- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,833
- Format
- Hybrid
Not "bad" at all. Just a heads-up:
The vast majority of "real photographers" have zero interest in street photography and wet darkrooms..they actually care enough to want to make their important images better.
And who died and appointed anyone the arbiter of what constitutes a "real" photographer? Depending on who you listen to, "professional" photographers are the only "real" photographers because they earn a living with their camera. Or "art" photographers are the only "real" photographers because they're pursuing a vision not enslaved to popular trends of "what sells". Etc, etc....Not "bad" at all. Just a heads-up:
The vast majority of "real photographers" have zero interest in street photography and wet darkrooms..they actually care enough to want to make their important images better.
Not "bad" at all. Just a heads-up:
The vast majority of "real photographers" have zero interest in street photography and wet darkrooms..they actually care enough to want to make their important images better.
And street photographers who have wet darkrooms don't want to make their images better?The vast majority of "real photographers" have zero interest in street photography and wet darkrooms..they actually care enough to want to make their important images better.
It's just more of the same... For some reason, he feels the need to disparage the quality of the work in the galleries, as well as belittling the writing skills of members. I hope it makes him feel better about his work.And who died and appointed anyone the arbiter of what constitutes a "real" photographer?
It's just more of the same... For some reason, he feels the need to disparage the quality of the work in the galleries, as well as belittling the writing skills of members. I hope it makes him feel better about his work.
Not "bad" at all. Just a heads-up:
The vast majority of "real photographers" have zero interest in street photography and wet darkrooms..they actually care enough to want to make their important images better.
And who died and appointed anyone the arbiter of what constitutes a "real" photographer? Depending on who you listen to, "professional" photographers are the only "real" photographers because they earn a living with their camera. Or "art" photographers are the only "real" photographers because they're pursuing a vision not enslaved to popular trends of "what sells". Etc, etc....
It's just more of the same... For some reason, he feels the need to disparage the quality of the work in the galleries, as well as belittling the writing skills of members. I hope it makes him feel better about his work.
... is what the OP posted 1 1/2 years ago. We have not heard of him since. I suppose this means this forum made sausage of his proposal. Shouldn't we close this thread by now?I will think about how to go forward and carry on later this week.
It's just more of the same... For some reason, he feels the need to disparage the quality of the work in the galleries, as well as belittling the writing skills of members. I hope it makes him feel better about his work.
The 'red canoe' me laugh out loud. I'm very familiar with PSA photographs. Often there is all punch and no substance. When you see them all in a string, like their monthly PDF they send out. You can see how hard it might be to out-impact each other. If I recall, "impact" is the most important quality of the image.
Wow is this thread still going?
I'm sure some of us would like to see pdeeh's photos on Media.
IMO the photographic print is the physical realization of a photographer's perception/idea.
I don't think method of production is at all relevant, even to the perpetual semantic games.
No need to draw lines. Just do what you want to do.This sounds OK for you but it seems for many people, including some galleries out there, and museums, how something is made makes a difference. But for the OP and others that levels of manipulation makes a difference, where does one draw the line?
Pdeeh's work was in the gallery for YEARS. probably removed it when his sub-lapsed.
===
Hi Mark ( OP )
I was wondering if you have thought about this thread a bit more?
While I was a bit of a loose cannon a bit ago when this thread first got a head of steam I do see some value in it. I think there is great interest in knowing how much post processing was used. but it can be a slippery slope trying to figure out how much pre-post processing is a little and how much is a lot. When this site was APUG these ideas were on my mind a lot and isn't hard to do a small excavation of my posts to see that to me at least I think it is nearly impossible to make a photograph with NO manipulation. I think Vaughn stated (and I am paraphrasing) in one thread that as soon as you put the camera on the tripod the image is manipulated ... so where does one draw a line between a little amount and a lot? If a photograph is to look like the scene when it is photographed, our eyes have a specific f-stop, deep DOF looks nothing like it is when we see it. We see fluid motion so what shutter speed should be used? (I haven't even scratched the surface of processing the film ( or using orthochromatic materials to give a certain look ) using Latent Image Manipulation techniques, or negative intensification baths, or certain developing to enhance grain or make it less noticeable). Does burning and dodging count what about contrast adjustment on black and white prints? ( Should I only photograph in color? I'm colorblind so my perception of color is a bit different than maybe yours. ) And lastly, presentation on certain materials, whether thay are hand coated or machine coated ( like Ilford's Fine Art paper ) or printed on one of NoddaDuma's Dry Plates ... please notice I have completely left out cameraless work or sunprints or retina prints. At a certain point it is virtually impossible, for me at least, to look at an image, no matter how it was conceived and turned into a physical object and even thought there was a mild form of manipulation used to make it.
John
ps. I looked at the discussion in the group but this thread seemed more the place to post my thoughts...
What is the perceived need for these APUG standards? Not many people post in Media anyway, though there are quite a few regulars.
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?