next photograph

Jdef
This thread has made my head hurt, but I will try to answer for me (not the masses).
Do I feel the digi/tradi fight is hurting the medium? Don't know, don't care.
How do I see my photography advanceing the medium? Not likely to happen, VERY few people see my work (I have only posted 5 prints here and none remain). The only influence I could have is when someone asks questions when I am out shooting.
Am I breaking new ground or happy with tradition? Either/or, don't really care. If pressed I would put my pics under traditional, because I don't feel I'm "cutting edge".
What way is the medium heading and am I helping or not? Don't know, but I'm not helping as very few see my pics. I'm not trying to be "seen" or famous. I shoot for me and sometimes for the Mrs'.
What way should it be moving? Don't know, don't care, see above.
How do I see the future of this medium? I don't. I don't have a crystal ball, or ESP, and to tell the truth, I really don't care. As long as the camera works and I have film,developer,paper, I'm happy.
To me 2 groups have the biggest impact. Those who are successfull professional photographers that continue to make money. And those who buy the finished print. If a print is truely bad, it will not sell. If no one buys it, it is unlikely to have much influence on the present or future of photography.
Please don't ask me to respond/clarify any of this as it's not going to happen. Interesting thread, but like I said, it's made my head hurt. I take pics and attempt to make them into "fine art prints on silver gelitine", not deep think and worry about the future. It will take care of it's self without any help from me. If your bored, try moving into a different medium for a while. Sometimes walking away from something, then coming back puts it in different light.

jdef said:

Joe,
... This line of thought, while interesting, has little to do with my original post. I never suggested that I, or anyone else should set out to change our medium, or blaze any trails.

Click to expand...

Jay, I reread your original post and you do ask, in a few different ways, about whether anyone sees themselves as "advancing the medium," and other phrases that I take to mean basically the same thing, so I stand by my original response and further clarifications as not being off-topic, though I did pick and choose which parts of your original query I felt inspired to offer thoughts on.

Thanks for the names you suggested, I will give them a quick study as soon as I am able.

As far as Buckminister Fuller - yes, Buckey did look to change the way we did things, to be more at harmony with nature and "spaceship Earth." But he also said that if the results he obtained weren't above all else "beautiful," that he knew he had more work to do. Now that I've typed that I'm not quite sure what it has to do with the discussion. Just consider an interesting side bar.

Joe

Maybe you misunderstood me. What do you find "Tiresome"(webster's)about photography The word boring is just about as vague as a person can get. There are certain attributes about something that qualifies it as boring. What about Steven Meyer's work is boring?

www.xray-art.com

In your opinion what needs to change to make the art of photography less boring? You say you are excited about what you are doing. Thus what you are doing is not boring. What are you doing?

Maybe you need to enlighten me, because I reread, again, your questions, and they are the same thing, worded differently.

jdef said:

I am very excited about my work and the new direction it's taking.
Jay

Click to expand...

Cool!

jdef said:

Mark, I wrote that MOST of the work we're (photographers) doing bores me. I am not interested in debating the word "boring", or justifying my reactions to the work I see. I don't think that photography needs to change to engage me. My work is very exciting to me, and if I thought that you were sincerely interested in it, or me, I would be happy to discuss it with you. Regarding my questions, if you can't distinguish between "is" and "should", I don't know how to state them more clearly. Others haven't had the same problems with the distinctions. I find your tone generally combative, and don't expect this dialogue to bear much fruit. Thanks for your thoughts.

Jay

Click to expand...

Whatever Jay. I would not have asked if I was not interested..

jdef said:

Anyte, I didn't mean to ignore you. Why do you think that it's important to continue using film? I don't mean to question why you prefer film to digital, only why you feel that it will be a struggle to validate using film, and why that is important to you?

Click to expand...

I think it will be a struggle to validate anything in which there is another method that is perceived to be quicker and easier. We live in a society that seems to perceive that our sole purpose is to continually advance beyond what we are currently capable.

I've struggled to come up with an answer as to why it's important to use film and all I can't come up with an answer. It's important to me because I value it as a skill - a skill that doesn't require electricity. I value manual skills, skills that require thought and calculation. In a world where people believe power/electricity is a limitless resource, how does one explain the value in a skill that doesn't require electricity?

Progress is only a Direction.

Progress is only a direction, not necessarily the right direction. A return to traditional, including alternative, methods may be a more rewarding direction. Those here & on other sites who practice traditional methods may be our guide for the future development of photography.