Now that we have settled that, we can go back to talking about manipulations.
Art photos are manipulations
-
A
- Thread starter bluechromis
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Bergger Pancro 400 8x10 Sheet Film
- Started by Roger Thoms
-
Want to Buy WTB: Pentax LX focusing screen SA-23
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Cooke 13" F4.5 Portrait Series soft focus brass lens
- Started by filmculture
-
For Sale FS: Wista 45VX Metal Field Camera & Wide Angle Bellows Type II
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Want to Buy Pocket Wizard
- Started by aconbere
Forum statistics
Now that we have settled that, we can go back to talking about manipulations.
Stop trying to manipulate the discussion...
Well at least no one is using graphic language!
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,833
- Format
- Hybrid
It depends if I'm wearing 3eyelet oxbloods or vans.
Read your links again...none say painting or photography are graphic arts. As used as an example in one of your links (M-W)...:The shows combine to provide an array of paintings, drawings, graphic arts, sculpture, ceramics, fiber/beadwork and photography."
However the definition includes painting, photography, etc, making the reference to graphic arts in the example a non sequitur.
Excuse me, yes -- one (edit -- I am wrong again!) of the links considers painting to be a graphic art (britannica), so not universal. No big deal. I see it as graphic arts using photography, painting and other disiplines as source material.
Con't edit:
But terminology is terminology I guess. But if I see a painter, I'll not insist he is a graphic artist. I might get whacked with a wet brush!
Con't edit:
But terminology is terminology I guess. But if I see a painter, I'll not insist he is a graphic artist. I might get whacked with a wet brush!
Last edited:
Now that we have reached the very bottom of the barrel, I wonder if we might consider a phrase that the OP used in his second post. He referred to the the essential aesthetic of photography. I daresay that from 1839 on, the discussion of the nature of what it is that is essentially that part of photography in which it is unique or at least that which it does best.
There are of course many aesthetics of photography; scratching the negative, montage, vorticism, the sharp daguerreotype and the paper soft Talbotype and so on. While they are perfectly good artistic aesthetics in themselves, what is the underlying foundation aesthetic that photography is best at or that best represents photography as distinct from all other forms of graphic art?
There are of course many aesthetics of photography; scratching the negative, montage, vorticism, the sharp daguerreotype and the paper soft Talbotype and so on. While they are perfectly good artistic aesthetics in themselves, what is the underlying foundation aesthetic that photography is best at or that best represents photography as distinct from all other forms of graphic art?
That's a great question. What do you think?
Lets ...
I would unequivocally put myself in the "William Mortensen is the Anti Christ" camp.
I would unequivocally put myself in the "William Mortensen is the Anti Christ" camp.
Well I see Sirius thinks I am trolling but perhaps I am just naive.
I will think on how to word my thoughts, but I think that photography has a capture nature of direct relationship to the reflected light,in general, more than other mediums.It can stop motion as well as synthesize light over long periods of time. It has a consistency and is generally repeatable in its negative or digital storage iteration. It can be simpler and more egalitarian at least more so than mediums like painting or carving.
So those seem to me to be characteristics more or less emphasized in photography and the images that use those characteristics might be better created as photographs rather than another medium.
I will think on how to word my thoughts, but I think that photography has a capture nature of direct relationship to the reflected light,in general, more than other mediums.It can stop motion as well as synthesize light over long periods of time. It has a consistency and is generally repeatable in its negative or digital storage iteration. It can be simpler and more egalitarian at least more so than mediums like painting or carving.
So those seem to me to be characteristics more or less emphasized in photography and the images that use those characteristics might be better created as photographs rather than another medium.
Western civilization was embarking on the second round of industrial revolutions when photography became a part of world view. Photography quickly became a tool of business, war, science and art. What kind of tool it is, and its pros and cons, depends on the job one needs to do with it.
Any art form will have consistency and repeatability these days with digital recording, manipulation, and storage. One question that comes up is originality of the work. Are many copies made from a negative are still originals as compared to many copies of a digitally reproduced painting? And for the sake of argument, the original painting in an acrylic that has been analysed and then reproduced by 3D printing with the same paint and reproducing the same layering of the paint to print an copy that is identical in material and appearance to the hand painted piece. Or maybe even the 'original' was painted with a 3D printer from a file a painter created digitally. I would think in this case the digital file is an equivilent of a negative (in terms of consistency and repeatability with digital recording, manipulation, and storage).
I am thinking that film's unique characteristics as a medium are no longer all that unique. Different, yes, but thanks to the digital age, unique is getting pretty common and different is everyday.
Any art form will have consistency and repeatability these days with digital recording, manipulation, and storage. One question that comes up is originality of the work. Are many copies made from a negative are still originals as compared to many copies of a digitally reproduced painting? And for the sake of argument, the original painting in an acrylic that has been analysed and then reproduced by 3D printing with the same paint and reproducing the same layering of the paint to print an copy that is identical in material and appearance to the hand painted piece. Or maybe even the 'original' was painted with a 3D printer from a file a painter created digitally. I would think in this case the digital file is an equivilent of a negative (in terms of consistency and repeatability with digital recording, manipulation, and storage).
I am thinking that film's unique characteristics as a medium are no longer all that unique. Different, yes, but thanks to the digital age, unique is getting pretty common and different is everyday.
No, I do not think you were trolling. I was referring to the series of posts discussing my opinion of altering photographs by adding and deleting objects in the composition.
Ok jvo, lets leave the past stuff in the past.
I will get back to Vaughn tomorrow
I will get back to Vaughn tomorrow
Vaughn post: 2319726 said:
A fern flattener, eh? I must confess that often I see a scene, then have to stop at a barbed wire fence to capture it. Often the view I want is obscured by dried weeds, usually twig-like sticking up in front of me. I have been known to snap them and remove enough to create a window to shoot through. Some times I leave some for perspective. They are so close they tend to be out of focus and can be very distracting.
While the jobs that photography does varies widely, that doesn't mean that there are not underlying fundamentals that are common between these different roles.
As to repeatability, it may be that there is a machine that will replicate an oil painting, I have not heard of it. There certainly isn't one in mt town; is there one in Humboldt County? There is something at MIT but it seems to be an inkjet job and "For example, mechanical engineer Mike Foshey said they couldn’t completely reproduce certain colors like cobalt blue due to a limited ink library. In the future they plan to expand this library, as well as create a painting-specific algorithm for selecting inks, he says. They also can hope to achieve better detail to account for aspects like surface texture and reflection, so that they can achieve specific effects such as glossy and matte finishes."
https://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-csail-repaint-system-reproducing-paintings-make-impression-1129
Even if such a machine were to be perfected how many would there be? There are thousands inkjet printers for photography in my city and still dozens of darkrooms. I hope we can avoid talking about singular exceptions to the generalities of characteristics of photography that we are looking for.
If the position is changed, the angle moved, things rearranged, lens changed, filter added or removed, ... that is all part of composition and therefore not manipulation on the negative after the photograph has been taken.
Tech now and in the future will eliminate any differences...if there is a need. Film is a unique recording device, but its results are no long unique. Film seems to a simpler more direct way of producing an image, but it is not. There just has been a century or so of experimenting and refining already done for film users, and that experience is being folded into digital. This is not a singular exception -- but a characteristic of photography today.
We are fortunate that the light-recording properties of most materials we use can be tweaked to have similar responses to light, so that we can control the transfer of information captured with film (negative or transparency) to other medium (silver gelatin paper, platinum prints, etc). The response curve of film can easily be replicated digitally, and is done everyday with the use of digital negatives in alternative (and silver gelatin) printing.
So the only unique characteristic of film that digital cannot share, is that generally a lot of water is involved along the way to making a print.
That said, I have no interest in making digital art, but fortunately live in an area with lots of water. Tools shape one's work as much as the user of the tool does. I choose the tools that best fits my vision and needs to express it...and have fun along the way.
We are fortunate that the light-recording properties of most materials we use can be tweaked to have similar responses to light, so that we can control the transfer of information captured with film (negative or transparency) to other medium (silver gelatin paper, platinum prints, etc). The response curve of film can easily be replicated digitally, and is done everyday with the use of digital negatives in alternative (and silver gelatin) printing.
So the only unique characteristic of film that digital cannot share, is that generally a lot of water is involved along the way to making a print.
That said, I have no interest in making digital art, but fortunately live in an area with lots of water. Tools shape one's work as much as the user of the tool does. I choose the tools that best fits my vision and needs to express it...and have fun along the way.
I understand that is your definition of manipulation. It is not a universal definition, obviously, as for many, the act of isolating a segment of reality is also considered a manipulation.
I directly manipulated the scene by flattening the ferns, and other things like moving a small branch being moved my water. But I contact print full frame without burning or dodging and still consider myself to be a manipulator of the light (I manipulate the relative brightness of areas within my image through filters, exposure and development).
Great. Another argument over semantics. Not sure how that leads to better photographs.
To quote S. I. Hayakawa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._I._Hayakawa "If you do not like me, does that make you anti semantic?"
There is always something to learn!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |