Truly off the mark.
What is it about touching a print that makes you suddenly realize the photographers vision? Do you sit around rubbing the surface of the print to find the photographer's true meaning? .
you can behold your master prints all you want, the fact of the matter is society a hundred years from now will remember the images that matter, no one will care in the least bit (except for self righteous analog photographers who care more about the medium than the content) what the hell it's printed on, inkjet paper, silver paper, cheapo magazine paper, toilet paper, etc. And don't even start with the archival battle - what are the chance of someone caring about any of our photographs which can last 200 years? I've got magazines from the 60's that still get the point across. Who cares, lets all get over ourselves.
Photographs are meant to be reproduced. If all we cared about was the intrinsic qualities of the first generation and one-off's why wouldn't we just take up painting? Or just stare at negatives all day? Screw the print, it's about content, not about type of paper you are using. As soon as you start concentrating on the aesthetic qualities of the printed material more than your vision you've totally lost the ball and as far as I'm concerned are spiralling towards the "only make one print and burn the negative" camp.
but I'm on the wrong forum to be discussing content....
disclaimer: I don't even own a digital camera, or a capable scanner, or a photo printer. I do have a darkroom though.
You may care about how your 'photograph' was made down to the deepest fibre of your being, but 95% of the people who will look at it without you there to explain its origins will only be judging it on content.
Murray
I am very interested in the turn this thread has taken to a discussion of "reproduction" versus the "original print" and the experience of the viewer compared to the experience of the maker. (Does this deserve being its own thread? Has it been already and I've missed it?) I wrote about this very topic in the Editor's Comments of LensWork #73 (just in the mail yesterday, BTW) in which I asked lots of questions and for which I have no answers. It's a real stumper for my brain. I'll be anxious to see what answers develop from the collective experience here. In other words -- Warning, podcast topic-mining in progress!
Brooks
???? Sensing some animosity here. I always find statements like this interesting. I've never understood why another's process should threaten anyone. I think a lot of the beauty of the processes you attempt to denigrate with your statement is that in most cases they can't be made by pressing buttons on a machine.
but I'm not losing sleep about reaching the "average" person. They are, after all, average.
I can't dissagree with this, Murray, however I don't make my photographs for that 95% percent, either. If one of that group stumbles on one somehow, and apreciates it for whatever reason, great, but I'm not losing sleep about reaching the "average" person. They are, after all, average.
Yikes! That came off as being a tad pretentious...can your clarify please?
I make mine to satisfy myself.
If anybody, and I mean anybody from any segment of society reacts to them in any way I'm happy. Even a strong negative reaction is OK because at least it generated a response that required some thought, and could result in an interesting conversation.
Murray
Why does this thread seem more and more like a product placement for Lenswork magazine?
I don't know of any other sponsor on this site which responds within a thread to the extent Brook has done here.
It seems to serve a mercantile purpose of keeping the thread "open" to provide continuing opportunities for comment. In other words, a sponsor is apparently manipulating the site.
LensWork is not a sponsor of this site. Brooks is a subscriber, and nothing more than any other of that order. I, for one, am very pleased that he finds himself here from time to time to speak in behalf of his magazine, which doesn't offer him one whit of immunity from those who throw mud.
I too appreciate Brooks participation. Historically he has repeatedly endured pot shots from the peanut gallery, and time and again tries to explain his policies and positions. It is a credit to APUG that he finds participation here worthwhile.
I don't agree with all of Brooks positions, but I am satisfied that they are well thought out, and offered in an honest and candid fashion. How many other photo publishers do this?
Well, then, if he's not a sponsor - he should be.
He's gotten a hell of a lot of free advertising for his business just in this thread alone.
And, they do pop up kind of regularly - perhaps on a cycle similar to the publication releases?
George-
Chill.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
My photographs are created for those that appreciate them, and those that do, are not, by definition, average. Also, if my photographs were greatly appreciated, across the board, I would have succeeded only in creating the truly mundane.
George-
Chill.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
I didn't say there were NO conspiracies... just that not everything is a conspiracy. If you ever worked for the US Government, you'd realize how impossible it is for a conspiracy to actually work... our government is too incompetent to actually pull off a conspiracy.
Well, that's what they want you to think.
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?