philosopher.
Gregory Blank
b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
Can you ignore the troll or killfile him-Thanks.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Lorem Ipsum
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134570437.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Dodging does not CREATE the image.
Read what I wrote. No negative in the enlarger. Create the image by dodging.