Taking a stand...

[Q.G.]

The good folks at Sotheby's would have a laugh over that one! If you don't sell it, it's a just hobby, kids.

And you would set your frame of reference, your understanding of things by what the good folks at Sotheby's think about anything?

Who do you think is laughing now?

 

[Q.G.]

Ah but you're missing something here that's quite intrinsic to the method, QG. Think hard on it. I'll give you a hint - it's related to committing to what one has already created - rather than relying on the ability to undo or instantly change ala digital.

The method *does* influence the results - and not necessarily in a minor way.

You would think that only if you are stuck deep enough into the process that you no longer can see over the edge of the sloshing tray?


But no. Actually you are right. A creative writer would hate the way calligraphy hinders him in his enterprise, would love to be able to put down what he wants, the way he wants it, without having to resort to correcting fluid, erasers, or the scraping of dried ink off parchment.

The method, the process, the medium always gets in between (what's in a name, right?) the person and the expression.
This thread is about the real dangers of that, how being more concerned with the particulars of, say, calligraphy can distract people so much that they lose sight of why they were occupying themselves with that method in the first place.

The medium is not the message.

 

[Q.G.]

Dunno. Seem to recall that what's usually regarded as art was bought and paid for by someone sometime. Why take offense at that?

By that same token, a carrot is a vegetable when it is sold and paid for.
A hobby when you grow it yourself.

With all due respect, what you are saying is just silly.

 

[markbarendt]

Some good points Q.G.

The medium is not the message.

On this though I disagree. I do see the medium as part of the message.

We make the choice of what medium to use in our art/our expressions.

There is a big difference between hand writing a note to my wife, whispering in her ear, and sending her an e-mail.

Even if the same words are used in each case, a very different feeling can be evoked. In one medium I might get groceries, in another I might get lucky.

We can choose analog photography for the sense in the viewer, however misguided it may be, that the scene portrayed is real/un-manipulated, more believable. That doesn't mean a digital shot or a pencil sketch is a lie, just that the "audience" for that shot might trust film more.

 

[CGW]

And you would set your frame of reference, your understanding of things by what the good folks at Sotheby's think about anything?

Who do you think is laughing now?

Sotheby's customers are laughing all the way to the bank. Sotheby's just facilitates the deal.

 

[CGW]

By that same token, a carrot is a vegetable when it is sold and paid for.
A hobby when you grow it yourself.

With all due respect, what you are saying is just silly.

You really should check out what a fallacy of perfect analogy is, Q.G. You just stepped in one of your own. That's silly. Better luck on photo.net.

 

[Q.G.]

You really should check out what a fallacy of perfect analogy is, Q.G. You just stepped in one of your own. That's silly. Better luck on photo.net.

You're not thinking you can teach an old man to suck eggs, are you?

The egg however, my friend, is completely on your face.
What your saying is not a display of great comprehension of how the world works, no deep insight. Not even common sense.
But quite the contrary: just silly.
I'll explain to you, if you ask nicely.

 

[MaximusM3]

There goes the thread..Jason?

 

[Robert Brummitt]

Per,
That is your choice. Have you shared this declaration on other photo sites? How about on Facebook? What has been the response? Good, Favorable or indifferent? Here on APUG you'll get the response you want. Its old hat. Analog V. Digital.
What about your workshops? Only "wet photographers" need apply? Photography is about vision.
I, for one personally, enjoy most forms of photography and see the benefits of most. I volunteer at my local high school photography class, I let kids use my medium format cameras, helped in the darkroom but I know that these children will most likely use digital and it doesn't bother me. Nor does it lower my regards that they are using their vision to share if its digital print or not.
I lead a small group of fellow photographers, we study past and current photographers both analog and digital. We share work most of it is digital. We're looking at contant not carring how it was made. We're seeing what the photographer wants to share.
You have decided to make a stand. Good for you!
I think I'll keep my options open, thank you.

 

[removed account4]

In my neck of the woods dollar stores don't sell stuff for a dollar!? I wouldn't have my works so misrepresented.

yeah, it is just a name jd -
just like store 24 ... or 7-11
but the store 24 wasn't ever open 24 hours near me
and 7-11 was always open before 7 and closed well after 11 ...
i can live with my work being sold for 50¢ or even $1.50 ...

 

[per volquartz]

Hi Robert,


I have only posted this on Apug, but I have also sent the message to galleries that represent me here and abroad.

One response so far:

"This is absolutely the right move! And your analysis is spot on! The digital process has been very damaging to photography; it has nearly erased the hard won achievments of Stieglitz, Adams, and Weston. Indeed, it is my view that a new sucessionist movement is again timely and in order! I have rejected numerous requests to show digital prints in my gallery."

JB

Anyway, I do welcome digital photographers at my workshops. As I do encourage painters to participate as well. I do not teach technical stuff. Instead I "focus" on content and image structure.

Digital cameras are wonderful teaching tools, just as Polaroid materials were when I learned photography myself 40 years ago.

Finally there indeed are amazing digital prints out there. However I have decided not to exhibit in galleries or shows where such prints are shown. Its a personal decision.

I will no longer "keep my options open." Life is too short for not following your beliefs 100% - my feeling at least.

All in good spirit, please!




Per


Dead Link Removed

 

[jglass]

I will no longer "keep my options open." Life is too short for not following your beliefs 100% - my feeling at least.


Agreed, wholeheartedly: here's to limiting one's options in accordance with one's own beliefs!

 

[c6h6o3]

If you don't want to show at certain galleries, for whatever reason, then don't. Why do we need a declaration?

 

[keithwms]

Why do we need a declaration?

Same could be said of f/64, but... it worked out pretty well for them, no?

 

[johnnywalker]

There goes the thread..Jason?

Or move the condescending sanctimonious twits to the lounge.

 

[BetterSense]

Same could be said of f/64, but... it worked out pretty well for them, no?

Quoted for further reflection.

 

[Curt]

If you don't want to show at certain galleries, for whatever reason, then don't. Why do we need a declaration?

Yes.

 

[per volquartz]

Its healthy to hear comments...

- especially if they are in opposition to one's own viewpoints.
I for one appreciate everyone's take on this...

Thank You!



Per



Dead Link Removed

 

[coigach]

Am a bit reluctant to get too drawn into this discussion - my workflow is dr5 reverse processed 120 film, prints (not many of 'em!) are usually Lambda prints from hi-res scans that are Photoshopped only to match the original transparency as closely as possible.

The reason I am posting to this thread is to say I had a wee look at your website , wow, stunning work. Bet the prints look amazing.

Cheers,
Gavin

 

[Q.G.]

- especially if they are in opposition to one's own viewpoints.
I for one appreciate everyone's take on this...

I think you're absolutely right, Per.
If we don't like to hear opinions, other views, differing thoughts, why (to paraphrase c6h6o3) do we need to be in a discussion forum?

I still don't share, oppose even, the opinion that the way something is created matters much.

 

[Robert Brummitt]

We must be living in the 19 century then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism
I remember reading how in France, the Salons said what was painting and what was not. They controlled what was hung and what was shown in the public.
These are not paintings! These little splashes of paint. Where are the details? Where are strokes? This figure has lost all its details. The light is too bright! Why is it so colorful?! It's not worthy.
They were speaking of the works by Monet, Manet and others.
The same is said of Painters towards "gasp"...Photographers.
People hate change and avoid it.
Are we doing the same about analog to digital.
Your gallery friend seems to think so.
It's a shame.

 

[keithwms]

Excuse me! I think I'm going to vent...

Look, digital has all but eliminated the analogue craft from the planet. Many of our most prized cameras and films and papers are gone; many companies are gone; darkrooms and minilabs have closed all over the world; the subject of how to work with film has even fallen off the curriculum at major schools, and a whole new generation of photographers is being taught that they have to spend $40000 to do large format photography... and yet some of you actually feel that a little pro-analogue activism expressed on APUG is out of place?! Really.

Well I feel better now.

 

[Sirius Glass]

* 2

 

[Curt]

Indeed, it is my view that a new secessionist movement is again timely and in order!

This person mentions something I've been thinking about after extensive study for the Santa Fe workshop, I haven't come up with a name or actually found someone who has but I have read from others who say we are moving in a different direction. A Post Post Modern period may just be that new movement, call it what you like, but with digital in the mix there is no better time for a new movement in "traditional" hand made photography. A definitive description is left to be decided by the artists who have devoted their lives to their craft and now is the time for a demarcation.

Quite often these changes are caused by one single person who stands up and says that things are not what they should be. Look at history, there are people throughout history who started movements. I would like to see one right now with "traditional", "analog" photography. I don't even think the word analog is correct, no offense Sean, it ties traditional photography to digital. Like it's a second uncle twice removed who isn't talked about that much. When I have been asked what kind of photography I do I've had a hard time with "analog", I find myself explaining what traditional film and darkroom photography is. After the long history of photography, all of the 20Th Century, I have to explain what a photography is because the vast majority of the population doesn't know what Analog means. Is there a better street name for what Photography is these days?

This is not meant to start an argument and I enjoy what Sean Ross has created here. I wouldn't have a forum for such discussion if it hadn't been created. We know what analog is here but out there in the World it is so clear cut.

What is the current movement and what would the new movement be. Is it a visual movement or a technical movement or is it a visual and technical movement. Is it regional or global. An accurate description of the processes might be in order. What makes a traditional photograph, hand made in a traditional darkroom perhaps or in a traditional way different than a digital image.

What makes a digital image, differences and similarities between the two. Digital has a place in image making, it is here and it will stay, until it has become outdated and superseded by a new imaging method. Science and technology is moving at a faster pace than people had imagined it would. Many new things are possible and we can't envision what the future may or may not hold.

The one thing that I see is that mixing the two methods is causing some real problems. Can a new movement clear up this jumble of alphabet soup imaging mix, I don't know for sure, who would, but clearly it would be a great opportunity to create or recreate the grand traditional processes of printmaking as we knew it and continue to make unique images. The questions are where are we now, where were we and where are we going and what are be going to be defined as.

In my mind there is Photography, Digital Imaging, and Mixed Imaging. The mixed imaging is the combination of the two or a convergence of the two types. For example digital negatives use for making what is known as traditional prints, Platinum, Carbon, Silver, etc.. Or an other example is using roll film in a camera, developing it, then scanning it and making an Inkjet print. There are other combinations of course but that's what I consider mixed. As much as I don't like labels it's a way to define what is happening.

It's my my take on the issue and my opinion, a bit long maybe but just part of what I've been thinking about in my own work. I had one comment when taking my camera out in the field just recently. One person said "Why bother, digital is so simple and quick". I said, "Why bother to breath when you can be put on a ventilator". The person didn't get it and just walked away confused.

Curt

 

[alexhill]

Until I see facts stating otherwise, I will respectfully disagree that digital prints have reduced the 'value' of prints. Also anyone who think that there isn't skill or rigor required to make a flawless digital print is uneducated.

I learned both digital and analog photography at the same time. For every developer I've tried, there had be 10 types of digital paper. For every film I tried there was settings and various inks to try in the printer(s). For every type of RC or Fiber paper I tried there was a rigorous workflow and calibration routine to perform.

Sure, somethings are really quick and easy to do on a computer. But in my experience it takes hours upon hours of computer work, followed by hours of printing to get a satisfactory result. I was trained not to look at an image and accept it as good.

I believe that it takes me close to the same amount of time for me to produce a fine analog print as a fine digital print.

There have always been shit photographs. And those photographs have always been published and bought. Does the sloppy work of a traditional photographer bring down the value of the technical experts work? Not to the customers who care. Does the sloppy work of a digital photographer bring down the value of a skilled photographer (film or digital)? Again I say no. And if I am wrong, it is not the fault of the crappy photographer. It is the fault of the rest of the photographic community for failing to help people appreciate well done images.

To the OP, do whatever you want. But I think you are hurting the cause of analog photography. We are often seen as grumpy old men/woman who doesn't understand this newfangled digital thingy and therefor we will keep using our Stanley steamers. I am choosing to use analog photography as my primary medium because I think it is cool and feels right!

Seriously, this is like a oil painter refusing to show with an acrylic painter.

The argument is similar:

The oil painter must carefully design their paintings structure to prevent uneven drying and cracking. Chemically acrylics can't hold the same pigment content as oil paints. They appear to be 'shiny' and slightly duller than an oil. Oils have been around for centuries, but acrylics are about 40 years old. But they encourage playfulness. There are dozens of mediums to customize your painting experience with acrylics. Speed up the drying, slow it down Bulk it up, give it texture, thin it into a glaze.

The oil painter must carefully design their paintings structure to prevent uneven drying and cracking.



EDIT Also to the OP: Ansco 130 FTW. mmm