Clyde Butcher

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 8, 2015

Michael R 1974 said:
After several threads on the subject, this makes sense to me, Ken. I have to agree the formation of the initial image in a digital "capture" differs fundamentally from the formation of the latent image on any non-digital light-sensitive medium.

Yes, and it's that second abstraction level distinction that also gives rise to the charter of APUG. It's the whole reason this site exists. At least for us users...

Unfortunately, most here try to invoke the first abstraction in an attempt to claim no distinction between the two technologies. They do this because that first abstraction is a shared characteristic.

For those who see a photograph as no more than the image depicted, that may be valid. But for those with a broader perspective, that may not be enough.

Ken

blansky · Apr 8, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
For those who see a photograph as no more than the image depicted, that may be valid. But for those with a broader perspective, that may not be enough.

Ken

But by that statement you denigrate the image depicted. The exercise is not just to depict an image.

The goal is to create an image with impact, relevance, emotional content and perhaps timelessness that captures the human condition.

Lots of digital images achieve this and lots fail. Lots of analog images achieve this and lots fail.

Remember a masterful analog print of a boring subject is not a broader perspective than a poor camera phone shot of an incredible impactful emotional image.

That I think is where we have a disagreement.

Process is all well and good and an honorable achievement. BUT whatever the media, the image depicted is more important than the ingredients you used to achieve it.

That is my argument. And I feel you disagree.

Your argument will perhaps be, yes but the real goal is to have both. And my argument is, maybe. But the final impact of the image trumps all.

pdeeh · Apr 8, 2015

I clicked on this thread because I thought it might be about someone, perhaps a photographer, called Clyde Butcher, of whom I had not previously heard.

sigh

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 8, 2015

blansky said:
But by that statement you denigrate the image depicted. The exercise is not just to depict an image.

The goal is to create an image with impact, relevance, emotional content and perhaps timelessness that captures the human condition.

Lots of digital images achieve this and lots fail. Lots of analog images achieve this and lots fail.

Remember a masterful analog print of a boring subject is not a broader perspective than a poor camera phone shot of an incredible impactful emotional image.

That I think is where we have a disagreement.

Process is all well and good and an honorable achievement. BUT whatever the media, the image depicted is more important than the ingredients you used to achieve it.

That is my argument. And I feel you disagree.

Your argument will perhaps be, yes but the real goal is to have both. And my argument is, maybe. But the final impact of the image trumps all.

Actually I don't disagree with any of this at all.

If digital images were unable to convey impact and emotion, then the APUG galleries would be forlorn places indeed. But they are not. And no APUG subscribers looking at the images from those galleries will ever mistake what they see on their screens for sheets of Multigrade IV.

What I suspect is that you are trying to limit the definition of a photograph to only the scope of that first abstraction. Meaning, both technologies are capable of reducing three dimensions down to two dimensions, so there are no other substantial difference between them. They are therefore essentially the same.

And to someone who has acknowledged that the final print is all that matters, given the shared nature of that first abstraction, this makes perfect sense. The end not only justifies the means, it defines the means.

But what I am saying is to consider that there may be more to the greater definition of just what a photograph is than only that single shared behavior.

Enough more, in fact, that APUG itself has a reason to exist. And prosper...

Ken

removed account4 · Apr 8, 2015

Michael R 1974 said:
I think the first few posts were about Clyde Butcher. I've never much cared for his stuff.

yes, the first posts are about him ..
and the rest of the thread is about
something else entirely it is
and abstraction about an abstraction ..
it has nothing to do with the OP,
maybe that is a 3rd abstraction ?

moose10101 · Apr 8, 2015

Michael R 1974 said:
I think the first few posts were about Clyde Butcher. I've never much cared for his stuff.

There you go again, staying on topic. I may have to report your attempted re-hijacking.

blansky · Apr 8, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
Actually I don't disagree with any of this at all.

If digital images were unable to convey impact and emotion, then the APUG galleries would be forlorn places indeed. But they are not. And no APUG subscribers looking at the images from those galleries will ever mistake what they see on their screens for sheets of Multigrade IV.

What I suspect is that you are trying to limit the definition of a photograph to only the scope of that first abstraction. Meaning, both technologies are capable of reducing three dimensions down to two dimensions, so there are no other substantial difference between them. They are therefore essentially the same.

And to someone who has acknowledged that the final print is all that matters, given the shared nature of that first abstraction, this makes perfect sense. The end not only justifies the means, it defines the means.

But what I am saying is to consider that there may be more to the greater definition of just what a photograph is than only that single shared behavior.

Enough more, in fact, that APUG itself has a reason to exist. And prosper...

Ken

Probably my last comment on this because it's going to become circular:

You first statement about digital is comparing computer screen impact to a sheet of Multigrade IV seems like a nonstarter. But a comparison of a sheet of Multigrade IV to a sheet of Museo Silver Rag is and has stumped people who couldn't tell the difference. As well as other papers. Haven't seen comparisons for a number of years, but many pros were stumped as to digital vs analog.

As for APUG existing and prospering, a very good thing. Nitch processes and antiquated (meaning old) processes are important to have thrive. But what I have seen here since the beginning and see here often is what could be called the fetishizing of the print. Whereby the print becomes more important than the subject and the impact of the subject. Technique over substance. Visual tactility, over visual emotion.

And I'm not trying to limit the definition of a photograph, I'm trying to just express what thousands and thousands of pros like me consider photography to be.

We all have a tendency to get tunnel vision in our groups, and forget sometimes that the other group exists. Obviously APUGer feel that every day with the proliferation of digital. But do remember that people of my group as a whole (and many of whom were analog first) probably sell more prints in a week than all other types of photographers do in a year. That means people pay money because something about them moves them. Obviously you could say, well what the hell does the great unwashed public know. But people buy what they like.

But our problem is we tended to forget about your group.

I, and a few others here are like the liaison.

Shawn Dougherty · Apr 8, 2015

Language is fluid and thank God because so is humanity. Things change, evolve. Photography, photograph... those are just words. They have become generalized terms referring to many different processes.

I believe that when selling prints it is important to be up front and truthful about the process, especially in the art world where it seems to matter most to both the creator and the buyer. A silver gelatin print is different than an archival inkjet print yet both are surely photographs. If you believe otherwise and wish to change it that's fine just understand that it is a battle (of semantics) which you have already lost. Time marches on and language has always been along for the ride.

removedacct1 · Apr 8, 2015

I regret speaking on this subject. Fin.

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 8, 2015

paulbarden said:
Yes, this.
Its important to remember that we are asking these questions because this is a group of people who place special value on process, not just the result. It makes perfect sense that in this context, people want to establish boundaries, definitions and define parameters that may include or exclude certain processes. Its no secret that many prefer to segregate processes that emphasize digital tools (or make use of them at all) into their own realm, so as to not contaminate the meaning and domain of traditional materials and methods. I get that - I do. But I choose not to adopt more radical notions that seek to exclude non-silver-based technologies from the very definition of "a photograph". That level of granularity only matters to the practitioners of the craft (and perhaps the art dealers) who, for reasons I need not explain here, value the process as much as the result. Presumably that is why the majority of us are here, inhabiting this particular space and choosing to protect the domain of The Photograph.

However, I will not imbrace this often hostile sentiment that digital imaging tools are somehow The Enemy. Its as if by accepting the fact that computers have changed how some people craft a work, that we are inviting the disastrous collapse of the silver technology we love and value. That's simply not rational. It reminds me strongly of the objections raised by the artists and illustrators of the 19th century, claiming that photography would ruin their media and contaminate/corrupt their way of making art. (Photography certainly did increase the artists vocabulary and expand its scope by adding new tools and techniques, but I wouldn't define such a contribution as "contamination")

Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me whether some choose to segregate all image-making processes touched in any way by computer technology into some non-photographic category of its own, or whether the definition of "a photograph" includes any camera technology that collects, organizes and makes a record of light. Here - in the APUG Universe, its clear that most feel that silver-based technologies are "special" and deserve recognition as such, and that this traditional process needs protection from other technologies that threaten it. That is the nature of this community, and though I don't always agree with everything that gets said, I comprehend where its coming from, and why.

No, this.

Merely seeking a working definition of something is not a value judgment one way or the other on that something. That act of intellectual seeking, of going down many paths and testing until a best fit is found, is how enlightenment happens. And enlightenment is the end product of critical thinking.

Referring to those who apply critical thinking in the search for such enlightenment as "this often hostile sentiment that digital imaging tools are somehow The Enemy" hints more at insecurity than anything else.

Nobody is out to get you, or your tools...

Ken

removedacct1 · Apr 8, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
Referring to those who apply critical thinking in the search for such enlightenment as "this often hostile sentiment that digital imaging tools are somehow The Enemy" hints more at insecurity than anything else.

Insecurity?? I think that's inappropriate at the very least. However, you are certainly welcome to say that you think my statements don't contribute anything to the discussion. I can take that kind of judgement, but don't suggest that my opinions are rooted in insecurity. That's offensive.

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 8, 2015

paulbarden said:
Insecurity?? I think that's inappropriate at the very least. However, you are certainly welcome to say that you think my statements don't contribute anything to the discussion. I can take that kind of judgement, but don't suggest that my opinions are rooted in insecurity. That's offensive.

No, this.

Not even close to offensive. At least not in the way you imply. How else to make sense of such a blanket negative characterization by you of the membership here? If you have a more appropriate explanation then the audience is listening...

Like so many others here my original education was in the sciences. It's been a very long time since I practiced any of that, but I do still retain a lot of the framework that I was taught. Things that are essential when engaging in any search for enlightenment in any field of knowledge.

One of those things is the absolute requirement for a dispassionate approach to a problem. One must be able to compartmentalize. To step outside of one's own premises and prejudices, since we all have them. Answers to questions rarely come in the forms and from the directions one might anticipate. So the rule is, don't anticipate.

So that's what I did. I posed a very non-judgmental question. I even initially kept my own opinions out of it, since everyone who's been here a while is already familiar with what I think on this topic. I simply asked...

What are the unique set of characteristics and/or behaviors that define a photograph?

The idea was to hopefully illuminate a subset of answers around which a majority might coalesce. Or if not, then to clearly and dispassionately illuminate the areas of disagreement, without the usual posturing and name-calling. I saw it as an intellectual exercise—possibly even an enjoyable one—in the use of critical thinking.

And instead you post with guns blazing, calling the environment here hostile and accusing others of referring to your chosen set of imaging tools as The Enemy. What's up with that? Where did that come from?

Perhaps, if so moved to respond at all, a better and more appropriate response by you might have been to simply say, this is what I think are the characteristics and/or behaviors that define a photograph. And here's why I think that. And then to enjoy respectfully reading what others had to say in their answers.

Offensive? Yeah, I certainly was offended. All I asked was a simple question...

Ken

removedacct1 · Apr 8, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
And instead you post with guns blazing, calling the environment here hostile and accusing others of referring to your chosen set of imaging tools as The Enemy. What's up with that? Where did that come from?

Last time I checked, MY set of tools included REAL cameras and FILM and darkroom implements. That is why I chose to join APUG. But now, I no longer care how anyone ends up defining "photograph".

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 8, 2015

Thanks to all who responded to my simple question. Trust me, I learned a lot. Not too much about what may or may not define a photograph. But a lot nevertheless...

Ken

removed account4 · Apr 9, 2015

paulbarden said:
I regret speaking on this subject. Fin.

hi paulbarden

have no regrets !

Clyde Butcher

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency