Loss of fine art photography tradition

alarickc · Mar 14, 2013

I do have to agree with David K on the point though that my generation is filled with pretentious ignorant asses. I've never been able to understand lacking in humility so much as to not be able to admit the obvious benefits of learning from the past. I've only been perusing photography for six months, I suck at it. That makes sense since I've only been at it six months, even Adam's probably wasn't that great the first few months after he picked up a camera. I'm happy to learn and love having access to such amazing resources such as this site, my local art museum, and the excellent selection of photography and art history books at my library. I only wish other aspiring photographers could do the same.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

Slixtiesix said:
...And every time this happened the established elite of photographers argued that this would dilute the craft...

You have missed the point entirely!
I was never interested in a "diluting the craft" argument. After all, I have made the switch to digital 100%. Though I would hate to see any craft lost or forgotten, that is completely unrelated to this discussion.

I am only concerned that new photographers are not acquiring the knowledge and skill set they ought to be acquiring from those who have gone before. They do not know that there are materials not conducive to long term permanence. They are often not even aware there is such a thing as long term permanence! They have no clue why a photograph should not be made to imitate a painting. They are unaware of analog skills that are directly translatable to the digital side and would be of benefit. Necessary knowledge is not being transferred from one generation to the next as it once was. Even the simple concepts of dodging and burning (though they are best done quite differently in the digital realm) are unknown to these newcomers.

Prof_Pixel · Mar 14, 2013

Bob Carnie said:
Carbon inkjet prints and their longevity is a sham put forth by the inkjet manufacturers.

Please read through the information at Dead Link Removed to fully understand how good the archival properties of ink jet printing has become.

Grumpyshutter · Mar 14, 2013

"They seem determined to make all the old mistakes all over again."

Isn't that what being young is all about?

batwister · Mar 14, 2013

davidkachel said:
They have no clue why a photograph should not be made to imitate a painting.

:eek:

Sorry to post again, but you're making me excitable.

Joel Sternfeld influenced a big move back to painterly compositional convention with colour work.
Nadav Kander, Jem Southam, Burtynsky, Todd Hido - with his Hopper hotel room pastiches. They're all at it, and these photographers in particular have a massive impact on youngens. Very craft oriented too.

I don't think you're really aware of what's going on in photography, aside from amateur photo sharing sites.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

moose10101 said:
Dear David,

How absurd. You're obviously not looking with much effort. I spent some time yesterday on my favorite digital web site reading a discussion of Adams' previsualization techniques, the Zone System vs. digital ETTR, and the differences between Adams'/Minor White's/Weston's approach to the art.

I get that most of the folks here don't like digital photography. Fine, don't like it. But do you really consider fellow photographers ignorant fools simply because they don't use the same equipment/process as you? I sure some of them are, but ALL of them?

How about sharing that web site with me? It might be what I have been searching for.

As to the second paragraph, WHERE DID YOU GET THAT!!?? I never said anything about anyone being ignorant fools, and I USE DIGITAL EQUIPMENT, 100%, so if I were looking down my nose at anyone, it would obviously be the people here, not the digital newcomers!!! I could not possibly care less if someone uses the same equipment/process as me. If you can make a good photograph with a bucket of fertilizer and a sharp stick, fine by me! I am the furthest thing from a methodology snob there is. I DO insist however, that what is represented as fine art photography not be printed on newsprint, mounted on plywood with Elmer's glue and covered in oil paint.

And in defense of the people here, I see very few who "don't like digital photography". I see people who have decided to continue to use analog materials for very rational, concrete reasons. I applaud and support that and I make copies of all my more important techniques available to them on my web site, free of charge, for just that reason. All this "my technology is better than your technology" nonsense is a big waste of time for everyone. All that matters is the final image.

moose10101 · Mar 14, 2013

davidkachel said:
They have no clue why a photograph should not be made to imitate a painting.

Why shouldn't they? And is this limited to certain styles of painting, or is any manipulation outside of cropping, white balance, sharpening, and contrast adjustment considered inappropriate?

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

dpurdy said:
Education is good. Studying art, including what was done in the past, will open your mind, change your perceptions and make you see and understand things otherwise you were blind to.
I will take the question one step farther and say that if you consider yourself a "fine art Photographer" you should study art.. not just photography.
While I was studying Kandinsky my non artist mother didn't get it and said his work just looked like a child's work. His work changed me as a human being and changed the way I see.
Looking at a show by Ruth Bernard changed my ideas about nudes and how I would like to work with them.
Looking at a show by Stieglitz changed my vision.
Holding an unframed Irving Penn Platinum print mounted on aluminum changed my direction.
Studying my coffee cup with a reproduction of pears painted by Cezanne set off a whole series of photographs.
Knowing why Weston lived the way he did changed the way I want to live.
Studying etchings affected my aesthetics in platinum printing. As well as studying drawing.

