when you know a photo is there ???

[doughowk]

The Siren song of new technology - everything is so easy. From lens that correct for movement, thru composing the image on large viewscreens/laptops, correcting for sloppy technique in Photoshop (I'm guilty of this one) to prints that can imitate a fine print.

A reaction will be, like in other areas of arts/craftmanship, the appreciation of hand-crafted print.

 

[doughowk]

One problem, though, is that the fine print , including alt processes, can be imitated digitally. You have to be trained to see the difference - the general phblic won't see the difference. So, you need to enjoy the traditional style of photography for its craftmanship.

 

[SteveGangi]

Since I do this stuff for me, it does not matter if it can be imitated. I would still do it "the old way". One argument I could make is, to make an imitation that will "pass", you still have to have the skills and knowledge. Digital is NOT as easy as the advertisements claim - not if you want to do it really well. There is more to it than just click click save. Most of us are here precisely because we do enjoy traditional photography. We do know how to do many things digitally. We just choose not to for our own individual reasons.

 

[Lex Jenkins]

Ditto what Jimultiplenumbers said. Nothing wrong with doing as many studies as necessary or rephotographing the same subject over and over. That's standard practice for other artists.

So far I've uploaded three pretty good goat skull photos to APUG. You should see the dozens, if not hundreds of horrible goat skull pix I've generated in the pursuit of a few good ones.

No, wait...you shouldn't see those photos. That would be a mistake. Forget I said that.

 

[brimc76]

Over the last year I've spoken to a number of photographers who have or are switching to digital because of the fact that " the general public can't tell the difference anyway." Their feeling is, why do all the work of traditional processing when 20 minutes in Photoshop will do.
Is it really just that the general public can't tell or is it more that the general public just doesn't care any more?

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Artists do not make art for the general public. But I cannot imagine why anyone, artist or not, would do anything at all becasue of the taste or knowledge of the general public. Whether the general public can or cannot tell the difference (which is likely) or do not care (which is also likely) is really irrelevant.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Over the last year I've spoken to a number of photographers who have or are switching to digital because of the fact that " the general public can't tell the difference anyway."

For the standard commercial work, school portraits, ball teams, families, and the like, no, they don't care, nor can they tell. So yeah, the local photog who makes a living doing that work is losing money if he/she hasn't switched to digital.

But that's commercial work, not fine art, and yes, you can tell the difference. I was viewing the photography exhibit at our State Fair last weekend and I could immediately tell the difference between a digital print and a traditional one. Even with the professional exhibits, I could tell the difference.

The best audio amplifiers for reproducing sound are still analog, in fact, still vacuum tube electronics. Solid state nor digital still hasn't attained the tonal response that the old tubes are capable of. And its been 50 years since solid state electronics came along, 30 years for digital. Everyone is enamored with the latest gadget and they sell in huge volume. But I bet if you ask Keith Richards what sterio amplifier he prefers when listening to his records, its probably some old dusty glowing vacuum tube rig.

My bet is photography will be like audio. The best will still remain analog for a long time and there will remain an audience for it.

 

[Lex Jenkins]

I'm not sure the vacuum tube/solid state analogy to analog/digital holds up.

I preferred vacuum tube amps when I played guitar because of their distortion characteristics - the sound was flexible and responsive but far from "accurate." Guitarists who wanted a more technically accurate sound were playing directly through the board and doing lots of post-processing.

Not the same because the sheer raucous noise of a guitar through a loud, distorted amplifier creates a cycle of near-feedback as the strings vibrate sympathetically to the volume while the vacuum tube filaments respond in kind. Nothing quite like it but it ain't technically accurate.

In photography we're asserting that, for the time being, our "analog" approach is more technically accurate because of the obvious problems with digital, which include noisy capture, aliasing, sensor blooming and banding in prints, among many other quirks.

So in that respect digital photography is nearer to vacuum tube amplifiers because the medium is more flexible yet "dirtier" in terms of accurately representing what the photographer/artist wishes to convey.

BTW, I may have a tin ear but I could never hear the vaunted differences between solid state and tube stereo amplifiers.

 

[Alex Hawley]

C'mon Lex, following your logic, technical accuracy equates to aesthetically pleasing? Sounds like some of Kodak's advertising. Who makes the more technically accurate guitar? Gibson or Fender?

Just another example. When digital instruments came out and replaced the analog meters with their indicator needles, people hated them. Try reading a continously changing numerical display of flashing green numbers out to the fourth decimal place. Then when things were nice and steady, people fell asleep, all mesmerized by the little numbers. May sound harmless but not when flying an airplane or other such vehicle. So, a whole new field in electronic circuitry had to be invented to make the digital stuff behave like the old analog needle/dial stuff on the display end.

The digital instruments are still more technically accurate but the human eye hasn't mutated enough yet to adapt to them.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Lex: "BTW, I may have a tin ear but I could never hear the vaunted differences between solid state and tube stereo amplifiers."

Alred Steiglitz put it this way: "If you place the imperfect next to the perfect, people will see the difference between the one and the other. But if you offer the imperfect alone, people are only too apt to be satisfied to it."

If you ever heard the exact same record both ways, one right after the other and then back and forth, I'm sure you would have heard the difference, inless you really do have a tin ear.

 

[SteveGangi]

Is the technical accuracy a necessity, or just another artistic choice? Like Lex, I always preferred the sound of an old tube amp. I just didn't have access to a Marshall stack
I dunno or care whether Fenders or Gibsons are more technically accurate other than to say, I had a Gretsch Country Gentleman, a Fender Stratocaster (a real one, not a cheap a$$ Squire wannabe) and a Les Paul Custom. I still have the Les Paul - it has a "fatter" sound that I like. The Gretsch ran a real close second place. The Fender sounded just a touch "thin" to me. But, plug a Strat into an old tube Super Reverb amp and it just sings.
So back to film... unless you are totally color blind, you could say that black and white is wrong. We see in color. Even color film does not capture the range of colors and brightness we see. It can never do that, because the camera itself can only expose at one f/stop and one speed for each shot and the film has limits too. Our eyes constantly stop down and open up, and our brains take care of the rest. So, nothing is really accurate when we try to photograph it. We can only try to make something that is pleasing to look at. Technically, Ansel Adams is wrong... nobody can simultaneously focus near and far. But look at the results he got.

I don't care about the "general public" because like I said before, I do this for my own self. It's very liberating. I don't have to worry about keeping up with the latest fad, I don't have to depend on "the public" for a paycheck, and I don't care if they "don't care". Let's face it... the general public can be pretty weird and tacky with their trends. If you try to anticipate the next big thing you will go nuts. If you just try to keep up you will go nuts. To hell with that, I am already half a bubble off plumb.