The world of photography has changed, but why should we?

[Ted Harris]

When did Ted Harris become the editor of View Camera Magazine? I thought Steve Simmons was the editor? Did I miss something?

B. Dalton

Steve is the publisher. Kerry Thalmann and I are both Contributing Editors.

 

[jd callow]

That sort of dismissive "the end result is all that matters" discounts the fact that the end result of a different process is a different result.

This is very true. Another truth, at least for me, is that, as a creator or artist, my art is found in the journey which is more about the process then the result. Within that vein the choice of process is important. Influencing that choice are tactical and strategic (both being practical) as well as aesthetic (being pure and true) inputs. Therein lies some of my preference for analog over digital, but the practical can also pushes me toward digital as well. Long term I prefer to be up off my ass doing things, analogue is also cheaper short term for much of what I do. Digital has a rather important practical influence as well as it is quicker to pay the bills.

There is also a more interesting reciprocal relationship with photographic materials then with digital. Digital will do most everything I ask, and if I were 13 and photography were a girl that might be satisfying, but I'm not 13 and I like having to woe, wrestle, cajole and try to figure out what it is that film desires and how to fit it into my world.

Sorry I'll go back to what ever it was I was doing.

 

[symmar_man]

Steve is the publisher. Kerry Thalmann and I are both Contributing Editors.

Thanks Ted. I was just curious if something had changed. Sorry for the diversion folks.

B. Dalton

 

[Paul_C]

It is meant to be all encompassing word for the continued existance of film based photography. The fight, or the effort, can be carried out in different ways.

The easiest being simply to shoot film, though it's hard for me to see that as a "fight".

 

[Sean]

I am wondering if a new camp is forming?

(old)>pro-traditional
(old)>anti-digital
(new)>anti-digital & anti-traditional (if you are pro-traditional but not anti-digital then you are also the enemy)

 

[kjsphoto]

Sean you have completely lost the point and now you act like you are on a crusade. No one is persecuting anyone. The fact is you stated things in the not so distant past and now all of a sudden your mind changes like a flip of the switch. Being pro traditional is not OLD it is a way of doing things that embrace tradition a way of doing things without the need for a computer or BS technologies that try to reproduce traditional ways. I am not even going to get into a digital / traditional debate but photography even according to some of your past post is about HOW THE print was made it is NOT just about the image. Just because you own a piano does not make you a pianist, just because you can move chess pieces across a board does not make you a PLAYER of chess but rather a participant, just because you hold a cue does not make you a pool player. You get my drift.

Are just because you take a picture does not make you a photographer and digital takes you one step further away from the process of being a photographic artist but rather a master to computer programs and a user of ink printers. No talent of mastering a craft but rather a proficient user of the current version of a computer program and the latest camera firmware update in combination with the latest inkjet set of inks sprayed onto the latest paper products.

OLD has nothing to do with Anti-Digital. SO with this logic people should quit playing the guitar as it is old technology, people should quit playing the piano as it is old, Hell why play at all when you can get a copy of acid pro, throw some loops together and call yourself a musician, after all you created music right? Good or bad it is music just like a digital photograph. Digital really makes one never learn the basics or understand the medium as all they have to do is push button and spit things out.

 

[George Papantoniou]

I apologize for hijacking this thread (if I did) with my passionate (or, as David B puts it "intemperate") response.

I have to explain (to those who did not understand it), though, that I am not a digital hater. I already said in my first post (the one that David didn't read, I guess) that I use digital methods for my professional work. I think that all digital media can be used for artistic expression, too... I only hate those who do not state that the digital media are DIFFERENT media from the photographic one, thus creating a confusion to the public and leading people to believe that digital imaging and photography is the same thing, that digital imaging is a kind of evolution made to the photographic technique... because IT ISN'T....

I know I am hoping for something that will never be realized, it's too late now... 99% of the public talks about Digital Photography being the new technique... I just cannot accept it without a struggle... I also know that the ones responsible for this are the manufacturers that advertise their digital imaging products as "photographic" ones...

I don't think painters who sell digital copies of their work (and they have done the same thing with silk-screen prints for ages) place it at the same level of importance with the original painting. They just do it for commercial reasons, and they make the public understand that. AND they NEVER stopped working their original works in the same basic way they have always did, regardless of minor changes (type of paint they use) that have NO EFFECT on the fact that the work is UNIQUE and is produced entirely by hand, the basic qualities that make a painting so important and valuable.

