bums out of photographers and photographers out of bums

Very good article in Washington Post ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/index.htm )
by Van Riper on his increasing reservations about PhotoShop & digital photography. ln an email exchange about APUG, he said "give(s) me hope that there really are people out there who appreciate what it takes to make a fine photograph--not merely to manufacture one after the fact on a computer."

The article reinforces some old arguments. I found the last paragraphs of interest, it seems the pendulum is swinging back and some people are starting to mistrust the subtle manipulations done with PS.

One of the arguments for the "craft" vs "art" was that it is craft because we merely "copy" whst is there. Yet it seems to me that people are starting to say "well sure, anybody can get those colors/contrast given enough time in the computer."

Seems to me this is part of the continuing debate between analog vs digital.

While I agree with his position in general, his opening premise is a bit of a straw man. Nothing about those two shots really looks like they required Photoshop.

I've just resently stepped into the use of photoshop as a tool for creating photographic images, so my level of expertise is lacking. With that said, comparing phtoshop images vs silver print is apples and oranges. Each having it's assets and liabilities. The computer assisted image has it's own personality and not unlike any other art form requires an instinct for the creation and execution of a concept. In any artform it's still the responsibility of the originator to manifest original content and bring it to a proficient conclusion with that something extra that attracts veiwership. Personally computer technology is certainly appropriate for commercial applications, yet at it's current level lacks the absolute quality of a silver process. In color it seems to be able to hold it's own within it's own personality, but with the current papers available and the way inks saturate B/w images printed by the computer are a long way off. Printing in the darkroom is it's own moment. Music, tea, the amber ambiance and watching the image grow in the developer from it's foundational dark shapes. Darkroom is a great experiance and this certainly can't be duplicated by the push of a button on the computer! But the lure for me is their, Looking at an image sometimes I'd like to correct or eliminate something that would make the image work better. Would it not be great to use the computer to fix and adjust them take the image back to the darkroom for it's final creation?

This van Riper seems to be quite the shameless self promoter.

After plowing through his pompous self congratulatory descriptions of his ingenious methods of capturing these mediocre images, I breathlessly awaited his revelations on digital imaging.

Sadly I fell asleep.

Unfortunately, I'm just not certain that anything would be of much help to his work.

Michael McBlane

blansky said:

This van Riper seems to be quite the shameless self promoter.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that. Some of the finest photographers around make this guy look positively shy. Success is all about self promotion and very little about art.

I've seen a lot of his pictures in the flesh (he lives around here) and all I can say is that if his work is art it's certainly not "fine" art.