Digital Negatives of "fine art" prints
Tim Mathers
Numerous ways. In ascending order of quality and time (first is
"fast and cheap", last is "slow and costly"):
take a digital image (digital camera "copy negative").
make a reflection scan of the print (how big/good is your scanner).
make a 4x5 copy neg (i.e. "real film") and have a high res scan
made of the neg (4x6K / 24Mb monochrome / 72Mb color)
The "trick" now is to make a hard copy (print) with the dynamic
range of densities of the original print. I'm assuming that the
"original" is a silver-rich monochrome image - a la Ansel Adams /
John Sexton. If the original is an ink jet or dye-sub print, then
"it's a piece of cake" (but I don't believe such prints are "fine
art" - my opinion! Some folks think that a happy meal from MacDonald's
is a culinary experience!).
Timmy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "john" <staf...@vax2.winona.msus.edu>
Subject: "Digital Negatives" (made from prints in order to print)
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 3:00 AM
Some fine-art photographers are making "Digital Negatives" of their final
black&white prints in order to expedite printing of exact duplicates of
their work. (This is necessary to reproduce the exact tonalities, the
difficult print manipulation including dodging, burning, bleaching and so
forth.)
But I've no idea how these digital negatives are made from the final prints.
Has anyone any authoritative sources?
jjame...@my-deja.com
prints from many current artists and older established artists like Wynn
Bullock original prints that have been scanned and a digital negative
made. These prints are not digital prints but silver gelatin prints made
from digital negs and you can't tell them from the original. I purchased
one and they are absolutely beautiful. They are all contact prints. Get
a magazine and see for your self. James
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lawrence Thompson
Printing" or his web site at www.danburkholder.com.
Basic process is:
1) scan the negative
2) change the tonality, contrast or anything else you like with Photoshop
3) apply a specific curve (see the Burkholder book for details)
4) send the Photoshop file to a imagesetter, you'll get back a "negative"
of the size you specify
5) contact print the "negative"
6) process as any other print
It's actually easy to do when you get the hang of Photoshop
I've used this technique and the results are really great, full control over
tonality (thanks to Photoshop and your scanner) and consistent prints
because most folks include a step tablet (graded scale from pure black to
pure white) on the negative so the printer knows exactly how the final print
is supposed to look, they just print for the scale.
John Fokos also published a paper on the subject, do a name search in Yahoo
and you'll find it. Both processes are essentially the same but the book
has more detail.
Can be used for silver or alternative printing.
Tim Mathers wrote in message ...
PHOTO-TECH
<ltho...@noos.fr> wrote:
>Basic process is:
>1) scan the negative
>2) change the tonality, contrast or anything else you like with Photoshop
>3) apply a specific curve (see the Burkholder book for details)
>4) send the Photoshop file to a imagesetter, you'll get back a "negative"
>of the size you specify
And to think that we've been doing this with
developers and films all this time ! Gosh !
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Photographer Web Master Darkroom Wizard
=============================================
Pam Niedermayer
Pam
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
600 W. 28th St., Suite 103
Austin, TX 78705
512-236-1677
512-236-8143 fax
http://www.pinehill.com
Peter De Smidt
> the hands of someone that really knows how to use it. but it
> is far slower and MUCH more expensive than simply doing your
> own work on the darkroom.
Well, that all depends on one's working methods. For someone who routinely
uses silver masks, very complex dodge/burn/flash/fog/bleach techniques,
digital will be significantly quicker. Not only that, it will give more
repeatable results. Finally, once you get one print 'done' all you have to
do is hit 'print'.
Mind you, with digital cameras, the speed increase is tremendous: No waiting
for film to develop and dry before printing.
The downside of digital is the initial investment, which will be no longer
cutting edge in 6 months or less, the archival worries, and the steep
learning curve.
Peter
Dan Smith, Photographer
"Lawrence Thompson" wrote ...
> See Dan Burkholders book titled "Making Digital Negatives for Contact
> Printing" or his web site at www.danburkholder.com.
>
> 1) scan the negative
> 2) change the tonality, contrast or anything else you like with Photoshop
> 3) apply a specific curve (see the Burkholder book for details)
> 4) send the Photoshop file to a imagesetter, you'll get back a "negative"
> of the size you specify
> 6) process as any other print
Where do you find processors who will output negatives large enough to use.
Our local labs, even the digital ones, don't do negs bigger than 4x5.
dan smith
PHOTO-TECH
film and some developer stop bath, fixer and water would be
all that's needed. And time ? Less than an hour. How long
does it take to scan an image in, manipulate it in PS,
output it to a file for shipping, pack it up and get it
mailed ? Then how long fort he turnaround ?
I'll give digital it's due. it's quite miraculous in
the hands of someone that really knows how to use it. but it
is far slower and MUCH more expensive than simply doing your
own work on the darkroom.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Photographer Web Master Darkroom Wizard
=============================================
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:29:30 GMT, Pam Niedermayer
<pam_...@cape.com> wrote:
>Yes, but with a lot more time and a lot more materials required.
>
>Pam
>
>PHOTO-TECH wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:35:41 -0400, "Lawrence Thompson"
>> <ltho...@noos.fr> wrote:
>>
>> >Basic process is:
>> >1) scan the negative
>> >2) change the tonality, contrast or anything else you like with Photoshop
>> >3) apply a specific curve (see the Burkholder book for details)
>> >4) send the Photoshop file to a imagesetter, you'll get back a "negative"
>> >of the size you specify
>>
Tony Spadaro
block and a press, will always take time. As I recall you said once you
could only make "a few crappy 8x10s" - or was it "lousy"? Whatever.
Some people are involved in fine printmaking and therefore can't turn
out 36 bad prints in 5 minutes.
Cheers
--
Digital photo restoration in autumnal Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New - A Digital Workflow + Sharpness: Threat or Menace?
And Selecting Your First SLR - Java must be enabled
Pam Niedermayer
Pam
--
Tom Thackrey
On 21-Oct-2000, "Dan Smith, Photographer" <sho...@brigham.net> wrote:
> "Lawrence Thompson" wrote ...
> > See Dan Burkholders book titled "Making Digital Negatives for Contact
> > Printing" or his web site at www.danburkholder.com.
> >
> > Basic process is:
> > 1) scan the negative
> > 2) change the tonality, contrast or anything else you like with
> > Photoshop
> > 3) apply a specific curve (see the Burkholder book for details)
> > 4) send the Photoshop file to a imagesetter, you'll get back a
> > "negative"
> > of the size you specify
> > 5) contact print the "negative"
> > 6) process as any other print
>
>
> Where do you find processors who will output negatives large enough to
> use.
> Our local labs, even the digital ones, don't do negs bigger than 4x5.
>
> dan smith
You need to go to a pre-press house for large film output. Most large cities
will have several. Call a printer and ask who they use for film.
--
Tom Thackrey
tom at creative-light.com
www.creative-light.com
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
PHOTO-TECH
<pam_...@cape.com> wrote:
>Only if you get exactly what you want first time; but it takes much longer to experiment.
>
>Pam
I can't imagine it being any more complicated than
unsharp masking or the making of internegs. Actually both
are probably more critical as you use them for enlarged
images.
jjs
Lawrence Thompson <ltho...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:8ssk0p$38u$1...@news4.isdnet.net...
> See Dan Burkholders book titled "Making Digital Negatives for Contact
> Printing" or his web site at www.danburkholder.com.
>
> Basic process is:
I believe the applications I have see begin by scanning the final print.
There remains a certain something about a well done traditional silver
print.
Pam Niedermayer
Both darkroom and software work require skill that has to be learned. All I'm
saying is that it's faster, cheaper (after initial investment), and probably
more flexible to use software for experimentation than the darkroom.
Pam
PHOTO-TECH wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 05:17:01 GMT, Pam Niedermayer
> <pam_...@cape.com> wrote:
>
> >Only if you get exactly what you want first time; but it takes much longer to experiment.
> >
> >Pam
>
> I can't imagine it being any more complicated than
> unsharp masking or the making of internegs. Actually both
> are probably more critical as you use them for enlarged
> images.
>
PHOTO-TECH
<pam_...@cape.com> wrote:
>I don't think we were discussing the learning process or level of complication.
>Both darkroom and software work require skill that has to be learned. All I'm
>saying is that it's faster, cheaper (after initial investment), and probably
>more flexible to use software for experimentation than the darkroom.
>
>Pam
Then please explain how it is faster ? Cheaper ? And
more flexible ? As I said, I give digital it's due. It's a
terrific application of technology to enhance imaging in
many respects. But I simply don't understand how you came to
the aforementioned conclusions.
Pam Niedermayer
instantaneously. If I like it, I can try more mods, print a version on inkjet,
etc. Why isn't this obvious?
Pam
PHOTO-TECH wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:25:16 GMT, Pam Niedermayer
> <pam_...@cape.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't think we were discussing the learning process or level of complication.
> >Both darkroom and software work require skill that has to be learned. All I'm
> >saying is that it's faster, cheaper (after initial investment), and probably
> >more flexible to use software for experimentation than the darkroom.
> >
> >Pam
>
> Then please explain how it is faster ? Cheaper ? And
> more flexible ? As I said, I give digital it's due. It's a
> terrific application of technology to enhance imaging in
> many respects. But I simply don't understand how you came to
> the aforementioned conclusions.
>
jjame...@my-deja.com
Here's an example why I am very interested in the digital realm and
especially enlarged negatives. I was in central California over the
weekend and found an exquisite old decaying barn and water tank. I was
on my way somewhere else and didn't have a lot of time. The sun was
straight overhead with a nice blue sky. There was no way because of time
constaints to come back later at a better time photographically. The
contrast was up the old wazoo. I gave plenty of exposure to make sure I
had detail in the shadows. I pre-exposed the film at a Z1 and will give
the neg an N-2 development. I will probably selenium tone parts of the
negative too as well as dye dodge some areas and bleach some of the
print. But it may still not yeild what was in my mind at the time of
discovery. And it is so much easier to add things like deep black skies
and beautiful clouds with the computer than with darkroom work.
Especially when your equipment is as antiquated as mine. Enter digital
manipulation. I will make the best print possible and then play with it
in Photoshop. When I get the image I want I will send it to a service
bureau and have an 11x14, 4x10 and 5x7 neg made. If I don't like it I
can play with it some more. Now mind you, I have masking down to a
science but masking isn't always the answer. Had I been able to go back
and reshoot at a different time of day, then that would be great. By the
next storm, this building as it was this weekend will be gone. So each
tool at our disposal has advantages and disadvantages. They are to be
used when appropriate. After seeing work done with enlarged negs and
contact printed I am sold on it's value. I have images I labor over for
hours and seldom make an exact copy. Some are great images but due to
stupidity or bad luck it is easier to make a digineg and contact print
it. James
Mike from OZ
images from scratch (I'm not being sarcastic here) - then you would never
even need to go outside at all?
Digital manipulation is great for commercial applications but IMHO it's
certainly does not qualify Fine Art Photography. The image you have created
lacks artistic integrity as a *photograph*. Go back when the conditions are
right and re-shoot the scene - I bet that old building will still be there -
it might look even better after the next storm.
We need a new term to describe this sort of work like *Digigraph* or even
better *Phonygraph*!
Mike
Tony Spadaro
inability to draw? Perhaps photographs should be called phonygraphs,
and photographers should be called phonygraph artists.
It's amazing how many people can not see beyond a very narrow and
narrow minded, one might even say, self serving, view of the world.
--
Digital photo restoration in autumnal Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New - A Digital Workflow + Sharpness: Threat or Menace?
And Selecting Your First SLR - Java must be enabled
Mike from OZ
> Isn't photography itself the use of a machine to make up for an
> inability to draw?
No - Photography is a well defined medium not one medium pretending to be
another. I don't pretend that a photograph is a charcoal sketch. To do this
is (IMO) just as silly as pretending a digitally manipulated image is a
photograph (much less a Fine Art photograph). Hence my (somewhat colourful)
statement that a new definition is needed for these digitally manipulated
images.
I have no problem with digital image manipulation. Digital certainly has
it's place as long as people don't cobble images together in PhotoShop and
expect anyone to accept them as Fine Art *Photographs*.
Mike
jjame...@my-deja.com
photograph?" Does Ulesman become some paria in the fine art photographic
world? No. Digital is just another tool to help create an artist's
vision. I get a publication called Graphic Digest. It is an interesting
magazine/book that is full of incredible works of art, mostly created as
a marriage between photography and computer imaging. This stuff is
surely fine art as is anything by my heroes Adams and Sexton. And it
isn't always possble or necassary to return to a place and get it on a
better day. You gather up your materials and create what is in your
mind. What is the difference between a burn under the enlarger light
source and a burn in the computer? You'ld be hard pressed to tell the
difference. And why waste all the precious chemistry and paper trying to
match a print when it is much more easily done in a computer? silly
question. Digital is here to stay and it will become an enormously
useful tool enabling people to create images that can't be done any
other way. Images that haven't even been thought of yet. Get your head
out of the 19th century and enbrace the present and get ready for the
future. James
c._downs
<tony_to...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Isn't photography itself the use of a machine to make up for an
>inability to draw? Perhaps photographs should be called phonygraphs,
>and photographers should be called phonygraph artists.
> It's amazing how many people can not see beyond a very narrow and
>narrow minded, one might even say, self serving, view of the world.
I'm not sure of who wrote this due to my newsreader putting everything
in blue quotes lately so apologize to anyone that did not write this!
phonygraph artists?
Absolutely not!
This is one of the poorest excuses for a comprehension of the role of
photography in the art world that I have ever seen!
Photography { as art } is the recording of light in a manner that
expresses the vision and feelings of the artist.
Many of us are accomplished artist in other fields. I have painting
and printmaking degrees and have been exhibited in national shows.
Paula Chamlee and a host of other internationally recognized artist in
other fields that require "hand rendering of images" are also fine
photographers!
Over the years that photography has been popular there have been
constant examples of artist that can draw or render subjects by hand
excellently turning to photography to express themselves in another
way. As a side note in the Classical Roman and Greek years painting
and drawing were considered the realm of poor "artist" that didn't
have the ability to sculpt. As is apparent today this is also a
specious argument.
There is absolutely no relationship between quality fine art
photography and hand drawing of images or lack of ability to do same.
One of the most discredited and derivative "schools" of photo design
was one that tried to make photographs that resembled drawings or
paintings. It's all but gone now and thankfully mostly forgotten!
Actually many of the "schools" of painting or drawing today are the
direct result of photography not the reverse. In this century
Futurism, Cubism, a good part of Dadaism, Color field,
Pointalism and even things such as painting of horses and other
animals in motion owe their roots to the advances in seeing that has
been brought about by photography. Even Rembrandt was influenced in
his art by the use of a Camera obscura. Norman Rockwell used
photographic images to resolve the correct relationships for most of
his work. This relationship is seen over and over again in the last 4
centuries since the first use of pinholes and lenses.
"Photographic" vision has been so instrumental to the subjects and
way of viewing the world today that it would not be a stretch to claim
that a large part the non photographic images that are in vogue today
are more of a direct result of the photographic arts than the other
way around. Most of the museums and art world today recognize
photography not only as a Fine Art but as "The Art of the 20th
Century"
The ability to draw is neither a help or hinderance to the art of
photography. Photography stands as an art on its' own. Only the
ability to comprehend the tones and composition and the skill to do it
with results that express the inner feelings of the artist matter.
What is described in the drawing/photography thought above is referred
to by Ansel Adams as "scenic quality" or the ability to record things
as they are and has little to do with art or quality photography that
is intended to be fine art! As you might imagine the above drawing /
phonygraph artist statement { IMHO }is in poor taste and not from a
well informed thought process but I'm not really meaning my reply as a
flame....even if it sounds this way. I just think that with any
serious investigation of the subject that this type of misconception
can be changed.
Just my opinion,
Chuck
c._downs
wrote:
>"Tony Spadaro" wrote:
>
>> Isn't photography itself the use of a machine to make up for an
>> inability to draw?
>
>No - Photography is a well defined medium not one medium pretending to be
>another. I don't pretend that a photograph is a charcoal sketch. To do this
>is (IMO) just as silly as pretending a digitally manipulated image is a
>photograph (much less a Fine Art photograph). Hence my (somewhat colourful)
>statement that a new definition is needed for these digitally manipulated
>images.
>
>I have no problem with digital image manipulation. Digital certainly has
>it's place as long as people don't cobble images together in PhotoShop and
>expect anyone to accept them as Fine Art *Photographs*.
>
>Mike
>
Very good thoughts!
There seems to be a movement to do just what you suggest. Many
magazines and art publications are now requiring the labels to be
correct now as to content.
If you draw on a photograph or include a photo in a painting for
example it is normal to display the art as "mixed media".
Digital manipulation needs a label that is descriptive and is not
demeaning in any way.
In time I imagine collectors will demand such labels and to produce
higher prices galleries and other image sources will gladly comply!
After all I still can't get the same price for a silver print of the
same subject as a platinum print and so far digital images are
considerable cheaper that original silver prints.
I would think that digital images will come into their own as art
only when they stand alone as a separate art like painting,etchings,
silk screens or silver photography.
Peter De Smidt
Mike from OZ <N...@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:qdwJ5.6777$SF5.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> "Tony Spadaro" wrote:
>
> > Isn't photography itself the use of a machine to make up for an
> > inability to draw?
>
> No - Photography is a well defined medium not one medium pretending to be
> another. I don't pretend that a photograph is a charcoal sketch. To do
this
> is (IMO) just as silly as pretending a digitally manipulated image is a
> photograph (much less a Fine Art photograph). Hence my (somewhat
colourful)
> statement that a new definition is needed for these digitally manipulated
> images.
>
> I have no problem with digital image manipulation. Digital certainly has
> it's place as long as people don't cobble images together in PhotoShop and
> expect anyone to accept them as Fine Art *Photographs*.
>
> Mike
>
So I'm assuming that you think that Jerry Uelsmanns (and Bruce Barnbaums
imaginary landscapes)photographs don't count as 'Fine Art'? Folks, we have
a would-be F64'er here. Exactly the same types of arguments were given
many, many years ago. They were wrong then, and you're wrong now. What
matters for art is not how an image is made, but how good of an image it is.
Peter
c._downs
You are certainly right about not discriminating against digital but I
don't think that the poster was doing that. I would think that he
along with most of the Fine Art world only want things labled as what
they are and let the image stand for its self. There is at least 100
years of "fine art silver image photography" that can be thought of as
being hand printed and is purchased as such. With some printers you
can duplicate the images of metal plate or glass plate cameras but to
sell them or label them as such is false and misleading. The same with
Digital imaging and silver printing. Label it for what it is and let
the image stand on its own merits. With the advent of the pigment
printers and similar type prints there might even be a significant
increase in price of digital color images due to the permanence. In
the future this may also be true of B&W. In the early '70's one of my
photobuddys was a good friend of Jerry U and I was able to visit and
watch him at work.....he is a master and his silver work is certainly
fine art but should never be compared to digital as his mastery of the
silver print exhibits a completely different art form.
PHOTO-TECH
wrote:
>Digital is here to stay and it will become an enormously
>useful tool enabling people to create images that can't be done any
>other way.
Yep. Image creation. Not perception. They are not
real. They are deeply "enhanced" and may include such
wonders as multiple light sources, unrealistic contrast
gradients and otherwise "perfect" appearances.
PHOTO-TECH
> I would think that digital images will come into their own as art
>only when they stand alone as a separate art like painting,etchings,
>silk screens or silver photography.
But it's a medium for the masses. And for mass
production. Combined with the un-archivability and expense
of the materials, well let's just say that it has a very,
very long way to go.
Greg Finn
> Mike from OZ <N...@Spam.com> wrote in message
> news:qdwJ5.6777$SF5.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> > "Tony Spadaro" wrote:
> > > Isn't photography itself the use of a machine to make up for an
> > > inability to draw?
> > No - Photography is a well defined medium not one medium pretending to be
> > another. I don't pretend that a photograph is a charcoal sketch. To do
> this
> > is (IMO) just as silly as pretending a digitally manipulated image is a
> > photograph (much less a Fine Art photograph). Hence my (somewhat
> colourful)
> > statement that a new definition is needed for these digitally manipulated
> > images.
> > I have no problem with digital image manipulation. Digital certainly has
> > it's place as long as people don't cobble images together in PhotoShop and
> > expect anyone to accept them as Fine Art *Photographs*.
> > Mike
> So I'm assuming that you think that Jerry Uelsmanns (and Bruce Barnbaums
> imaginary landscapes)photographs don't count as 'Fine Art'? Folks, we have
> a would-be F64'er here. Exactly the same types of arguments were given
> many, many years ago. They were wrong then, and you're wrong now. What
> matters for art is not how an image is made, but how good of an image it is.
> Peter
Painting is not sculpture, even though many painters try hard to
give their works a feel of depth and solidity.
Photography is not painting, even though many photographers try to
make their work look like paintings and succeed doing so to a large
degree.
Digital imaging isn't photography. It is a different method, using a
different means to depict something. Stone, film and memory are
starkly different media.
Can you make digital images look like photographs? Yes, to a great
degree. Too the extent that the stored image is purely a recording of
light received from a physical scene, a digital image can simulate a
photograph.
But a digital image need have no relationship to light received from
any physical scene. In this sense it is much closer to painting,
which is a two-dimensional depiction of whatever the artist wishes, be
it a super-realistic animal painting or a Salvador Dali dreamscape.
PHOTO-TECH
<pdes...@fdldotnet.com> wrote:
>What matters for art is not how an image is made, but how good of an image it is.
Agreed but I for one never really cared for the
works of Barnbaum, Schniederman or Eulsmann. An photograph
is a singularity. Not some pluralized composite which I
usually found hollow at best.
Peter De Smidt
> photobuddys was a good friend of Jerry U and I was able to visit and
> watch him at work.....he is a master and his silver work is certainly
> fine art but should never be compared to digital as his mastery of the
> silver print exhibits a completely different art form.
I agree with most of your post except this latter part. (As an aside, I
believe that Jerry U. has used both traditional multiple enlarger techniques
as well as digital techniques.) How one brings about a given result is not
what's important for whether something is a good piece of art. I quite
agree that an inkjet print is not a photograph, (although it could still be
a 'fine art' inkjet print). But what about enlarged digital negatives, where
a silver print is the result? Is this not a photograph that very well could
be indistinguishable from one done through traditional means? If so, then
the results of the two processes are the same, at least in some instances.
Hence, if one of them is a 'Fine Art Photograph', then so is the other.
One can argue the old saw about 'purist' photography. Some purists, for
example Beaumont Newhall at some points, argued that one should only make
'straight' prints, because these are somehow more 'real'. [should we label
most prints, "Warning! Dodged! Burned! Bleached! Wide angle lens: Scene
will not look like this if you go there!!! ... I put it to you that this
would be silly.] Not even the members of F64 were purists. *No* photography
is completely accurate, nor would it necessarily be a good thing if it
*were* possible. Dodging and burning do not make a print unreal in any
sense necessary for the print's being 'fine art'. Neither does the use of
filters, different developers... Prints are good or bad strictly on the
impact they have on viewers because of their aesthetic qualities.
*Everything* else, and this includes all technical matters about the
creation of the piece, is irrelevant to whether something is a good piece of
art.
I have a Lenswork Quarterly edition print of Wynn Bullock's, "Nude At
Sandy's Window." These prints are made by contact printing a digital
negative. I like this print better than all the "free from digital" prints
that I have. Most people who've seen it, and it hangs right next to some
traditional 8x10 contact prints, says something like "Wow. What a great
photograph." I think that they're right.
Peter
c._downs
I think we are in agreement on most things. { not that our opinions
really matter to the art world :o) }
The Art that is recognized as fine art and a certain type { silver,
platinum, carbro etc} needs labels to sell well. This is not my
opinion but a realization of the way things are. Programs like
"Antiques Roadshow " give a good idea of the way value is doled out.
Someone's name or reputation , type of artwork, etc is finely
documented today for every medium out there. I recently saw some
wonderful photos of San Francisco in the mid 1800's that were severely
reduced in price just because the top had been slightly cropped for
framing.
> But what about enlarged digital negatives, where
>a silver print is the result?
Even you labeled your Wynn Bullock, "Nude At Sandy's Window." print
as made by contact printing a digital negative. I'm sure that had it
been an original the price would have been a "bit" more.:o)
Digital manipulation will be labeled by the collectors as such and
eventually this will all be worked out. I spent the late 60's and
early 70's fighting to help have photography recognized as art and do
not want to see the same prejudice applied to digital. I only want it
labeled as such. For many people the fact that a photographic image of
some types holds a value is in the fact that it reveals a perceived
"truth". Photo journalism and some types of nature photography have a
need to be "true to life" to be acceptable to the viewers ...just look
at the Gene Smith controversy or Art Wolfe's recent book that uses
digital "enhancement".
Gene Smith's work was always considered "true" but now we know the
truth and as artwork it suffers not at all but as truth it is not
acceptable. Art Wolfe on the other hand labeled his work as digitally
enhanced and it should stand , good or bad, on this acknowledgement.
I'm working on purchasing one of the new pigment printers for small
color work so really hope that this becomes very acceptable in the art
world but in any case I plan to label it as such. { maybe I can sell
more or at a higher price by claiming at least a 100 to 200 year life
span! :o) }
BTW a friend recently purchased an original Wynn Bullock print of
the nude laying in the sorrel or clover and I sure wish I had the
bucks to own one or any Bullock { even a digital/neg/contact print }
as they are exquisite!
Pam Niedermayer
"purist" approach argument to its logical extreme to illustrate the futility and
wrong headedness of that argument?
Pam
C., Downs wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:04:58 -0500, "Peter De Smidt"
> <pdes...@fdldotnet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mike from OZ <N...@Spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:qdwJ5.6777$SF5.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> >> "Tony Spadaro" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Isn't photography itself the use of a machine to make up for an
> >> > inability to draw?
> >>
> >> No - Photography is a well defined medium not one medium pretending to be
> >> another. I don't pretend that a photograph is a charcoal sketch. To do
> >this
> >> is (IMO) just as silly as pretending a digitally manipulated image is a
> >> photograph (much less a Fine Art photograph). Hence my (somewhat
> >colourful)
> >> statement that a new definition is needed for these digitally manipulated
> >> images.
> >>
> >> I have no problem with digital image manipulation. Digital certainly has
> >> it's place as long as people don't cobble images together in PhotoShop and
> >> expect anyone to accept them as Fine Art *Photographs*.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >
> >So I'm assuming that you think that Jerry Uelsmanns (and Bruce Barnbaums
> >imaginary landscapes)photographs don't count as 'Fine Art'? Folks, we have
> >a would-be F64'er here. Exactly the same types of arguments were given
> >many, many years ago. They were wrong then, and you're wrong now. What
> >matters for art is not how an image is made, but how good of an image it is.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >
>
> You are certainly right about not discriminating against digital but I
> don't think that the poster was doing that. I would think that he
> along with most of the Fine Art world only want things labled as what
> they are and let the image stand for its self. There is at least 100
> years of "fine art silver image photography" that can be thought of as
> being hand printed and is purchased as such. With some printers you
> can duplicate the images of metal plate or glass plate cameras but to
> sell them or label them as such is false and misleading. The same with
> Digital imaging and silver printing. Label it for what it is and let
> the image stand on its own merits. With the advent of the pigment
> printers and similar type prints there might even be a significant
> increase in price of digital color images due to the permanence. In
> the future this may also be true of B&W. In the early '70's one of my
> photobuddys was a good friend of Jerry U and I was able to visit and
> watch him at work.....he is a master and his silver work is certainly
> fine art but should never be compared to digital as his mastery of the
> silver print exhibits a completely different art form.
--
c._downs
wrote:
>Uh, guys, have you considered the possibility that Tony was just taking the
>"purist" approach argument to its logical extreme to illustrate the futility and
>wrong headedness of that argument?
>
>Pam
>
>> Isn't photography itself the use of a machine to make up for an
>>inability to draw? Perhaps photographs should be called phonygraphs,
>>and photographers should be called phonygraph artists.
If so I apologize but still can't see how the above statement can be
construed to mean much other than what it says. I would be equally
upset about the reverse of the statement if photography was the oldest
form of rendering a subject for viewing and someone said that "isn't
drawing itself just the use of your hand to make up for what you can't
photograph. Perhaps drawings should be called phony-arts,
and drawers should be called phony-art artists."
It's easy to mistake the meaning of a written post when no rebuttal
or interchange is made, so if I have mistaken the meaning then
....whoops! My bad! I can only say that 30 plus years of hearing
statements like the above "phonygraph artist/inability to draw" set me
off , as you can easily see :o) . If I misunderstood the intent then
as I said .....my apologies! If not then I've said my piece and will
get off the soapbox for the time being.
Pam Niedermayer
first time I read it, it was just too laughable to take seriously. So now we're
all awaiting Tony's pronouncement. :)
Pam
--
Peter De Smidt
<C. Downs> wrote in message news:3a004bf4...@news.mindspring.com...
> I think we are in agreement on most things. { not that our opinions
> really matter to the art world :o) }
I agree that we agree:) And, for what its worth, the opinions of the art
world don't matter to me. I find the whole idea of buying a work of art as
an investment anathama.
> and I sure wish I had the
> bucks to own one or any Bullock { even a digital/neg/contact print }
> as they are exquisite!
Well, you can get a silver print from a digital negative from LensWork
Quarterly for about $100.
Regards,
Peter
Peter De Smidt
> Peter,
>
> They may be "Fine Art" by they are not "Fine Art Photographs". They
should
> not be labelled or accepted as photographs - they clearly are not. A new
> label needs to be coined and applied to these images.
>
> See Chuck Downs excellent posts on this subject as he pretty much sums up
my
> feelings.
>
> It is quite important to distinguish how an image is made! A photograph
> needs to be identified as such - and a digitally manipulated image needs
to
> be identified as such. Both should then be evaluated in their own right.
>
> Mike
>
Mike,
Ok. I mis-interpreted your post along the lines of the anti-pictorialist
sentiment expressed by F64. I suppose someone (galleries...) will require
labels. I don't really like this all that much, unless there are special
display conditions... Otherwise, it seems to me to be emphasizing
technicalities over aesthetic quality. I don't really see why a print made
with a traditional enlarger on for example Ilford FB paper needs to be
distinguished from one made on the same paper with a digital negative, a la
Burkholder or LensWork. The archival nature is the same. They look the
same. The edition size may be the same. But... Yes, they were made in a
different way. But Chuck is no doubt correct that these things may effect
investment potential, and I'm certainly not for tricking people.
Peter
Tony Spadaro
I wrote it in reply to someone who claimed that digital imaging is
not art, and should be called phonyography. I was pointing out the
irony of the fact that this argument has gone on in one form or another
since the days of Plato.
Is paint in a tube capable of making ART? Does having a group of
students fill in the colours make your fresco into a paint-by-numbers
set?
Photographers, many of them, tend to walk through the world using a
camera as a set of blinders. If they don't see it, it is not. They
think the history of the medium started the day they got their first
camera, and probably assume it will end when they sell their darkroom
to buy a home theater.
I was pointing out that man distinguishes himself from the lower
animals by being the only creature capable of self-delusion.
In article <39f8ef2e...@news.mindspring.com>,
C. Downs wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 06:50:14 GMT, Tony Spadaro
> <tony_to...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Isn't photography itself the use of a machine to make up for an
> >inability to draw? Perhaps photographs should be called phonygraphs,
> >and photographers should be called phonygraph artists.
--
Digital photo restoration in autumnal Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New - A Digital Workflow + Sharpness: Threat or Menace?
And Selecting Your First SLR - Java must be enabled
Tony Spadaro
p...@pinehill.com wrote:
> Uh, guys, have you considered the possibility that Tony was just
taking the
> "purist" approach argument to its logical extreme to illustrate the
futility and
> wrong headedness of that argument?
Thanks Pam. I should have labeled it for the literal minded though.
I'm constantly amazed by people and their "definitions". Most art
schools, at least since the Bauhouse, have taught photography as a part
of the art world, and in fact have recognized the oneness of painting,
sculpture, architecture, photography, and other specialties like
collage that are no doubt the very anathama to many in this thread.
People make art. Art is art. THere can be good art and there can be bad
art and there can be hideously bad art. But art is art. Graphic design
is graphic design, whether it comes from a camera or a pen.
I recently said, on another forum "Most people, when asked, will tell
you that a photograph is not reality - but if you show them a picture,
they will believe it." That is why this discussion is happening at all.
--
Digital photo restoration in autumnal Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New - A Digital Workflow + Sharpness: Threat or Menace?
And Selecting Your First SLR - Java must be enabled
Mike from OZ
"Peter De Smidt" <pdes...@fdldotnet.com> wrote in message
news:VDCJ5.3760$qR3.1...@homer.alpha.net...
>
> Mike from OZ <N...@Spam.com> wrote in message
> news:qdwJ5.6777$SF5.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> >
> > > Isn't photography itself the use of a machine to make up for an
> > > inability to draw?
> >
be
> > another. I don't pretend that a photograph is a charcoal sketch. To do
> this
> > is (IMO) just as silly as pretending a digitally manipulated image is a
> > photograph (much less a Fine Art photograph). Hence my (somewhat
> colourful)
> > statement that a new definition is needed for these digitally
manipulated
> > images.
> >
> > I have no problem with digital image manipulation. Digital certainly has
> > it's place as long as people don't cobble images together in PhotoShop
and
> > expect anyone to accept them as Fine Art *Photographs*.
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
> So I'm assuming that you think that Jerry Uelsmanns (and Bruce Barnbaums
> imaginary landscapes)photographs don't count as 'Fine Art'? Folks, we
have
> a would-be F64'er here. Exactly the same types of arguments were given
> many, many years ago. They were wrong then, and you're wrong now. What
> matters for art is not how an image is made, but how good of an image it
is.
>
> Peter
Peter,
c._downs
<tony_to...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> I wrote it in reply to someone who claimed that digital imaging is
>not art, and should be called phonyography.
I missed that part, sorry!
Glad we got that cleared up! Sorry I took it wrong! We probably agree
on much of the art world and I do agree about the blinders that are
sometimes used to ignore all but what is in front of folks. Your
statement about ....
>>"They think the history of the medium started the day they got their first
>>camera, and probably assume it will end when they sell their darkroom
>>to buy a home theater."
...is very true and one of my pet peeves. Years ago we called it the
"Nick Nikon Syndrome" { no offence to Nikons meant...I love my 120mm
SW }
Whew! I do feel better now especially since we are both Tarheels at
this time. ....Er.. well I'm not exactly a Carolina Tarheel fan but
live in and travel through the state constantly photographing.
Actually will be through Chapel Thrill tomorrow headed to a swamp for
fall color and hanging moss!
Mike from OZ
"Greg Finn" <fi...@moo.isi.edu> wrote in message
news:6w4s206...@moo.isi.edu...
> give their works a feel of depth and solidity.
>
> Photography is not painting, even though many photographers try to
> make their work look like paintings and succeed doing so to a large
> degree.
>
> Digital imaging isn't photography. It is a different method, using a
> different means to depict something. Stone, film and memory are
> starkly different media.
>
> Can you make digital images look like photographs? Yes, to a great
> degree. Too the extent that the stored image is purely a recording of
> light received from a physical scene, a digital image can simulate a
> photograph.
>
> But a digital image need have no relationship to light received from
> any physical scene. In this sense it is much closer to painting,
> which is a two-dimensional depiction of whatever the artist wishes, be
> it a super-realistic animal painting or a Salvador Dali dreamscape.
>
Greg,
Excellent analogies!
I am unable to understand why people involved with digital imaging are
unable to accept their chosen medium for what it is - and what it is not.
Mike
Mike from OZ
<C. Downs> wrote in message news:39fd163a...@news.mindspring.com...
> don't think that the poster was doing that. I would think that he
> along with most of the Fine Art world only want things labled as what
> they are and let the image stand for its self.
>
Exactly the intent of my statement.
Mike
Mike from OZ
"Tony Spadaro" <tony_to...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8t7sal$9v3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> I wrote it in reply to someone who claimed that digital imaging is
> not art, and should be called phonyography.
Tony,
Here is my original post:
>>Don't take this as a flame but why not just sit in PhotoShop and create
>>images from scratch (I'm not being sarcastic here) - then you would never
>>even need to go outside at all?
>>Digital manipulation is great for commercial applications but IMHO it's
>>certainly does not qualify Fine Art Photography. The image you have
created
>>lacks artistic integrity as a *photograph*. Go back when the conditions
are
>>right and re-shoot the scene - I bet that old building will still be
there -
>>it might look even better after the next storm.
>>We need a new term to describe this sort of work like *Digigraph* or even
>>better *Phonygraph*!
The central theme of my post was clearly not that digital imaging is not
art, but that digital imaging is not "Fine Art Photography" (emphasis on
photography). The Phonygraph comment was meant in jest not as a derrogitory
remark - I should have used a ; ). I also qualified all my statments with
IMHO to be taken as such.
I did not realise peolple were so touchy about this subject!
Mike
Tony Spadaro
This is a good subject for argument as, if you take the Platonic
route, it is a way to arrive at con-sussus or not, as the case may be.
I did not take your statement all that seriously, but saw it as a good
place to make a parallel. It still is.
Does the use of a polariser take the Fine Art out of Fine Art
Photography? How about printing with two different contrasts on one
sheet of paper? How about printing 2 different images on one sheet of
paper. Is an Ansel Adams Print a Fine Art Photograph? How about a print
by someone else from an Ansel Adamas negative? What about a duotone
poster? what about a book?
At what point do you draw the line?
Suppose I scan a negative then touch up all the pinholes and dust
marks, then print it to another negative which I use to make contact
prints. The first product was a piece of film, the final product is a
piece of photographic paper. Is it a photograph? If you compare the
final print to a test print the only difference you will see, is a lack
of black and white spots.
Now suppose I take a negative of a building that was taken with a
tilted camera. I put it in the enlarger, tilt the head to change the
perspective and print. Is this a photograph?
Forget the enlarger. I use a monorail, and take a picture of a book
that has it's front cover parallel to the viewer, despite the fact that
the spine is showing. Is this a photograph?
I go out with a digital camera and take a picture of my dog. I send
the file to a printer and get back a 4x6. It is on photo paper. Is
this a photograph?
A professional catalog photographer uses a digital back - photo or
Satan?
I make images without a camera, using photo paper, a flashlight and
various objects> Is this a photograph?
All of these methods are used. I once attended a show of "Fine Art
Photographs" that were made in a dark room using brushes to apply
various chemicals to photopaper. The only light was a safelight. When
the image looked the way the artist wanted it to look, she plopped it
into the fixer. Some images were bleached and various other operations
performed on them. Photograph? Fine Art Photograph? Chemograph would
have been a more accurate term. No one who attended that reception
seemed to be interested in how the images were made. THe images
themselves were much more important than the processes involved -
except to me and possibly a few other photographers who were present.
Actually that may have been a fair number of people as she taught
photography - still the great majority were into the pictures not the
process.
Photography is not reality. It never was, any more than painting, or
sculpture or collage is reality. Photography is, at best a flat piece
of paper with at least one shape and a minimum of two colours upon the
surface. There is nothing real there, except chemical residue.
PHOTO-TECH
<pdes...@fdldotnet.com> wrote:
>Not even the members of F64 were purists.
Actually in a sense they were. They were dedicated
to capturing and recreating an image as they perceived it
given the limitations of their material, equipment and
knowledge.
PHOTO-TECH
<pdes...@fdldotnet.com> wrote:
>Most people who've seen it, and it hangs right next to some
>traditional 8x10 contact prints, says something like "Wow. What a great
>photograph." I think that they're right.
Yes but Peter I have to ask what is it about the
print that makes them "Wow" ? Is it subject ? Lighting ? Or
is it that this image is enhanced in a surrealistic manner ?
If it is the latter then the image is not a photograph but a
DI. And while it may certainly be a nice work of art, it is
not a photograph.
FWIW many of W.E.Smith's images were surreal so any
trend in digital won't really be breaking any ground.
PHOTO-TECH
>Art Wolfe's recent book that uses
>digital "enhancement".
Hah ! "Enhancements" indeed ! I saw his work in NYC
and I wondered why he even bothers using a camera !
Tony Spadaro
and have learned when to nod and when to shake my head, etc
Sounds like you are headed for Cape Fear. I've never been down there
in the fall. I remember the moss looming up in the car headlights when
I was a kid in Florida. Ever since then I have wished it could survive
further north.
Peter De Smidt
PHOTO-TECH <photo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:2vkfvsckej56ej0vc...@4ax.com...
I meant 'purist' in the sense of advocating the superiority of 'straight'
(no dodging, burning...) photography.
Peter
Tony Spadaro
>
> >Uh, guys, have you considered the possibility that Tony was just
taking the
> >"purist" approach argument to its logical extreme to illustrate the
futility and
> >wrong headedness of that argument?
> >
> >
>
> >> Isn't photography itself the use of a machine to make up for an
> >>and photographers should be called phonygraph artists.
>
> construed to mean much other than what it says.
my cousin, a good friend and I all took up painting at about the same
time. We also all tried photography at about the same time. I was the
worst of us at drawing, and I'm the one that switched to photography.
However I don't think Cartier-Bresson, Brassai, Kertesz, Berenice
Abbot, Moholy-Nagy, Feininger, Man Ray, etc. etc. etc. would agree that
photography is in any way an art for the artless, drawing for the
clumsy, etc.
One only needs look at the number of photographers who were known in
other art fields (and as a musician I always include music in the list
- Natch) before they became known as photographers.
Which also helps point up the relationship between the arts. Most of
the people I listed above knew each other, and they hung out with
Picasso, Kurt Weill, Dali, Bunuel, Gertrude Stein, and other artists
who were not photographers in Paris and Berlin during the 20s. There
and then amazing things happened in art - not just painting, not just
photography, not just writing. Art feeding art. Creativity building on
creativity. Every aspect of art became new material for the next
artist. Other artists and other art, are the route to a New Vision
(stolen phrase or homage - you decide).
> It's easy to mistake the meaning of a written post when no rebuttal
> or interchange is made, so if I have mistaken the meaning then
> ....whoops! My bad! I can only say that 30 plus years of hearing
> statements like the above "phonygraph artist/inability to draw" set me
> off , as you can easily see :o) . If I misunderstood the intent then
> as I said .....my apologies! If not then I've said my piece and will
> get off the soapbox for the time being.
Apologies are never necessary - every statement brings the discussion
further. I didn't mean to hit a sore nerve - and I too have been on the
recieving end of the same statement - only in my case it's true. As a
draftsman, I'm terrible.
PHOTO-TECH
<pdes...@fdldotnet.com> wrote:
>I meant 'purist' in the sense of advocating the superiority of 'straight'
>(no dodging, burning...) photography.
>
>Peter
Well I doubt if Adams ever thought that there was a
single piece of film or paper that didn't need "tweaking" !
"What's that ? Brown tone ? Yes, I'll add a little
more JD to the 120 !" . That's one way to warm an image up !
c._downs
<tony_to...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Art feeding art>
This is the heart of the matter for me. In the end it is the creative
process that is important. I do think that the "arts" owe a great deal
to the vision that photography has provided. Recently I was talking to
Paul Butzi about the perception that photography was limited in
subject material. { I do think that the "powers that be" push art
photography into too small of a corner } He reminded me of several
areas that I had almost overlooked and renewed my faith that
photography was as broad a field as any other discipline. I am
convinced that there is a need for labeling "process". I spent a good
length of time doing silk screens and etchings of the same subjects
that I photograph. In shows and in galleries there was always a
different feeling that people conveyed to me about the photographs. It
was a respect and acknowledgement that what was in the photograph
represented reality.....not that I hadn't changed the tones and
perspective to match my feelings at the moment by any method available
but that the core image was "real". It's my belief that what we do to
an image as far as compression or expansion of tones , wide angle
perspective , etc is just our way of expressing personal feelings
about the subject ..... BUT the final product has to be related to the
original scene closely enough that would be recognizable to the viewer
if he were to stand at the place the image was made. If this
relationship is broken then some sort of label should be given. I've
had 25 years of masking images and so far can do in silver what I can
in photoshop. If I were to display an image that had significant
additions or changes I would label it as so.{ my work is expected to
be photographically realistic by folks who know me} Jerry Ulesman on
the other hand is known for this type of work { multi/image} and in
that case it would be expected.To paraphrase Gulfoyle : if you do an
image of a waterfall and expect it to be recognized as quality ... it
better be the best image of a waterfall that there is. After having
slaughtered Gulfoyle I'll venture that ...if we want an art to be
considered quality then it needs to be the best example of that art
that we can do. This requires {IMHO} labeling it as what it is. Since
you mentioned that you are into music I thought long and hard about
what I felt about mixing digital and conventional music. { digital
seems to be much earlier introduced into music than photography }
A bit too much rock and roll in the 60's and age have taken their
toll on my hearing and I'm not always able to tell whether things are
"electronic" or conventionally produced by musical instruments. I
really don't know how I feel about this. I think that I would want to
know in the case of symphonic type music but in the case of rock or
other current music that I would take the same line of thought that I
do with Jerry U's work and just expect it was inclusive of many
sources. Dance to speak of another art form would have to be without
secret lifting wires or similar devices for something like ballet or
having the video of a dance number digitally altered to make the
dancers go higher or twirl more. I think we expect a certain level of
truth in some of our art forms and beyond a debatable point we want to
be informed. I'm not hung up on labels and for the most part despise
"Art Speak" as Gordon Hutchens calls it but find that the reality of
the art market today requires labels on the types of art we
produce....no matter what I want! :o)
Well you can see what having time on my hands does as I have typed so
much that my fingers will not be ready to push the cable release at
the "precise moment" on my swamp trip. :o)....BTW I'm headed to the NE
corner of the state below the Great Dismal Swamp where the hardwood
forest is surrounded with cypress trees and black water. This gives an
exquisite blend of color and silvery grays that I've never found
anywhere else. It's about the only time I shoot color as well as B&W
at coastal subjects.
Mike from OZ
<Stuff Sniped>
> Photography is not reality. It never was, any more than painting, or
> sculpture or collage is reality. Photography is, at best a flat piece
> of paper with at least one shape and a minimum of two colours upon the
> surface. There is nothing real there, except chemical residue.
>
Who's to say a photograph has to be a realistic interpretation of anything?
You see we can agree on something ; )
Mike....
Tony Spadaro
> Who's to say a photograph has to be a realistic interpretation of
anything?
> You see we can agree on something ; )
>
We probably agree on a lot more than you think.
BTW Most of the "digital" work I've seen for sale refers to "Fine Art
Archival Inkjet Prints."
Lloyd Erlick
> How one brings about a given result is not
>what's important for whether something is a good piece of art.
oct2600 from Lloyd Erlick,
I think this statement is the crux. The rest of it is mainly naming
the branches. Would that be taxonomy?? Nomenclature, at least.
I'm more interested in how we know good art from bad art. Music,
sculpture, literature, we're all able to say 'that's just great...' or
'what crap.' The fact we disagree about it makes it even more
complicated...
I'm convinced it's us, not the art ... but as soon as I say it, I'm
not sure.
regards,
--le
-------------------------------------
Lloyd Erlick,
357 Richmond Street West,
Toronto M5V 1X3 Canada.
---
voice 416-596-8751
ll...@the-wire.com
http://www.heylloyd.com
-------------------------------------
Lloyd Erlick
>
>PHOTO-TECH <photo...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:2vkfvsckej56ej0vc...@4ax.com...
>I meant 'purist' in the sense of advocating the superiority of 'straight'
>(no dodging, burning...) photography.
>
>Peter
>
>
oct2600 from Lloyd Erlick,
My photography is straighter than straight because ... I use an
aluminum tripod. And when I draw, I sharpen my pencil on a piece of
sandpaper...
Lloyd Erlick
Frank Calidonna
important. I have met so many people wrapped up in how they make a
photograph rather than the final product. That said what you describe
below sounds more like a painting than a photograph (object's light
put on sensitized material with a lens). Photograms may or may not be
art, but they are not photographs.
Still when all is said and done who is or is not an "artist" - Adams,
Weston, Bullock, Starns, Mann, etc. - is the better question. And the
most difficult to answer or to supply an answer that meets all of out
individual criteria. For those of us who aspire to be a true Artist it
is still the most crucial question.
Frank Rome,NY
Tony Spadaro
was hanging from all the trees in Pogo, which was set in the great
Dismal. I sould have known Walt Kelly wouldn'd lie to me.
On Prints, digital music, etc. I too avoid the "Sub-genre
combinationism, of the corvassleation shows us, the curvilinear reality
of the form" type. Art crit, Lit crit, and Psych all strike me as
double talk.
I remeber a record from the 60s of Bach played badly on a moog.
"Switched on Bach" It was bad, in fact it was awful, and I refused to
have anything to do with "electronic music" for years after hearing it.
I made the mistake of assuming this one record was what electronic
music actually was.
But music does not need to be played on traditional instruments to be
music. Painting, is a overall title that takes into account many forms.
B/W photography is as different from advertising photography as batik
is from collage. The end result is the final proof of the method, no
matter what the method.
The pictures on my website are all "digitally altered". They were
cropped and spotted digitally. A couple were "toned" digitally, and the
colour shots were all colour corrected digitally. I don't see a lot of
difference between using the Levels command, and dialing in filtration.
I know that were I selling prints, I could not only make them as
archival as photo-paper (more in fact) but I could assure the customer
that the re-touching oils will never change colour, or affect the paper
underneath - there are no extra oils on the surface. The spotting was
done on the digital file, and never has to be repeated.
Lawrence Thompson
For imagesetter output try Tatham and Associates, 540 Sandau, San Antonio,
TX 78216 210.349.4751 and ask for Tim.
I've used them and there are very good. I recently sent mail to Dan
Burkholder asking for an updated list and he continued to suggest Tatham.
Don't know what the max is but I know they do 11 x 14
If your willing to experiment you can create a negative on an inkjet
printer, see Pictorico Transparency film (www.pictorico.com).
Hope it helps.
Dan Smith, Photographer wrote in message
<3JuI5.38050$Ou2.1...@news-east.usenetserver.com>...
>
>"Lawrence Thompson" wrote ...
>> See Dan Burkholders book titled "Making Digital Negatives for Contact
>> Printing" or his web site at www.danburkholder.com.
>>
>> Basic process is:
>> 1) scan the negative
>> 2) change the tonality, contrast or anything else you like with
Photoshop
>> 3) apply a specific curve (see the Burkholder book for details)
>> 4) send the Photoshop file to a imagesetter, you'll get back a
"negative"
>> of the size you specify
>> 5) contact print the "negative"
>> 6) process as any other print
>
>
>Where do you find processors who will output negatives large enough to use.
>Our local labs, even the digital ones, don't do negs bigger than 4x5.
>
>dan smith
>
>
>
>
Lawrence Thompson
scanning the print but scanning prints would work as well
jjs wrote in message <8suk43$dir$1...@Urvile.MSUS.EDU>...
>
>Lawrence Thompson <ltho...@noos.fr> wrote in message
>news:8ssk0p$38u$1...@news4.isdnet.net...
>> See Dan Burkholders book titled "Making Digital Negatives for Contact
>> Printing" or his web site at www.danburkholder.com.
>>
>> Basic process is:
>> 1) scan the [...]
>
>I believe the applications I have see begin by scanning the final print.
>There remains a certain something about a well done traditional silver
>print.
>
>
>
George W.
"Lawrence Thompson" <ltho...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:8thsb7$>
> If your willing to experiment you can create a negative on an inkjet
> printer, see Pictorico Transparency film (www.pictorico.com).
Which transparency film is recommended for negative printing?
The usual overhead stuff has two shortfalls:
-it won't hold enough density
-it only comes in 8.5x11
George
PHOTO-TECH
<geo...@eastwest.yno> wrote:
>The usual overhead stuff has two shortfalls:
>-it won't hold enough density
>-it only comes in 8.5x11
>
>George
Add a third one. It has a texture to enable the inks
to stick to the film. Makes for a real good diffuser on my
RB.
Lawrence Thompson
work Dan Burkholder is doing and what I read in Camera Arts. I'll copy Dan
on this note and see if he's willing to provide some insight, who knows
maybe he has a book in the works for this
George W. wrote in message ...
George W.
> well I've not played with this at all and my only reference point is the
> work Dan Burkholder is doing and what I read in Camera Arts. I'll copy
Dan
> on this note and see if he's willing to provide some insight, who knows
> maybe he has a book in the works for this
I bought Dan Burkholder's book.
If there's one major beef with this book it's that
he imagines that people will just "take it down
to the 'Service Bureau'". I checked my "Service
Bureau". They will print 16x20 transparencies,
but they want $200. Given my proclivity to look
something over and make an improvement,
this would result in me having $1000 in a
single 16x20 digital negative. I suppose the
day might come when I value one that highly,
but it sure hasn't come yet.
Burkholder's comments on printing with
inkjets are valid, such things as "lie to the
software, or you'll get even less ink, tell it
you're using photo paper". But Burkholder
can't really get rid of the notion that to
really do this, you take it down to your
Service Bureau.
GW
jjsta...@my-deja.com
"Mike from OZ" <N...@Spam.com> wrote:
> Don't take this as a flame but why not just sit in PhotoShop and
create
> images from scratch (I'm not being sarcastic here) - then you would
never
> even need to go outside at all?
>
> Digital manipulation is great for commercial applications but IMHO
it's
> certainly does not qualify Fine Art Photography. The image you have
created
> lacks artistic integrity as a *photograph*. Go back when the
conditions are
> right and re-shoot the scene - I bet that old building will still be
there -
> it might look even better after the next storm.
>
> We need a new term to describe this sort of work like *Digigraph* or
even
> better *Phonygraph*!
Mike's comment is right on. The biggest issue is right up fron in Dan
Burkhoder's book - one must first aquire an image, and that's the kind
of photography that still interests me the most.
Since I posted the original query, I got The Book and have read it. I
had originally merely wanted to make negatives of prints that required
a great deal of darkroom work - sometimes a full day to make one master
print. An alternative to making full-size negatives via a LF camera was
desired.
I am a Photo Shop wiz because it is part of my day-job, but I had not
aniticipated using it to manipulate the image in terms of rendering
tonalities as I have in the darkroom, but I am certain that now I will
so some, although there will be prints that will be 'pure' and I'd like
to stamp them "No digital manipulation was involved in making this
image." But nobody will likely care but me.
Digital photography will liberate photography from its state
of 'tweenness' to help reinforce its status as an art. By 'tweenness' I
mean its phenominal relationship to 'something in front of a camera'
and the alternative of complete digital, camera-less creation. When the
day comes that one can produce an image that obviates the camera but
otherwise cannot be discerned from an objective-created image, then
photography in it's original term of requiring an object will be
certainly defined.
jjsta...@my-deja.com
Tony Spadaro <tony_to...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Isn't photography itself the use of a machine to make up for an
It can be, Tony, but there remains at least one defining element of
photography and that is the rendition of an object in terms of the
light that comes from it. It's about light, objects. That's one of
photography's defining characteristics. Just one. The other is the
moment in time and the object, light.
jjsta...@my-deja.com
PHOTO-TECH <photo...@home.com> wrote:
> But it's a medium for the masses. And for mass
> production. Combined with the un-archivability and expense
> of the materials, well let's just say that it has a very,
> very long way to go.
I'm afraid your information is incorrect. Archival digital-ink prints
are already being developed, and in a short time will rival silver
print for true archival quality. Shall I post references?
jjsta...@my-deja.com
photography in order to make certain deeper points. By keeping the
hardware contraints simple and complete, they eliminated the new
fangled 'camera like' phenonema of bokeh (Steiglitz knew that),
creative blur caused by objects' motion in time, all that 'stuff' that
inspires similar rants against the new language of 'digital
photography' today.
jjame...@my-deja.com
jjsta...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <te8evss5fbm5t9ucb...@4ax.com>,
> PHOTO-TECH <photo...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > But it's a medium for the masses. And for mass
> > production. Combined with the un-archivability and expense
> > of the materials, well let's just say that it has a very,
> > very long way to go.
>
> I'm afraid your information is incorrect. Archival digital-ink prints
> are already being developed, and in a short time will rival silver
> print for true archival quality. Shall I post references?
>
Yes! James
jjame...@my-deja.com
jjsta...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I think the goal of the F64 school was to limit the vocabulary of
> photography in order to make certain deeper points. By keeping the
> hardware contraints simple and complete, they eliminated the new
> fangled 'camera like' phenonema of bokeh (Steiglitz knew that),
> creative blur caused by objects' motion in time, all that 'stuff' that
> inspires similar rants against the new language of 'digital
> photography' today.
>
My information, which comes from some digi people is that you make a
print from a neg and then scan it, play with it in photoshop or similar
programs, download the new improved image to a disk or some other file,
take that to a service bureau and have them make an enlarged negative
that you can then just contact print. Lenswork is offering prints done
this way and they are superb in the rendition next to a hand made
enlarged print. I've purchased one and seen the real print and there is
no difference I can see with the naked eye. james
PHOTO-TECH
wrote:
>In article <te8evss5fbm5t9ucb...@4ax.com>,
> PHOTO-TECH <photo...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> But it's a medium for the masses. And for mass
>> production. Combined with the un-archivability and expense
>> of the materials, well let's just say that it has a very,
>> very long way to go.
>
>I'm afraid your information is incorrect. Archival digital-ink prints
>are already being developed, and in a short time will rival silver
>print for true archival quality. Shall I post references?
As long as you post a cost comparison. I'm aware of
the pigmented ink printers such as the Epson 2000P and a few
others. All costing near or over $1000 and the inksets are
rather expensive as well. From what I've seen the cost per
print is some 20X what a RA-4 print costs.
BTW, how long does it take to print a 11X14 on the
2000P at 1440 dpi ? Quite some time I would imagine.
PHOTO-TECH
wrote:
> all that 'stuff' that
>inspires similar rants against the new language of 'digital
>photography' today.
Actually Adams was the driving force in F64 and he
was looking forward to the days of DI. Even in '82 he knew
it was coming. And it still is but it's not here yet.
And the only "rants" I'm aware of are from those
that see DI as a hollow dream being pushed by marketing
guru's who want to make a new market for companies to expand
into for the next 20 years . People like myself who have
looked into the possibilities and found that only the very,
very well heeled can afford quality rivaling a good medium
format film-based camera and even then only under studio
conditions.
So in the end it's a market in development. But is
it necessary ? No.