What you just said, Frank, is very important. It points to the fact that many of us do want to go back to basic photography. So we stick with film. Not because digital is sinful. But because we dismiss the allure of digital because of the ease you can manipulate the original art of getting the picture in a camera. Sure there's Ansel's "performance" of the print. But that's usually much limited than digital art; mainly relating to exposure, not cloning. Also, the fact that much of "fine art" in photography is BW, the final work often doesn;t have the reality look of a color or digital print. So the viewer accepts it as a special art form.
Making a political statement, if that's what you mean, by hook or crook, is a bad way of presenting truths, high or not. You lose credibility once the wizard behind the curtain is revealed.
Seriously, you dismiss digital because it is too easy to manipulate images?
Well, this thread has certainly "jumped the shark" now!
Photojournalism and documentary photography and photographs used as evidence should not be manipulated. Any other photos are fair game. An artist certainly should not be restricted from using any specific medium (in this case photography) to express themselves.
I distrust ALL photographs, even the ones I take myself. As my grandmother told me trust half of what you hear and none of what you see..
SG Scott really isn't hung up on anything. The problem is that people who do analog/ film based photography, you - me - everyone, manipulates the scene just by framing it, by adjusting the shutter/fstop by processing the film a certain way, by burning and dodging and doing common darkroom practices. its all manipulation, maybe not the same as combination printing which has been done since 1839-1840 or the modern equivalent which makes it easier for lay-people to do without the same amount of training. just because common darkroom practices are done and accepted as common doesn't mean its not manipulation. with the camera the lens and shutter and f-stops manipulate the rendering of the image on the film, chemistry manipulates the latent image into a negative, and enlarging or contact printing manipulates the light striking the paper making the paper print. I can't imagine how anyone doesn't agree that those things done in a darkroom or with camera with film AREN'T manipulation... is it because it's not done with a computer their purity makes it NOT manipulation ??
Unless you have physical or mental problems, your brain doesn;t see cows if they weren't in the scene to begin with.
What do you mean, Joanne?
He ought to stop using that stuff.
Can you show us an example of one of yours or post a link to one on the web?
| 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:  |
