$25,000: It's a snap...with film!

Poisson Du Jour · Mar 19, 2009

This news item caught my eye both for the seeming plainness of the photographer's winning image and especially, this too-true observation: (Mr Kenne) says there is a danger of the art of photography becoming diluted as it becomes more readily accessibly through technology such as camera phones. And oh yes, he's hoping to use film for a long time yet!

Link: ABC News Australia: National Photographic Portrait Prize

bsdunek · Mar 19, 2009

Poisson Du Jour said:
This news item caught my eye both for the seeming plainness of the photographer's winning image and especially, this too-true observation: (Mr Kenne) says there is a danger of the art of photography becoming diluted as it becomes more readily accessibly through technology such as camera phones. And oh yes, he's hoping to use film for a long time yet!

I think the danger of art becoming diluted will be due to lowering of standards, not how many photos are taken with what equipment.

2F/2F · Mar 19, 2009

I am glad that art is diluted...whatever the heck that means anyhow! It gives a constant point of reference that makes *real* art stand out all that much more. (IMO it is all made by dead or near-dead people and can only be truly judged as art in retrospect when viewed in historical context.)

But I don't really see the connection. What does the contest winner think that his photography has to do with the state of "art" today? More specifically, why does the use of film and the fact that he is a professional who has done "the hard yards" make him an undiluted artist who takes "good photographs"? Sounds like a stupid technical argument that art is not art if it is easy. If "art" is seriously threatened by cell phone cameras, it is probably not really art that says much anyhow.

Christopher Walrath · Mar 19, 2009

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

Besides, I have made some decent images with my phone. Doesn't mean that I'll up and hang a print of it on the wall at MOMA in a delusion of grandeur. Beauty is for the living. And as Keith says, art is for the historians. IMHO

Ed Sukach · Mar 19, 2009

Christopher Walrath... Doesn't mean that I'll up and hang a print of it on the wall at MOMA in a delusion of grandeur.

Son of a gun!!

Someone finally GOT IT ... what I've been trying to do for the greater part of my life, and all the while at a loss for means to define/ describe it ...

Create a photograph that is, within itself, a DELUSION OF GRANDEUR.

Whoo ...! I've got to think about this.

Robert Budding · Mar 19, 2009

His photo doesn't look even moderately interesting to me.

Kevin Caulfield · Mar 19, 2009

It looks interesting to me. If you watch the video at that link, you'll see a bit of detail of the photo.

Ian David · Mar 19, 2009

From what I can see on the video, it looks like a great photo to me too.

Alexander Ghaffari · Mar 20, 2009

It was an alright picture, certainly nothing earth-shattering. I am picky regarding a photograph capturing my interest. I find that portraits of young people often lack the impact of portraiture of the elderly or those who have suffered great pain and struggles...that really moves me.

jd callow · Mar 20, 2009

It is a fine image from what I can tell. I feel the more people take pictures the better photography in general will be and that people will be able to appreciate photography more. Having more people shoot is not dilution but further concentration. I do think that to consistently produce good work you need a fuller understanding of the medium which often comes with hard work and perseverance, but not always.

rduncan · Mar 20, 2009

jd callow said:
Having more people shoot is not dilution but further concentration. I do think that to consistently produce good work you need a fuller understanding of the medium which often comes with hard work and perseverance, but not always.

I somewhat agree with that. I think that having more people shoot will make better photographers stand out. A photograph from a skilled photographer when displayed next to an amateur with $$$$ equipment will always stand out.

I remember when I'd sit around late at night listening to my old AM radio. Living in Indiana I could pick up stations a few states away on a good night. Sure there was a lot of noise and I'd have to tune the dial just right to find a good station, but that is part of what made it worthwhile and helped me to appreciate what I'd found.

jd callow · Mar 20, 2009

More people shooting will, conceivably, open it up to more potential artists and simply through trial and error people will learn when to shot, where to shot from and how to compose. Their increased use an familiarity along with the struggles and successes will inform their opinions of what is good photography.

My point of reference is the fact that before radio more people played music and, arguably, had a higher appreciation for it -- knowledge of classical music having far greater penetration into more homes as an example.

Stephen Frizza · Mar 20, 2009

I worked with Ingvar kenne for a long time both in my lab and the lab i was in before setting up my own. He is a very talented photographer with a unique eye. Bravo to him!

Poisson Du Jour · Mar 21, 2009

rduncan said:
I somewhat agree with that. I think that having more people shoot will make better photographers stand out. A photograph from a skilled photographer when displayed next to an amateur with $$$$ equipment will always stand out.
[...]

Mmm-hmm.

JBrunner · Mar 21, 2009

I force myself to look very carefully at work that enjoys accolade despite my inability to understand why. Most of the time I learn something. More persons here should consider trying that, rather than being dismissive, but photographers are a funny lot.

PhotoJim · Mar 21, 2009

rduncan said:
I remember when I'd sit around late at night listening to my old AM radio. Living in Indiana I could pick up stations a few states away on a good night. Sure there was a lot of noise and I'd have to tune the dial just right to find a good station, but that is part of what made it worthwhile and helped me to appreciate what I'd found.

You can still do that. In fact, pick yourself up an inexpensive shortwave radio for even more fun.

The comments on that original article were entertaining. One poster concluded that photography can't be all that hard.

Umm... actually, it is. Baseball doesn't look hard either... until you actually try doing it.

eddym · Mar 21, 2009

PhotoJim said:
The comments on that original article were entertaining. One poster concluded that photography can't be all that hard.

Umm... actually, it is. Baseball doesn't look hard either... until you actually try doing it.

Most things are not hard to do; what's hard is doing them well.

2F/2F · Mar 21, 2009

JBrunner said:
I force myself to look very carefully at work that enjoys accolade despite my inability to understand why. Most of the time I learn something. More persons here should consider trying that, rather than being dismissive, but photographers are a funny lot.

I agree. However, if the photographer would have just kept his mouth shut, I would probably have remembered to actually try to judge the picture instead of him.

jovo · Mar 21, 2009

jd callow said:
... I feel the more people take pictures the better photography in general will be and that people will be able to appreciate photography more. Having more people shoot is not dilution but further concentration.....

I think this may be true. People who look clearly at their own work, and have taken time to look at the work of others they admire, may realize what it takes to reach a higher standard, and be that much more appreciative of what really good photography is as they learn to perceive it. Listening to acoustic instruments on AM radio, then on FM radio, then good to excellent stereo systems, and then live can't help but draw the distinctions between each. The more people look, I can only hope, the more they'll discern what really represents quality.

Three Owls · Mar 24, 2009

I don't think its so much that the art of photography will be diluted as the market souring due to the increasingly ubiquitous nature of cameras supposedly capable of a "great capture". A potential customer who feels able to make great photos because their camera phone has umpteen-mega-pixels might well stop viewing photography as an art regardless of any actual level of skill.

$25,000: It's a snap...with film!

Poisson Du Jour

bsdunek

2F/2F

Christopher Walrath

Ed Sukach

Robert Budding

Kevin Caulfield

Ian David

Alexander Ghaffari

jd callow

Moderator

rduncan

jd callow

Moderator

Stephen Frizza

Poisson Du Jour

JBrunner

Moderator

PhotoJim

eddym

2F/2F

jovo

Membership Council

Three Owls

$25,000: It's a snap...with film!

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency