Now digital is used by 99% of photographers, does this mean prints from film have a special place as an artistic media?
Now digital is used by 99% of photographers, does this mean prints from film have a special place as an artistic media?
I understand your point and agree to a certain extent. Of course, some prints and photo have historical context. So analog prints have value beyond the aesthetics and content. Looking at Walker Evans original shots printed chemically in 1929 has more value than looking at some digital copy. I don't have to visit the Getty Museum for that, just look it up on the web. You could look at the Mona Lisa on the web too. But not the same as standing in front of the original painting and smiling back at it.I doubt there is a "special place" for analog prints because in the end a print is a print and how the image got there is of little to no artistic worth. The print alone is what matters.
Who are today's most artistic photographers? Just curious.What do you think "a place" etc means? Academic? Galleries? Why would having such place be significant?
Aren't today's most artistic photographers already digital?
Who are today's most artistic photographers? Just curious.
I don't know. An oil painting is a reproduction of sorts just as a digital or film print is, but they are different mediums with different qualities and appeal.I doubt there is a "special place" for analog prints because in the end a print is a print and how the image got there is of little to no artistic worth. The print alone is what matters.
Nonsense!An oil painting is a reproduction of sorts just as a digital or film print is
Good point. Can you name me a few digital artistic photographers? I can't think of any.
That section doesn't allow easy identification of digital vs analog. Maybe you have a list of your favorites?See Photrio's "Photographers" ... you've apparently been homebound for a decade or three.
Okay... it's hard to argue that point. You did use an exclamation point, after all.Nonsense!
That section doesn't allow easy identification of digital vs analog. Maybe you have a list of your favorites?
I don't know. An oil painting is a reproduction of sorts just as a digital or film print is, but they are different mediums with different qualities and appeal.
I think how the image got there is of tremendous artistic worth. A reproduction of Picasso's work is not the same as his painting. How it got there matters.
There are photo fan magazines?Can't help with that "ease" issue. If you've been following "Photographers" but you may have noticed https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rip-harold-feinstein.125968/
I need to admit that my knowledge of great photographers comes mostly from galleries rather than photo fan magazines.
Hi jtk, that is pretty much what I'm talking about. Would you pay the same for one of Adams' prints from his photo lab as you would for a Xerox copy made by me?IMO you're defining "worth" according to your own value system. That's OK but it may blinker your vision by imposing that value system on the work of photographers generally. What's the worth of a Picasso photo? HCB didn't print...why is the work of his photolab thought to be more valuable than a fine photocopy. Same with Ansel Adams...most of the prints in circulation were made by a big photolab that specialized in top tier work.
IMO you're defining "worth" according to your own value system. That's OK but it may blinker your vision by imposing that value system on the work of photographers generally. What's the worth of a Picasso photo? HCB didn't print...why is the work of his photolab thought to be more valuable than a fine photocopy. Same with Ansel Adams...most of the prints in circulation were made by a big photolab that specialized in top tier work.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?