I'd agree except that the evolutionary changes were seeing are more photographic (imagery) than technical. Imo.
Actually, quite good so far. Got out of bed at 1pm to a nice sunny day. Unfortunately, the the sun leaves my backyard by 12:30, so I had to take my cup of tea and find some sun! I had a good night of platinum/palladium printing...in bed by 5am.
You flipped the definition of 'photography' from the obvious techincal evolution we are involved with (discussing) here to the evolution of asthetics in photography -- in what appears to be an excuse to air your personal bias and hate on the state of work produced by others. Seemed to be a strange thing to do, so I thought you might be having a bad day.
"rapid evolution of photography leave us"? Wow. Just go to the infamous Dpreview and read some of the comments from the "photographers" there. That will pretty much demonstrate what has happened. It's pretty horrifying, in my opinion.
Evolving or devolving as photographic imagery (or screen display) takes on more painterly elements? or becoming something else beyond just the photographic?I'd agree except that the evolutionary changes were seeing are more photographic (imagery) than technical. Imo.
Evolving or devolving as photographic imagery (or screen display) takes on more painterly elements?
It will be fun looking back in another decade!
What I find is there are photographers, and then there are tech nerds who only look at how well a camera can resolve tiny details in 100% crops of a brick wall, or if a RAW file underexposed 10 stops can be salvaged. I love how they are "This camera/lens DESTROYS this other camera/lens", when looking at anything approaching reasonable outputs, you can't see any differenceAnd then they totally ignore things like how skin tones are rendered or what other aspects of the image look like.
We got tech nerds here too. I call a tech guy myself
And whether a digital nerd has it about pixel resolution, or a film nerd has it about skin tones does not seem a big difference to me.
Agreed; but at some point both need to be involved with the other part of the craft, move on, and press the damned button. That is where this discussion has its best traction.We got tech nerds here too. I call a tech guy myself
And whether a digital nerd has it about pixel resolution, or a film nerd has it about skin tones does not seem a big difference to me.
Anyone who puts down the word "artisanal" for "everything" must live in a place where "all" bread is artisanal. Unfortunately I don't live in such a place. Outside of "artisanal" bread, all other bread here is just "wall-paper paste". Well not ALL other bread. There are some people who make their "own" bread which I guess could be called "artisanal". If someone calls my photographing with film and printing it in a darkroom, "artisanal", I will gladly accept the "label" for my work because I will know that I have succeeded in my endeavor.............Regards!yes there are a lot of people who have no clue and hate ink and file images, true, but there are also people who know what they are talking about
and don't believe some of they hype about anything .. i believe some of the hype but not all of it.
sounds good !
maybe, but it is a word that is used often to refer to something made by hand "the old fashioned way" in france for example
there are bakers who make bread deemed "artisanal" because it is made the same way the baker's father or great grand father might have made it,
and it carries the lable "artisanal" because several years ago ( 10-15? ) breads were being made commercially, and had lost some of its soul
( or something like that ) so it was a way to differentiate more generic type breads from things made by hand.
very much like one would differentiate a machine print where the operator was alseep at the switch with one who payed attention to every detail
or a "custom" print..
as said, i have no argument that digital and ink have artistic merit, but i would not say it has anything to do with michael angelo or people like
Vaughn or Andrew O'Neil who bring a 8x10 cameras places, process the film and make carbon prints, similar but not the same league
as making a beautiful file tuned in editing software and printed in hand filled ink cartridges on japanese paper with a computer conduit...
i would call one a bit more "artisanal" using the french bread example than the other, unless the ink person make the computer themselves,
and the printer too ...
Perhaps, but are they creating good work along the way?Are those who are riding the technical wave and keeping up with the latest and greatest to produce meaningful work investing their time, money, and artistic energy on a media that might become the APS of the 2030s? It will be fun looking back in another decade!
Yes, that is part of what I said. meaningful = goodPerhaps, but are they creating good work along the way?
I really don't know much about the industry. But there are still magazines, and brochures, and ads on TV and elsewhere of products, even of photos of them on-line for Macy's etc, that require pros to shoot. Has their situation changed?What's killing photography, at least from the standpoint of the professional photographer, doesn't have anything to do with technology. It has to do with the corporate mindset. Sure, the Sears family photo has died off, but that job never paid well anyway. But pretty much every other photography job is still around (minus minilabs and such). Your average consumer really only pays for professional photography on their wedding day. What has always powered the professional photographer industry is the business world. And that's where the problem lies.
Businesses these days often don't want quality. They want value. They're not run by people who are artistically inclined nor are they able to judge good work from bad work. What they are able to judge, is cheap work from expensive work. And it's hard for them to understand the difference between a $1,000 product photo and a free photo they took themselves of the same product. They'd rather spend their advertising budget on the quantity of exposure than the quality of that exposure. Thanks to today's stock price mindset of short term goals, companies are no longer interested in public identity or long term viability. They're just interested in maximizing profit for the next quarter. If the company gets a bad reputation, they'll buy another name and rebrand or merge with someone else. Worst case scenario, they sell out and cash in, and the rich movers and shakers invest in something else while the little guys get stuck holding the bag.
And that mindset isn't just killing the professional photographer. It's also killing the creative writer and the graphic designer too. Basically any artistic job has almost zero value in corporate America today. Meanwhile, we have corporate boardrooms filled people drawing high salaries doing ceremonial tasks.
So cheap, quality camera gear doesn't hurt anyone (other than minilabs and camera manufacturers). Artisanal photography is still around and doing well, as any artisanal sector has, thanks in large part to the millennial generation and their love of things handmade. It's just if you're doing artisanal things, you have to market it to them, which can be hard to do if you're not one of them. The older generations don't tend to value that kind of work as highly. They'd generally rather spend their money on the highest value proposition of tangible things than an experience or something individualistic, as a whole. So if you want to sell your hand made photos, wax your mustache, grab a microbrew, and set up a pop up shop next to that pretentious coffee store.
maybeAnyone who puts down the word "artisanal" for "everything" must live in a place where "all" bread is artisanal.
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?