Good to be here

[Stephen J. Collier]

It is so nice to find a photography forum that contains actual photography and not a sorry hybrid of too much digital and too little film. As a member of photo.net I spend most of my time frustrated and annoyed. It seems the whole site is dedicated to and run by digital color imagers. I call the “photography” they undertake imaging because while they are creating images, these images fall far short of being actual photographs. By definition photography is writing with light on a light sensitive surface such as film. There is no definition that I can find that talks about computer chips converting light energy into numbers and then pixels. Though I guess I am preaching to the converted, or should I say, preaching to the uncorrupted. Digital has taken over much of our world and in many cases it is for the better, but digital has no place in the serious art photography. Art photography (I’ll use that term, pretentious as it may be, because I lack of a better one) is not about producing pretty and interesting pictures. Art photography says as much about the photographer as it does about the subject. It is a process and a craft that cannot be replaced. To call the Digital Darkroom a darkroom at all it pure marketing bullshit, it implies that there is a parallel to be drawn between the images that are manipulated on a computer screen and photographs that are created in an actually darkroom. Recently I say a post on photo.net where in one photographer remarked to another that Photoshop made him a god. How absolutely pathetic, Photoshop may allow those who aspire to make “cool” looking picture an easier way to so, but it kills the actual art that is inherent in the traditional photographic process.
Sorry, I’ll step down off my soapbox now. Let me just say that it is good to be apart of this site.

 

[BWGirl]

Welcome! So how long have you been involved with photography? Where are you from? What do you like to shoot?

Jeanette

 

[photomc]

Welcome, great place with lots of really GREAT People.

 

[Jorge]

It is so nice to find a photography forum that contains actual photography and not a sorry hybrid of too much digital and too little film. As a member of photo.net I spend most of my time frustrated and annoyed. It seems the whole site is dedicated to and run by digital color imagers. I call the “photography” they undertake imaging because while they are creating images, these images fall far short of being actual photographs. By definition photography is writing with light on a light sensitive surface such as film. There is no definition that I can find that talks about computer chips converting light energy into numbers and then pixels. Though I guess I am preaching to the converted, or should I say, preaching to the uncorrupted. Digital has taken over much of our world and in many cases it is for the better, but digital has no place in the serious art photography. Art photography (I’ll use that term, pretentious as it may be, because I lack of a better one) is not about producing pretty and interesting pictures. Art photography says as much about the photographer as it does about the subject. It is a process and a craft that cannot be replaced. To call the Digital Darkroom a darkroom at all it pure marketing bullshit, it implies that there is a parallel to be drawn between the images that are manipulated on a computer screen and photographs that are created in an actually darkroom. Recently I say a post on photo.net where in one photographer remarked to another that Photoshop made him a god. How absolutely pathetic, Photoshop may allow those who aspire to make “cool” looking picture an easier way to so, but it kills the actual art that is inherent in the traditional photographic process.
Sorry, I’ll step down off my soapbox now. Let me just say that it is good to be apart of this site.

Dont worry Stephen, I was run out of photosick because I told the owner most of his members were PS experts, not photographers......Welcome, you will find this site a refreshing change.

 

[Stephen J. Collier]

I have been involved with Photography for a sum total of about three years. I live in the Bay Area. If you mean what format do I like to shoot in I would say that 35mm is all I can afford. If you meant what subjects I like I would say abstractions, night, architecture and close up, but not necessarily macro.Well that is about it I guess. How about yourself.

 

[Stephen J. Collier]

Dont worry Stephen, I was run out of photosick because I told the owner most of his members were PS experts, not photographers......Welcome, you will find this site a refreshing change.

Sometimes I feel I would end up much the same if I told the people at photo.net what I felt about their "photography".

 

[roy]

Welcome. I hope you find this forum of greater interest.

 

[Aggie]

I live in the Bay Area.

Which Bay area? If it is The San Francisco Bay, join a growing group by the Bay. My suggestion to calm down after a soap box introduction is to; sit back pull up a container of developer and agitate for a while. You never know what will turn out. (hopefully good light and pictures)

 

[BWGirl]

Like yourself, I am pretty new to photography (around 4 years of *putzing*). I like landscapes - large & small; or anything that has a great blend of shadow & light. We just completed my first ever darkroom a few months ago & I am happy as a clam trying new things and seeing what develops!
I've found that everyone here is willing to help when you are stumped & for the most part, we all have a fairly jovial attitude!
Again, Welcome!
Jeanette

 

[Jorge]

Sometimes I feel I would end up much the same if I told the people at photo.net what I felt about their "photography".

I dont know if things have changed in PN, but I remember I while back a lot of members were upset because of the ratings system and the apparent over use of PS. In the end it became a big stink.

One thing you will find here is that people upload their photos to share. Sean has done a great job setting up the galleries and you will find that the quality of the photography is IMO very high compared to other sites. Since most here do not manipulate the image and some, like me, are beguinners at scanning and could not manipulate the image even if we wanted to, I feel the photography uploaded is truly representative of the work.

I think is refreshing to know that the image you are seeing comes from a real paper print and has actually been printed to show and is not an electronic version that who knows if it could ever be printed and have the same impact.

 

[Stephen J. Collier]

Jorge

I dont know if things have changed in PN, but I remember I while back a lot of members were upset because of the ratings system and the apparent over use of PS. In the end it became a big stink.

One thing you will find here is that people upload their photos to share. Sean has done a great job setting up the galleries and you will find that the quality of the photography is IMO very high compared to other sites. Since most here do not manipulate the image and some, like me, are beguinners at scanning and could not manipulate the image even if we wanted to, I feel the photography uploaded is truly representative of the work.

I think is refreshing to know that the image you are seeing comes from a real paper print and has actually been printed to show and is not an electronic version that who knows if it could ever be printed and have the same impact.

The level of PS on photo.net is still really high and you would be hard pressed to find a member that will list the manipulation they put their image through. They all pretend that the image that is viewed is the image that was captured. As far as the scanning goes, I too scan from a print with an old flat bed scanner. It does drop the quality which is frustrating. The most common problem for me is a decrease in sharp focus, the majority of scans make the print look soft.

 

[Stan. L-B]

Welcome Stephen. I'm a newbie too and getting to grips with this great site
for enthusiastic traditionalists. Stan.L-B

 

[jss]

welcome!

I have been involved with Photography for a sum total of about three years. I live in the Bay Area. If you mean what format do I like to shoot in I would say that 35mm is all I can afford.

welcome! i too am a bay area amateur photographer. i agree with your comments on "photography" really being "imaging" these days. i get really upset when i'm on p.n and see a nice image only to learn its been heavily post-processed on a computer. it means that image i saw doesn't really occur and no equipment could have captured it.

i also started out wtih 35mm. i made the leap to medium format with a holga (a $20 camera!) and totally loved the larger negatives. i've gone crazy (as most of my friends (all of whom aren't photonerds like us)) as i've made another leap to large format.

i just recently joined apug and find it very refreshing.

where in the bay area are you? are you in any of the local camera clubs (which are sadly mostly digital now)?


jason