It is not the difficulty it is the over doing which can be done in with analog. There is more manipulation that can be done with analog and digital before "blowing out". Ansel Adams cited that as why he preferred to do black & white. His color work was stunning often.
1. There is another thread on Photrio about which is the last new camera you bought. It was a huge surprise to me to see how few new cameras were purchased. Mostly used, and often held onto for a very long time. The digital world seems exactly the opposite. Buy new, keep for a short period of time. I don't know if that is because digital is relatively new, modern consumerism, or a fundamental difference between analogue and digital. In the first case, the camera means little, but film type, developing technique, darkroom, means a lot. In the latter case, I suppose the camera along with Lightroom/PS means everything. The digital arms race for 'pro' cameras is a negative in my opinion. It would be one thing if they lasted a life time, but they don't. And really aren't you just a bozo if you haven't purchased the newest ultra high rez DSLR (or a least I think that is a prevailing opinion out there.)
John, I am more to your way of thinking about cameras: buy, use, keep until dies. I purchased one dslr, a D90 in 2007?, and have used it exclusively since. The quality of the images have been fine, but the camera is fading ... It has developed of/on error message after ever picture taken (strange message as nothing regarding the pic is wrong!). I bought my wife a Fuji T something or other in 2014 and it started acting flakey a year ago. (When, if, I buy another digital camera, it will be a micro4/3). Now one might think that I am hard on cameras, but I'm not. The digital cameras seem to be hard on me, though!.
For good or bad, has digital technology shaped the aesthetics of photography?
Salgado uses a digital camera , are not his images real?
Salgado uses a digital camera , are not his images real?
We must remember that Kodak [Agfa, Ansco, Luminere, ...] got their money for investment and research and development from many people taking ducks in a line snapshot, posing with cars, and in general snapshots. The consumer film end of business was primarily driven average people taking snapshots, and digital cameras have gone through that cycle. Now is the time for smart phones.
Now is the time for APS and full frame video/still cameras...for video as well as still display...
DSLRs are on the way out because their mirror boxes require the dimensions of old fashioned still cameras and it's hard to make a DSLR quiet enough for good video/sound. Therefore Sony and Fuji...and Red...are becoming dominant.
... not everything is an ansel adams print. ( also heavily manipulated )
i could go on and on but the horse is dead .
Of course, his images are real. He is a documentary photographer and I would think he wouldn't break photojournalist code of conduct by manipulating his images too far. I'm more concerned about changing the aesthetics through apps like these.Salgado uses a digital camera , are not his images real?
Surely this is baloney. I've seen a lot of Ansel Adams' prints up close and from all angles and there is some almost invisible spotting and knifing here and there. But I'm sure Ansel did not intend the spotting and knifing to be part of the image content of his photographs. The prints are, no more and no less, than an accurate record of all the actinic light that hit them in the darkroom. There is no hand-work in them, no manipulation of any kind. The photographic cycle, development and fixation, is absolutely dispassionate (mere chemistry and physics) and cannot add or subtract objects depicted in the pictures it makes visible.
Clearly a similar standard applies to ink-jet prints. They are a technical record of all the ink that was squirted at them and stuck; again no hand-work, no manipulation.
Contrast this with, say, an oil painting. This is all hand-work, all manipulation and sometimes very admirable because of that.
The deadest horse of all in the critical analysis of picture making is the mantra "it's all manipulated" or "everything is manipulation". Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. To insist otherwise is, if not misguided, at least empty of useful meaning.
It's impossible to say whether Ansel would have embraced digital technology. But to say that he did not manipulate his images is not very accurate.
Moonrise as a "straight" print;
Moonrise as performed;
Source page; https://whereisharold.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/ansel-adams-and-group-f64/
It's impossible to say whether Ansel would have embraced digital technology. But to say that he did not manipulate his images is not very accurate.
It's impossible to say whether Ansel would have embraced digital technology. But to say that he did not manipulate his images is not very accurate.
Moonrise as a "straight" print;
Moonrise as performed;
Source page; https://whereisharold.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/ansel-adams-and-group-f64/
There always were lots of inane and unremarkable photos, but we rarely got to see them (unless they were our own).
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?