Can you say "photoshop"?

[Ken Nadvornick]

There is no difference.

Let me get this straight now...

You see absolutely no differences between the creation of an electronically-produced "digital" image, and a chemically-produced "analog" photograph? None whatsoever? They are EXACTLY the same thing? Indistinguishable from each other? An identical process resulting in an identical end result? Genetic twins?

"There is no difference."

Really?

Ken

 

[lxdude]

There is no such thing as reality.

There is only your reality and my reality and 8 billion other realities.

Though I prefer my surreality...

 

[batwister]

The hybrid workflow is best suited to straight photography or 'documentary style' work in my mind, which straddles that line between art photography and reportage. The ethos here (for most LF colour neg practitioners) is that the negative is everything. The print itself isn't supposed to be the beautiful 'object' many here champion, but an appropriately austere 'reproduction' of what was seen, unembellished - which is why the hybrid process is favoured by people like Alec Soth. In this sense, rather than just thinking of Photoshop as 'manipulation station', it's also used as the most efficient means to an end for photographers who maintain traditional straight photography sensibilities. At it's core, this kind of photography has always been about efficiency and clarity of intent/technique.

The problem of course is this panicked need for a 'solution' to all the photographic 'media' (so many! ) and methods of presentation we have. Hybrid work is too often seen as a compromise for traditional photographers, a halfway step to the darkside, when there's actually an important sense of equilibrium and practicality to it, which I see as a statement. These photographers definitely don't continue to shoot film because they're half stubborn, but to call attention to photographic 'media' - which is a word that definitely needs to be reiterated until average Joe understands film has its rightful place - and yes, overwhelmingly, in the arena of 'serious' photography.

Most people's exposure to film photography will be through looking at these digital prints, from popular contemporary favourites such as Soth and Simon Roberts over here. These big name art photography 'hybriders' encourage students to shoot film - if only to imitate the 'look' at first. But a need to shoot film, for whatever reason and to whatever end, will inevitably lead to curiosity about the darkroom.

 

[blansky]

Aye, blansky... I'd be willing to sit down over pizza and debate that one with ya'. I'd even pick up the tab. Unfortunately, however, that discussion would quickly veer far off-topic from the limited scope of this thread.



Ken

Sounds like fun.

 

[lxdude]

There is no such thing as reality.

There is only your reality and my reality and 8 billion other realities.

The fun/joy/emotion in seeing "art" is to experience other people's realities.

And seriously, thinking analog photography is somehow pure is just nonsense.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your reality, man.