There is nothing in life that is better if it is ignorantly done.
Dennis

Well said, indeed!

Bob Carnie · Mar 14, 2013

I have read this info and have his book sitting beside me, I still stand by the statement.
We make prints here daily in all methods, I do not buy for a minute that inkjet prints will last beyond 50 years in any setting.

Prof_Pixel said:
Please read through the information at Dead Link Removed to fully understand how good the archival properties of ink jet printing has become.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

Bob Carnie said:
A lot of Carbon Printers would disagree with you and this statement shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. The amount of pure carbon pigment allowed though the nossel heads is nothing compared to a pigment load applied by hand by true carbon printers.

Carbon inkjet prints and their longevity is a sham put forth by the inkjet manufacturers.

I think you are confusing terminology. Inkjet manufacturers make no claims about the longevity of carbon inkjet prints. They DO make claims about PIGMENT inkjet prints, but carbon inks come from other manufacturers that the makers of inkjet printers would prefer to see disappear.

And I find your claim that a lot of carbon pigment is more permanent than a little bit of carbon pigment to be somewhat questionable.

Klainmeister · Mar 14, 2013

Bob Carnie said:
I have read this info and have his book sitting beside me, I still stand by the statement.
We make prints here daily in all methods, I do not buy for a minute that inkjet prints will last beyond 50 years in any setting.

Interesting, especially because my PhD chemist friend refuses to pay a dime for anything inkjet for this exact reason...he prints only in PT and Carbon

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

sbattert said:
...Fine art photography seems to be finished at the commercial level. What does the young guy need to know other than point, click, edit, send to be printed? The archival process is in the hands of the marketing department at the lab.

I think you just made my point for me.

Prof_Pixel · Mar 14, 2013

Bob Carnie said:
I have read this info and have his book sitting beside me

Henry has several books and MANY reports.

removed account4 · Mar 14, 2013

davidkachel said:
They have no clue why a photograph should not be made to imitate a painting.

why is it wrong for someone to make a photograph that looks like a painting? i do this often
and didn't know i was doing something wrong. i am able to do this using an eletrick camera but i would rather use
traditional materials ... emulsion painted onto paper ( or glass ), exposed, processed and then painted on again.

photography is much more than grand landscapes and peppers and using a large format camera.
it is a disservice to photography to say something should or shouldn't be done.

Bob Carnie · Mar 14, 2013

Sandy King who IMO is the worlds leading authority on Carbon Printing is someone you should talk to as I find your claim troubling. He works in traditional and digital methods and someone who I admire for his stubbourness in printing only with true carbon.
You also may want to have this discussion with Charles Berger who frequents here or Todd Gangler,or John Bentley who work in Tri Colour Carbon for stability reasons.

If indeed any print coming off any type of inkjet technology could last the test of time, the company would have found the archilles heel of colour printmaking and its continuing issue of archival longevity.
I would then quite willingly do a youtube video and eat my hat , in humble apology to you. I would be the first to then reinvest my company's assets in equipment to buy this new wonder printer... Sadly I am holding my breath on that happening any time soon.

I do think that some day your claims would become a reality , now I am talking stability that makes 50 years look like chump change. If you can point us to the imaging machine specs that you are making your claim then please do so.
There may be people here who may think your claims are correct, I am just not one.

davidkachel said:
I think you are confusing terminology. Inkjet manufacturers make no claims about the longevity of carbon inkjet prints. They DO make claims about PIGMENT inkjet prints, but carbon inks come from other manufacturers that the makers of inkjet printers would prefer to see disappear.

And I find your claim that a lot of carbon pigment is more permanent than a little bit of carbon pigment to be somewhat questionable.

moose10101 · Mar 14, 2013

davidkachel said:
How about sharing that web site with me? It might be what I have been searching for.

Here is the thread I was referring to. Obviously, most of the threads on the side are about digital photography, but there seems to be no shortage of knowledge about analog techniques and photo history in general:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1283050

davidkachel said:
As to the second paragraph, WHERE DID YOU GET THAT!!?? I never said anything about anyone being ignorant fools

I got it from this:

"NB: I picked APUG for this discussion because there appear to be no people on digital photography forums with the depth and experience needed to participate in such a discussion: i.e., They never heard of Stieglitz or Weston either."

You couldn't find anyone, so you concluded there wasn't anyone. I'm sure many people here could have suggested one or more sites if asked.

davidkachel said:
And in defense of the people here, I see very few who "don't like digital photography". I see people who have decided to continue to use analog materials for very rational, concrete reasons.

There are many people here who believe that analog is right for them, but recognize digital as a valid technology that may be right for others. Unfortunately, I see more and more threads here that are filled with utter contempt for anything and anyone "digital". Give me a dollar for every "digisnappers"/"digipix"/"digimon"/"digital isn't photography" comment, and I could retire to Tahiti.

A few weeks ago, a member started a thread to talk about how someone had found a way to use a common device, already carried by millions of people, as an accurate incident light meter. I thought it was wonderful: carry one device instead of two, and take the money you would have used on a separate meter and spend it on a lens, or film, or to help pay the mortgage. Alas, the device in question was "digital", and was therefore anathema to any "real" photographer. The idea was ridiculed; apparently you're not a "real" photographer unless you carry a "real" light meter. I'm still trying to understand why a device that does exactly what a light meter does, with the same level of accuracy and ease of use, isn't a "real" light meter. Apparently there's some kind of "Turing test" for equipment that I'm not aware of. Maybe the digital-haters run in packs, and I've been unlucky enough to cross their path more often, but the pack seems to be growing in size.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

alarickc said:
Maybe maybe not. As an eighteen year old just starting to take photography seriously and just learning how to print I am making it a point to learn how to make my prints archival. As it stands now I print on RC paper; one it's cheaper and two Ilford cooltone is only in RC. (And yes I realize that FB is more archival, though the more recent generations of RC look like they may hold up nearly as well.) But I would never criticize someone for using less permanent materials, even for "fine art". As I recall da Vinci's Last Supper was painted on increadably unarchival plaster exposed to the elements. Yet I think we can all agree that, to put it bluntly, doesn't suck. I think it's closed minded to judge the validity of art based on weather it will be long lasting or not. If that was the case the only truly valid art would be carved from solid granite or shaped from flawless diamond.

1. Da Vinci did not know his materials were impermanent. This knowledge was unavailable during that time. Even if he did know, so what? That doesn't make it OK to knowingly use garbage materials today.

2. You have a responsibility to your buyers NOT to sell art you made on materials you know to be inferior. If you are not going to sell it as art, print on anything you want.

3. The makers of RC papers have been claiming "new, improved and less destructive" for the entire forty + year history of these trash papers! It was a lie then, it is a lie now. Are they better? Absolutely. Supremely better. Are they good enough? Not by a mile. They are simply a better grade of trash.

4. From an art standpoint, RC papers are also visually inferior to FB. You won't see this for a while. Maybe for a few years. But the difference is there, and eventually you will see that it is not a small difference. I just hope that when you have that ability, all the good fiber papers aren't gone.

RC paper is the best boon to utility photography ever. I used tons of it, for contact sheets, commercial prints, tests, research, everything I did not intend to sign and sell as art.

removed account4 · Mar 14, 2013

davidkachel said:
1. Da Vinci did not know his materials were impermanent. This knowledge was unavailable during that time. Even if he did know, so what? That doesn't make it OK to knowingly use garbage materials today.

2. You have a responsibility to your buyers NOT to sell art you made on materials you know to be inferior. If you are not going to sell it as art, print on anything you want.

3. The makers of RC papers have been claiming "new, improved and less destructive" for the entire forty + year history of these trash papers! It was a lie then, it is a lie now. Are they better? Absolutely. Supremely better. Are they good enough? Not by a mile. They are simply a better grade of trash.

4. From an art standpoint, RC papers are also visually inferior to FB. You won't see this for a while. Maybe for a few years. But the difference is there, and eventually you will see that it is not a small difference. I just hope that when you have that ability, all the good fiber papers aren't gone.

RC paper is the best boon to utility photography ever. I used tons of it, for contact sheets, commercial prints, tests, research, everything I did not intend to sign and sell as art.

kodak and the image permanency institute ( wilhelm ? ) would beg to differ.
if processed correctly and toned modern rc papers have a lifespan that can match fiber prints.
they will probably last as long as any ink or pigment / ink print made.

that said, i believe half of what i see, and none of what i hear, even if i am the one saying it.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

batwister said:
:eek:

Sorry to post again, but you're making me excitable.

Joel Sternfeld influenced a big move back to painterly compositional convention with colour work.
Nadav Kander, Jem Southam, Burtynsky, Todd Hido - with his Hopper hotel room pastiches. They're all at it, and these photographers in particular have a massive impact on youngens. Very craft oriented too.

I don't think you're really aware of what's going on in photography, aside from amateur photo sharing sites.

I don't think YOU are paying attention.
I am not talking about composition or style. I am talking about trying to make a photograph look like a physical painting instead of a photograph!

As for "amateur photo sharing sites", I know you are trying to be insulting, but I never look at them.

I think you are making yourself excitable.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

moose10101 said:
Why shouldn't they? And is this limited to certain styles of painting, or is any manipulation outside of cropping, white balance, sharpening, and contrast adjustment considered inappropriate?

For the exact same reason that a violinist should not try to make his instrument sound like a tuba.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

jnanian said:
why is it wrong for someone to make a photograph that looks like a painting? i do this often
and didn't know i was doing something wrong. i am able to do this using an eletrick camera but i would rather use
traditional materials ... emulsion painted onto paper ( or glass ), exposed, processed and then painted on again.

photography is much more than grand landscapes and peppers and using a large format camera.
it is a disservice to photography to say something should or shouldn't be done.

I never said anything, from an artistic perspective, shouldn't be done.
But if you are going to cover your photograph in paint, call it what it is, a painting (or more precisely, paint by numbers), but don't call it a photograph.
Otherwise, if I were to glue one of my photographs to the front of a painting, why would I not be able to call myself a painter?

Brian C. Miller · Mar 14, 2013

David, I'll come at this from a different point.

Before I bought a Pentax 6x7, I didn't care about photography at all. It was just a way to document something, and that's all it was for me. The end.

Then one evening as I was driving home, I was entranced by the bright moonlight. I wanted to photograph that. "How would that look like, photographed?" And so after futzing about with my point & shoot and talking to a coworker about it, I bought a Pentax 6x7. I still have it, still use it, and just got it CLA'd.

Now, at that time I had no idea who Ansel Adams was. I became familiar with him as a result of reading his three book educational series. I started developing my own film because I didn't like what happened at the lab I was using. I started to print because the local labs closed down. And of course I learned about archival permanance because I had to (there are some things that you will learn only if you do it yourself). I've looked at other photographers not because of their photography, but based on the concepts they were trying to convey. And believe me, I honestly don't care about the majority of "famous" photographers. Most of them have produced what I consider to be garbage. That's just how I look at it, how my brain is wired. Eggleston sells for serious money, but that's not what I would buy, or how I would photograph.

I'm guessing that the "kids these days" you are complaining about were never motivated by something outside of photography to go and photograph. When someone is motivated to photograph because they saw another photograph, then they've been motivated within, inside of, photography. It's mimicing another's action, monkey see, monkey do. It's not crying out, "look at this, I've found something! Come and see!" And since the "kids these days" haven't had any contact with someone working at it as a whole process. As has been mentioned, they click, send off a JPEG, and get back a print. They come to you, and now you, on behalf of your customers, wind up giving them a smidgen of guidance on what to do next. How many of them have any true personal, internal drive at all? That's the real question. I have discovered for myself that I must photograph. You should be asking the "kids these days," did they make that photograph because it's fun, or because they ------- well had to make it?

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

Greg Davis said:
This seems contradictory to me. If the final image is all that matters, then why can't it be printed on newsprint and glued to plywood then painted over? If it is a good image, so what? Perhaps the materials are just as important to the piece as the image itself?

Come on. Now you are being purposely obtuse.

These are two SEPARATE topics.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

jnanian said:
kodak and the image permanency institute ( wilhelm ? ) would beg to differ.
if processed correctly and toned modern rc papers have a lifespan that can match fiber prints.
they will probably last as long as any ink or pigment / ink print made.

that said, i believe half of what i see, and none of what i hear, even if i am the one saying it.

I am aware of those claims. I also remember all the other times they turned out not to be true, too.
I trust Kodak not at all. Their outrageous history in this area is available for everyone to read.
Wilhelm, I have a lot of confidence in. BUT, his tests are limited. They do not take everything into consideration. They can't.

RC papers are no good. Don't use them for serious work. They are also visually inferior, but most people can't see it.

moose10101 · Mar 14, 2013

davidkachel said:
For the exact same reason that a violinist should not try to make his instrument sound like a tuba.

So if someone is already doing a thing, no one else should try to do that thing using other equipment/techniques? Is this because it's automatically assumed to be inferior, or because you'd be stepping on someone else's toes, or some other reason?

I have an image of a sunflower on my wall that I shot slightly OOF to emphasize color and form over detail. It looks like a painting, and I like it quite a bit. Should I not have produced that image unless I painted it (i.e., I should deprive myself of it because I can't paint)?

Loss of fine art photography tradition

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency