Well if we go strictly technical, for me its the little inkjet dots that bother me
Autochrome grain is quite large, not the best grain in my opinion. But knowing that it came from starch makes it kinda interesting. I also prefer engravings over etchings, better line quality.So, you would have a problem with an autochrome?
I'm very much in support of romanticizing things, its very much my style. I had nothing against romanticizing of things, it was ChatGPT's interpretation of what I said. Yes, I am definitely romanticizing film. I don't want to admit or confess to it, I want to declare it.That is what I was calling romanticism.
feel like I need a drink....
Yes it should be about image making. & as you know there's lots more nit picking on forums...than discussion of image making Pieter.An artist can use any medium or technique that suits them. Many contemporary artists use materials and techniques that were not available to previous generations. That does not make their work any less valid. Although I use both film and digital means and print in the darkroom and with an inkjet printer, I consider myself a photographer. Those who insist on nit-picking, purist definitions are simply playing an elitist game, trying to cut out those who may not have the resources or skills to play the game their way. Photography should be about image-making.
Fine art photography represents an infinitesimal percentage of photography. And much of fine art photography is digital today. In the not so recent past, photographs reproduced in books were photographed with process cameras. Today, they are scanned digitally. Have they lost some emotional value or authenticity along the way? Or is any reproduction treasonous by definition?The whole essence of fine art photography is very much rooted in art and had its roots in painting, by definition. So these things should have value to you
Before you have that drink, could you clarify which of your posts were generated by ChatGPT?
Fine art photography represents an infinitesimal percentage of photography. And much of fine art photography is digital today. In the not so recent past, photographs reproduced in books were photographed with process cameras. Today, they are scanned digitally. Have they lost some emotional value or authenticity along the way? Or is any reproduction treasonous by definition?
Etchings, engravings and lithographs became popular as a way to make multiples that would be more available to the public. I don't see anyone claiming they are not art.
I thought post #1 and post #3 were candidates too, in that the ideas and vocabulary were repetitive, both contained references to Sir Roger Penrose, and both contained judgments that digital prints/processes were onanistic (masturbatory), which struck me as odd.
The second example is not even your post. And GPT had nothing to do with it. Why would you think that?this one:
What is a photographic print
Starting a new thread from a previous discussion on digital vs. analog I feel the need to release myself for a few minutes in this post: I don't see why it has to be original light, and if we bring chemistry into the discussion then yes, we can call it Photochemography, as the light is first...www.photrio.com
and this one:
Call it what it is
My point in the original post was that I admired a high-price, prestigious gallery for calling an inkjet print just that, not "giclee" (an invented term to make inkjet prints sound less mundane), or "archival pigment," a term that might apply to any number of graphic arts prints such as...www.photrio.com
in the last one, GPT put the term "romanticizing"
in both cases I made it clear that this is a GPT interpretation of my previous post
For the most part, for reasons unrelated to your tenet about prints. I could make an eloquent case revolving around materiality - and if I were to make a suggestion to you as to building your argument, I think this would be the direction of offer.Just curious why are you so heavily invested in analog?
The second example is not even your post. And GPT had nothing to do with it. Why would you think that?
My best answer is entanglement, described earlier. I also love how my chromogenic prints came out on the cheapest Fuji paper from medium format, in terms or resolution, my inkjet was so so. For black and white I can made better resolution than inkjet. Materiality you can call it. The only thing I need to work on are the blacks, which don't seem black enough on silver-gelatin.So I'm afraid the answer will really have to come from you. That's why I pressed the point.
Many fine art photographers pride themselves on making negatives that do not require any manipulation or special techniques to print. Are they less art? On the other hand, some (HCB comes to mind) were not very concerned or capable with darkroom technique and relied on a third party to produce their prints. Are they less art? I am trying to understand why you think an analog print has somehow more value as art than other printing process. Photons?I didn't say ink-jet is not an art, just much less so than analog
No they are both my posts, if you scroll up in the second post you will see. I think faberryman wanted to be sure that what I said was mine and not generated.
Really? This is what was posted in #33:
View attachment 349169
Why do you enjoy it? I think the making of a hand-made print adds a lot of personal value to it, but I cannot explain it. I don't understand why people dismiss this idea. I was planning to buy a silver-gelatin print from Ansel Adams studio, made by his disciple, for $300. Never got around to it though. I got irritated somewhat by the comments people made in other threads about this, so I didn't get to it. It fascinates me that the print was made using A. Adam's negative by his student. I find it very very interesting and quite entangled. I feel like I am obtaining some kind value from this. Their gallery also sells ink-jet prints for half the price, in which I have ZERO interest. How can I explain this? Try to explain this. My best attempt was entanglement...I simply dislike sitting at the computer (as I sit here typing this). I will try and hold onto an analogue "wet" darkroom process as long as I can simply because I enjoy it and I have myself deluded into thinking it gives me much more control than whatever electronic wizardry is happening in the other workflow.
Why do you enjoy it? I think the making of a hand-made print adds a lot of personal value to it, but I cannot explain it. I don't understand why people dismiss this idea. I was planning to buy a silver-gelatin print from Ansel Adams studio, made by his disciple, for $300. Never got around to it though. I got irritated somewhat by the comments people made in other threads about this, so I didn't get to it. It fascinates me that the print was made using A. Adam's negative by his student. I find it very very interesting and quite entangled. I feel like I am obtaining some kind value from this. Their gallery also sells ink-jet prints for half the price, in which I have ZERO interest. How can I explain this? Try to explain this. My best attempt was entanglement...
awesome! how big is this? do you have slightly better resolution?I'm of the same mind.... I got a darkroom print of this image from Jay Dusard, in trade for an LF lens.
I had nothing against romanticizing of things, it was ChatGPT's interpretation of what I said.
awesome! how big is this? do you have slightly better resolution?
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?