[pinhole-discussion] a new debate
Science or art? Science ensures that is titanium yellow is always titanium yellow. Art makes yellow things. Style or content? As has already been noted, they mate. What is pinhole all about? About involving the operator more in the process, about technical minimalism, about points of view unattainable with purchased lens cameras, about a more real and immediate relationship with light.
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
thank you leezy, and thanks for my first pinhole camera! > Christine, > How nice to hear your voice. > leezy
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
> alexis writes: "> My background is that of a painter but I am also a science > graduate so I suppose I fall between two camps." I remember when I switched my major in college from Engineering to Photography and the head photo teacher said that was not at all strange. Science and Photography are very closely linked. I had the same chemically smell coming out of chem lab as I did coming out of the darkroom. And you spend alot of time measuring, experimenting, and documenting. lisa
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
> TIME! It is all about the time of the thing... > Jack I like that. Not that I do really long exposures, but it's true. Even 5 seconds is way more noticable than 1/125. With all of my camera's it takes time to reload the film, I'm not just advancing film through a camera. So there's more time. When I move the camera and make blurs and streaks that is also like recording time. Thanks for the concept, I guess I should have thought of it before, but I will keep it in mind in the future and see how it relates to my photographing. Lisa
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
Christine, How nice to hear your voice. leezy
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
I am newly involved in pinhole and I am just making my second camera, but I feel there is a sort of freedom involved in pinhole. I am constantly looking for different items that could be used to make a pinhole camera. There are no limitations or regulations involved. It is amazing what comes from the simplicity of an oatmeal box! christine
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
TIME! It is all about the time of the thing... I have shot pinhole images that take anywhere from 10 seconds to one week or two. I can live life during those times. I can have memories of a life lived and experiences had during the exposure of those images. I can remember things that I did while the image was being created. I cannot remember what happened to me during 1/250th of a second. I have no memories and the picture happened somewhat in spite of my experiences during such a short time. TIME - I have made shots that have captured the arc of the sun passing from one side of the room to another and the movement of the light and shadows as that arc is scribed. I have made shots taken at night and on into the morning where the streetlights are in the shot and the early morning sunrise as well. Pinhole gives me pictures while I am otherwise living life. I can be doing many things and the picture machine is still making my art. I can be sleeping or watching a movie or teaching a class or walking on the beach or in the woods or around a waterfall and the pinhole is recording and recording and watching the same things that I am watching. It is there with me and we remember the same things because we looked at the same things together. And because I am recording on positive material (either Polaroid or Cibachrome or B&W Positive paper), the very piece of paper that was in the camera during the experience of watching and recording is also now with me when I return home or look at the image again - it was there! So! There are more reasons like the lure of the high tech(cibachrome) with the primitive(primitive) and the ease of working loosely within those disciplines. Lovely things these pinholes cameras and the artists and images that get made - they are truly magical and a reminder that alone we do nothing! Jack > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
RE: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
I choose to work with pinhole because of the sheer simple ability to poke a hole in foil, or a recycled pop can, put on a box or can put some paper or film and capture an image. It is all about the magic that happens in the process. I'm aware of the science involved and I have learned so much from so many of you on the list. *Pinholes seize the light!* ~Chuck Flagg~
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
I am so happy that we are talking about the WHY of pinhole. I have been keeping an eye on this list for a while, and alot of the technical talk is not for me (don't get me wrong, some of it is really helpful if it pertains to what I am working on). My major Why's fall in to the following 3 topics. Of course there are other reasons but these are the basics. 1) My favorite part of pinhole is it's untechnical side. It's amazing how little it takes to make a photograph. Just a hole poked in aluminum foil taped to a box with some film fitted inside. That's it. The hole doesn't have to be the right size for the optimum focal length, the exposure time can be anywhere within a wide range. Just cardboard and tape hiding the film from leaks. It's like magic. And it can all be done at home. From box to film to print. 2) Making the pinhole image is all about light to me. It's so direct, the light going in the hole on to the film. It's easier to visualize than with a regular camera. Before I take my pictures I always consider what the light source will be, natural or flash, and what that will be doing in the photograph, what it will mean in the context of that photograph. 3) My other consideration in making a pinhole picture is how the camera and film size relates to the subject. I always have one camera for one project. Usually I make the camera from some cool box I have, then I find a subject that utelizes something unique about that camera. I make my first exposures not really knowing what I am going to get. Then I see the results of the first batch and see what I like and work from there. I have no idea from the start what I am going to end up with. I have no preconseved notions, I take what I get along the way and work with it. lisa
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
alexis writes: "> My background is that of a painter but I am also a science graduate so I suppose I fall between two camps." art & science are inseparable these days, two sides of the same coin... even if you're purely an artist you depend on science for the materials you use in science, the real missing link is creativity, especially visualization... working with pinhole cameras promotes an integrated mind initially i moved into art & design because technology was boring, and now i am trying to make pinhole photography easy for everyone by developing 'soft technology' that is inexpensive and practical... it's important to me because hi tech companies & computers have reduced the learning of darkroom techniques in younger generations, and that learning is carried over to other aspects of living in positive ways jim k www.paintcancamera.com
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
In a message dated 1/13/02 4:12:12 PM Central Standard Time, hol...@duke.usask.ca writes: << I use pinhole camera because it "reinterprets" reality. I usually use cameras that introduce at least some distortion and some cameras that distort a great deal. I am struck by the way that the camera "sees" the world in a substantially different manner than I do. The image is a real image, the way the camera saw it, not a second generation darkroom based or computer based alteration of an image. Its just not the way I see the same situation. >> I would agree with Gordons statement here in part. but then i ask my self , what is the reality, ? is it my perception ?Is the "reality" really just a series of atoms just floating around to "give the perception of reality," ie a series of dots , be it silver, inkjet, or some other process used to provide us with a print and/or representation of that object known as the "artifact ". And what of the subject matter that a pinhole camera is pointed at and film exposed ? Isnt that barn or gravestone, or what ever just a mass of atoms once again, and while there is a "translation ' of that barn being a mass of atoms, the sheet of film a mass of atoms, the camera itself a mass of atoms, the paper being another mass and so on, until we reach the "final translation " of artifact,or representation of that barn , etc.. and finally arrive at some sort of aesthetic . As for me, to paraphrase and adopt/steal something I once heard or read, I simply photograph to see what something 3 dimensional looks like translated into 2 dimensional , and am driven by that curiousity .The tools (cameras ) are just that, tools no more, no less , the same holds true for me, in terms of procedures /processes to express/ arrive at the "final translation " or artifact .which I deem aesthetically pleasing to my eye,or not ..
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
Hi: I use pinhole camera because it "reinterprets" reality. I usually use cameras that introduce at least some distortion and some cameras that distort a great deal. I am struck by the way that the camera "sees" the world in a substantially different manner than I do. The image is a real image, the way the camera saw it, not a second generation darkroom based or computer based alteration of an image. Its just not the way I see the same situation. Perhaps its my belief that the world is often a collection of contradictions, or that even the smallest thing can reveal mysterious or nearly magical qualities. There is also the magic of each picture being a surprise. Each camera reinterprets things in a different way. A scene taken with one camera will look substantially different from another camera. What I consider taking a picture of depends on the camera I'm using. There are also situations that I would not have considered worth taking a picture, until I use a particular camera and realize it would reinterpret that situation in some sort of interesting manner. As I have more cameras available the number of "pictures" out there waiting to be taken increases substantially. Pinhole cameras let me look upon the world with many different perspectives. Gord > >> I would like to open up a debate. > >> > >> I feel it is time we discussed critically what we are doing. Not a > >> critiscism of individual works or persons but a debate on our aims, > > purposes > >> and motivation.We hardly ever talk about why and what we are doing, > >> almost always how. > >> > >> What is more important, style or content? > >> > >> Are you driven by developing the subject and idea or by the means of > >> achieving this through technical innovations? > >> > >> Some of us are very interested in technique and some in content, obviously > >> the two should work together one informing the other, but what do you > > think? > >> > >> Alexis > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > >> Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > >> unsubscribe or change your account at > >> http://www.???/discussion/ > >> > > > > > > ___ > > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > > unsubscribe or change your account at > > http://www.???/discussion/ > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ > - Gordon J. Holtslander Dept. of Biology hol...@duke.usask.ca112 Science Place http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsgUniversity of Saskatchewan Tel (306) 966-4433 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Fax (306) 966-4461 Canada S7N 5E2 -
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
The debate is always on; what are you thoughts? My background is that of a painter but I am also a science graduate so I suppose I fall between two camps. The how and the why. I think there are great similarities between science and art; one important difference though is that the scientist has to prove his or her ideas to peers according to a prescibed methodology of repeatability, causality and proof whereas the artist's idea and resulting photograph, painting or whatever, is proven by whether it fulfills the criteria set by the artist himself whatever they may be. what is pinhole about, what does it set out to do and how can it develop? Alexis on 13/1/02 7:10 pm, Bill Erickson at erick...@hickorytech.net wrote: > Let me know when the debate starts. I have some thoughts. > - Original Message - > From: "ragowaring" > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 6:46 AM > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE > > >> I would like to open up a debate. >> >> I feel it is time we discussed critically what we are doing. Not a >> critiscism of individual works or persons but a debate on our aims, > purposes >> and motivation.We hardly ever talk about why and what we are doing, >> almost always how. >> >> What is more important, style or content? >> >> Are you driven by developing the subject and idea or by the means of >> achieving this through technical innovations? >> >> Some of us are very interested in technique and some in content, obviously >> the two should work together one informing the other, but what do you > think? >> >> Alexis >> >> >> ___ >> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list >> Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? >> unsubscribe or change your account at >> http://www.???/discussion/ >> > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
The debate is always on; what are you thoughts? My background is that of a painter but I am also a science graduate so I suppose I fall between two camps. The how and the why. I think there are great similarities between science and art; one important difference though is that the scientist has to prove his or her ideas to peers according to a prescibed methodology of repeatability, causality and proof whereas the artist's idea and resulting photograph, painting or whatever, is proven by whether it fulfills the criteria set by the artist himself whatever they may be. what is pinhole about, what does it set out to do and how can it develop? on 13/1/02 7:10 pm, Bill Erickson at erick...@hickorytech.net wrote: > Let me know when the debate starts. I have some thoughts. > - Original Message - > From: "ragowaring" > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 6:46 AM > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE > > >> I would like to open up a debate. >> >> I feel it is time we discussed critically what we are doing. Not a >> critiscism of individual works or persons but a debate on our aims, > purposes >> and motivation.We hardly ever talk about why and what we are doing, >> almost always how. >> >> What is more important, style or content? >> >> Are you driven by developing the subject and idea or by the means of >> achieving this through technical innovations? >> >> Some of us are very interested in technique and some in content, obviously >> the two should work together one informing the other, but what do you > think? >> >> Alexis >> >> >> ___ >> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list >> Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? >> unsubscribe or change your account at >> http://www.???/discussion/ >> > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
Let me know when the debate starts. I have some thoughts. - Original Message - From: "ragowaring" To: Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 6:46 AM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE > I would like to open up a debate. > > I feel it is time we discussed critically what we are doing. Not a > critiscism of individual works or persons but a debate on our aims, purposes > and motivation.We hardly ever talk about why and what we are doing, > almost always how. > > What is more important, style or content? > > Are you driven by developing the subject and idea or by the means of > achieving this through technical innovations? > > Some of us are very interested in technique and some in content, obviously > the two should work together one informing the other, but what do you think? > > Alexis > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
In a message dated 1/13/02 8:52:03 AM, ragowar...@btinternet.com writes: << Some of us are very interested in technique and some in content, obviously the two should work together one informing the other, but what do you think? >> I think you are bringing up a very important point and thank you for raising it. I think we should pursue that as a discussion. leezy
Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
I would like to open up a debate. I feel it is time we discussed critically what we are doing. Not a critiscism of individual works or persons but a debate on our aims, purposes and motivation.We hardly ever talk about why and what we are doing, almost always how. What is more important, style or content? Are you driven by developing the subject and idea or by the means of achieving this through technical innovations? Some of us are very interested in technique and some in content, obviously the two should work together one informing the other, but what do you think? Alexis
[pinhole-discussion] Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE
I agree that time is one of the dimensions that I really enjoy when experiencing the pinhole camera. I started taking night photography last year which has 1-30 minute exposures and that experience taught me that capturing time and motion over time was a very different experience. (http://www.thenocturnes.com/gallery.htm) The pinhole/zone allow me the ability to blur time in the same way during the daylight. (http://www.interwalk.com/time-sq-11.htm) This basic insight into the fact that each cameras (type) look at the world differently, has encouraged my wife and I to take our zoo of cameras when we go out shooting. One of my current experiments is to pretend that a given camera has "likes", "dislikes", "gets confused", etc. "Holga gets confused when there are too many things in the background", "Zone likes the dog laying there on the grass". This has been quite useful in getting an emotional language around the kinds of images these types of cameras create. Mark www.interwalk.com/gallery.htm -- Original Message -- > >> TIME! It is all about the time of the thing... >> Jack > > >I like that. Not that I do really long exposures, but it's true. Even 5 >seconds is way more noticable than 1/125. With all of my camera's it takes >time to reload the film, I'm not just advancing film through a camera. So >there's more time. When I move the camera and make blurs and streaks that >is also like recording time. Thanks for the concept, I guess I should have >thought of it before, but I will keep it in mind in the future and see how >it relates to my photographing. > >Lisa > > >___ >Pinhole-Discussion mailing list >Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? >unsubscribe or change your account at >http://www.???/discussion/ >
