Silver based photography now an alternative process?

[don sigl]

I've seen digital referred to as 'fauxtography'. Works for me!

Me too

 

[df cardwell]

" I'm not sure if Weston would adopt digital in todays world. Granted, he would give it a try, but I think he would reject it." don sigl

I have my doubts that he would give up making negatives. I think he would be repelled by the dogmatic rejection of inkjet printing ( the basis for this feeling, his consistant advice to Adams, over many years, to 'break the rules'; to be not bound by theories, etc. ) But, so what ?

Oh, well.

 

[Artur Zeidler]

I think what you're saying here is you have determined that Weston said he could not do it well enough without Weston ever saying that.

Sorry, but I believe you are wrong.

Weston stated that he liked colour, and from everthing else he said about it, he clearly understood colour photography in a way that many still don't seem to today.

But when he tried it for himself he said while he "knew Point Lobos better than any man alive", he "didn't know colour" and even though he continued to express that, he also took strongly against what he saw as the irrational aversion to colour of a number of his contemporaries.

However, when he tried it himself, he said the results were like "an amateur looking at his first drugstore prints - "Gee they came out" - but that's the best I can say".

If his stated attitude to colour is anything to go by, he may well not have taken up many of the digital processes (though possibly some), but he would probably have been quite strongly outspoken at any similar irrational reactions to those processes.

 

[df cardwell]

I think what you're saying here is you have determined that Weston said he could not do it well enough without Weston ever saying that.

I'm pretty sure the letter in which Edw talks about his frustration with color in in AA's Autobigraphy. I think. if it were a snowy day, I'd go look.

d

 

[don sigl]

I've seen digital referred to as 'fauxtography'. Works for me!

I think that this term really cuts to the point. Personally I have a tendency to reject anything that is attempting to pass itself off as something else. This goes for imitation wood grain, simulated leather, plastic Mr potato heads....Ok that one was a stretch.

I don't have trouble with the idea of imitation, as long as it is stated as such. Digital imaging is imitative of photography. Ink jet prints are imitative of silver gelatin prints. All of that is fine. But to want to be the same thing... I think that gives up a lot. Definition is important. It is a form of knowledge. It stimulates question. It initates a further search. I think we lose much when we allow a definition to smear itself across such a broad range. It dilutes difference and that robs people of the richest characteristics (whether they are associated with vision or craft) of a particular medium.

I see this thread wander into areas that concern the definition of Art more than the definition of photography. Using any media (or combination)necessary to get the image that you wish, is about fulfilling a goal, not about defining a medium that by its nature incorporates an understanding of specific materials, and a working knowledge of their implementation. There is a certain craft required with the production of photographic prints. And it is not the same craft as that required for digital prints.

What bothers me the most are the arguments that simply acquiesce to a definition reached by an uninformed mass or dictated by clever and incessant marketing campaigns. Why should we allow this watered down version? When it comes to analog photography, I don't think anyone in this forum has a C- understanding. Just because I see people everyday who wouldn't much notice or care about the difference between a digital phone image and a gallery quality silver gelatin print, doesn't mean I should be expected to let them define what the term "Photography" is.

 

[don sigl]

Sorry, but I believe you are wrong.

Weston stated that he liked colour, and from everthing else he said about it, he clearly understood colour photography in a way that many still don't seem to today.

But when he tried it for himself he said while he "knew Point Lobos better than any man alive", he "didn't know colour" and even though he continued to express that, he also took strongly against what he saw as the irrational aversion to colour of a number of his contemporaries.


However, when he tried it himself, he said the results were like "an amateur looking at his first drugstore prints - "Gee they came out" - but that's the best I can say".

If his stated attitude to colour is anything to go by, he may well not have taken up many of the digital processes (though possibly some), but he would probably have been quite strongly outspoken at any similar irrational reactions to those processes.

You seem to be better informed than I as to Westons exact response. I have read his daybooks and don't recall him ever saying this. But, it was a long time ago, and I could have missed or forgotten it. I will take your word for it that what you place in quotes are Westons words.

 

[kjsphoto]

Don I have to agree with you, as I always stood firm by saying Digital is NOT photography. It is illustrations at best a far as I am concerned. I gave up even explaining myself as most people are too ignorant to understand or refuse to accept the obvious as they need to stand behind digital as they spent thousands on the equipment and now have to justify it and will never admit they made a mistake in doing so.

I made the mistake, blew a lot of money only to sell it off and go back to Analog again. I think digital is the biggest Hoax going.

Digital prints are not photographs but rather they are illustrations printed with ink, manipulated with a computer to the point they are no longer what was taken but rather a fallacy, they have no human involvement with the end process. It is a complete bastardization on entire photographic process and deceives everyone as to what photography actually is or what a photograph truly is.

They will continue call it a photograph to justify it so they can make themselves feel good about the money they have spent only to realize it was an error without admission.

They can lie to themselves, but I am getting tired of the lies that spew from their mouths. They refuse to call their digital prints what they really are, INKJET PRNITS, but instead they outright lie and make up terms to justify what they produce. Terms that are used such as; Glicee, Carbon Ink, Ulrachrome, etc… I call my prints Gelatin Silver and I don’t lie about it or try to confuse the public as I call my prints what they are.

If an ink print is so wonderful and so justified, why do they not call them what they truly are? I believe the reason is that most people knew that a Glicee, Carbon Ink, Ulrachrome was nothing more than an inkjet print, printed on a home computer with a home printer you can get at Wal-Mart, it would not be accepted. And for all the 7600 (LF printers), I classify those in the same boat as well, I had one and sold it also.

The public is being brainwashed to believe these are photographs, but I will continue to do my best to un-brainwash them with the truth of the matter so they understand what they are actually buying if it is not a real photograph that is printed on traditional materials or originally created by traditional means.

I have no problem with anyone using what they choose but I have a problem when they outright lie or try to deceive the end buyer and public into believing they are selling an actual photograph.

On Weston’s Day Books, I have also read them and never say it mentioned either.

 

[Ray Heath]

g'day all
an interesting discussion, consider;

surely people like Weston, Adams, Strand or indeed any of us, use the currently available technology

to say that Weston rejected colour, or that he wouldn't take to digital is pointless, it may be that he was too lazy to learn new methods, techniques, materials or equipment

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What is this color and digital photography everyone is talking about? Has color photography been invented already? Darn, missed it.
What will they come up with next?

My kids are coloring by numbers. Is that digital?

 

[bill schwab]

I think he would be repelled by the dogmatic rejection of inkjet printing ( the basis for this feeling, his consistant advice to Adams, over many years, to 'break the rules'; to be not bound by theories, etc. )

I know I've said this somewhere here before, but I remember Alan Ross telling me once how Ansel would have been like a kid in a candy store with all the digital gadgetry.

For What its Worth,

Bill

 

[tim atherton]

On Weston’s Day Books, I have also read them and never say it mentioned either.

It's starting to sound like an Evangelical bible conference with only the one true word of the Daybooks...!

Yet, Weston wrote an awful lot more than his Daybooks. There are reams of his correspondence out there in various archives, for example. Have you read all that?

 

[tim atherton]

I know I've said this somewhere here before, but I remember Alan Ross telling me once how Ansel would have been like a kid in a candy store with all the digital gadgetry.

For What its Worth,

Bill

I seem to remember how Ansel wrote positively about the prospects of digital at one point?

 

[kjsphoto]

It's starting to sound like an Evangelical bible conference with only the one true word of the Daybooks...!

Yet, Weston wrote an awful lot more than his Daybooks. There are reams of his correspondence out there in various archives, for example. Have you read all that?

You have any links? Names of books?

Would be interested...

 

[tim atherton]

Here we go, from Vol II of the Old Testament (The Negative):

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them."

Ansel Adams,
Carmel, California
March 1981


"eagerly await..." wow - sounds like he might have had fun

 

[tim atherton]

You have any links? Names of books?

Would be interested...

Some are quoted in the various biographies - his and of other photographers of the period - e.g. Adams (I'm trying to remember if the Letters of Ansel Adams has the replies to his letters in as well? It's disappeared off my shelf...)

I don't think there's a book of them as such

other than that it's down to doing actual research (most of the individual ones I've ever read have been copies from libraries/archives. I think it's the Centre for Creative Photography in Tuscon (?) who as a bunch for example)

 

[tim atherton]

Now I think of it, there was a special edition book "A Collection of Letters Between Edward and Cole Weston", but I've never read it and I've no idea what they are about...

 

[tim atherton]

http://www.edward-weston.com/books_laughing_eyes.htm

 

[df cardwell]

Look at this: Dead Link Removed

Tons of letters and stuff from ADAMS, WESTON (s), AVEDON, SMITH, and MORE.

The Truth IS out there, you just have to go to the Library.

.

 

[df cardwell]

Weston stopped his Daybooks in 1934.

He corresponded with lots of folks until his death in 1958. Much of it is in the Archives at The Center for Creative Photography , U of Arizona.

 

[df cardwell]

I know I've said this somewhere here before, but I remember Alan Ross telling me once how Ansel would have been like a kid in a candy store with all the digital gadgetry.

For What its Worth,

Bill

Adams' work with ( the brilliant) David Gardner revolutionized the scanning and litho techniques we take for granted today.

It's too late to speculate what AA would have made of the digital revolution: he led the charge.

.

 

[tim atherton]

Here we go, from Vol II of the Old Testament (The Negative):

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them."

Ansel Adams,
Carmel, California
March 1981


"eagerly await..." wow - sounds like he might have had fun

I also remember reading about Adams doing some early digital work on scanning and such?

 

[tim atherton]

Adams' work with ( the brilliant) David Gardner revolutionized the scanning and litho techniques we take for granted today.

It's too late to speculate what AA would have made of the digital revolution: he led the charge.

.

posts crossed in the space/time continuum... - that's what I was thinking of

 

[Scott Peters]

Is silver based printing an 'alternative process'? Well, I think that's the direction its going....now how long it takes to get there (and how do we exactly define 'alternative'? Not mainstream? Difficult to get supply, few doing it?) is anybody's guess.

Now, on the topic of 'digital' being photography....Well, it certainly is art (so is my 10 yr. old daughters drawing) and by 'definition' photography is drawing with light....so digital is photography. Now, is it 'fine art' or collectable? Well, to me fine art is based on craft, aesthetics and history (i.e what was avail. for the art in terms of craft at the time of the making of the art and what impact did it have? And were the images/art ahead of its time ala Weston for example). I collect certain art because of its historical significance, its craft and I like the image (be it photography, sculpture, or painting).

It's all 'art', whether it be done in digital or analog, or its various stages used to get to the final 'print'.

So, do I appreciate digital photoshop magic? As demonstrated by an earlier posted website? yes, I appreciate it. It does take skill for sure and it is a craft learned no doubt. Are the images (aesthetic) to my taste - some yes, others no ( I don't care at all for the digital gymnastics site posted earlier). Do I appreciate platinum? and the skill it requires? Sure do, but some of the images are great uses of the craft but lousy images nonetheless. Same with silver prints, film, digital whatever...

But personally, I do have a greater appreciation for 'hand-made' = example - my wife makes silver jewelry - all hand crafted and unique = very nice stuff and sells it in high-end boutiques. Well, you can buy machine made jewelry that looks similar and sells for a lot less. So, how important is it to you to own handmade vs. machined commodity?

To me its very important, so I guess you know where I stand on digital prints. I simply don't place as much value on it. Doesn't mean I won't collect it or like it or whatever....and I place more creative value on analog than digital gymnastics in photoshop.

Each print I make is unique - I can't replicate it. It's hand made....I can crank out the same digital print time after time after time....until the ink runs out.

And to the montage question? YES I place more value on montage done analog than digital - period.

But in the end, I like wet, because its more fun to me and if its alternative, well, it actually sounds cooler...."I'm into alternative print making....not mainstream...." .

If digital is more fun for others, go for it!

I'm tired....and feel like I am beginning to babble....

 

[Changeling1]

let the wheels of progress turn.... (my stomach)

I think the time has come. B&W photography can now be classified as an alternative process along with platinum, cyanotype etc. My beginning photography class used to be process based, all wet darkroom. I don't think I can justify that any longer. It must be concept based almost totally and using all the tools available. All the things that produce the beautiful B&W prints that we all love now go into the same class as the platinums etc. But I think this can be a positive thought. You still can't make an oil painting with a computer and I hope the students will realize that you cannot make a real silver print by any means short of a wet darkroom. Appreciate your thoughts.

Jack

In 5 years, young folks will never know there was any other way to take a picture except with a cell phone.

But it's all good. More cheap cool stuff for us.

 

[don sigl]

Here we go, from Vol II of the Old Testament (The Negative):

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them."

Ansel Adams,
Carmel, California
March 1981


"eagerly await..." wow - sounds like he might have had fun

Nowhere in this quote does he refer to the definition of photography. In fact he refers to the electronic image and identifies it as having different characteristics. Again, not the same thing. This quote seems to reinforce my point.

But then, I'm sure it will have many interpretations.