Did he compose the set-design for this image or came across this somewhere? I can't even tell what this scene is about. But looks awesome.
Did he compose the set-design for this image or came across this somewhere? I can't even tell what this scene is about. But looks awesome.I was thinking more about Jeff Wall.
For Example, "After Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison - the Prologue"
View attachment 349304
Did he compose the set-design for this image or came across this somewhere? I can't even tell what this scene is about. But looks awesome.
Very telling.not sure why ink-jetters become so offended by an oppressed analog minority
Very telling.
There was an element of humor in that statement, in the context of the woke times we're living in. I am definitely not oppressed.Very telling.
I contend that's all in our heads. Without the knowledge of how a print was made you would be left to judge just the image and the physical object. In a double blind test I wouldn't expect anyone to pick the correct one more often than chance. It's your knowledge of how it was made that alters you perception of its worth. I have Ansel Adams special editions printed by Alan Ross from the original negatives. They are lovely. I would trade them in a heartbeat for an original printed by the artist even if I couldn't tell the difference because of that knowledge. But if you swapped them without my knowledge I'm sure the original wouldn't seem any more artistic to me as I walked by it.Well if the analog print is made by an individual then it adds more to the personality of the image, entanglement as I like to call it. Buyers appreciate this and I think this has merit. Certain photographers in the past teamed up with certain printers, their combination added value to the print.
That's like saying a platinum print's more archival nature takes away from a silver print's merit. They are just different. I tend to like traditional air dried glossy fiber prints more than most other forms, but I still admire a well make print of any type.Yes inkjet has it's own merits, but I feel it has taken a lot away from c-print and silver gelatin, by saying that it does the same thing, and does it better with better archival properties, etc. Hence me reacting strongly to all this, when I feel that analog has more artistic merit.
Very glad to know I'm not alone, not sure why ink-jetters become so offended by an oppressed analog minority. One can always make a hybrid c-print for not much. Technically digital C-print may also have an advantage with deeper blacks, if processed properly. That's what I heard. But to me the silver-gelatins or hand-made c-prints have so much aura to them, that it motivates me to go to galleries and thinking of buying others' prints. It gets me excited about photography, digital not so much, unless we print it on something interesting.
not sure why ink-jetters become so offended by an oppressed analog minority.
This whole thread just seems like another analog vs digital argument again focusing on prints.
Just to weigh in. I use both film and digital. Photograph with 4x5, 2 1/4, point and shoot, pinhole and DSLR. enlarge both with duplicating film and “ink”. Print silver-gelatin, platinum/palladium and Epson Ultrachrome inks. I decided to get a totally unbiased opinion so I ran by a variety of images by my seven year old grandson. He felt they were all “pictures “ and either liked the subject or not or it didn’t matter. My guess is that most observers of images fall into that category.
Did he compose the set-design for this image or came across this somewhere? I can't even tell what this scene is about. But looks awesome.
I'm more about the medium.
For some reason with photography we bring up things like "It's all in the eyes of the viewer" "let the viewer decide.." etc. etc. with other methods we don't do this. Japanese woodcut is that, lithograph, etching is something else, pencil drawing is something else, etc. We should also put more emphasis on photographic processes, differentiate them more. The boundary between a c-print, ink-jet, silver-gelatin appears to have blurred out, in favor of ink-jet. That's what irritates me. Although other more archaic methods stand out more, like tintypes, cyanotypes, etc.
That is 100% bullshit.A lot of the art in Saul Leiter's photos stems from the Kodachrome look, not just composition. If you remove the Kodachrome look, you basically have very little of Saul Leiter left. Saul Leiter becomes far less interesting.
I'm more about the medium here in this thread, and what it offers to artistic expression. No the medium matters for a print, not just idea. We discussed this. Give me an inkjet print of a vector graphic in the style of a woodcut with original ideas, or give me a woodcut of the same. Different things.But the intrinsic and artistic value of an etching or a woodcut has little to do with the process.
That is 100% bullshit.
It can be, and is.Can't be 100% bullshit, has to have some truth
Not really familiar with how Cibachrome worked, but I love the look of it, the muted colors.If you read "Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison, you will understand what inspired Jeff Wall when he constructed the photo.
The original is owned by the Museum of Modern Art, is a transparency sized at 5 ft. 8 1/2 in. × 8 ft. 2 3/4 in. (174 × 250.8 cm) and includes its own light box. It is work from 1999-2000, so may or may not be Cibachrome/Ilfochrome. The source material would most likely be one or more 8"x10" film transparencies.
So if had been a chromogenic print, you would have been delighted? Superficial. How do you feel about platinum prints made from digital (inkjet!!!) negatives? Can you tell the difference? Or do you need to read a label?though it was one of those chromogenic prints made with internegatives from Kodachrome. Turned out it was just a scan and an inkjet. May it be damned. I didn't spend a minute on that abomination.
So if had been a chromogenic print, you would have been delighted? Superficial. How do you feel about platinum prints made from digital (inkjet!!!) negatives? Can you tell the difference? Or do you need to read a label?
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?