Lenswork - Ouch!

[JBrunner]

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? .

Truly off the mark.

 

[JBrunner]

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.

There is a disconnect here, and an assumption about my point of view that is entirely wrong.

That said, it seems that a cell phone should happily meet all the requirements for your image making.

We are talking amout two entirely different aproaches toward image making and viewing, I do view original very much like a painting.

A reproduction of a painting in a magazine is still a reproduction, same for a photograph. I have seen reproductions of French Impressionist paintings all my life. Last year in Paris, I had the privilege of seeing the originals. A completely different experience. Images of the originals in other media, are now merely reminders of that experience, although the base information is there in the reproduced image. I have carried the exact same experience in regard to seeing Adams and Weston prints, caring not if there are one or two hundred of those individual prints in existence.

 

[JBrunner]

can't spell for s#!#

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 can't disagree 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 appreciates it for whatever reason, great, but I'm not losing sleep about reaching the "average" person. They are, after all, average.

 

[Ian Leake]

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

Here's a new thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[rjas]

???? 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.

Hi, I deleted that post right after I made it because I realized it went over the discussion territory into personal jab territory.

 

[rjas]

but I'm not losing sleep about reaching the "average" person. They are, after all, average.

and here is the basis why our opnions differ. I think a photograph should affect as many people as possible including the average person. Otherwise who are we trying to affect? Art buyers and other photographers?

 

[bruce terry]

Gosh, am I out of it. I just do photographs to please myself. :•(

 

[MurrayMinchin]

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

 

[JBrunner]

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

It wasn't meant to be pretentious, although if you view being average as some kind of black mark, I can see that it might.

I am exceedingly average or below in most of my endeavors or measures. Hopefully my photography, as a result of practice, persistence, study, and aptitude is a place where I can be more than average. Most persons fall into the "average" category in most things, where average is interpreted to mean more than substandard, and less than exceptional. It also seems to me that most persons also have an area that they are gifted in, undiscovered or not. Unfortunately an appreciation for really good photography and printing does not seem to be an average trait shared by homo sapiens.

The flat truth is that most persons couldn't care less about the content, or process of my photographs, and do not view anybody's photography as anything more than a documentation of an occurence in time. That is the true average.

Pretention would be for me to think that my photographs were somehow so important and well executed to be significant to the vast majority (the average)of persons. They are not.

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.

 

[copake_ham]

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.

 

[jovo]

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.


Hey, Brooks....why not consider being a sponsor? You have a large following here, and a lively forum to contend with your podcasts and editorials. If you choose to be one, I, as a membership council member, will always speak in behalf of your not being beheaded for your d-----l leanings.

 

[JBrunner]

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?

 

[removed account4]

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?

DITTO


john

 

[copake_ham]

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?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

George-

Chill.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's not as if Brooks is showing up unbidden to flack his publication, and it would be unfair not to allow him to respond to criticism, even as a non-sponsor.

 

[removed account4]

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, he plugs apug in his blog

if he were a sponsor,
would folks be MORE all over him for not having an
"all analog" magazine, or selling his prints the way he does?

its a 2 way street ...

 

[jd callow]

George-

Chill.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

how do you know?

 

[copake_ham]

I'll simply point out that if you review the thread at least a half dozen posters said they would subscribe to Lenswork after reading Brooks' posts.

Would be nice if APUG at least got a piece of that swag for carrying the load.

"Nice work if you can get it, and you can get it...."

 

[MurrayMinchin]

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.

Yikes! Was I ever reading between the wrong lines.

Thanks for taking the time to respond...I think we share the burning need not to be creating sit-com art

Murray

 

[MurrayMinchin]

George-

Chill.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

Hey, he might be onto something here. I still want to know who Art Soft is, and why the OP is Art Soft's only post. I smell a set up.

Just because you aren't paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you!!!!!

This is fun

Murray

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

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.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Well, that's what they want you to think.

Excactly!

Unless of course, by letting you think that they think you won't be thinking that they aren't thinking about what you're thinking about them conspiring to de-conspire what you just thought...

Oh never mind, good night

Murray

 

[rusty71]

Lenswork Generosity

OK, ironically enough, my Lenswork Holiday CD catalog showed up today. Haven't been a subscriber for over a year either. Guess that shows the publisher's generosity!

Seems this thread has gone far afield. Just want to chime in on the reproduction sub-thread. I do enjoy looking at new photography online. Heck, in most bookstores now you can see the real mags AND look at stuff on your laptop via WiFi. We've got it too good really.
But here's something we should all think about; you CAN see original photo prints in most decent size cities in the world. When was the last time you went to a gallery opening of original photographs in your town? Most public art museums have a tremendous collection of original photographic prints you can make an appointment to see. I'm not talking about what's hanging on the walls. They have far more than they could ever display.
Once a semester I take my college photo class to the St. Louis Art Museum's Print viewing room. I call the docent ahead of time and mention some photographers students are studying. Even if they don't have a Man Ray original, they have something similar by a contemporary.
It's a revelation to see how photographs were printed 70 years ago. It's a very different aesthetic than the last 30. Warm tones, low contrast, and rather dark. These are not the result of fading either. Students get a whole education about the choice of analog printing by looking at those images.

So go out and look at some real photographic prints. It is indeed fun and inspiring. The exhibition that got me into photography were the Atget prints which traveled the US in the early 1980s. That really opened my eyes to the nuances of photography.