På fredag, 11. juli 2003, kl. 22:27, Hans Imglueck:
May be I missed my point because I used the word painting. Let me say it this way:
We are already high quality intelligent stereoscopic digital cameras equiped with a lot of incredible software. Images are taken, modified and composed within. The only thing what is missing is a USB 2.0 interface. Since the interface is missing and the internal memory is limitied we need external cameras and
Sorry, but from my point of view there is more to photography than technology. Yes, it is partially technological, like playing the piano or organ is, but not more.
external memory. Formerly there was only painting to get the internal pictures outside. Then photography came up: The cameras were film based and the pictures couldn't be much modified afterwards.
That´s not true. After exposure manipulation is as old as the negative - positive process, at least. Look at the evolution of old photos of the russian leadership, it´s an old art.
I think digital photography will win, because it is much closer to our internal way of viewing and composing. The amount of modification someone needs is very different - comparable with the amount of imagination people have in their minds.
Look here: http://www.uelsmann.com
There is no significant difference in what i good craftsman can do, digital or analog. The technology is just different.
Some have more sense for reality - they will tend to photography as a mean of expression. Others will not be
content with the amount of modifications possible with a camera and
go for painting or whatever is related to their kind of imagination on
the cost of realism (expect some old painters like Dürer or Rafael -
they are just great in both: imagination and realism).
What are these: http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/ vis_oversikt.cgi?brukerid=158&serieid=3204
Reality, realism or imagination? They are all manipulated at the event of exposure. Except for some (bad) contrast adjustment nothing was done after the exposure. I do not think that photography is an objective representation of some reality, it can never be.
My point is that photography is an independent way of making images. Some use stone, some use paint, some use photography, all of them have their limitations. I think what suits me about photography is the analytic part: You have to see, analyze and remove, not build, to make the image. Also, some times I like the aspect of having the correct timing, finding the right moment in time.
Regards!
Dag T
--- Dag T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Photography is an independent art form.
Cartier Bressons images could not have the same impact if they were paintings. In fact he IS a painter, and his paintings and drawings are very different from his photographs.
I photograph because it suits me, I have no intention to make anything looking like a painting. If I didn´t have a camera I think I would prefer music before painting.
DagT
På fredag, 11. juli 2003, kl. 16:58, skrev Hans Imglueck:
So what do you think about that? Would you take a camera, if you could paint a picture as good or better in the same time? Paint what your mind if full of? What you are dreaming about?
Hans.
--- Dag T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Speak for yourself!
.-)
DagT
På fredag, 11. juli 2003, kl. 15:55, skrev Hans Imglueck:
Never forget: We are photographing because painting is that difficult.
_____________________________________________________________ 23a mail
_____________________________________________________________ 23a mail
