Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 25, 2006, at 7:14 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where composition and an eye for a good photo are important, but what then? "Then" is where digital really opens the door to artistic interpretation and control. Far more is possible in the digital realm than was ever even dreamed of in the darkroom. If you don't realize that, then you don't understand digital. I too enjoyed film, and I may choose to work with it again. But digital is by no means the wasteland you describe. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you're deluded. Paul
Re: Bailing out.
This one time, at band camp, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Then" is where digital really opens the door to artistic > interpretation and control. Far more is possible in the digital realm > than was ever even dreamed of in the darkroom. If you don't realize > that, then you don't understand digital. I too enjoyed film, and I may > choose to work with it again. But digital is by no means the wasteland > you describe. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you're deluded. As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology. Digital opens many doors that were previously only dreamed of, particularly for those not adept in photographic arts. Its just not what I want from photography. And like the painter of yore, I wish to stick with my art. Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: Bailing out.
Quoting Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. > What started over 20 years ago as a small concern has grown to an > enjoyable and profitable lifestyle. Then along comes digital. Not > that there is anything wrong with the new technology per se, I was > in fact one of the first kids on the block with an *istD and now > own three of them. > > My problem is that photography has become more of a production line > than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed > and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. > All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely > different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement > and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems > to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. > > Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where > composition and an eye for a good photo are important, but what then? > I imagine the same dissilusionment was suffered by painters with the > advent of photography, but like the painters of old, many stuck to > thier art and it still flourishes today. > > To this end I have decided not to play the digital game and instead > spend my time on furthering the art of photography. Whilst film is still > available I can use that, perhaps I will pick up an 8x10 or 4x5 and go > back to the good ol' days of coating my own plates (provided the chemicals > used are not classified as WMDs and I am arrested as a terrorist). > > I will still maintain a digital camera, perhaps pick up a new MF digital > when Pentax decide one is right for release. But for now, I figure on > sticking to film and the darkroom. Perhaps there is a niche for me in the > world because I will stick with the old technology, perhaps not. At least > with a good negative, some of history will be maintained and not lost in > a pile of decaying discs. > > So for now, my MZ-S, my array of K-1000's and my 6x7 will rule the roost. > The *istD's will still be used, but not nearly as often. > > Kind regards > Kevin > > -- > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. > Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." > > Dear Kevin, I too have some of those same feeling. Your just brave enough to put them to word. Thank you, sgstory
Re: Bailing out.
While I am not doing any serious photography at this time, I do agree with you. Light and chemicals is a different media than light and pixels. I am using digital for record shots, ebay shots, and snapshots thus I get by with a decent P&S. Film is what I enjoy, and B&W film at that. A hobby is supposed to be enjoyable. The digital workflow is just that to me, "WORK"flow. If I was trying to make money with photography digital would be the way to go for the types of stuff I did. However I enjoy the old Speed Graphic and trying to get the shot with one film holder (two sheets of film). As a hobby a couple of hours in the darkroom is soothing to my soul; and it is still magic watching an image appear on a blank sheet of paper even after more than 50 years. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Kevin Waterson wrote: In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. What started over 20 years ago as a small concern has grown to an enjoyable and profitable lifestyle. Then along comes digital. Not that there is anything wrong with the new technology per se, I was in fact one of the first kids on the block with an *istD and now own three of them. My problem is that photography has become more of a production line than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where composition and an eye for a good photo are important, but what then? I imagine the same dissilusionment was suffered by painters with the advent of photography, but like the painters of old, many stuck to thier art and it still flourishes today. To this end I have decided not to play the digital game and instead spend my time on furthering the art of photography. Whilst film is still available I can use that, perhaps I will pick up an 8x10 or 4x5 and go back to the good ol' days of coating my own plates (provided the chemicals used are not classified as WMDs and I am arrested as a terrorist). I will still maintain a digital camera, perhaps pick up a new MF digital when Pentax decide one is right for release. But for now, I figure on sticking to film and the darkroom. Perhaps there is a niche for me in the world because I will stick with the old technology, perhaps not. At least with a good negative, some of history will be maintained and not lost in a pile of decaying discs. So for now, my MZ-S, my array of K-1000's and my 6x7 will rule the roost. The *istD's will still be used, but not nearly as often. Kind regards Kevin
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: "Kevin Waterson" Subject: Bailing out. In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. I am sure you will get basted and cooked over a slow fire for that post, but there is much merit in what you say. I have found that there are two "camps" out there at the moment. One camp say that all that matters is the picture, how you get there doesn't matter, and digital processing gives more creative control. They'll quote things like higher D-Max values available from new Epson inksets and brighter whites available from the new inkjet papers. I just won a black and white photo contest using an inkjet printer as my output device. Would I would have done the same if I had gone into the darkroom? I don't know. I did see the prints I was competing against, and for sure, my inkjet prints looked better than the 1 hour lab monochrome prints that I was competing against. The other camp says that the process does matter, and living within the constraints of the process is an important part of the process. There is no doubt in my mind that digital is easier to master, and easier to get good looking results from, if one is so inclined. If one wants to sit in front of a computer and play at making art, it is difficult to argue with them. They have ease of results and productivity on their side. There is nothing wrong with wanting to work a little bit for what you want. We are too used to instant gratification, too used to technology making it easy for us. At one time, if you didn't like something you saw in the viewfinder, you either waited until it moved, or found another picture to take. Now, you just take the picture and clone the offending bits out. And you call yourself an artist for doing it. That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished picture. I too am wanting to put the digital camera down and go back to the control that I had when I shot FP-4, not Sandisk. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 25, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology. b But you did in your earlier post. You said, If you want to shoot film, fine. I will certainly shoot with my screwmount Leica again and probably with my 6x7 as well. But in your earlier post, you suggested that there was nothing more to digtial than composition. Not true. I have a great darkroom: two enlargers for everything from 35mm to 4x5. Schneider Compuron S lenses., trays for 16 x 20, stainless steel developing tanks with Hewes reels. I still enjoy watching an image appear on paper. I even like the smell of fixer. But to suggest that digital photography isn't artistically rewarding is utter nonsense. RAW conversion and subsequent PhotoShop controls are the best photographic tools yet invented. This whiney film nostalgia is nice, but it's bullshit. Paul
Re: Bailing out.
No, it's not bullshit, Paul. Some people, and Kevin seems to be one of "them," prefer working with film and chemicals. It's not only the results that matter, but how they're obtained, and the satisfaction one gets from the process. I once spent a weekend sanding a table by hand. A friend brought me an orbital sander and suggested that the job could be done in an hour or so. He didn't get it - the process was important, spending a few hours in the sunshine in the backyard was important, the feel of the wood on my hands was important - more so than getting the job done quickly and efficiently. Digital photography may well not be artistically rewarding for Kevin. I sometimes feel the same way. There's really no need to be judgemental and critical, Paul. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist > But to suggest that digital photography isn't artistically > rewarding is utter nonsense. RAW conversion and > subsequent PhotoShop controls are the best photographic > tools yet invented. This whiney film nostalgia is nice, but it's > bullshit.
Re: Bailing out.
I thought he said it wasn't rewarding to him. Nowhere in his post did I get the idea that he felt he was presenting "TRUTH"; but just the way he felt about it. Why are his feelings on the matter wrong, and yours right? Some people like to sit out for hours doing a water color, others like to do a quick scetch with a soft pencil, some prefer oils. Digital, b&w film, color negatives, slides all are different media. Any of them are OK. Only digital seems to be "THE GOSPEL TRUTH". Sorry we belittled your religion. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Paul Stenquist wrote: On Mar 25, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology. b But you did in your earlier post. You said, If you want to shoot film, fine. I will certainly shoot with my screwmount Leica again and probably with my 6x7 as well. But in your earlier post, you suggested that there was nothing more to digtial than composition. Not true. I have a great darkroom: two enlargers for everything from 35mm to 4x5. Schneider Compuron S lenses., trays for 16 x 20, stainless steel developing tanks with Hewes reels. I still enjoy watching an image appear on paper. I even like the smell of fixer. But to suggest that digital photography isn't artistically rewarding is utter nonsense. RAW conversion and subsequent PhotoShop controls are the best photographic tools yet invented. This whiney film nostalgia is nice, but it's bullshit. Paul
Re: Bailing out.
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 09:16:59PM -0500, graywolf wrote: > > Some people like to sit out for hours doing a water color, others like > to do a quick scetch with a soft pencil, some prefer oils. Digital, b&w > film, color negatives, slides all are different media. Any of them are > OK. Only digital seems to be "THE GOSPEL TRUTH". Sorry we belittled your > religion. While I think that Paul's post was, perhaps, a little of an over- reaction, I think it's understandable. After all, if somebody stands up and says working with film is great, and all this digital messing around isn't really photography, then all sorts of folks will rush to support the viewpoint. But if somebody says that digital is easier, and in almost all cases at least as good as using film, and that all this playing around with smelly chemicals is just masturbation, people get really offended. Perhaps they don't like *their* religion being belittled, either? Or, perhaps, it's not religion at all, and that was just another cheap crack.
Re: Bailing out.
I'm not being judgemental of anyone's preferences or of film as an art form. I'm very fond of it myself and practiced it for more than thirty years. What is, in fact, bullshit is Kevin's original premise that digital is nothing more than composition. Go back and read the thread. Yes, Shel, that is bullshit. And I'm not being judgemental, just honest. On Mar 25, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: No, it's not bullshit, Paul. Some people, and Kevin seems to be one of "them," prefer working with film and chemicals. It's not only the results that matter, but how they're obtained, and the satisfaction one gets from the process. I once spent a weekend sanding a table by hand. A friend brought me an orbital sander and suggested that the job could be done in an hour or so. He didn't get it - the process was important, spending a few hours in the sunshine in the backyard was important, the feel of the wood on my hands was important - more so than getting the job done quickly and efficiently. Digital photography may well not be artistically rewarding for Kevin. I sometimes feel the same way. There's really no need to be judgemental and critical, Paul. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist But to suggest that digital photography isn't artistically rewarding is utter nonsense. RAW conversion and subsequent PhotoShop controls are the best photographic tools yet invented. This whiney film nostalgia is nice, but it's bullshit.
Re: Bailing out.
What stinks sometimes is when you take something that you love and turn it into a career and then you get sick of it. I love to shoot film, but I could die happy if I never stepped into a darkroom again in my life. I don't care much for "digital workflow" either, but I'm not sick of it yet. I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished images. The middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun. -Aaron -Original Message- From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Bailing out. Date: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:43 pm Size: 3K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net While I am not doing any serious photography at this time, I do agree with you. Light and chemicals is a different media than light and pixels. I am using digital for record shots, ebay shots, and snapshots thus I get by with a decent P&S. Film is what I enjoy, and B&W film at that. A hobby is supposed to be enjoyable. The digital workflow is just that to me, "WORK"flow. If I was trying to make money with photography digital would be the way to go for the types of stuff I did. However I enjoy the old Speed Graphic and trying to get the shot with one film holder (two sheets of film). As a hobby a couple of hours in the darkroom is soothing to my soul; and it is still magic watching an image appear on a blank sheet of paper even after more than 50 years. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Kevin Waterson wrote: > In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. > What started over 20 years ago as a small concern has grown to an > enjoyable and profitable lifestyle. Then along comes digital. Not > that there is anything wrong with the new technology per se, I was > in fact one of the first kids on the block with an *istD and now > own three of them. > > My problem is that photography has become more of a production line > than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed > and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. > All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely > different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement > and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems > to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. > > Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where > composition and an eye for a good photo are important, but what then? > I imagine the same dissilusionment was suffered by painters with the > advent of photography, but like the painters of old, many stuck to > thier art and it still flourishes today. > > To this end I have decided not to play the digital game and instead > spend my time on furthering the art of photography. Whilst film is still > available I can use that, perhaps I will pick up an 8x10 or 4x5 and go > back to the good ol' days of coating my own plates (provided the chemicals > used are not classified as WMDs and I am arrested as a terrorist). > > I will still maintain a digital camera, perhaps pick up a new MF digital > when Pentax decide one is right for release. But for now, I figure on > sticking to film and the darkroom. Perhaps there is a niche for me in the > world because I will stick with the old technology, perhaps not. At least > with a good negative, some of history will be maintained and not lost in > a pile of decaying discs. > > So for now, my MZ-S, my array of K-1000's and my 6x7 will rule the roost. > The *istD's will still be used, but not nearly as often. > > Kind regards > Kevin >
Re: Bailing out.
That was only part of what he said. Go back and read the original post. I like both film and digital, but I would never disparage either. This is turning into another silly film vs. digital discussion. How trite and boting. It's another thread for the kill file. Paul On Mar 25, 2006, at 9:16 PM, graywolf wrote: I thought he said it wasn't rewarding to him. Nowhere in his post did I get the idea that he felt he was presenting "TRUTH"; but just the way he felt about it. Why are his feelings on the matter wrong, and yours right? Some people like to sit out for hours doing a water color, others like to do a quick scetch with a soft pencil, some prefer oils. Digital, b&w film, color negatives, slides all are different media. Any of them are OK. Only digital seems to be "THE GOSPEL TRUTH". Sorry we belittled your religion. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Paul Stenquist wrote: On Mar 25, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology. b But you did in your earlier post. You said, If you want to shoot film, fine. I will certainly shoot with my screwmount Leica again and probably with my 6x7 as well. But in your earlier post, you suggested that there was nothing more to digtial than composition. Not true. I have a great darkroom: two enlargers for everything from 35mm to 4x5. Schneider Compuron S lenses., trays for 16 x 20, stainless steel developing tanks with Hewes reels. I still enjoy watching an image appear on paper. I even like the smell of fixer. But to suggest that digital photography isn't artistically rewarding is utter nonsense. RAW conversion and subsequent PhotoShop controls are the best photographic tools yet invented. This whiney film nostalgia is nice, but it's bullshit. Paul
Re: Bailing out
Hi Just to get my two cents in. I shoot both digital and film, digital camera since May of 2005, digital film scanning since the advent of the 1st Minolta Dimage Scan. Digital saved my interest in photography. It allowed me to share my images with friends and with those whom I admire. Shooting with either digital or film, especially with my lack of technical discipline, really hasn't been much different, although RAW, does have some advantages and safeguards over even the most flexible film. Working on the final print, is really where one or the other method comes into play. There is nothing more magical- and I've done this off and on since I was a child, than seeing an image appear in a developer tray. For me that is the raison d'etre for darkroom. Also there is some pleasure in knowing that with one's hands and other self devised tools, one literally blindly paints an image on blank paper with light. But working with RAW, working in PhotoShop, having some knowledge of graphics, and applying the same is also a very satisfying creative experience. And please note that I treat my neg/RAW image the same as I would in a darkroom, getting the best possible image on the screen and trying to get the best image from my inkjet - akin to the various chemical functions one uses in the darkroom. There is nothing more boring and fatiguing than the final steps of washing one's prints and the final cleaning of the darkroom after an all night session of printing. Am I ever glad I don't have to ever have to do that again. But My head is filled with bumps from falling into a catatonic stupor while waiting for a film to scan. As for the telegraph lines or the tree that mars an otherwise perfect print, well it can and has been eradicated in both the traditional and digital always by craftspeople with way more talent than me. A friend says that digital allows him to capture the moment. He shoots 300 + odd images at a family event. I shoot concerts using about 2 to 3 rolls of film and more recently with digital, and it seems I still average about 90 odd frames. The only advantage is that I don't have to change b&w to colour when I'm using digital. For me there seems little difference other than film still allows me a little more flexibility in extremely adverse conditions - and note that I've never been a chrome shooter. herb
Re: Bailing out.
I agree with you Paul, but I think you chose the wrong defining term. Bullshit is when someone intentionally lies and not when you feel they're wrong, no matter how inane their reasons. Jack --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not being judgemental of anyone's preferences or of film as an > art > form. I'm very fond of it myself and practiced it for more than > thirty > years. What is, in fact, bullshit is Kevin's original premise that > digital is nothing more than composition. Go back and read the > thread. > Yes, Shel, that is bullshit. And I'm not being judgemental, just > honest. > > On Mar 25, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > No, it's not bullshit, Paul. Some people, and Kevin seems to be > one of > > "them," prefer working with film and chemicals. It's not only the > > results > > that matter, but how they're obtained, and the satisfaction one > gets > > from > > the process. > > > > I once spent a weekend sanding a table by hand. A friend brought > me an > > orbital sander and suggested that the job could be done in an hour > or > > so. > > He didn't get it - the process was important, spending a few hours > in > > the > > sunshine in the backyard was important, the feel of the wood on my > > hands > > was important - more so than getting the job done quickly and > > efficiently. > > > > Digital photography may well not be artistically rewarding for > Kevin. > > I > > sometimes feel the same way. > > > > There's really no need to be judgemental and critical, Paul. > > > > Shel > > > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Paul Stenquist > > > >> But to suggest that digital photography isn't artistically > >> rewarding is utter nonsense. RAW conversion and > >> subsequent PhotoShop controls are the best photographic > >> tools yet invented. This whiney film nostalgia is nice, but it's > >> bullshit. > > > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
Paul Stenquist wrote: On Mar 25, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology. b But you did in your earlier post. You said, If you want to shoot film, fine. I will certainly shoot with my screwmount Leica again and probably with my 6x7 as well. But in your earlier post, you suggested that there was nothing more to digtial than composition. Not true. I have a great darkroom: two enlargers for everything from 35mm to 4x5. Schneider Compuron S lenses., trays for 16 x 20, stainless steel developing tanks with Hewes reels. I still enjoy watching an image appear on paper. I even like the smell of fixer. But to suggest that digital photography isn't artistically rewarding is utter nonsense. RAW conversion and subsequent PhotoShop controls are the best photographic tools yet invented. This whiney film nostalgia is nice, but it's bullshit. Paul I got the impression he was saying he didn't find the digital process personally fulfilling, as in, for *him.* Which I can understand, even though I myself do not care for the smell of fixer ... :D
Re: Bailing out.
Hi! There is no doubt in my mind that digital is easier to master, and easier to get good looking results from, if one is so inclined. If one wants to sit in front of a computer and play at making art, it is difficult to argue with them. They have ease of results and productivity on their side. The rest snipped. Bill, I think the danger lies in ease and productivity. If one goes digital all the way through, one may become over-trigger-happy, if you know what I mean. Now, once one shoots like they hold an automatic gun, they both loose touch with photographic inspiration (what you feel at the moment when you release a shutter of 4x5 is definitely different for *istD) and exhaust their creativity. Perhaps this is one of the aspects of what Kevin has tried to say in his original post. It would take certain self-discipline to keep one's frame count in check. Boris P.S. I am not trying to attack or defend digital against what Kevin said. I am trying to put in words the concern that crossed my mind. Though recently I took a quick view on control strips from my earlier shooting (before *istD). It was abysmal.
Re: Bailing out.
This one time, at band camp, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what is, in fact, bullshit is Kevin's original premise that > digital is nothing more than composition. Go back and read the thread. > Yes, Shel, that is bullshit. What I said was Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where composition and an eye for a good photo are important, Nowhere here do I say digital is _limited_ to composition, simply that it is important. And as for whiney bullshit? meh! Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
RE: Bailing out.
I do hope you'll not be arrested like a terrorist, Kevin. And afterall photography is about making photographs. By which mean you make them is not really important, as long as you enjoy the work and the results. Good luck Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Kevin Waterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 26. marts 2006 01:14 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Bailing out. In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. What started over 20 years ago as a small concern has grown to an enjoyable and profitable lifestyle. Then along comes digital. Not that there is anything wrong with the new technology per se, I was in fact one of the first kids on the block with an *istD and now own three of them. My problem is that photography has become more of a production line than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where composition and an eye for a good photo are important, but what then? I imagine the same dissilusionment was suffered by painters with the advent of photography, but like the painters of old, many stuck to thier art and it still flourishes today. To this end I have decided not to play the digital game and instead spend my time on furthering the art of photography. Whilst film is still available I can use that, perhaps I will pick up an 8x10 or 4x5 and go back to the good ol' days of coating my own plates (provided the chemicals used are not classified as WMDs and I am arrested as a terrorist). I will still maintain a digital camera, perhaps pick up a new MF digital when Pentax decide one is right for release. But for now, I figure on sticking to film and the darkroom. Perhaps there is a niche for me in the world because I will stick with the old technology, perhaps not. At least with a good negative, some of history will be maintained and not lost in a pile of decaying discs. So for now, my MZ-S, my array of K-1000's and my 6x7 will rule the roost. The *istD's will still be used, but not nearly as often. Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 03/24/2006
Re: Bailing out.
Kevin Waterson wrote: > > [cut, snip] > >My problem is that photography has become more of a production line >than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed >and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. >All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely >different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement >and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems >to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. > > [cut, snip] Chemical photography is just as buzz-word laden and technical as digital photography. It can be just as much of a "production-line" as work done on a computer. If you've decided that a digital workflow doesn't speak to you and a chemical one does, that's fine. It seems to me that you are criticizing digital as a medium because it does not "scratching your itch"
Re: Bailing out.
Both camps are right. But I'm in the latter, well, mostly. I prefer printing digitally. I prefer shooting with film. -Adam William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Kevin Waterson" Subject: Bailing out. In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. I am sure you will get basted and cooked over a slow fire for that post, but there is much merit in what you say. I have found that there are two "camps" out there at the moment. One camp say that all that matters is the picture, how you get there doesn't matter, and digital processing gives more creative control. They'll quote things like higher D-Max values available from new Epson inksets and brighter whites available from the new inkjet papers. I just won a black and white photo contest using an inkjet printer as my output device. Would I would have done the same if I had gone into the darkroom? I don't know. I did see the prints I was competing against, and for sure, my inkjet prints looked better than the 1 hour lab monochrome prints that I was competing against. The other camp says that the process does matter, and living within the constraints of the process is an important part of the process. There is no doubt in my mind that digital is easier to master, and easier to get good looking results from, if one is so inclined. If one wants to sit in front of a computer and play at making art, it is difficult to argue with them. They have ease of results and productivity on their side. There is nothing wrong with wanting to work a little bit for what you want. We are too used to instant gratification, too used to technology making it easy for us. At one time, if you didn't like something you saw in the viewfinder, you either waited until it moved, or found another picture to take. Now, you just take the picture and clone the offending bits out. And you call yourself an artist for doing it. That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished picture. I too am wanting to put the digital camera down and go back to the control that I had when I shot FP-4, not Sandisk. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
Kevin Waterson wrote: > > [cut, snip] > >My problem is that photography has become more of a production line >than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed >and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. >All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely >different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement >and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems >to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. > > [cut, snip] Let's try this again Chemical photography is just as buzz-word laden and technical as digital photography. It can be just as much of a "production-line" as work done on a computer. If you've decided that a digital workflow doesn't speak to you and a chemical one does, that's fine. It seems to me that you are saying that digital as a medium does not "scratch your itch". That's fine, too. You don't have to justify your decision by critizing digital for being "production line" and "buzzword" laden. "The mountain does not laugh at the river because it is lowly, nor does the river speak ill of the mountain because it cannot move about." --Mark
Re: Bailing out.
This one time, at band camp, "Mark Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chemical photography is just as buzz-word laden and technical as > digital photography. It can be just as much of a "production-line" > as work done on a computer. If you've decided that a digital workflow > doesn't speak to you and a chemical one does, that's fine. It seems > to me that you are criticizing digital as a medium because it does not > "scratching your itch" I am not criticizing digital, as mentioned I will continue to use it. and you are correct, it does not scratch my itch. Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: Bailing out.
Shel Belinkoff wrote: [...] Digital photography may well not be artistically rewarding for Kevin. I sometimes feel the same way. There's really no need to be judgemental and critical, Paul. Shel I suggest that Paul sometimes just needs to be Paul. He succeeded. Again. keith
RE: Bailing out.
Wheaters wrote: > I am sure you will get basted and cooked over a slow fire for > that post, Mmm. Tastes like chicken. > > I have found that there are two "camps" out there at the moment. > One camp say that all that matters is the picture, how you > get there doesn't > matter, and digital processing gives more creative control. [...] > > The other camp says that the process does matter, and living > within the > constraints of the process is an important part of the process. > Aaron got there before me and identified a 3rd camp: > I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished images. The middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun. Although I never thought the middle part was any fun at all, whether it's chemical or digital. For me, photography is about taking the pictures, and the end result. In fact, it's probably more about taking pictures and being part of whatever the event is, than it is about the end result. I can't stand all the fiddling and faffing about in between, which has always struck me as a waste of time. I do note, however, that when I read a phrase like 'all that matters is the picture' it is almost invariably followed by a non sequitur such as 'therefore you should use digital'. "Photography is the refuge of every would-be painter, every painter too ill-endowed or too lazy to complete his studies" - Charles Baudelaire Some 3rd-campers: "It's just seeing - at least the photography I care about. You either see or you don't see. The rest is academic. Anyone can learn how to develop" - Elliott Erwitt "Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important" - Henri Cartier-Bresson "Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Bailing out.
Hi Kevin, Your feelings about our art is a bit surprising, considering your recent reviews of the digital medium format cameras. I thought you were about to go "all-in" on digital. But of course an investment of this magnitude makes you think twice and more in any case, doesn't it? I understand your sentiment very well, and have met several outdoor photographers thinking the same way. Some of them are the best in the trade in my country. For them, it's not the creative control in post-processing that matters, but rather the working rhythm in the field. Film, manual light meters, maybe large format cameras, all is part of the creative process for some people. Take it away from them, and the joy of photography goes with it. One of the privileges of having a creative profession is to enjoy what your'e doing. Without the joy, it's like any job you would endure for a paycheck. Pack as much joy into your working process as you possibly can! Whatever process. I'm sure your future digital results with the *istD will benefit from returning focus to film for a while as well. Best wishes, Jostein - Original Message - From: "Kevin Waterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:14 AM Subject: Bailing out. In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. What started over 20 years ago as a small concern has grown to an enjoyable and profitable lifestyle. Then along comes digital. Not that there is anything wrong with the new technology per se, I was in fact one of the first kids on the block with an *istD and now own three of them. My problem is that photography has become more of a production line than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where composition and an eye for a good photo are important, but what then? I imagine the same dissilusionment was suffered by painters with the advent of photography, but like the painters of old, many stuck to thier art and it still flourishes today. To this end I have decided not to play the digital game and instead spend my time on furthering the art of photography. Whilst film is still available I can use that, perhaps I will pick up an 8x10 or 4x5 and go back to the good ol' days of coating my own plates (provided the chemicals used are not classified as WMDs and I am arrested as a terrorist). I will still maintain a digital camera, perhaps pick up a new MF digital when Pentax decide one is right for release. But for now, I figure on sticking to film and the darkroom. Perhaps there is a niche for me in the world because I will stick with the old technology, perhaps not. At least with a good negative, some of history will be maintained and not lost in a pile of decaying discs. So for now, my MZ-S, my array of K-1000's and my 6x7 will rule the roost. The *istD's will still be used, but not nearly as often. Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: Bailing out.
Den 26. mar. 2006 kl. 03.57 skrev Paul Stenquist: On Mar 25, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology. b But you did in your earlier post. You said, If you want to shoot film, fine. I will certainly shoot with my screwmount Leica again and probably with my 6x7 as well. But in your earlier post, you suggested that there was nothing more to digtial than composition. Not true. I have a great darkroom: two enlargers for everything from 35mm to 4x5. Schneider Compuron S lenses., trays for 16 x 20, stainless steel developing tanks with Hewes reels. I still enjoy watching an image appear on paper. I even like the smell of fixer. But to suggest that digital photography isn't artistically rewarding is utter nonsense. RAW conversion and subsequent PhotoShop controls are the best photographic tools yet invented. This whiney film nostalgia is nice, but it's bullshit. Paul No it´s not. It represents two different work flows, both having different advantages and and feelings connected to them. Any expression is affected by the tools. A great musician loves a good instrument. Just because a synthesizer may sound like a Steinway, as well as anything else, doesn´t mean that all pianists have switched for a more flexible tool. I mostly use digital, but love going to the darkroom with MF negatives. It is a different mood, and I think this may be seen on the resulting pictures. DagT
RE: Bailing out.
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Bob W wrote: Aaron got there before me and identified a 3rd camp: I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished images. The middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun. Although I never thought the middle part was any fun at all, whether it's chemical or digital. For me, photography is about taking the pictures, and the end result. In fact, it's probably more about taking pictures and being part of whatever the event is, than it is about the end result. I can't stand all the fiddling and faffing about in between, which has always struck me as a waste of time. Hear hear. Best fun I have had with a camera at hand is to snipe at a dear mate's wedding. OK, them asking for the negs afterwards and comparing my pics with the official photog is also great :-) Kostas
RE: Bailing out.
On 26 Mar 2006 at 10:31, Bob W wrote: > "Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once > the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. > Hunters, after all, aren't cooks" - Henri Cartier-Bresson All else equal I'd bet that a cook would make a better hunter. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Bailing out.
graywolf wrote: > > While I am not doing any serious photography at > this time, I do agree > with you. > > Light and chemicals is a different media than > light and pixels. I am > using digital for record shots, ebay shots, and > snapshots thus I get by > with a decent P&S. > > Film is what I enjoy, and B&W film at that. A > hobby is supposed to be > enjoyable. The digital workflow is just that to > me, "WORK"flow. If I was > trying to make money with photography digital > would be the way to go for > the types of stuff I did. However I enjoy the > old Speed Graphic and > trying to get the shot with one film holder > (two sheets of film). As a > hobby a couple of hours in the darkroom is > soothing to my soul; and it > is still magic watching an image appear on a > blank sheet of paper even > after more than 50 years. I couldn't agree more. Digital is powerful and versatile. But it's a chore. I didn't take up photography to be tied to a computer. You might be able to do much more with Photoshop than a traditional enlarger, but where is the satisfaction in that? Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a science. Working at a craft is infinitely more satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun. Working at science is just a chore. I suspect that each is supported by a different type of person. There are many techies who love digital, and will thrive on Photoshop and all the things they can do with it. But many creative people are turned off by all this, and prefer to deal with something they can relate to at a human level. I'm in the latter category. I use digital when I have to, and I'm proficient enough to get the job done, but I don't enjoy it. Give me a roll of film anytime - black and white or colour negative, or colour slide, I don't mind. Some creative people have mastered digital, and enjoy it, but it isn't for me. Pixels are a bore. If you want fun, use film! Colin ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Colin J wrote: I couldn't agree more. Digital is powerful and versatile. But it's a chore. I didn't take up photography to be tied to a computer. You might be able to do much more with Photoshop than a traditional enlarger, but where is the satisfaction in that? Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a science. Working at a craft is infinitely more satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun. Working at science is just a chore. Why is one a craft and one a science? They're both craft and science. And 15 years of pro darkroom made me bored as hell with the darkroom -- it became a chore. The darkroom is just a different set of chores from the computer. One is not intrinsically less "work" than the other. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
Quoting William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED] At one time, if you didn't like something you saw in the viewfinder, you either waited until it moved, or found another picture to take. Now, you just take the picture and clone the offending bits out. And you call yourself an artist for doing it. That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished picture. I think thats true to a point. As my PS skills are still of a limited nature, i spend the time to move or wait.:-) I still prefer to shot my B&W as film. Heck this is the 5th time i have taken the high school darkroom class. Mostly due to the bigger room they have over mine. Their equipment is in poor shape, but we work through it. Dave I too am wanting to put the digital camera down and go back to the control that I had when I shot FP-4, not Sandisk. William Robb Equine Photography in York Region
Re: Bailing out.
William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished picture. isn't that the case always? best, mishka
Re: Bailing out.
I used to have to make twenty or more BW prints for every magazine article. It would frequently take me at least ten hours. It wasn't art. It was hard, smelly, backgreaking work. Now I can turn out 20 digitals, color or BW in a couple hours at the most. And the convenience of digital means I can apply more artistry to the work. Both have their place, but Aaron is correct, neither is necessarily more artful than the other. Paul On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Colin J wrote: I couldn't agree more. Digital is powerful and versatile. But it's a chore. I didn't take up photography to be tied to a computer. You might be able to do much more with Photoshop than a traditional enlarger, but where is the satisfaction in that? Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a science. Working at a craft is infinitely more satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun. Working at science is just a chore. Why is one a craft and one a science? They're both craft and science. And 15 years of pro darkroom made me bored as hell with the darkroom -- it became a chore. The darkroom is just a different set of chores from the computer. One is not intrinsically less "work" than the other. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
Shel Belinkoff wrote: >Some people, and Kevin seems to be one of >"them," prefer working with film and chemicals. It's not only the results >that matter, but how they're obtained, and the satisfaction one gets from >the process. This is absolutely right. I still vastly prefer the darkroom to the computer for B&W work, for example. However, this earlier statement from the thread: >>Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed >>and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. >>All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely >>different technology. is absolutely wrong. Computer-based digital imaging isn't, in and of itself, a *simulation* of the darkroom (though a subset of digital techniques, like unsharp masking, are). It's only the accident of history that chemical photography was invented first that makes people think so. If digital had been invented first there would surely be people complaining that chemical photography was just a simulation of digital. Yes, the computer is entirely different technology. That's why the techniques are different rather than a simulation. It's going to be interesting when, in a few (not too many) years, people who have grown up knowing only digital photography start to discover film and darkrooms. The ones who are open-minded enough to do so will be excited by it *because* they are so different, and won't assume for a moment that one is a simulation of the other.
Re: Bailing out.
No ... and that's been stated here several times in several ways. Shel > William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished picture. > From: Mishka > isn't that the case always?
Re: Bailing out.
So working with photography using digital process doesn't appeal to you. Fine. Enjoy what does appeal to you, do photography. Why write a big song and dance about it, with the implication that something is wrong with "digital"? That's what I don't understand. There's nothing wrong with film photography, and there's nothing wrong with digital photography. They are both photography, and they both take skill, art, involvement, passion, etc. If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
It would be difficult to separate the process from the satisfaction of producing a pleasing finished image. Anticipating the end product is what drives the learning and doing process. Jack --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No ... and that's been stated here several times in several ways. > > Shel > > > > > William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the > finished > picture. > > > > From: Mishka > > > isn't that the case always? > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" Subject: Re: Bailing out. Both camps are right. But I'm in the latter, well, mostly. I prefer printing digitally. I prefer shooting with film. When I had my darkroom set up, and shot B&W film, I printed quite a few pictures. I like darkroom work. I don't seem to be as enthusiastic about digital though. In the 2 1/2 years I've had the DSLR, I don't think I've printed more than a dozen pictures, excluding a wedding that I shot for a friend. I don't think I could manage professional photography any more. I don't like sitting in front of a computer that much. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" Subject: Re: Bailing out. Bill, I think the danger lies in ease and productivity. If one goes digital all the way through, one may become over-trigger-happy, if you know what I mean. I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting, to much difficulty in production. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: Bailing out. If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:04 AM, William Robb wrote: If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. Does the word "problem" offend you for some reason? Problem == issue, difficulty, stumbling block, obstacle, hitch, plight ... whatever. I see nothing arrogant about stating the fact: the inability to see that there is an equal amount of art in digital photography as there is in film photography is not intrinsic to the photography, it is an inability on the part of the person. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:04 AM, William Robb wrote: If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. Art is art. How you create it is irrelevant. Bob
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: Bailing out. On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:04 AM, William Robb wrote: If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. Does the word "problem" offend you for some reason? It does in the context and way you have chosen to write that sentence. It implies something is wrong with the person's thought process, and does so in a very derogatory way. I find that sort of attitude to be arrogant and offensive. Gads, me taking umbrage for someone being offensive. Thats the pot calling the kettle black, no? William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: "Bob Shell" Subject: Re: Bailing out. On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:04 AM, William Robb wrote: If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. Art is art. How you create it is irrelevant. Bullshit Bob. For some people, I suspect for many artists, the process is the art. If this wasn't the case, we'd all be basketweavers. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:24 AM, William Robb wrote: If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your problem. Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. Does the word "problem" offend you for some reason? It does in the context and way you have chosen to write that sentence. It implies something is wrong with the person's thought process, and does so in a very derogatory way. Bill, would it be better if the sentence read "If you believe that there's only art in chemical photography, that's your problem"? In context, that's what he's saying. -Aaron
RE: Bailing out.
Bob Shell wrote: > Art is art. How you create it is irrelevant. Tracey Emin? Malcolm
Re: Bailing out.
Aaron Reynolds: > > Why is one a craft and one a science? ... because that is my perception. > They're both craft and science. ... and that is yours! I was merely expressing my opinion. It differs from yours. I respect yours but I don't agree with it. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry for you, because people should be able to hold differing opinions about the same thing without becoming offended. > And 15 years of pro darkroom made me bored as > hell with the darkroom -- > it became a chore. The darkroom is just a > different set of chores from > the computer. One is not intrinsically less > "work" than the other. Once again, that is your perception, your opinion. Just because you don't agree doesn't make me wrong. I believe we are both right, because we are talking about our own personal perceptions, opinions that I believe we have an absolute and unalienable right to hold. Do you believe that also? If so, why are you arguing? Colin ___ Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: "Aaron Reynolds" Subject: Re: Bailing out. Bill, would it be better if the sentence read "If you believe that there's only art in chemical photography, that's your problem"? In context, that's what he's saying. How about " There can be art in digital photography, the same as there can be art in digital photography". No implication that someones thought process is deficient because they have an expressed preference for one process over the other. What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are retarded. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
How about; " There can be art in digital photography, the same as there can be art in chemical photography". woops. William Robb - Original Message - From: "William Robb" Subject: Re: Bailing out. - Original Message - From: "Aaron Reynolds" Subject: Re: Bailing out. Bill, would it be better if the sentence read "If you believe that there's only art in chemical photography, that's your problem"? In context, that's what he's saying. How about " There can be art in digital photography, the same as there can be art in digital photography". No implication that someones thought process is deficient because they have an expressed preference for one process over the other. What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are retarded. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Colin J wrote: I was merely expressing my opinion. It differs from yours. I respect yours but I don't agree with it. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry for you, because people should be able to hold differing opinions about the same thing without becoming offended. You didn't say "my opinion is that digital is bad and chemical is good", you said that one IS bad and one IS good. If you're just speaking of your own perception, don't phrase it as an absolute and you won't have to argue it. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:33 AM, William Robb wrote: What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are retarded. I don't think anyone has said that, only the opposite -- that chemical is the way to go and those who don't agree are soulless automatons. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are retarded. I don't think anyone has said that, only the opposite -- that chemical is the way to go and those who don't agree are soulless automatons. And what really irks me is that I much prefer to shoot film and hate arguing the other side. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
I stand by my statement, and find my expansion to be the best "explanation" of my words for those too literal minded to understand the context: "The inability to see that there is an equal amount of art in digital photography as there is in film photography is not intrinsic to the photography, it is an inability on the part of the person." Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
At 07:52 PM 3/25/2006, Kevin Waterson wrote: As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology. Digital opens many doors that were previously only dreamed of, particularly for those not adept in photographic arts. Its just not what I want from photography. And like the painter of yore, I wish to stick with my art. Kevin, you are confusing art with craftsmanship. Both are noble concepts, but one should never be confused for the other.
Re: Bailing out.
On 3/26/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Colin J wrote: > > > I was merely expressing my opinion. It differs > > from yours. I respect yours but I don't agree > > with it. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry for > > you, because people should be able to hold > > differing opinions about the same thing without > > becoming offended. > > You didn't say "my opinion is that digital is bad and chemical is > good", you said that one IS bad and one IS good. > > If you're just speaking of your own perception, don't phrase it as an > absolute and you won't have to argue it. > > -Aaron WTF? Colin didn't say anything of the sort. Jesus your argumentative. Am I reading the same posts as you? Quit paraphrasing other peoples comments with your spin on them. I don't think one person has said film and chemicals are better than the digital process, or visa versa, just that they have a personal preference. Do we all now need to get lawyers to proof read our posts and correct them to ensure that our personal opinions are clearly and unambiguously outlined before we comment on anything? Frank? How much to have you on retainer? Dave -- "All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy." - Spike Milligan
Re: Bailing out.
"Snap the shutter and leave the rest to us", Kodak Brownie ad of 1903 or so; and thus the snapshooter was born. In point of fact if you have no interest in the middle part you are a snapshooter (although snapshooters can produce interesting pictures), not a photographer. A photographer does photography, a snapshooter does pictures. Funny thing is no one thinks they are a chef because they eat food, no one thinks they are a musician because they listen to music. You have to do the proccess to be a photographer, a painter, a dancer, a chef, a musician, etc. At least that is how I view it. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Bob W wrote: Aaron got there before me and identified a 3rd camp: I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished images. The middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun. Although I never thought the middle part was any fun at all, whether it's chemical or digital. For me, photography is about taking the pictures, and the end result. In fact, it's probably more about taking pictures and being part of whatever the event is, than it is about the end result. I can't stand all the fiddling and faffing about in between, which has always struck me as a waste of time. Hear hear. Best fun I have had with a camera at hand is to snipe at a dear mate's wedding. OK, them asking for the negs afterwards and comparing my pics with the official photog is also great :-) Kostas
Re: Bailing out.
Well said, Jostein. It is not what you do, it is how much you enjoy doing it that counts. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Jostein wrote: Hi Kevin, Your feelings about our art is a bit surprising, considering your recent reviews of the digital medium format cameras. I thought you were about to go "all-in" on digital. But of course an investment of this magnitude makes you think twice and more in any case, doesn't it? I understand your sentiment very well, and have met several outdoor photographers thinking the same way. Some of them are the best in the trade in my country. For them, it's not the creative control in post-processing that matters, but rather the working rhythm in the field. Film, manual light meters, maybe large format cameras, all is part of the creative process for some people. Take it away from them, and the joy of photography goes with it. One of the privileges of having a creative profession is to enjoy what your'e doing. Without the joy, it's like any job you would endure for a paycheck. Pack as much joy into your working process as you possibly can! Whatever process. I'm sure your future digital results with the *istD will benefit from returning focus to film for a while as well. Best wishes, Jostein - Original Message - From: "Kevin Waterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:14 AM Subject: Bailing out. In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. What started over 20 years ago as a small concern has grown to an enjoyable and profitable lifestyle. Then along comes digital. Not that there is anything wrong with the new technology per se, I was in fact one of the first kids on the block with an *istD and now own three of them. My problem is that photography has become more of a production line than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where composition and an eye for a good photo are important, but what then? I imagine the same dissilusionment was suffered by painters with the advent of photography, but like the painters of old, many stuck to thier art and it still flourishes today. To this end I have decided not to play the digital game and instead spend my time on furthering the art of photography. Whilst film is still available I can use that, perhaps I will pick up an 8x10 or 4x5 and go back to the good ol' days of coating my own plates (provided the chemicals used are not classified as WMDs and I am arrested as a terrorist). I will still maintain a digital camera, perhaps pick up a new MF digital when Pentax decide one is right for release. But for now, I figure on sticking to film and the darkroom. Perhaps there is a niche for me in the world because I will stick with the old technology, perhaps not. At least with a good negative, some of history will be maintained and not lost in a pile of decaying discs. So for now, my MZ-S, my array of K-1000's and my 6x7 will rule the roost. The *istD's will still be used, but not nearly as often. Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: Bailing out.
You are not even in the same conversation as the rest of us, Paul. We have already stipulated that digital is preferred for commercial production work. However we are talking about photography as a hobby. By the way with a Kodak Versamat Processor you could have turned out those 20 prints in about 10 minutes. Using a 1930's style darkroom for commercial production is a pretty silly idea. About like using an original IBM XT for digital production, or hand painting the covers for Time magazine. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Paul Stenquist wrote: I used to have to make twenty or more BW prints for every magazine article. It would frequently take me at least ten hours. It wasn't art. It was hard, smelly, backgreaking work. Now I can turn out 20 digitals, color or BW in a couple hours at the most. And the convenience of digital means I can apply more artistry to the work. Both have their place, but Aaron is correct, neither is necessarily more artful than the other. Paul On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Colin J wrote: I couldn't agree more. Digital is powerful and versatile. But it's a chore. I didn't take up photography to be tied to a computer. You might be able to do much more with Photoshop than a traditional enlarger, but where is the satisfaction in that? Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a science. Working at a craft is infinitely more satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun. Working at science is just a chore. Why is one a craft and one a science? They're both craft and science. And 15 years of pro darkroom made me bored as hell with the darkroom -- it became a chore. The darkroom is just a different set of chores from the computer. One is not intrinsically less "work" than the other. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
William Robb wrote: >I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting, to much difficulty in >production. Since I read "Real World Camera Raw..." I've found that my time spent on production has gone *way* down :)
RE: Bailing out.
That's fine. I'm in good company with other snapshooters, like HCB, Erwitt, most of Magnum and the rest of photojournalism. I'll leave photography to the very Minor Whites. -- Cheers, Bob > -Original Message- > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26 March 2006 17:13 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Bailing out. > > "Snap the shutter and leave the rest to us", Kodak Brownie ad > of 1903 or so; and thus the snapshooter was born. In point of > fact if you have no interest in the middle part you are a > snapshooter (although snapshooters can produce interesting > pictures), not a photographer. A photographer does > photography, a snapshooter does pictures. Funny thing is no > one thinks they are a chef because they eat food, no one > thinks they are a musician because they listen to music. You > have to do the proccess to be a photographer, a painter, a > dancer, a chef, a musician, etc. At least that is how I view it. > > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > --- > > > Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Bob W wrote: > > > >> Aaron got there before me and identified a 3rd camp: > >> > >>> I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished > images. > >>> The middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun. > >> > >> > >> Although I never thought the middle part was any fun at > all, whether > >> it's chemical or digital. For me, photography is about taking the > >> pictures, and the end result. In fact, it's probably more about > >> taking pictures and being part of whatever the event is, > than it is > >> about the end result. I can't stand all the fiddling and faffing > >> about in between, which has always struck me as a waste of time. > > > > > > Hear hear. Best fun I have had with a camera at hand is to > snipe at a > > dear mate's wedding. OK, them asking for the negs afterwards and > > comparing my pics with the official photog is also great :-) > > > > Kostas > > > > > > > >
Re: Bailing out.
graywolf wrote: >"Snap the shutter and leave the rest to us", Kodak Brownie ad of 1903 or >so; and thus the snapshooter was born. In point of fact if you have no >interest in the middle part you are a snapshooter (although snapshooters >can produce interesting pictures) Hell yes! HCB certainly did!
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting, to much difficulty in production. Since I read "Real World Camera Raw..." I've found that my time spent on production has gone *way* down :) Have to agree .. Bruce's discussion of proper procedures leads one to a much more efficient way of working with RAW format captures. But beyond that consideration, I find that the vast majority of my time "in production" is on deciding what I want to present in a photograph, regardless of whether the capture is a film or a digital image, and regardless of whether the process of producing a print is the wet lab or a computer and inkjet printer. If it is otherwise for some, well, they have not acquired adequate skill in the production process of either, in my opinion. And yes, Bill, that is my arrogant attitude towards this nonsense, as differentiated from my prior factual statement. ]'-) Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
Well I kind of said that in response to the articles that implied that anyone who preferred to do things the old way were assholes. Somehow on this list "I prefer the analog process" always is reacted to as if it was written "Anyone who uses digital is stupid". I guess that is because many here have spent thousands of dollars on digital and are a bit insecure about it. Kevin said, and I said, that both processes are worthwhile, but we get more pleasure out of the chemical process. The response was a vigorous counter-attack. In some ways this list has become a digital list and any counter opinion is to be stamped out before it becomes contagious. To me Bill's comment does typify the general attitude I perceive here on the list nowadays. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:33 AM, William Robb wrote: What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are retarded. I don't think anyone has said that, only the opposite -- that chemical is the way to go and those who don't agree are soulless automatons. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
No argument with that. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Mark Roberts wrote: graywolf wrote: "Snap the shutter and leave the rest to us", Kodak Brownie ad of 1903 or so; and thus the snapshooter was born. In point of fact if you have no interest in the middle part you are a snapshooter (although snapshooters can produce interesting pictures) Hell yes! HCB certainly did!
RE: Bailing out.
> -Original Message- > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > But beyond that consideration, I find that the vast majority > of my time "in production" is on deciding what I want to > present in a photograph, Some people think the time for making that decision is just before you press the shutter release. Bob > regardless of whether the capture is > a film or a digital image, and regardless of whether the > process of producing a print is the wet lab or a computer and > inkjet printer. > > If it is otherwise for some, well, they have not acquired > adequate skill in the production process of either, in my opinion. > > And yes, Bill, that is my arrogant attitude towards this > nonsense, as differentiated from my prior factual statement. ]'-) > > Godfrey > > > >
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:56 AM, graywolf wrote: Somehow on this list "I prefer the analog process" always is reacted to as if it was written "Anyone who uses digital is stupid". I guess that is because many here have spent thousands of dollars on digital and are a bit insecure about it. A simple statement of "I prefer the analog process" is innocuous to me. I prefer the digital process but love seeing film/wet-lab images too. It's the statement of "I prefer the analog process" coupled with a long winded rationalization of why the digital process is fundamentally unsatisfying, boring, "robotic" and other such nonsense that is disparaging to people's sensibilities. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >>> I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting, to much difficulty in >>> production. >> >> Since I read "Real World Camera Raw..." I've found that my time spent >> on production has gone *way* down :) > >Have to agree .. Bruce's discussion of proper procedures leads one to >a much more efficient way of working with RAW format captures. I have to tell you, Godfrey, that I bought that book mainly on your (repeated) recommendations and I've become something of an evangelist for it. Bruce owes one or both of us some commissions here ;) >But beyond that consideration, I find that the vast majority of my >time "in production" is on deciding what I want to present in a >photograph, regardless of whether the capture is a film or a digital >image, and regardless of whether the process of producing a print is >the wet lab or a computer and inkjet printer. I think that "deciding what you want to present" *should* comprise the majority of production time/effort. I can't say that I'm there yet but I'm getting closer. My objective has always been to be as close as possible to the final finished image at the moment I snap the shutter (while still being *willing* to do significant post-production in the inevitable instances in which it is necessary - I'm not going to sacrifice art in the name of philosophy). I even continue to use things like split ND filters, even though plenty of people maintain that it isn't necessary with digital (you can, after all, make separate exposures for foreground and background and combine them later). I don't think there's anything ethically superior about the way I choose to do things, it just works for me on a philosophical level and, I believe, saves me time in post-production.
Re: Bailing out.
Only if they consider the results "artistic". The art of creating they're art. Jack --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Bob Shell" > Subject: Re: Bailing out. > > > > > > On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:04 AM, William Robb wrote: > > > >> > >>> If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's > >>> your problem. > >> > >> Why is it a problem? Thats a pretty arrogant attitude. > > > > > > Art is art. How you create it is irrelevant. > > Bullshit Bob. > For some people, I suspect for many artists, the process is the art. > If this wasn't the case, we'd all be basketweavers. > > William Robb > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Bob W wrote: But beyond that consideration, I find that the vast majority of my time "in production" is on deciding what I want to present in a photograph, Some people think the time for making that decision is just before you press the shutter release. Some people would be foolish then. "In production" is defined to be the time after you've captured your exposures and have a selection of them in front of you. That's when you have to decide what to present, not what to capture. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
Colin J wrote: >Aaron Reynolds: >> >> Why is one a craft and one a science? > >... because that is my perception. Are you actually saying that *your* perception of something determines reality???
Re: Bailing out.
Bruce Fraser is a local in the SF Bay Area ... I think he lives in Berkeley but I'm not sure ... so I've met him at a couple of his talks. He's a better writer than speaker, but it's worth listening to him speak too. I've mentioned a request for commissions to Bruce a couple of times, humorously of course and in way of compliment. He takes it the right way. ;-) On Mar 26, 2006, at 9:13 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: But beyond that consideration, I find that the vast majority of my time "in production" is on deciding what I want to present in a photograph, regardless of whether the capture is a film or a digital image, and regardless of whether the process of producing a print is the wet lab or a computer and inkjet printer. I think that "deciding what you want to present" *should* comprise the majority of production time/effort. Agree completely. My objective has always been to be as close as possible to the final finished image at the moment I snap the shutter (while still being *willing* to do significant post-production in the inevitable instances in which it is necessary - I'm not going to sacrifice art in the name of philosophy). same I don't think there's anything ethically superior about the way I choose to do things, it just works for me on a philosophical level and, I believe, saves me time in post-production. yup. I don't necessarily capture photos in a terribly consistent way, although I try to, but all my image processing is very regular and automated to as great a degree as I can manage sensibly. Working a specific photograph to a presentation image runs the gamut from completely automatic to many many hours of labor. Whether the image processing is a wet lab or digital process is inconsequential. The process of capturing photographs is quite different from the process of producing them for presentation. Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
You're correct in much of what you say -- with the glaring exception of your version of Kevin's original post. Kevin conceded that digital still required composition skills and the ability to visualize. And he's repeated that comment. But neither he nor you have repeated what came next. "Then what/" The implication (actually much more than implication) was that creativity ends with tripping the shutter when you work in digital. I merely pointed out that this is about as far from the truth as one can get. The list hasn't become a digital list anymore than the world of photography has become a digital world. These things tend to follow one on the other. I don't know any digital shooters here who have lost their love of film. They may not want to work with it any more, but they still have high regard for those who do. At least I do. On Mar 26, 2006, at 11:56 AM, graywolf wrote: Well I kind of said that in response to the articles that implied that anyone who preferred to do things the old way were assholes. Somehow on this list "I prefer the analog process" always is reacted to as if it was written "Anyone who uses digital is stupid". I guess that is because many here have spent thousands of dollars on digital and are a bit insecure about it. Kevin said, and I said, that both processes are worthwhile, but we get more pleasure out of the chemical process. The response was a vigorous counter-attack. In some ways this list has become a digital list and any counter opinion is to be stamped out before it becomes contagious. To me Bill's comment does typify the general attitude I perceive here on the list nowadays. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:33 AM, William Robb wrote: What I take umbrage with is the arrogant attitude that digital is now the best and only way to go, and that people who don't agree are retarded. I don't think anyone has said that, only the opposite -- that chemical is the way to go and those who don't agree are soulless automatons. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
Beautifully stated, Godfrey! Should be the final word, but, of course, won't be. Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I stand by my statement, and find my expansion to be the best > "explanation" of my words for those too literal minded to understand > > the context: > > "The inability to see that there is an equal amount of art in digital > > photography as there is in film photography is not intrinsic to the > photography, it is an inability on the part of the person." > > Godfrey > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Colin J wrote: Aaron Reynolds: Why is one a craft and one a science? ... because that is my perception. Are you actually saying that *your* perception of something determines reality??? To put an even finer point on it, are you saying that *your* perception of something determines *my* reality? ]'-) Godfrey
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:26 AM, William Robb wrote: Bullshit Bob. For some people, I suspect for many artists, the process is the art. If this wasn't the case, we'd all be basketweavers. So? You're saying the digital process can't be art? That's highly prejudiced nonsense. Remember, there were photographers who quit when commercial platinum paper was discontinued because "you just can't get good prints on that damned silver paper". I'm sure some considered Daguerreotypes as the only true photography as well. Gum bichromate? Bromoil? All are just variations on chemical processes. No one is more legitimate as art than any other. Bob
Re: Bailing out.
David, I object to being told that I am not creative, but instead a technician. Why do you feel I should not be insulted by that? Here are the relevant passages, word for word: --- Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a science. Working at a craft is infinitely more satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun. Working at science is just a chore. I suspect that each is supported by a different type of person. There are many techies who love digital, and will thrive on Photoshop and all the things they can do with it. --- -Aaron -Original Message- From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Bailing out. Date: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:00 am Size: 1K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net On 3/26/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Colin J wrote: > > > I was merely expressing my opinion. It differs > > from yours. I respect yours but I don't agree > > with it. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry for > > you, because people should be able to hold > > differing opinions about the same thing without > > becoming offended. > > You didn't say "my opinion is that digital is bad and chemical is > good", you said that one IS bad and one IS good. > > If you're just speaking of your own perception, don't phrase it as an > absolute and you won't have to argue it. > > -Aaron WTF? Colin didn't say anything of the sort. Jesus your argumentative. Am I reading the same posts as you? Quit paraphrasing other peoples comments with your spin on them. I don't think one person has said film and chemicals are better than the digital process, or visa versa, just that they have a personal preference. Do we all now need to get lawyers to proof read our posts and correct them to ensure that our personal opinions are clearly and unambiguously outlined before we comment on anything? Frank? How much to have you on retainer? Dave -- "All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy." - Spike Milligan
Re: Bailing out.
Here's a little article for those interested in what Fraser has to say: http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=388270&rl=1 Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey > Bruce Fraser is a local in the SF Bay Area ... I think he lives in > Berkeley but I'm not sure ... so I've met him at a couple of his > talks. He's a better writer than speaker, but it's worth listening to > him speak too.
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote: Bob Shell wrote: Art is art. How you create it is irrelevant. Tracey Emin? Not sure the relevance. Bob
Re: Bailing out.
On 26/3/06, Aaron Reynolds, discombobulated, unleashed: >David, I object to being told that I am not creative, but instead a >technician. Why do you feel I should not be insulted by that? Here are >the relevant passages, word for word: >--- >Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a >science. Working at a craft is infinitely more >satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun. >Working at science is just a chore. > >I suspect that each is supported by a different >type of person. There are many techies who love >digital, and will thrive on Photoshop and all the >things they can do with it. >--- > >-Aaron As much as it pains me to say, Aaron is right. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Bailing out.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> Colin J wrote: >> >>> Aaron Reynolds: Why is one a craft and one a science? >>> >>> ... because that is my perception. >> >> Are you actually saying that *your* perception of something determines >> reality??? > >To put an even finer point on it, are you saying that *your* >perception of something determines *my* reality? ]'-) That's what I meant. I mean, reality is reality; we don't each get a separate one, no matter how convenient that would be!
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Colin J wrote: Aaron Reynolds: Why is one a craft and one a science? ... because that is my perception. Are you actually saying that *your* perception of something determines reality??? To put an even finer point on it, are you saying that *your* perception of something determines *my* reality? ]'-) That's what I meant. I mean, reality is reality; we don't each get a separate one, no matter how convenient that would be! Ah, now there I disagree with you, at least in part. We all share to some degree in a common reality, but I believe that each conscious being has a much broader individual reality that cannot be shared in its entirety. It is the function of consciousness to create reality. But this philosophical discussion is probably pursued better on its own terms, not as part of a "bailing out" thread. Godfrey
RE: Bailing out.
Bob Shell wrote: > >> Art is art. How you create it is irrelevant. > > > > Tracey Emin? > > > Not sure the relevance. Ms. Emin has created many controversial creations and when questioned usually falls back to this statement. It is of course valid, as so many view art in different ways/styles/mediums, and what one person considers art, another decides is worthless. I use both film and digital cameras - often it has to be said for different purposes - but the end result of that I keep to me is *some* form of art. If the same image was created as a watercolour and an oil painting and a photographic image of both film and digital, all of them would gain some support for the methods used and the final result and an equal number of critics. Art is art, but which image would be best? Too many personal conflicts between the creator and the viewer. Topics like this are similar to holding a firework display in a greenhouse. Malcolm
Re: Bailing out.
Aaron, This is much like I am. I love taking photos. I enjoy seeing the end result. I do not have the time, at this point in my life, to spend either in the darkroom (I would love to try it once given the chance) or in front of the computer (I spend enough time in front of it with the PDML :-) . I am fortunate to have a lab that I trust, and they have told me that I am the most consistetnt photographer per roll that they have. I believe in getting it right in the camera - based on the circumstances - to minimize any post-processing. I figure I will have time to do all this post-processing once I have 'retired' and have leisure time. I am so far behind in so many projects, César Panama City, Florida Aaron Reynolds wrote: What stinks sometimes is when you take something that you love and turn it into a career and then you get sick of it. I love to shoot film, but I could die happy if I never stepped into a darkroom again in my life. I don't care much for "digital workflow" either, but I'm not sick of it yet. I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished images. The middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun. -Aaron -Original Message- From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Bailing out. Date: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:43 pm Size: 3K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net While I am not doing any serious photography at this time, I do agree with you. Light and chemicals is a different media than light and pixels. I am using digital for record shots, ebay shots, and snapshots thus I get by with a decent P&S. Film is what I enjoy, and B&W film at that. A hobby is supposed to be enjoyable. The digital workflow is just that to me, "WORK"flow. If I was trying to make money with photography digital would be the way to go for the types of stuff I did. However I enjoy the old Speed Graphic and trying to get the shot with one film holder (two sheets of film). As a hobby a couple of hours in the darkroom is soothing to my soul; and it is still magic watching an image appear on a blank sheet of paper even after more than 50 years. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Kevin Waterson wrote: In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. What started over 20 years ago as a small concern has grown to an enjoyable and profitable lifestyle. Then along comes digital. Not that there is anything wrong with the new technology per se, I was in fact one of the first kids on the block with an *istD and now own three of them. My problem is that photography has become more of a production line than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where composition and an eye for a good photo are important, but what then? I imagine the same dissilusionment was suffered by painters with the advent of photography, but like the painters of old, many stuck to thier art and it still flourishes today. To this end I have decided not to play the digital game and instead spend my time on furthering the art of photography. Whilst film is still available I can use that, perhaps I will pick up an 8x10 or 4x5 and go back to the good ol' days of coating my own plates (provided the chemicals used are not classified as WMDs and I am arrested as a terrorist). I will still maintain a digital camera, perhaps pick up a new MF digital when Pentax decide one is right for release. But for now, I figure on sticking to film and the darkroom. Perhaps there is a niche for me in the world because I will stick with the old technology, perhaps not. At least with a good negative, some of history will be maintained and not lost in a pile of decaying discs. So for now, my MZ-S, my array of K-1000's and my 6x7 will rule the roost. The *istD's will still be used, but not nearly as often. Kind regards Kevin
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: That's what I meant. I mean, reality is reality; we don't each get a separate one, no matter how convenient that would be! I beg to differ very strongly on that. Each of us inhabits his/her own reality, and it may overlap the realities of others at some times and in some ways, or it may not. Bob
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Cesar wrote: I am fortunate to have a lab that I trust, and they have told me that I am the most consistetnt photographer per roll that they have. And see, I WAS the lab that I trusted, and while I still have most of the lab in my house I can't really get up the steam to use it. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Malcolm Smith wrote: Topics like this are similar to holding a firework display in a greenhouse. ROFLMAO!!! Grand analogy, Malcolm! Bob
Re: Bailing out.
Me thinks that this is a bit simplistic. Any process that requires a developed skill is a craft. On the computer, as with the chemicals, the science is behind the scenes. Some think of oil painting as art but fail to realize that the medium is now a commodity. It used to be that oil painters had to mix their own paints -- which was a craft & science. Same with b&w darkroom. You can go purchase the chemicals today or buy the pre-mixed stuff in bags and bottles. (Most here, if not all, prefer the latter.) The computer stuff will mature in its own way. What's done now through a series of steps will, in a few years all be programmed automatically into the system. And you may not even have to press a button to get the job done. (Red eye fixes, resolution enhancement, color depth adjustment, and anything else that will be considered a "standard" setting.) Art is the product of a craft. Collin At 12:50 PM 3/26/2006, you wrote: Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:46:00 -0500 From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David, I object to being told that I am not creative, but instead a technician. Why do you feel I should not be insulted by that? Here are the relevant passages, word for word: --- Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a science. Working at a craft is infinitely more satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun. Working at science is just a chore. I suspect that each is supported by a different type of person. There are many techies who love digital, and will thrive on Photoshop and all the things they can do with it. --- -Aaron "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose" -- Jim Elliott
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: Bailing out. It's the statement of "I prefer the analog process" coupled with a long winded rationalization of why the digital process is fundamentally unsatisfying, boring, "robotic" and other such nonsense that is disparaging to people's sensibilities. Is it more, or less, disparaging than implying that people who prefer analog are retarded? William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: "Bob Shell" Subject: Re: Bailing out. On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:26 AM, William Robb wrote: Bullshit Bob. For some people, I suspect for many artists, the process is the art. If this wasn't the case, we'd all be basketweavers. So? You're saying the digital process can't be art? That's highly prejudiced nonsense. No, I am not saying that. Don't presume to imply a meaning to something that I didn't say, and then assign those words to me. I am saying that the final work is not the be all and end all. For some people, myself included, the picture (or whatever, it could be a clay pot for all I care) at the end is little more than a byproduct of the process. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
Bob Shell wrote: >On Mar 26, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> That's what I meant. I mean, reality is reality; we don't each get a >> separate one, no matter how convenient that would be! > >I beg to differ very strongly on that. Each of us inhabits his/her >own reality, and it may overlap the realities of others at some times >and in some ways, or it may not. As Godfrey said, this is probably *too* far off-topic, even for the PDML ;-) But I feel very strongly that there *is* a reality, independent of what I or anyone else sees, hears or otherwise experiences. Getting at (or closer to) this is the goal of art (Oscar Wilde notwithstanding!)
Re: Bailing out.
- Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" Subject: Re: Bailing out. As Godfrey said, this is probably *too* far off-topic, even for the PDML ;-) But I feel very strongly that there *is* a reality, independent of what I or anyone else sees, hears or otherwise experiences. Getting at (or closer to) this is the goal of art (Oscar Wilde notwithstanding!) Reality is. Some delude themselves otherwise through interpretation. William Robb
Re: Bailing out.
Well ancient Greek philosophers claim there was no reality without perception. Modern scientists claim there is an underlying reality whatever our perceptions. So I guess that there is reality (fixed), and perception of reality (individual) both. Now that we are all as confused as I am... graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Mark Roberts wrote: Bob Shell wrote: On Mar 26, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: That's what I meant. I mean, reality is reality; we don't each get a separate one, no matter how convenient that would be! I beg to differ very strongly on that. Each of us inhabits his/her own reality, and it may overlap the realities of others at some times and in some ways, or it may not. As Godfrey said, this is probably *too* far off-topic, even for the PDML ;-) But I feel very strongly that there *is* a reality, independent of what I or anyone else sees, hears or otherwise experiences. Getting at (or closer to) this is the goal of art (Oscar Wilde notwithstanding!)
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 1:53 PM, William Robb wrote: For some people, myself included, the picture (or whatever, it could be a clay pot for all I care) at the end is little more than a byproduct of the process. And some people are saying that the process determines whether one is creative or one is a technician. And that's where the arguing begins, for me anyways. In my darkroom work, I was thoroughly a technician. In my digital work I have nowhere near the depth of knowledge of the underlying technology, nor do I care to. I know exactly enough to do what I want to do, and when I want to do something new I learn how. I could service my film processors, reduce them to their gears and reassemble them. I could tell you all about film/developer combos, water PH, fixers, etc. I have no such knowledge of the guts of my Mac or of the programming involved in Photoshop. I have no real grasp of what happens in my operating system, and I don't care to. I don't need to. Hell, I've never measured D-min or D-max from a digital print. I have from my darkroom prints. When it comes to digital printing, I am not a techie. -Aaron
Re: Bailing out.
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, graywolf wrote: "Snap the shutter and leave the rest to us", Kodak Brownie ad of 1903 or so; and thus the snapshooter was born. In point of fact if you have no interest in the middle part you are a snapshooter (although snapshooters can produce interesting pictures), not a photographer. A photographer does photography, a snapshooter does pictures. Err, should I be offended now? Are you calling me a name or is it OK to be a snapshooter in these parts? Funny thing is no one thinks they are a chef because they eat food, no one thinks they are a musician because they listen to music. So, noone who watches pictures thinks they are a photographer, not even a snapshooter. I don't see what you are saying here. Kostas
Re: Bailing out.
Or else, we all live in the same reality but have different experiences. Experience changes the knowledge we have and often how we evaluate things but not what exists as such. Cheers, Gautam On 3/26/06, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 26, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > > That's what I meant. I mean, reality is reality; we don't each get a > > separate one, no matter how convenient that would be! > > > I beg to differ very strongly on that. Each of us inhabits his/her > own reality, and it may overlap the realities of others at some times > and in some ways, or it may not. > > Bob > >
Re: Bailing out.
Kevin, I see things as you do. I spend 8-10 hours a day in front of a computer and I greatly enjoy that. However, for recreation I prefer to stay away. Cheers, Gautam On 3/25/06, Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography. > What started over 20 years ago as a small concern has grown to an > enjoyable and profitable lifestyle. Then along comes digital. Not > that there is anything wrong with the new technology per se, I was > in fact one of the first kids on the block with an *istD and now > own three of them. > > My problem is that photography has become more of a production line > than an art. Many have argued that only the capture mode has changed > and rather than a darkroom, everything can be done on a computer. Wrong. > All these things can be _simulated_ on a computer, which is an entirely > different technology. Sure, there is an 'art' to computer enhancement > and digital manipulation, but what of the art of photography. It seems > to me it has been replaced by 'digital workflow' and other buzzwords. > > Capturing images with digital still maintains an artistic approach where > composition and an eye for a good photo are important, but what then? > I imagine the same dissilusionment was suffered by painters with the > advent of photography, but like the painters of old, many stuck to > thier art and it still flourishes today. > > To this end I have decided not to play the digital game and instead > spend my time on furthering the art of photography. Whilst film is still > available I can use that, perhaps I will pick up an 8x10 or 4x5 and go > back to the good ol' days of coating my own plates (provided the chemicals > used are not classified as WMDs and I am arrested as a terrorist). > > I will still maintain a digital camera, perhaps pick up a new MF digital > when Pentax decide one is right for release. But for now, I figure on > sticking to film and the darkroom. Perhaps there is a niche for me in the > world because I will stick with the old technology, perhaps not. At least > with a good negative, some of history will be maintained and not lost in > a pile of decaying discs. > > So for now, my MZ-S, my array of K-1000's and my 6x7 will rule the roost. > The *istD's will still be used, but not nearly as often. > > Kind regards > Kevin > > -- > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. > Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." > >
Re: Bailing out.
It's been repeated many times that there is no reality, only perception. Who would identify the scientifically claimed "fixed" reality? Jack --- graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well ancient Greek philosophers claim there was no reality without > perception. Modern scientists claim there is an underlying reality > whatever our perceptions. So I guess that there is reality (fixed), > and > perception of reality (individual) both. > > Now that we are all as confused as I am... > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > --- > > > Mark Roberts wrote: > > Bob Shell wrote: > > > > > >>On Mar 26, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> > >> > >>>That's what I meant. I mean, reality is reality; we don't each get > a > >>>separate one, no matter how convenient that would be! > >> > >>I beg to differ very strongly on that. Each of us inhabits his/her > > >>own reality, and it may overlap the realities of others at some > times > >>and in some ways, or it may not. > > > > > > As Godfrey said, this is probably *too* far off-topic, even for the > > PDML ;-) > > But I feel very strongly that there *is* a reality, independent of > > what I or anyone else sees, hears or otherwise experiences. Getting > at > > (or closer to) this is the goal of art (Oscar Wilde > notwithstanding!) > > > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
Gautam Sarup wrote: >Or else, we all live in the same reality but have different >experiences. Experience changes the knowledge we have >and often how we evaluate things but not what exists >as such. Bingo.
Re: Bailing out.
Come on, we all know that reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Bailing out. Date: Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:05 pm Size: 1K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net It's been repeated many times that there is no reality, only perception. Who would identify the scientifically claimed "fixed" reality? Jack --- graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well ancient Greek philosophers claim there was no reality without > perception. Modern scientists claim there is an underlying reality > whatever our perceptions. So I guess that there is reality (fixed), > and > perception of reality (individual) both. > > Now that we are all as confused as I am... > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > --- > > > Mark Roberts wrote: > > Bob Shell wrote: > > > > > >>On Mar 26, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> > >> > >>>That's what I meant. I mean, reality is reality; we don't each get > a > >>>separate one, no matter how convenient that would be! > >> > >>I beg to differ very strongly on that. Each of us inhabits his/her > > >>own reality, and it may overlap the realities of others at some > times > >>and in some ways, or it may not. > > > > > > As Godfrey said, this is probably *too* far off-topic, even for the > > PDML ;-) > > But I feel very strongly that there *is* a reality, independent of > > what I or anyone else sees, hears or otherwise experiences. Getting > at > > (or closer to) this is the goal of art (Oscar Wilde > notwithstanding!) > > > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 26, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: As Godfrey said, this is probably *too* far off-topic, even for the PDML ;-) But I feel very strongly that there *is* a reality, independent of what I or anyone else sees, hears or otherwise experiences. Getting at (or closer to) this is the goal of art (Oscar Wilde notwithstanding!) I don't think philosophy is too far off topic from photography. Every photographer expresses his/her philosophy through his/her photography. I see the two as integral, and do not believe that art can exist without an underlying philosophy. That being said, I do not believe there is anything under the veil that we perceive as reality except a nebulous cloud of probabilities. There are no certainties. I know that point of view is anathema to modern materialism, but it has always struck me as the truth. I was astonished in my late teens when I realized that other people really didn't see things this way. Bob
