Black and White Digital Gallery
Jeff Alu
Digital, and processed in Photoshop.
http://www.animalu.com/pics/photos.htm
Thanks,
Jeff Alu
John
2 oxymorons on the first page;
digital & fine art
digital & photography
Regards,
John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech
Website --- http://www.darkroompro.net
Jeff Alu
Eugene Goodale
Don't listen to this guy.
Gene
In article <m5slfus24jl11vrqv...@4ax.com>, John
Jeff Alu
Well, everyone has their opinion I suppose, but really, I think it's not the
medium but the end result that counts. And John, I think that digital is
indeed photography. I mean the ONLY difference is where the photons end up
(film or CCD) but everything else is just the same, right?
Jeff
Jeff Alu
Well, everyone has their opinion I suppose, but really, I think it's not the
medium but the end result that counts. And John, I think that digital is
indeed photography. I mean the ONLY difference is where the photons end up
(film or CCD) but everything else is just the same, right?
Jeff
Janie Thomson
"Eugene Goodale" <cpt...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:cptsoul-0306...@user-2ive0hi.dialup.mindspring.com...
> Digital or otherwise - the images are great (and they are Art).
> Don't listen to this guy.
Some stunning images there, Jeff. They are art in my book, no matter what
the dinosaurs say. We'd still be cave painting if we listened to guys like
this.
Janie
John
>Thanks Gene!
>
>Well, everyone has their opinion I suppose, but really, I think it's not the
>medium but the end result that counts. And John, I think that digital is
>indeed photography. I mean the ONLY difference is where the photons end up
>(film or CCD) but everything else is just the same, right?
>
>Jeff
FWIW, I didn't say his work was bad. Just not photography. No more
than a paint-by-the-numbers kit from a craft store is.
Regarding "the ONLY difference", no, that is not the only difference.
Not by a long shot. FWIW, here's a post by someone who actually is an
authority.
Nope. It's not possible. If you look at Message-ID:
<ac964r$13g$1...@post.cis.smu.edu> you will see some info that was posted to
the
Leica list by Jim Brick. Here are the pertinent quotes.
quote:
As I wrote earlier, you have to "dumb down" Leica lenses in order to use
them on a digital sensor. You cannot collect data that is running at a
higher frequency than the collector. The Nyquist limit. Look it up. A
resolution killing filter (a blur filter) must be used in the camera
between the lens and the sensor. See the white paper on lenses for digital
cameras on the Schneider web site. An inexpensive Asian 10-150mm zoom will
produce pictures every bit as good as a Leica M lens when used with a CCD
or CMOS sensor. And you won't have to keep switching lenses for different
focal lengths. It is a simple fact of the state of digital. And it won't
change for a long time yet.
end-quote:
and quote:
I have written, ad nauseam, about this before and explained the fact that
the minimum size for a pixel is 3 microns. It takes four pixels to
represent one color pixel. That's 36 square microns per real pixel. The
reason it cannot get any smaller is that there is not enough space to
contain a large enough capacitor to capture enough electrons to represent
how much light hit the pixel. As the pixel size gets smaller, the noise
level goes up. And the yield goes way down and the price goes way up. And
the image quality sucks. Semiconductor geometry is at the point where the
atomic structure of the traces and junctions are interfering with the
circuitry. When atoms are getting in the way, you simply cannot go any
farther with the current technology.
I work as a senior scientist for Agilent Technologies Imaging Electronics
Division. We design and manufacture imaging devices. This includes CCD and
CMOS sensors and imaging chips and subsystems of all sorts. I deal with
this stuff every day. In a sensor, the bigger the pixel the better. Five
microns is a good size for good signal to noise ratio. This is 100 sq.
microns for one color pixel.
You folks out there can believe anything you want. But the technology will
not support your pipe dreams.
-endquote....
(see full postings on leica list, or
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwins.html)
Of course this doesn't mean that the images won't be "good enough"
for 4X6 prints from a PC printer for the very low standards of the public.
And some "photographers".
John
<ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
>Some stunning images there, Jeff. They are art in my book, no matter what
>the dinosaurs say. We'd still be cave painting if we listened to guys like
>this.
Cave painting, using an ink jet, what's the difference ? Cave
paintings lasted one heck of a lot longer than anything you'll see in
digital !
Good comparison otherwise though. At least you recognize that it's
not photography.
BTW, in about 200 years (about 150 years after all film production
has been stopped) some scientist will find out that if one takes molecules
of silver and iodide and energizes them with light and exposes them to a
chemical mixture designed to amplify the formation of an image, you will
have something that will flat blow the doors off of digi-widgets.. It will
have scale, speed and be portable and cheap to make. It will be durable and
it won't require electric to read. One can make both positives for
projection and negatives for printing. Undoubtedly he will win some award
for his rediscovery.
John
You are kinda out here on your own on this one. It is kinda like
when people who rode horses English style first saw a cowboy saddle,
"Certainly that can't be called riding!" When a German brewmaster first
sipped US commercial beer, "That is not beer!" When my 1970 math
prof saw a handcalculator, "That is not mathematics." X-country
skiiers, say downhill "is not skiing!" In all these
cases, something important, elegant, and pure was lost as people
redefined riding, beer, and calculation to include the new form.
The original form moved into place as a subdivision of the
redefined term.
In each case though, the additions made something more accessible
(if in some cases, inferior) to more people. I am an optical/
chemical darkroom rat since 1968. I made better b/w prints at
age 17 on a little Durst M-300 with TX and Dektol than I can
make with my digcam and printer. The beauty of a good opt/chem
photograph is unchallenged in depth and longevity. Now in mid-
life, I no longer have the time to work in a chem darkroom. A
good software (Picture Window Pro), a >3MP camera, and a decent
printer give me access to making images again. Most of my images,
mercifully, won't last 200 years or even 20 and no one will be the
worse off for it. Most images are forgettable but are fun to
hang on a wall for a few years. Most 1 hr color
4x6 won't last 50 yrs either and a lot of family history will be lost. But,
now I can make color images in my digital setup, where that was
always beyond me as a chem/opti darkroom users.
Durst, Omega, etc. have always had a small market for their
products. The number of chem/opt darkroom users is tiny, and
that market won't shrink much except at the low-cost intro end.
However, more people than ever are now making images in their
digital environment. This is good for 'photography' and for
chem/opt photographers. More people, having tried their hand
at it digitially, will appreciate their work and will buy it.
Driving a vanilla sedan make me appreciate an Italian sports car
all the more. It is the same.
Is it photography? When I drink a Miller, I always wish I was
drinking German beer from the tap in Bonn, but after that passes, I am just
glad to have a beer, comraderie with others, and a moment of
leisure. Most people never know the difference with images
or with beer, but that will always be true.
This could go on and on like the Nikon vs. Canon wars. Let's not please.
You are correct that the digimages are different. More sophisticated
users will know that. To the masses, it is all the same. They don't
know RC from fiber paper either. I like Jeff's images and by their
medium and his explanation that it is Photoshop created, I'll never
confuse them with opt/chem and can appreciate them on their own
terms. Viva silver halide grain and Viva the pixel!
Sorry if this was long and a little preachy. Not meant to be.
Janie Thomson
"John" <jo...@darkroompro.net> wrote in message
news:8phrfu4m9pjjnc4k3...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:50:11 +0100, "Janie Thomson"
> <ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Some stunning images there, Jeff. They are art in my book, no matter
what
> >the dinosaurs say. We'd still be cave painting if we listened to guys
like
> >this.
>
> Cave painting, using an ink jet, what's the difference ? Cave
> paintings lasted one heck of a lot longer than anything you'll see in
> digital !
So now longevity and technology are what defines ART?
Janie
John
<ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"John" <jo...@darkroompro.net> wrote in message
>news:8phrfu4m9pjjnc4k3...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:50:11 +0100, "Janie Thomson"
>> <ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Some stunning images there, Jeff. They are art in my book, no matter
>what
>> >the dinosaurs say. We'd still be cave painting if we listened to guys
>like
>> >this.
>>
>> Cave painting, using an ink jet, what's the difference ? Cave
>> paintings lasted one heck of a lot longer than anything you'll see in
>> digital !
>
>So now longevity and technology are what defines ART?
Do they define it ? No. Do they contribute to it ? Absolutely. Would
you purchase a absolutely perfect, exquisite something that will degrade
appreciably in just a few short years ? Probably not. And neither would
most investors in the art community. In fact it's also doubtful if one
would get much exposure as the galleries and museums don't care to exhibit
goods of uncertain stability.
Janie Thomson
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 21:09:18 +0100, "Janie Thomson"
> <ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >So now longevity and technology are what defines ART?
>
> Do they define it ? No. Do they contribute to it ? Absolutely. Would
> you purchase a absolutely perfect, exquisite something that will degrade
> appreciably in just a few short years ? Probably not.
Indeed, probably not. But art and commerce are different things in my book.
And neither would
> most investors in the art community. In fact it's also doubtful if one
> would get much exposure as the galleries and museums don't care to exhibit
> goods of uncertain stability.
So art is only that which can be exhibited and traded?
Janie
Eugene Goodale
The Fogg Art Museum; Carpenter Center Cambridge; Worcester Art Museum; in
the Photography New England show at the Danforth about 1/4 of the images
were digital prints.
I can't think of a photography gallery that I've been to that hasn't shown
digital Art (and yes they sell it to knowlegable collectors). You need to
get out of the darkroom a little more.
Wake up and smell the pigment, digital is here to stay and the
professional photographer that doesn't use it in his business is flushing
money down the sink in film cost, storage, filing etc.
One of the biggest professional labs in New England (LustreColor) has
converted to digital. Some labs digitize your film for purpose of making
chromogenic prints (and they are beautiful prints).
I love my darkroom and the chemical process is the way I like to work but
digital is taking over.
Gene
In article <saftfust80p819q9g...@4ax.com>, John
R. Michael Walker
where is the "disappearing Art" galleries and collectors shouldn't handle?
Photography was belittled years ago. Because it is a "mechanical" process.
As Ansel Adams once said.. " a piano is made by machines but if art comes
out of it that is made by a man" ( or a Woman of course too). Art is pretty
much indefinable...but digital is not something that automatically makes and
image not art. There is much bad photography, digital or otherwise. There
are rare few bodies of work that stand the test of time (My big yard stick
for art). Digital is here and I have left my darkroom forever. No more
poisonous chemicals that readily pollute the environment. All work done in
the light is a wonderful feeling for me.
And if you want to see my 36 year transition from chemical process to
Digital visit my site at www.rmichaelwalker.com . I've done a little of all
Photographic processes and formats... but little has caught my attention
like the possibilities of digital. Just my Opinion...and my new life!
Mike
MJR
endeavoured to interpret the messages that lie in the human face, the breach
that betrays the emotions of the mind".
In saying this, I believe he was attempting describe the artistic labors
that Karsh (and others) were expending, long before the shutter was tripped.
Yousuf's lighting was deceptively simple, his darkroom processes and
chemistry non-descript, but his very successful images most certainly stand
the test of time.
The delivery medium is, and was, not the issue. Examine any great photograph
at arms length and you will find no reference to what camera was used, what
paper was used, etc., etc.
Nevertheless, there is a vast difference between the portraits of Yousuf
Karsh and your local Wal-Mart portrait studio.
I too, believe digital is here to stay; but in many ways, I am saddened by
it's arrival.
The camera technology of the late 1900's and the digital technology of the
current period has made everyone an artist, even at Wal-Mart.
But where is the art? Is it captured the moment the shutter is tripped?
Or has the focus now been shifted to technology, the medium, the unsharp
mask, the tweaking of color curves, the magic wand tool, digital ice?
Is is photographic art or is it computer art?
One day, while turning prints at a juried photographic competition, I
noticed a barely readable page number in the lower right hand corner of an
obviously digitally altered print. An entrant had taken a photograph of a
coffee table book, digitally altered it and submitted it as his own
photograph.
Is it still a photograph? Is it art?
Or is it Wal-Mart?
"R. Michael Walker" <rmw...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1bEL8.21825$Eq1.71...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
John
wrote:
>And digital images now meet the basic archival standards of permanence so
>where is the "disappearing Art" galleries and collectors shouldn't handle?
Please show me a single paper ink combo that is actually archival.
There isn't one. Most of the stuff being printed currently is less than 2
years old and certainly hasn't tested archival.
BTW, we ran tests on the Epson "archival" inksets a couple of years
ago and they shifted color badly in just the first 30 days.
John
>
>One day, while turning prints at a juried photographic competition, I
>noticed a barely readable page number in the lower right hand corner of an
>obviously digitally altered print. An entrant had taken a photograph of a
>coffee table book, digitally altered it and submitted it as his own
>photograph.
>
>Is it still a photograph? Is it art?
>
>Or is it Wal-Mart?
Neither. It's digital.
John
<ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"John" <jo...@darkroompro.net> wrote in message
>news:saftfust80p819q9g...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 21:09:18 +0100, "Janie Thomson"
>> <ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >So now longevity and technology are what defines ART?
>>
>> Do they define it ? No. Do they contribute to it ? Absolutely. Would
>> you purchase a absolutely perfect, exquisite something that will degrade
>> appreciably in just a few short years ? Probably not.
>
>Indeed, probably not. But art and commerce are different things in my book.
Yes they are but great artists are eventually recognized and the
value of their work can be significant. Also do you really think that
anyone would provide a artist with making a living through the sales of
their work if they were selling inkjet prints ? Perhaps if one were to sell
them the way I've seen much 35mm work done. Printed as a 4X6 and mounted on
a card ala Carte-de-Visite. High art no doubt.
>And neither would
>> most investors in the art community. In fact it's also doubtful if one
>> would get much exposure as the galleries and museums don't care to exhibit
>> goods of uncertain stability.
>
>So art is only that which can be exhibited and traded?
Nope. Not the "only" but certainly among the more valuable.
John
wrote:
>Let's see - I've seen digital ink jet prints on display at the MFA Boston;
>The Fogg Art Museum; Carpenter Center Cambridge; Worcester Art Museum; in
>the Photography New England show at the Danforth about 1/4 of the images
>were digital prints.
>
>I can't think of a photography gallery that I've been to that hasn't shown
>digital Art (and yes they sell it to knowlegable collectors). You need to
>get out of the darkroom a little more.
Oh please ! I've been in galleries from DC to Phila to NYC to
Atlantic City, NJ to Nashville TN ! Yes I've seen digi-junk a couple of
times but guess what ? It's not in the permanent collection !
Check out MoMa's additions this year at ;
http://www.moma.org/menu/moma_new_acquisitions_2002.pdf
Did you see a digi-print in there ? Neither did I !
Now if you excuse me I have a hard drive that needs to be rescued.
Probably has digital pictures on it !
Eugene Goodale
<jo...@darkroompro.net> wrote:
> Oh please ! I've been in galleries from DC to Phila to NYC to
> Atlantic City, NJ to Nashville TN ! Yes I've seen digi-junk a couple of
> times but guess what ? It's not in the permanent collection !
It will be eventually (and already are more than you recognize). We need
get a the fossils like you out of the way. Your attitude is antiquated and
silly. Throughout history there has always been some old curmudgeon like
you who feels threatened by technology and lashes back with goofy maxims.
There's plenty of caves where folks like you can hang out and let the
world pass you by.
Gene
John
Fossil ? Curmudgeon ? Ummmm, does the term "ad hominem" mean
anything to you ? Also, is your home running RJ-45 and Wi-Fi ? Mine
is. And my system run every OS from Windows NT to Windows XP, Linux
and BSD. Are you still using that antiquated Windows 98 ?
Every job needs the right tools. If you want to _create_ images
then by all means use digital. Since you can't paint. Just don't
pretend it's a photograph. It's not.
Regards,
John
Janie Thomson
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 03:28:01 +0100, "Janie Thomson"
> <ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John" <jo...@darkroompro.net> wrote in message
> >news:saftfust80p819q9g...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 21:09:18 +0100, "Janie Thomson"
> >> <ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >So now longevity and technology are what defines ART?
> >>
> >> Do they define it ? No. Do they contribute to it ? Absolutely. Would
> >> you purchase a absolutely perfect, exquisite something that will
degrade
> >> appreciably in just a few short years ? Probably not.
> >
> >Indeed, probably not. But art and commerce are different things in my
book.
>
> Yes they are but great artists are eventually recognized and the
> value of their work can be significant. Also do you really think that
> anyone would provide a artist with making a living through the sales of
> their work if they were selling inkjet prints ? Perhaps if one were to
sell
> them the way I've seen much 35mm work done. Printed as a 4X6 and mounted
on
> a card ala Carte-de-Visite. High art no doubt.
Where do you get this idea that an artist has to make a living being an
artist? It's certainly nice if you can, but some people aren't even
remotely interested in selling their work. It doesn't make their work any
less art. You also seem hung up on digital prints. Digital art, doesn't
have to be printed on an inkjet. It can be printed using a variety of
different types of technology, or not printed at all.
> >And neither would
> >> most investors in the art community. In fact it's also doubtful if one
> >> would get much exposure as the galleries and museums don't care to
exhibit
> >> goods of uncertain stability.
> >
> >So art is only that which can be exhibited and traded?
>
> Nope. Not the "only" but certainly among the more valuable.
Valuable to whom, and by what definition of value?
Janie
Tuples
>There isn't one. Most of the stuff being printed currently is less than 2
>years old and certainly hasn't tested archival.
>
BTW, we ran tests on the Epson "archival" inksets a couple of years
>ago and they shifted color badly in just the first 30 days.
Yup, correct. No current materials are guaranteed to last. And what does it
matter? After all, the "Masters" printed their negs on different and improved
papers over the years, and if you have a file, you can reprint as needed when
technology DOES improve.
Two process that are near and dear to me are Technicolor and Dye Transfer. Lets
see any digital process out perform the quality and longevity of a DP or
Technicolor IB Print.
At least film has a proven track record.
Bob
Smtphoto
Tom
MJR
At a local competition, an entrant won kudos for a field trip photograph
that included a frightening and terribly stormy sky.
Later, during the reception, a viewer asked how he dared risk his
photography gear in such a deluge.
He answered, "no, the original scene actually had a bald sky, totally clear
that day. I used Photoshop to add a storm I photographed a few months ago
from my car window."
Spare me.....
....all true.....
"Smtphoto" <smtp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020608205443...@mb-mq.aol.com...
Smtphoto
darkroom, also. Infact, Ive done it myself. And I've read many articles on
"sandwiching" two or more slides/negatives to make one image.
Tom
Jon
> anything to you ?
Sure. But wasn't it Nietzsche that said why not make an attack "against the
man"? Don't idiots make idiotic arguements and deserve the ad hominem?
Also, is your home running RJ-45 and Wi-Fi ? Mine
> is. And my system run every OS from Windows NT to Windows XP, Linux
> and BSD. Are you still using that antiquated Windows 98 ?
Hey, I'm on a Mac--I think all the above except the Unix is antiquated.
>
> Every job needs the right tools. If you want to _create_ images
> then by all means use digital. Since you can't paint. Just don't
> pretend it's a photograph. It's not.
I set the f-stop and shutter. I take the picture. I move the contents from
the camera to another/other device/s, and I make a print.
Which process am I using, wet or digital?
It is a photograph--regardless of the tiring semantic game you wish to play.
If you don't like it, then admit it. And move on. Please.
Jon
John
>> Fossil ? Curmudgeon ? Ummmm, does the term "ad hominem" mean
>> anything to you ?
>
>Sure. But wasn't it Nietzsche that said why not make an attack "against the
>man"? Don't idiots make idiotic arguements and deserve the ad hominem?
No. Ad hominem is an act of desperation by one who cannot make
his/her point logically.
>Also, is your home running RJ-45 and Wi-Fi ? Mine
>> is. And my system run every OS from Windows NT to Windows XP, Linux
>> and BSD. Are you still using that antiquated Windows 98 ?
>
>Hey, I'm on a Mac--I think all the above except the Unix is antiquated.
To some extent you may be right but I'll take a few of those
"antiquated" SCSI drives any day of the week over software driven
technologies like USB and IDE drives.
>> Every job needs the right tools. If you want to _create_ images
>> then by all means use digital. Since you can't paint. Just don't
>> pretend it's a photograph. It's not.
>
>I set the f-stop and shutter. I take the picture. I move the contents from
>the camera to another/other device/s, and I make a print.
>
>Which process am I using, wet or digital?
Must be wet. You cannot physically move the image anywhere in
digital. It is replicated and the original file is deleted.
>It is a photograph--regardless of the tiring semantic game you wish to play.
>
>If you don't like it, then admit it. And move on. Please.
Perhaps when you admit it is not a photograph. Please.
John
<ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
<SNIP>
>> Yes they are but great artists are eventually recognized and the
>> value of their work can be significant. Also do you really think that
>> anyone would provide a artist with making a living through the sales of
>> their work if they were selling inkjet prints ? Perhaps if one were to
>sell
>> them the way I've seen much 35mm work done. Printed as a 4X6 and mounted
>on
>> a card ala Carte-de-Visite. High art no doubt.
>
>Where do you get this idea that an artist has to make a living being an
>artist? It's certainly nice if you can, but some people aren't even
>remotely interested in selling their work. It doesn't make their work any
>less art. You also seem hung up on digital prints. Digital art, doesn't
>have to be printed on an inkjet. It can be printed using a variety of
>different types of technology, or not printed at all.
Please show me a great photographer who did it "on the side". Of
course not everyone is good at marketing and such but for the most part if
someone is good enough their work will be sought and they usually pursue
their development in their art through working in it. Most great musical
artists are musicians. Most great writers are simply writers. And it does
follow that most great photographers are professional photographers.
>> >And neither would most investors in the art community. In fact it's also doubtful if one
>> >> would get much exposure as the galleries and museums don't care to exhibit
>> >> goods of uncertain stability.
>> >
>> >So art is only that which can be exhibited and traded?
>>
>> Nope. Not the "only" but certainly among the more valuable.
>
>Valuable to whom, and by what definition of value?
Valuable to those who appreciate such works and valued in the context
of something that is rare and appreciable.
Jon
>> man"? Don't idiots make idiotic arguements and deserve the ad hominem?
>
> No.
So idiots don't make idiotic arguements?
>Ad hominem is an act of desperation by one who cannot make
> his/her point logically.
>
I might have believed that when I was working on my degree--but now I see
much less of a distinction between a person and their arguements.
> To some extent you may be right but I'll take a few of those
> "antiquated" SCSI drives any day of the week over software driven
> technologies like USB and IDE drives.
I agree. Can't beat a good scsi drive. I have an external firewire drive
which I am content with.
>> Which process am I using, wet or digital?
>
> Must be wet.
Actually, digital.
You cannot physically move the image anywhere in
> digital. It is replicated and the original file is deleted.
I just move the card to the reader--or more commonly, the CD with the drum
scan. But, this is really just more semantics. Whatever.
>
>> It is a photograph--regardless of the tiring semantic game you wish to play.
>>
>> If you don't like it, then admit it. And move on. Please.
>
> Perhaps when you admit it is not a photograph. Please.
It is a photograph.
Jon, (off to go see John Custodio's gorgeous piezo prints in SoHo today)
mbS
>>Sure. But wasn't it Nietzsche that said why not make an attack "against the
>>man"? Don't idiots make idiotic arguements and deserve the ad hominem?
>
>
> No. Ad hominem is an act of desperation by one who cannot make
> his/her point logically.
>
Ad hominem is a fallacy when the character of the attacked has no
bearing on the truth of the claim.
A very clear ad hominem fallacy:
X: "Two plus two is four."
Y: "No it isn't. Everybody knows you're an idiot at math!"
But other types present grey areas, especially those
depending heavily on testimony:
X: "No, I wasn't at the mall."
Y: "You're seldom where you say you are."
...may not be a fallacy, even though the child's
character can not influence historically whether
s/he was in fact at the mall or not. In the
absence of other evidence, Y may be justified in
depending on X's character in making a decision
under uncertainty.
Janie Thomson
> On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 19:03:21 +0100, "Janie Thomson"
> <ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
> Please show me a great photographer who did it "on the side". Of
> course not everyone is good at marketing and such but for the most part if
> someone is good enough their work will be sought and they usually pursue
> their development in their art through working in it. Most great musical
> artists are musicians. Most great writers are simply writers. And it does
> follow that most great photographers are professional photographers.
John, you made a sweeping generalisation about the use of the terms Digital
and Art, which a few people (myself included) have taken exception to. If
you meant that prints from an inkjet printer haven't proved themselves of
archival quality, why didn't you say so in the first place? I might have
agreed with you, but that doesn't support your contention that digital and
art are mutually exclusive. If you meant that art can only be produced by
someone who makes their living as an artist, why didn't you say so in the
first place? I would have disagreed with you, but it still doesn't speak to
your original contention. You are leading us down lots of little side
issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with what you said, and trying to
make others defend things they never said.
We were not speaking about "great photographers", we were speaking about
art. We were not speaking about "people" who make their living as artists,
we were speaking about art.
It is not longevity that makes it art.
It is not the dollar value someone else places on it that makes it art.
It is not how many people see it in a gallery that makes it art.
It is not the reputation or the experience of the artist that makes it art.
Emily Dickinson is generally considered to have been a great writer. She
had no such reputation during her lifetime, but her work was discovered and
appreciated after her death. Let's suppose she had written only one great
poem. Was it still art? Let's suppose she had used ink that faded, and
none of her work survived to be published. Was it still art?
Janie
mbS
>
> ................
> It is not longevity that makes it art.
> It is not the dollar value someone else places on it that makes it art.
> It is not how many people see it in a gallery that makes it art.
> It is not the reputation or the experience of the artist that makes it art.
>
> Emily Dickinson is generally considered to have been a great writer. She
> had no such reputation during her lifetime, but her work was discovered and
> appreciated after her death. Let's suppose she had written only one great
> poem. Was it still art? Let's suppose she had used ink that faded, and
> none of her work survived to be published. Was it still art?
If a Rothko is used as a shower curtain, does it cease to be art?
Duchamp placed a urinal in the Armory show
at the turn of the last century. Did the object become art?
Such questions, which led Nelson Goodman to say
that "what is art" is the wrong question.
The right question is "When is art?"
Janie Thomson
"mbS" <EvilSpa...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:3D03B9E2...@Nowhere.org...
> Such questions, which led Nelson Goodman to say
> that "what is art" is the wrong question.
> The right question is "When is art?"
Quite possibly. But I wasn't the one making statements about something not
being art.
Janie
MJR
evidence of a great photographer or a functional darkroom technician? There
is a difference.
Allow me to use Clyde Bucher (www.clydebucher.com) as an example. Clyde
Bucher is a world renowned fine art landscape photographer who is exhibited
internationally and who is now considered by many to be in the caliber of
Ansel Adams. His photographs sell for many hundreds of dollars and are in
demand worldwide. Most major museums now have his work on permanent display.
Clyde the photographer, will literally wade up to his chest in the waters of
the Everglades in Florida, and stand there with wrinkled fingers and toes
for hours, waiting for the clouds to be just right. If that day the clouds
disappoint, he wades back to shore, his film unexposed, to return another
day until he achieves his goal....but he never cheats. He never sandwiches.
He never uses a "magic wand" on his images.
He does not cheapen the fine art image by taking the easy way out. And his
paying audience knows this. That is one reason why his fine art photography
sells on a regular basis and ours doesn't. (Spare me the claims of numerous
sales. You, like myself, may have sold a few, but none of us are world
famous).
The value of art, like a hand rolled cigar, is oft times determined by the
difficulty in its creation. Digital certainly makes it easier. (Spare me
again; page layout or photo montage is an art, but it's not
photography....it comes later).
The focus today seems to be after the shutter is tripped. Digital or
otherwise.
And yet, I recently attended a seminar given by Clyde Bucher, where he was
asked his opinion of digital photography. He replied by beginning with a
sigh, and followed it with a comment regarding the inevitable. He too, will
move that way when it becomes a marketable way of making a living.
Marketable.
Now it's my turn to sigh.
"Smtphoto" <smtp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020608213220...@mb-mq.aol.com...
John
<ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
>
>John, you made a sweeping generalisation about the use of the terms Digital
>and Art, which a few people (myself included) have taken exception to. If
>you meant that prints from an inkjet printer haven't proved themselves of
>archival quality, why didn't you say so in the first place? I might have
>agreed with you, but that doesn't support your contention that digital and
>art are mutually exclusive.
And I don't mean that it is. Just "digital" and "photography". There
is certainly digital art and it may one day develop to be incredible.
> If you meant that art can only be produced by
>someone who makes their living as an artist, why didn't you say so in the
>first place? I would have disagreed with you,
And that would have been fine with me. I'm no longer employed as a
photographer and I hope that I am producing something ;>) But the facts are
that most really good photographic artists eventually work in the field.
>but it still doesn't speak to
>your original contention. You are leading us down lots of little side
>issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with what you said, and trying to
>make others defend things they never said.
What I initially stated was that "digital" and "fine art" combined as
a term is an oxymoron. Also that "digital" and "photography" is a oxymoron.
As yet digital art is very young and it hasn't developed enough to really
be an art.
>We were not speaking about "great photographers", we were speaking about
>art.
The "great photographers" were brought into conversation regarding
the exhibition of prints in galleries.
> We were not speaking about "people" who make their living as artists,
>we were speaking about art.
Someone has to make the art.
>It is not longevity that makes it art.
But longevity is a factor in the value of a piece of art. An ice
sculpture can be beautiful but has little value when allowed to melt.
>It is not the dollar value someone else places on it that makes it art.
Dollars are simply a translation of value. For instance my
brother-in-law is currently contracted to destroy a $550,000 house as the
land it is on is worth more than the building.
>It is not how many people see it in a gallery that makes it art.
Nope but a general consensus of opinion will usually tell if it is
_good_ art.
>It is not the reputation or the experience of the artist that makes it art.
Hopefully I never implied that.
>Emily Dickinson is generally considered to have been a great writer. She
>had no such reputation during her lifetime, but her work was discovered and
>appreciated after her death. Let's suppose she had written only one great
>poem. Was it still art? Let's suppose she had used ink that faded, and
>none of her work survived to be published. Was it still art?
Yes but nobody would know about it so the point is moot. Valuable art
should be preserved. Just because we have 200,000,000 copies of the U.S
Constitution doesn't mean that we should allow the original to degrade.
Further, would you declare the copies works of art ? Nor are the gazillions
of "picture perfect" digi-prints that are going to be spewed out of inkjet
printers.
Digital imaging is a poor replacement for painting. It is in no way
photography. It generally uses inks of questionable quality to produce
prints. Digital capturing cameras are at best about as good as an APS
system at about 20x the cost.
In the end you have very mediocre tools and materials which are
compromising at best and are combined with programs which have the
abilities to build very surreal imagery that is represented as real.
Janie Thomson
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 19:12:36 +0100, "Janie Thomson"
> <ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >John, you made a sweeping generalisation about the use of the terms
Digital
> >and Art, which a few people (myself included) have taken exception to.
If
> >you meant that prints from an inkjet printer haven't proved themselves of
> >archival quality, why didn't you say so in the first place? I might have
> >agreed with you, but that doesn't support your contention that digital
and
> >art are mutually exclusive.
>
> And I don't mean that it is. Just "digital" and "photography". There
> is certainly digital art and it may one day develop to be incredible.
You also said that digital and fine art used together was an oxymoron. I
have never commented on your views on digital photography. If you thought
otherwise we have been talking at cross purposes. I don't agree with your
views on digital photography, but that's another argument entirely as far as
I'm concerned.
> > If you meant that art can only be produced by
> >someone who makes their living as an artist, why didn't you say so in the
> >first place? I would have disagreed with you,
>
> And that would have been fine with me. I'm no longer employed as a
> photographer and I hope that I am producing something ;>) But the facts
are
> that most really good photographic artists eventually work in the field.
At least you concede it's only "most" rather than all.
> >but it still doesn't speak to
> >your original contention. You are leading us down lots of little side
> >issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with what you said, and trying
to
> >make others defend things they never said.
>
> What I initially stated was that "digital" and "fine art" combined as
> a term is an oxymoron. Also that "digital" and "photography" is a
oxymoron.
> As yet digital art is very young and it hasn't developed enough to really
> be an art.
According to whom? It's just technology. Artists use a variety of tools,
the art part is what comes out of their creative imagination. It matters
little whether that's realised as pixels on a screen, paint on a canvas, or
a sculpture of their own shit.
> >We were not speaking about "great photographers", we were speaking about
> >art.
>
> The "great photographers" were brought into conversation regarding
> the exhibition of prints in galleries.
You brought both things into the conversation. My point was that they are
irrelevant to your original contention that digital combined with fine art
is an oxymoron, as is what I've snipped below.
> >Emily Dickinson is generally considered to have been a great writer. She
> >had no such reputation during her lifetime, but her work was discovered
and
> >appreciated after her death. Let's suppose she had written only one
great
> >poem. Was it still art? Let's suppose she had used ink that faded, and
> >none of her work survived to be published. Was it still art?
>
> Yes but nobody would know about it so the point is moot. Valuable art
> should be preserved.
The point is not moot. Art is art is art. You'll be telling me next that
Turner's watercolours aren't art because someone could splash them and make
the colours run, or because they would fade if exposed to the light (which
is why they are stored in the dark for 11 months of the year and displayed
only in the month with weakest light).
Janie
John
<ja...@janie-thomson.co.uk> wrote:
>> And I don't mean that it is. Just "digital" and "photography". There
>> is certainly digital art and it may one day develop to be incredible.
>
>You also said that digital and fine art used together was an oxymoron.
I think there needs to be an understanding of "fine art" vs "art".
Most people have the ability to produce art. Most people do not have the
desire to produce fine art. The term "fine" implies a level of skill or
precision.
BTW, if _I_ were interested in digital fine art I certainly wouldn't
waste it's capabilities on 2 dimensional graphic representation. Instead it
would be where digital really shines : multimedia.
>I have never commented on your views on digital photography. If you thought
>otherwise we have been talking at cross purposes. I don't agree with your
>views on digital photography, but that's another argument entirely as far as
>I'm concerned.
You are correct in that I did take on 2 subjects in the same post but
then there is the fine art photography and there is simply photography. A
lot of people take pictures. Not many create good photographs.
>> > If you meant that art can only be produced by
>> >someone who makes their living as an artist, why didn't you say so in the
>> >first place? I would have disagreed with you,
>>
>> And that would have been fine with me. I'm no longer employed as a
>> photographer and I hope that I am producing something ;>) But the facts
>are
>> that most really good photographic artists eventually work in the field.
>
>At least you concede it's only "most" rather than all.
Yes, I conceded that there are a few who manage the dual purposes of
working in one profession while pursuing their interest in other areas.
Musicians rarely support them selves with simply working in music. But then
there is the difference between Uncle Bob picking a 6 string and Eric
Clapton or B. B. King.
>> What I initially stated was that "digital" and "fine art" combined as
>> a term is an oxymoron. Also that "digital" and "photography" is a
>oxymoron.
>> As yet digital art is very young and it hasn't developed enough to really
>> be an art.
>
>According to whom? It's just technology.
And a technology that is still in it's very first days of infancy. I
doubt that something that is only a few years old can or should be
classified as a "fine art".
> Artists use a variety of tools,
>the art part is what comes out of their creative imagination.
And the first part of using any new technology is simply developing
the tools to use it. Personally I can't wait till someone puts together a
artistic VR simulation that will redefine the term fine art. Until then
digital is just attempting to be as good as materials and tools that we
already have. And failing.
> It matters
>little whether that's realised as pixels on a screen, paint on a canvas, or
>a sculpture of their own shit.
Well speaking for myself I hope the later is not considered fine art
although unfortunately it would probably sell well to the galleries.
>> >We were not speaking about "great photographers", we were speaking about
>> >art.
>>
>> The "great photographers" were brought into conversation regarding
>> the exhibition of prints in galleries.
>
>You brought both things into the conversation. My point was that they are
>irrelevant to your original contention that digital combined with fine art
>is an oxymoron, as is what I've snipped below.
I think we'll just have to disagree on this point. I believe that the
artist is a component of the art and you seem to believe that the artist is
simply an individual with some skill.
>> >Emily Dickinson is generally considered to have been a great writer. She
>> >had no such reputation during her lifetime, but her work was discovered
>and
>> >appreciated after her death. Let's suppose she had written only one
>great
>> >poem. Was it still art? Let's suppose she had used ink that faded, and
>> >none of her work survived to be published. Was it still art?
>>
>> Yes but nobody would know about it so the point is moot. Valuable art
>> should be preserved.
>
>The point is not moot. Art is art is art.
Heavens to Oscar Wilde !
> You'll be telling me next that
>Turner's watercolours aren't art because someone could splash them and make
>the colours run, or because they would fade if exposed to the light (which
>is why they are stored in the dark for 11 months of the year and displayed
>only in the month with weakest light).
