Arts Organizations Must Pay Specific Attention To FILM/"Analog" Work

[removed account4]

DF
i am sorry to seem like a thorn in your side, this is not my intent. i would like to know where one draws the line when it comes to photography.

if i go to my printer who runs a small lab locally and hand her a 8x10 tmx negative i processed in caffenol c and ansco 130, she will make me a wet print. she'd hand me a 8x10 chemically printed on a 11x14 sheet, made from a scan. i'd call it a genuine 11x14 chromogenic digital c print so insure whoever buys it knows what it is and that it will last 900 years. with your scenario would this print be considered eligible for special consideration when getting funding or presentation?

your post should have been put in the ethics and philosophy area, not the workshops and lectures area because it doesn't talk about presentation &c as much as it asks the question that people have been asking for 170 years .. what is a photograph, and what makes photography so special?
you might be interested in reading barthes camera lucida if this subject interests you.

 

[DonJ]

This thread has become something never intended nor imagined.
It originally was about TWO (2) things - film, and the other, Arts Organizations - nothing more or less, not another never ending debate on the merits of film and/or digital.
Nevertheless, I still believe there's nothing wrong or harmful to recognize film specifically.
The notion of "....it's not the process... but the end product..." or however it goes, well sorry, I don't completely agree.

This is not a digital vs. film debate - It has been turned into one.. "rallying the troops" -

Recognizing film is fine; “paying specific attention to” film (your thread title) is quite different and quite unnecessary.

You demand special treatment for film, then wonder why the thread becomes “film vs. digital”. That’s priceless.

 

[removed account4]

Recognizing film is fine; “paying specific attention to” film (your thread title) is quite different and quite unnecessary.

You demand special treatment for film, then wonder why the thread becomes “film vs. digital”. That’s priceless.

DonJ
i know what you mean, my problem is understand where he and you are coming from and agree with BOTH sides of the argument.. BUT ... i also want to know when the OP wayne or anyone else believes something isn't a photograph anymore, and why... more of a philosophical conversation about photography and ethics of calling a lab print a photograph if it is made with a light jet instead of projecting light through film, or why only images made with longexposures ( seconds not fractions of seconds ) are the onlytrue way of releasing someone or something's soul. i've talked to some people that don't consider color photographs ( with c41or slide film, and printed on paper with enlarger &c ) because the images are dye clouds, and not grain. i've talked to people who don't consider anything but portraiture to be photographs for reasons they have ... im not like the folks that have narrow definitions ( but see where they are coming from ), and would even suggest shadows on a wall are ephemeral photographs, ... unfortunately thats what the problem is ..

 

[Wayne]

Except wayne never said that, or anything like that, but you are too busy being offended to notice.

DonJ
i know what you mean, my problem is understand where he and you are coming from and agree with BOTH sides of the argument.. BUT ... i also want to know when the OP wayne or anyone else believes something isn't a photograph anymore, and why. .

 

[removed account4]

Except wayne never said that, or anything like that, but you are too busy being offended to notice.

naah, i am not offended, just curious...

you've called hybrid / digital users "fauxtographers" ( so there's no difference, they aren't fake photos ? )
and you dislike digital and hybrid work enough that you have been vocal to bring back apug as your signature says,
and obviously there is a belief with the OP that there are enough real differences between film and digital work that traditional/film users should be paid attention to... so there must be something that tips the scales...
im just interested in knowing what it is that tips the scales, from folks that might be vocal about it.

 

[DF]

Recognizing film is fine; “paying specific attention to” film (your thread title) is quite different and quite unnecessary.

You demand special treatment for film, then wonder why the thread becomes “film vs. digital”. That’s priceless.

DF
i am sorry to seem like a thorn in your side, this is not my intent. i would like to know where one draws the line when it comes to photography.

if i go to my printer who runs a small lab locally and hand her a 8x10 tmx negative i processed in caffenol c and ansco 130, she will make me a wet print. she'd hand me a 8x10 chemically printed on a 11x14 sheet, made from a scan. i'd call it a genuine 11x14 chromogenic digital c print so insure whoever buys it knows what it is and that it will last 900 years. with your scenario would this print be considered eligible for special consideration when getting funding or presentation?

your post should have been put in the ethics and philosophy area, not the workshops and lectures area because it doesn't talk about presentation &c as much as it asks the question that people have been asking for 170 years .. what is a photograph, and what makes photography so special?
you might be interested in reading barthes camera lucida if this subject interests you.[/QUOTE
Again, my post isn't about ethics or philosophy, drawing the line, seeking special treatment. Perhaps I could've re-stated the post to sound more like "pay-attention-to" rather than "pay-specific-attention-to"

Nevertheless it continues that way.

 

[removed account4]

Again, my post isn't about ethics or philosophy, drawing the line, seeking special treatment. Perhaps I could've re-stated the post to sound more like "pay-attention-to" rather than "pay-specific-attention-to"

Nevertheless it continues that way.

oh well, ...
best of luck seeking venues for presentation, representation and $$
john

 

[DonJ]

What's apparent to me, and fittingly ironic in the context of this forum, is that many arts organizations are "paying specific attention" to some analog processes. But if you're just buying film at your local camera store or on-line, and making your basic gelatin silver prints, you get no more attention than the digital folks. You're not exotic or "hands-on" enough to interest them.

P.S., the gallery that sells my work, and virtually all of the exhibitions I participate in, include the type of process used to make the print on the label post right next to the photo. That should be recognition enough.

 

[Pieter12]

What's apparent to me, and fittingly ironic in the context of this forum, is that many arts organizations are "paying specific attention" to some analog processes. But if you're just buying film at your local camera store or on-line, and making your basic gelatin silver prints, you get no more attention than the digital folks. You're not exotic or "hands-on" enough to interest them.

P.S., the gallery that sells my work, and virtually all of the exhibitions I participate in, include the type of process used to make the print on the label post right next to the photo. That should be recognition enough.

Any serious gallery or museum will always list the medium/materials used in art on display. They may also group similar media. But unless they are dedicated to that medium, there is no reason to single out any for special consideration.

 

[removed account4]

there is no reason to single out any for special consideration.

I can see some sort of alternative process, like Gum Bichromate, or Salt or Albumen Prints or Bromoil or Photogravure or Daguerreotype being singled out ... The OP's post I think is an omen of things to come, when silver negatives and silver prints have reached the status to be as rare as some other of the more arcane photographic processes. I wonder if in 1871 with the the dry plate, or roll film and developing out paper what similar conversations were had. There are enough differences between a developed out enlargement and printed out contact print, and no doubt some must have believed one to deserve more recognition than the other...
interesting times we live in ... interestingly its still SSDC

 

[Wayne]

naah, i am not offended, just curious...

you've called hybrid / digital users "fauxtographers" ( so there's no difference, they aren't fake photos ? )

Nice work John! To make your point, whatever it is, you've dredged up a 15 year old post from a forum that was devoted strictly to analog photography, something you've been griping incessantly about for all those many years.

and you dislike digital and hybrid work enough that you have been vocal to bring back apug as your signature says,m

Perhaps you can dredge up another 15 year old post where I say I "dislike' digital and hybrid work? You might even find one, I don't know. I'm also not a big fan of installation art, since it seems you're keeping track. God forbid if I said something like that on a forum that was devoted to analog photography. How dare I?

But that isn't a point I made in this thread. My main point has always been that work that involves digital processing steps should simply be labeled as such.

 

[removed account4]

sorry... i tried to dig up up a post **i made** saying fauxtography ( when i loathed digital ), but i couldn't find one i "google searched" the site for "fauxtography" as a key word and your post came up, sorry about that.
it doesn't seem you get what i had griped about ... it was the bashing of people who did film/paper scans and being told unless it was the scan of a positive print it wasn't allowed in the media/gallery.. what was kind of laughable was these same folks would PS their prints or negatives to "look like their print", but someone who just inverted a negative wasn't kosher.

thank you sean for this inclusive site !!

couldn't agree more with your idea that things should be labelled honestly.
have a nice leapdaynight.