Photographers (not digital media artists) that use digital means to reproduce their work, on the other hand, have degraded their work to the push of a button that reads "print" on their computer screen, after meddling with some software on the same machine. I don't think this as a smart move, that's all... and the collectors and buyers are of the same opinion...

Ending this runt, I apologize once again for getting off topic and I REPEAT that I HAVE NO HATRED FOR ANYONE USING DIGITAL MEDIA AND HE/SHE IS NOT CALLING HIM/HERSELF A PHOTOGRAPHER AND HIS/HER WORK "PHOTOGRAPHY"...

 

[George Papantoniou]

I am wondering if a new camp is forming?

(old)>pro-traditional
(old)>anti-digital
(new)>anti-digital & anti-traditional (if you are pro-traditional but not anti-digital then you are also the enemy)

"If you're not with us, you're against us..." this reminds me of something... :rolleyes:

Sean, we're not politicians... and not religious fanatics either... and this is not a war of beliefs...

 

[Sean]

Sean you have completely lost the point and now you act like you are on a crusade. No one is persecuting anyone. The fact is you stated things in the not so distant past and now all of a sudden your mind changes like a flip of the switch. Being pro traditional is not OLD it is a way of doing things that embrace tradition a way of doing things without the need for a computer or BS technologies that try to reproduce traditional ways. I am not even going to get into a digital / traditional debate but photography even according to some of your past post is about HOW THE print was made it is NOT just about the image. Just because you own a piano does not make you a pianist, just because you can move chess pieces across a board does not make you a PLAYER of chess but rather a participant, just because you hold a cue does not make you a pool player. You get my drift.

Are just because you take a picture does not make you a photographer and digital takes you one step further away from the process of being a photographic artist but rather a master to computer programs and a user of ink printers. No talent of mastering a craft but rather a proficient user of the current version of a computer program and the latest camera firmware update in combination with the latest inkjet set of inks sprayed onto the latest paper products.

OLD has nothing to do with Anti-Digital. SO with this logic people should quit playing the guitar as it is old technology, people should quit playing the piano as it is old, Hell why play at all when you can get a copy of acid pro, throw some loops together and call yourself a musician, after all you created music right? Good or bad it is music just like a digital photograph. Digital really makes one never learn the basics or understand the medium as all they have to do is push button and spit things out.

I think you misread my post. I used the word (old) and (new) to differentiate between the common camps of viewpoints not in regards to the medium of photography. I then said a (new) camp different to the current two older established camps is emerging. You can see this in my itemized list (old)(old)(new). I am as pro-traditional as you can get believe me, I've devoted a large portion of my life to it, it's my passion and always will be. This thread is not 'making policy' for anyone or anything, it's a 'I've been thinking about these things, I'm working on these things, what do you guys think?'. Let's hear your strategy for the traditional community, what do you propose? I would love to know how becoming an angry mob spewing vitriol all day does anything to help matters. I am discussing in this thread that this is a waste of time and energy, that we should focus on our craft and be positive. No one has to listen to me or agree with me, I find it an interesting topic and a challenge we are faced with..

 

[tim rudman]

I've heard some chatter elsewhere that basically puts me in a 'traitor' camp because I am not looking to take the militant road. The question for me is do I waste energy being militant which is proven by now accomplishes nothing and is actually counter productive, or do I take that energy and use it to pump up traditional photography -which might actually make a difference?.. If someone wants to argue for a militant stance then let's hear it, why and how does it improve things for traditional photography?

Sean
I've only just opened this thread, but I must say that when I was introduced to APUG I was a) interested and pleased to find a vibrant and active site devoted to film based photography in this overwhelmingly digital world - but b) puzzled by the oft prevelent atmosphere that digital was an enemy and somehow dirty. I assumed that this was because people felt threatened about material availability etc and how easily 'crusade' turns into 'battle'.

This is both silly and futile. It will not change the way the future unfolds anymore than the riots stopped the industrial revolution. It will however alienate people and get analogue a bad name as cranky. It will also colour the way people see analogue work i.e. through a negative filter instead of a different (alternative if you like) process that has its own properties and beauty.
Militancy is just as silly IMHO. It's also a pointless waste of energy which could/should be productive elswhere.

I practice solely in the darkroom because that's what I like to do. That's enough. There is no need to 'justify' it. How many times have I seen discussions here along the lines of how do people answer the question 'why haven't you switched to digital'? etc. Why? It's what I do - period. If I were ever to change, so what?
I like to work in my darkroom. I like the tactile craft side of handling the material through all the stages of the process, of nursing it to completion and holding the finished product. It satisfies me and gives me pleasure. There is no right and wrong involved in this, just personal choices.

It's enough to do what you do and do it well. Others can do what they do well too. That's ultimately enriching all round.

In a nutshell, march to a different drum if you want - it's OK

Sorry if this might have all been said, but when I opened this thread it was 12 pages long so I'm afraid I read the first 2 and the last 2 as I have printing waiting
Tim

 

[Ed Sukach]

... that we should focus on our craft and be positive. No one has to listen to me or agree with me, I find it an interesting topic and a challenge we are faced with..

To me this says it ALL.

Let us focus on our craft ("art" might be a better concept) and be positive.

Nothing else really matters.

 

[Ted Harris]

Are just because you take a picture does not make you a photographer and digital takes you one step further away from the process of being a photographic artist but rather a master to computer programs and a user of ink printers. No talent of mastering a craft but rather a proficient user of the current version of a computer program and the latest camera firmware update in combination with the latest inkjet set of inks sprayed onto the latest paper products.

I really need to respond to this .... David Goldberg said it very well when he noted that there are also digital procseses that require mastering. I contend that there is no less skill required to make a fine digital print than there is to make a fine wet print. I considered myself a master traditional printer before I switched to a hybrid workflow and digital printing. I work just as hard to make a fine print now as I used to before the availability of Photoshop and high quality printers. Nor do I just reprint what I have printed before each time I make a print. I fiddle and tweak if I don't like what has gone before ... just as I did in a darkroom .... and only stop that fiddling and tweaking when I am fully satisfied. There is absolutely nothing I do sitting in front of the monitor that doesn't have an analog in what I did in the darkroom ... only difference being I now do it sitting down in the light as opposed to standing up in the dark. I am every bit as much an artist as I have ever been, I am just using different tools and a different process for part of my creation.

Sean is not asking anyone to embrace any process or to throw anything away. He and I and others in this thread are merely saying that it is silly not to acknowledge that there are new tools out there and denigrating them and the products created with them. In addition, it is disrespectful of the artists using those tools. Just as it is disrespectful of those artists to belittle those of us shooting film, etc.

So, process is important and always will be; but, more so to the artist than to the viewer. I accept that it can matter to the viewer if the current investment climate for art places a higher dollar value on one process than another but that is an entirely different thing than viewing pleasure and aesthetics and one that is changing as we write this thread.

 

[photomc]

Wow!! 14 pages, and lots of emotion...an interesting thread.

Speaking only from my own point of view, I treat my own photography as a journey. Some are in a hurry to get to the destination (it is all about WHERE they are going), others take in everything along the way (it is about the journey as much as where they are going).

The attitudes in this thread are not a surprise - and many ways each group is just as guilty of pushing the buttons of the other. As Sean has stated he does not plan to change APUG, but he does feel a need to change his own approach to the a vs d debate then this thread should be only an exchange of how he (Sean) can better promote traditional methods and learn the views from other practitioners who use different methods.

Let's face it folks, one of the most important changes I have seen may be hybrid workflows. STOP HERE Please - this does not mean I plan to use hybrid process, nor to I think it belongs in APUG. What I do think is that with a hybrid workflow film+scan+print is the FILM part. If there are a large number of people who use film, it will be hopefully stay around for much longer period. If someone uses a process different from your own, they are neither better or worse - just different.

The one thing that I feel upsets more people is the claims of each camp that xxxx process is better than yyyy. There are prints made in each camp that are just amazing (and there may be an even larger number of prints made in each camp that would make one wonder why they took the photograph in the first place). Rather than running around shouting about how one process is going to kill another (the is media or sales bull s**t intended to make money for someone else) why not congratulate someone for their interest in photography. If someone makes a post that bashes the other, try not to respond, at some point those types of post will go away - neither side is best, they are just different.

Enjoy your journey...in the end we are all going to end up in the same place.

 

[bill schwab]

...digital takes you one step further away from the process of being a photographic artist....

Complete folly. A dull, lifeless, poorly conceived image isn't going to miraculously turn into a work of art simply because it was made on film and light sensitive paper.

 

[Chuck_P]

I am as pro-traditional as you can get believe me, I've devoted a large portion of my life to it, it's my passion and always will be.

Sean,

I think noone of merit on this site questions your devotion to traditional photography. Those that do, well, the need to stay civil keeps me from saying what I really want to say. It cannot be anymore clear to aware, thinking, and involved people (APUGers) how important your contribution has been, through APUG, to traditional film based photography.

Your OP clearly cannot be viewed by some as an inquisitive mind trying to think of ways to keep film based photography alive in the world.

Chuck

 

[Bruce Osgood]

It really is quite simple to us simple folks: The Medium is NOT the Message, sorry Marshall. It never was and never will be. To those who insist so you're just peeing in your pants.

Who made the whole Analog process the bench mark for Digital processing and capturing? 'Tis the merchants of ink and paper me thinks. They claim 'just as good as...' or 'will last as long as...' when in fact it isn't. The problem we traditionalists have is in seeing claims that a digital paper meets or exceeds Silver based papers. They're trying to SELL apples as oranges.

They're only tools folks. Don't mix up a hammer and chisel for a paint brush.

PS: Over on the Puresilver site there is a thread regarding a Public (as opposed to Private) gallery in Modesto Cal. who is having a Juried Exhibition of local artists Figure works. The (salaried) director removed the photographic works and kept the paintings and sculpture of the naked after the show was hung. Her reason was... they are photographs... Now, you want a fight over what's art.... go to Modesto.

 

[gr82bart]

What's this thread about? Lots of vomit but where's the food?

Regards, Art.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Its' popcorn Art. Butter or plain? Salt or no salt?

 

[JBrunner]

Its' popcorn Art. Butter or plain? Salt or no salt?

Garlic.

 

[Katharine Thayer]

Where does hybrid fit?

I've been watching this discussion with interest and some bemusement, as a person with very traditional photographic values who was essentially shut out of APUG even before I arrived here, by the militant, elitist and exclusivist attitudes you now seem to be disavowing.

But never mind that; I'm outside and I accept my outsider status; I feel more a part of the hybrid community than of APUG and that's where I mostly contribute, except when I can occasionally lend a hand here in discussions about gum printing technique. But the status of hybrid has never been clear to me, and now I'm trying to understand how this new corporate structure affects hybrid.

We were told, when discussing guidelines for the hybridphoto community, that as a sister site of APUG we could be assured that it could never turn into just a digital site as some of us feared, because it was part of APUG and shared, to some extent, APUG's mandate. So we started with the understanding, I thought, that the definition of "hybrid" requires an analog component; that is, hybrid means work that includes both traditional and digital methods.

Okay, good enough, and we've limped along with that, although we've lost some active contributors who feel that in spite of the lip service given to the hybrid definition, the site has no center and no purpose except to be a disposal site for whatever isn't wanted at APUG. So in practice they see it as just a drive-up window where APUG members come and get their digital answers in a brown paper bag, rather than being an active, exciting place for showing and discussing hybrid work. (Sorry about the mixed metaphors there, but I'll leave it as is, as I think it illustrates well the confused perceptions about what hybrid is for. Is it a toxic waste dump, or a place to obtain illegal substances? Either way, it's not seen as a very attractive place in its own right.)

I have told those people that it seems to me that the way to make the site what they want it to be is to take a "if you build it, they will come" approach: make the site so interesting that people wlll want to go there and see what's cooking. But this argument hasn't been persuasive: the perception persists that the site is just a place where it's okay for APUG members to ask digital questions, and that most people who check the site don't want anything more from it than that; this perception has driven some actual hybrid workers off to join other groups or start their own.

I'm gathering from discussions of this new corporate structure a sense that APUG is the only one of the sites where the analog focus is to be preserved, and hybrid is just one of several more open sites under the larger corporate umbrella that won't be required to have even a glancing allegiance to the core values of APUG, and that are intended to bring the larger photographic world into the tent. So what does this mean for hybrid's mission and purpose, if it has any?

It's a serious question.

Katharine

 

[sar-photo]

Are just because you take a picture does not make you a photographer and digital takes you one step further away from the process of being a photographic artist but rather a master to computer programs and a user of ink printers. No talent of mastering a craft but rather a proficient user of the current version of a computer program and the latest camera firmware update in combination with the latest inkjet set of inks sprayed onto the latest paper products.

OLD has nothing to do with Anti-Digital. SO with this logic people should quit playing the guitar as it is old technology, people should quit playing the piano as it is old, Hell why play at all when you can get a copy of acid pro, throw some loops together and call yourself a musician, after all you created music right? Good or bad it is music just like a digital photograph. Digital really makes one never learn the basics or understand the medium as all they have to do is push button and spit things out.

I can't believe that there are people that still think like this! Photoshop is an incredibly complex piece of software that takes years to master - I have used it for about 6 years and still only know how to do the basics. Saying that 'all they have to do is push a button and spit things out' is like saying that in the darkroom all you have to do is dunk the film in some chemicals, put a light behind it to expose the paper and then dunk that in some chemicals - sounds like a piece of cake to me!

Also to take your point further Kevin - as a traditional photographer all you are is a proficient mixer of chemicals with the ability to use a timer

Darkroom printing takes a long time to master as does digital printing, but both require skill and an artistic vision to produce a worthwhile result.

People are different and have different circumstances and abilities. As I have stated before, I use film but print digitally - is this blasphemous. No, it's just that it works for me. I am happy with the way I do things as I am sure that others are happy with the way that they do things - each to his (or her) own. I fail to see how being so militant against modern processes can help the position of traditional photography (unless you plan on starting up your own version of the ALF - Analog Liberation Front )

Simon

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

:munch:

Okay, so this is interesting. I keep reading about process, wet darkrooms, handling everything from beginning to end. I can understand that drive and devotion, but some put this forward as some sort of alter upon which to worship.

Why can't those who simply put film into their cameras get some respect? Should people who use a lab, whether that lab uses an enlarger or something else to get prints, be looked down upon or criticized?

Toil and effort do not make one person a better artist than another. Sure, I can take 30 to 80 hours to do one of my paintings, but that does not in any way make them better paintings than someone who spends less time creating their own. Then at an exhibit, about the only process question I ever get asked is oil or acrylics ... though I only do oil on canvas, and there is usually a description tag stating that. I never have been asked about brushes nor brand of paint. I rarely have been asked how long a painting took, or if I put together my own canvas (I do).

So ... what the f*(% is wrong with some photographers? Are some people so insecure that they can only justify what they do, or qualify it, by relating toil and effort at every opportunity? Are others so insecure that they have to put down those who do not match their toil and efforts, just so they can feel that they have risen above the riff-raff? Or is it simply some form of competitive one-up-manship; more effort making one person somehow better than someone else?

Anyway, what do I know ... I learned and did all the wet darkroom things in college (graduated 1998) and for several years afterwards. I even learned to do my own platinum prints, and made a few. I decided that my time was better spent putting the film into my many cameras, then let really good labs handle the prints. Besides, I rent where I live, so installing a darkroom would not happen. My commercial work; now I do most of the scans and pre-press for my clients, and the images are offset print later ... I cannot imagine myself ever buying a printing press, just so I could control everything from capture to print. So ... I guess that makes me just an artist with a camera ... oh well.


Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[Marc Akemann]

What's this thread about? Lots of vomit but where's the food?

Regards, Art.

I was in on this thread early on but it has gone on for 15 pages now. Sometimes one has to 'dig for food', but, at this point, who wants to dig anymore with all that vomit mixed in (with the definition of 'vomit' being completely subjective to each reader). This could go on forever,.... which in reality, it will.

 

[George Papantoniou]

Dear Simon,

I personally have absolutely no problem with what you do. I know that mastering Photoshop is hard, I live with it every single day.

I just believe that what you produce should be called Digital Prints, or Digital Imaging and not Photographs or Photography. That's all.

I said that a Digital Printer has only to push a button in order to produce a print, I meant AFTER processing his/her print with an appropriate software and calibrating his/her printer. The difference is that when he/she has done that, the creation of unlimited numbers of prints is quite easy and fast. Photography (or silk screen printing, or engraving) needs more skill and effort, although it allows too the experienced printer to produce a big number of similar prints, as opposed to painting. The level of difficulty in producing the identical prints is what dictates the value of the object (the print).

I am sorry this has turned to an argument about the difference between photography and digital imaging. It was not my intention to make it so. I was only worried things might start to get foggy in this Forum (that we get confused about which is which)...

 

[Ed Sukach]

So much TALK!

This is my DO:

1. Concentrate on working in my chosen area: Wet, analog photography.

2. Respect all those engaged in other media.

And move along ...