What I'm trying to tell you is that the value (that is to say whether
it is good or not) of a work of art is a composite of the vision of the
artist, the materials s/he chooses and the final produced piece. If a piece
has no value then it need not be preserved. If it does then it should. Also
the materials and processes involved should match the capabilities of the
artist and not compromise in the quality of producing the final work.
Regards
John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster
http://www.darkroom-pro.com - http://www.darkroompro.net
Formulas, Facts and Info on the Photographic Process
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Goodale
What ticked me off about your initial post was what appeared to be blunt
insensitivity (it seemed as if you were just trolling for a reaction).
Just in case you forgot your post:
> 2 oxymorons on the first page;
>
> digital & fine art
>
> digital & photography
Nothing about the quality or interest of Jeff's images. Nothing
constructive or an opinion explained.
Maybe if you had explained your position then, they way you have in the
last few posts it would have been easier (for me) to just politely
disagree with you or maybe have a discussion.
Gene
In article <pik9gu4000g6e4j99...@4ax.com>, John
John
wrote:
>John,
>
>What ticked me off about your initial post was what appeared to be blunt
>insensitivity (it seemed as if you were just trolling for a reaction).
My apologies. I assure you that my intent was to get a message across
and not simply trolling for a reaction. Frankly I'm just sick and tired of
the whole digi-widget campaign.
>Just in case you forgot your post:
I rarely forget a post. In fact my archive is quite extensive. I
probably have about as much of r.p.d. as Google does.
>Nothing about the quality or interest of Jeff's images. Nothing
>constructive or an opinion explained.
His images were fine but unfortunately I'm not really qualified to
comment on them as I am a photographer and the images that he displayed
were not photographs any more than Steven Schniedermans' or Jerry
Uelsmanns' are. Wonderful works but not photography.
>Maybe if you had explained your position then, they way you have in the
>last few posts it would have been easier (for me) to just politely
>disagree with you or maybe have a discussion.
The discussion is certainly lengthy but I'm sure your opinion would
certainly improve the quality of it.
Jon
> comment on them as I am a photographer and the images that he displayed
> were not photographs any more than Steven Schniedermans' or Jerry
> Uelsmanns' are. Wonderful works but not photography.
>Regards,
>John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech
>Website --- http://www.darkroompro.net
The following post was made on the B/W Digital Printing list on Yahoo. This
70 year old guy is talking about printing but it seems relevant to the
discussion about Jeff Alu's photographs...
>>>
I don't know if I can add much to the subject referred to but I can tell you
that being an old bebop saxophone player from the early '50,s on was not an
easy road. The established jazz community hated us because they were
intimidated by something new. Eventually the final product was proved valid.
In fine arts and music ( jazz ) the methodology is only a means to an end.
The end , of course, is creating with your own special voice. Communicating
is never easy. After all, these are abstract fields----we never know what
anyone else really sees or hears. We can only hope they get something from
any of our work, that their sensitivity is on the same level--someplace. The
labeling of the work is really not important to me. It's a freaking print! I
don't have to tell any person what kind of saxophone I'm playing or the reed
I'm using or the mouthpiece I'm blowing through. I might discuss it at
another musician's house but that's a kind of esoteric shop talk. The
audience doesn't know. I'll tell them what the tune is and that's about it.
The key I play it in is not relevant to them. I don't think having to
explain to someone what the method for making a print has to do with the
quality of the composition. I owned an art gallery for about 5 years and it
was an experience. I sold stuff done on masonite, burlap etc. Oh yeah,
canvas too. Just remember that people also buy Elvis on velvet---never sold
any of that stuff. Bo, have patience. The common denominator is just common.
Everybody in a particular field is intimidated by change. Sorry for rambling
on but I got Bo by 10 years--that means 67++ and the mind gets strange. BTW,
I use an 1160, MIS-VM CFS, PS 6. a PC and got my first computer in my 60's.
Now that didn't tell anybody a thing about the prints I do. Isn't that
interesting?
>>>
Jon
John
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:36:24 GMT, Jon <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The common denominator is just common.
That says it all.
Regards,
John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech
Website --- http://www.darkroompro.com
Jon
>intimidated by something new. Eventually the final product was proved valid.
> Everybody in a particular field is intimidated by change.
I prefer this part...
Jon
John
>> Everybody in a particular field is intimidated by change.
>
>I prefer this part...
>
>Jon
Then qualify it accurately,
Everybody in a particular field is intimidated by change for the sake
of change. That is to say change for no apparent immediate gain and no
timetable as to when the change will return on the high investments made by
the companies.
At this point I think that even Kodak is tired of bleeding money into
the digital trough.
Jon
>>
>> I prefer this part...
>>
>> Jon
>
> Then qualify it accurately,
"http://www.darkroompro.com": I smell fear--regardless of whether you admit
it or not.
>
> Everybody in a particular field is intimidated by change for the sake
> of change. That is to say change for no apparent immediate gain and no
> timetable as to when the change will return on the high investments made by
> the companies.
>
> At this point I think that even Kodak is tired of bleeding money into
> the digital trough.
Evidence?
Jon
John
> >>> Everybody in a particular field is intimidated by change.
>>>
>>> I prefer this part...
>>>
>>> Jon
>>
>> Then qualify it accurately,
>
>"http://www.darkroompro.com": I smell fear--regardless of whether you admit
>it or not.
Of change ? No. Of change that is simply for the sake of change ?
Mildly. Unfortunately if the markets can be directed to accept digital as a
substitution for film, there will be cuts in materials and equipment
generated for photographic pursuits. This has already happened as best
demonstrated by Kodak cutting their printing papers Elite, Kodabromide,
Ektalure, Medalist, Radiance and films Verichrome Pan, Ektapan and High
Speed Infra-Red. In particular the discontinuance of Ektalure and Elite
essentially implies that Kodak is no longer interested in the fine art of
photography as these were the last 2 papers that they made for this niche.
>> Everybody in a particular field is intimidated by change for the sake
>> of change. That is to say change for no apparent immediate gain and no
>> timetable as to when the change will return on the high investments made by
>> the companies.
>>
>> At this point I think that even Kodak is tired of bleeding money into
>> the digital trough.
>
>Evidence?
Well they did build a new, modernized factory for the production of
films. Also note that they are introducing fewer digital products relative
to the number of film-based products that they are releasing.
Jon
> Mildly. Unfortunately if the markets can be directed to accept digital as a
> substitution for film, there will be cuts in materials and equipment
> generated for photographic pursuits.
I have worked with/for seven pro's in NYC in the last two years--and they
have all gotten rid of their darkrooms. Happily, I might add--not a single
complaint. Half still shoot film and scan. So I think your use of the term
"Unfortunately" must just mean unfortunately for you.
This has already happened as best
> demonstrated by Kodak cutting their printing papers Elite, Kodabromide,
> Ektalure, Medalist, Radiance and films Verichrome Pan, Ektapan and High
> Speed Infra-Red.
Well, HSI had a lot of problems besides low demand--the serious pinhole
issue that they couldn't seem to get cleared up in manufacturing. Then
again, Maco is making up for that loss now (just bought some).
In particular the discontinuance of Ektalure and Elite
> essentially implies that Kodak is no longer interested in the fine art of
> photography as these were the last 2 papers that they made for this niche.
Maybe Kodak isn't. I went to two gallery shows recently in SoHo and both
were fine art prints done with Piezo--stunning work. So I'm not sure that
the loss of those papers is that big of an issue.
>
>>> Everybody in a particular field is intimidated by change for the sake
>>> of change. That is to say change for no apparent immediate gain and no
>>> timetable as to when the change will return on the high investments made by
>>> the companies.
>>>
>>> At this point I think that even Kodak is tired of bleeding money into
>>> the digital trough.
>>
>> Evidence?
>
> Well they did build a new, modernized factory for the production of
> films.
To replace old ones--that didn't have anything to do with being tired of
"bleeding money." They didn't just decided one day to build new factories
tomorrow. I'm sure that has been in the works for some time.
Also note that they are introducing fewer digital products relative
> to the number of film-based products that they are releasing.
The reps that have stopped by are pushing both.
Jon
John
On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 22:48:54 GMT, Jon <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Of change ? No. Of change that is simply for the sake of change ?
>> Mildly. Unfortunately if the markets can be directed to accept digital as a
>> substitution for film, there will be cuts in materials and equipment
>> generated for photographic pursuits.
>
>I have worked with/for seven pro's in NYC in the last two years--and they
>have all gotten rid of their darkrooms. Happily, I might add--not a single
>complaint. Half still shoot film and scan. So I think your use of the term
>"Unfortunately" must just mean unfortunately for you.
When a company starts substituting sub-standard goods in an effort to
create a new market, it is very unfortunate for all. Whether you care or
not is irrelevant.
Regarding the pro's that you have associated with, digital is for the
pro's ! It cost too much and only a studio pulling in a good 6 figure
income can afford the stuff as they get to write it off anyway. Also pro's
don't hang much if any of their work in galleries.
>This has already happened as best
>> demonstrated by Kodak cutting their printing papers Elite, Kodabromide,
>> Ektalure, Medalist, Radiance and films Verichrome Pan, Ektapan and High
>> Speed Infra-Red.
>
>Well, HSI had a lot of problems besides low demand--the serious pinhole
>issue that they couldn't seem to get cleared up in manufacturing. Then
>again, Maco is making up for that loss now (just bought some).
But that had nothing to do with the discontinuance.
>In particular the discontinuance of Ektalure and Elite
>> essentially implies that Kodak is no longer interested in the fine art of
>> photography as these were the last 2 papers that they made for this niche.
>
>Maybe Kodak isn't. I went to two gallery shows recently in SoHo and both
>were fine art prints done with Piezo--stunning work. So I'm not sure that
>the loss of those papers is that big of an issue.
It is if you used them. What also annoys me with Kodak is that they
rarely give any notice that a product is going to be discontinued.
>>>> Everybody in a particular field is intimidated by change for the sake
>>>> of change. That is to say change for no apparent immediate gain and no
>>>> timetable as to when the change will return on the high investments made by
>>>> the companies.
>>>>
>>>> At this point I think that even Kodak is tired of bleeding money into
>>>> the digital trough.
>>>
>>> Evidence?
>>
>> Well they did build a new, modernized factory for the production of
>> films.
>
>To replace old ones--that didn't have anything to do with being tired of
>"bleeding money." They didn't just decided one day to build new factories
>tomorrow. I'm sure that has been in the works for some time.
Of course but it's a pretty major investment for an industry that is
attempting to stop using film.
> Also note that they are introducing fewer digital products relative
>> to the number of film-based products that they are releasing.
>
>The reps that have stopped by are pushing both.
Reps crack me up ! Last time I visited the NJPPA show in Atlantic
City, my wife and a good friend along with myself stood in the Kodak booth
for nearly 10 minutes without ever being approach. Their were 2 reps
sitting at their desks and playing with their digi-widgets.Some salesmen !
Jon Cohen
aesthetics, and quality has everything to do with the presentation media.
If your target is, say, presentation on a web site, or reproduction in a
newspaper, then quality isn't much of an issue, and the choice between
digital vs. traditional is a wash (quality-wise), thus why not digital
(because of the superior convenience).
But for me, my goal is to produce high quality prints that can be hung on
the wall, and for that reason, I still choose to work with traditional
materials & methods. After years of study, I can produce a print with sharp
highlights, deep blacks, & near perfect tones, and these cannot (yet) be
duplicated using digital media & techniques.
I read somewhere that a 35mm negative has the resolution of a 20 Megapixel
picture (and I'll admit that I have no way of verifying this), but if this
is true, I'm not sure I know of any (affordable) digital cameras with that
kind of resolution. Plus, the various papers & printing techniques aren't
up to that kind of demand (to my knowledge).
So, if you are snapping 35mm pictures, and letting the lab process it, then
I'd say that digital is a valid alternative. If you are adept in the Zone
System or in sensitometery, and have the patience & skill to produce high
quality prints, then digital just isn't there yet.
Regarding aesthetics: there's a modern movement in art called
"deconstruction", where the concept is the only thing that is important and
the execution is there only to demonstrate the concept. Thus, technique
isn't that important. Digital media is sufficient for expressing the
concept. Indeed, digital manipulation offers opportunities that would be
difficult or impossible with traditional methods. But personally, I don't
like this style of art -- it feels slipshod to me. I prefer the art where
the artist cared enough about the art to work at it until it was right &
complete and where the artist devoted themselves to developing the skills to
maximize their techniques.
"Smtphoto" <smtp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020608205443...@mb-mq.aol.com...