Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
no, he's not an artist - a skilled worker, or craftsman?....and in this scenario - the end justifies the means?
Dave.
A film look? A digital look?
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 112
- Views 18K
Dave.
nightfly
Well-known
No one really cares about your process.
People see the results. Your process may be integral to your results but unless you make this explicit somehow, I'm thinking Pollacks drip paintings where they imply the process of their creation, it's pretty irrelevant.
Besides photo geeks, the average art buyer doesn't really care how you got there any more than the average music consumer cares if you used an analog instrument or a drum machine (although they do get a little pissed if you lip synch).
The only people who are doctrinaire about this are people on internet message boards.
People see the results. Your process may be integral to your results but unless you make this explicit somehow, I'm thinking Pollacks drip paintings where they imply the process of their creation, it's pretty irrelevant.
Besides photo geeks, the average art buyer doesn't really care how you got there any more than the average music consumer cares if you used an analog instrument or a drum machine (although they do get a little pissed if you lip synch).
The only people who are doctrinaire about this are people on internet message boards.
amateriat
We're all light!
One would think so, but my experience has proven otherwise. Wherever I've had my work shown, a sizable percentage of people actually were interested in the process, as well as asking the usual "film or digital?" stuff. I find this both good and bad. It's bad in the sense that if someone is actually impressed by a print of mine, they often venture into a How Did You Do That conversation, assuming I did x by way a clever digital parlor trick. The good part (sort of), is that this gives me an "in" to discuss my preferred working techniques and, if I don't think the listener will be scared away, a bit of my philosophy behind my chosen methods. Much of the time, though, I tend to keep my mouth shut. (Except here, of course...)
So, I feel it's wrong to assume that no one cares about "method." It's wrong to assume everybody's interested.
- Barrett
Last edited:
Well- makes as much sense to the rest of you as the crap posted in this thread. I can still read all of the code including the vector library calls to a machine that has been dead for 18 years.
I suspect that many people feel the computer controls them, or it has them in a mental straight jacket, size set by the developer of the software package that they are stuck using. I use film cameras almost exclusively, and will set up the darkroom again as "free time" permits. I write enough code at work.
Thinking about image processing software, with modern computer technology it would not be hard to implement "Dodge and Burn" with a graphical representation of the dodging tool. The Nintendo DSI is close hardware-wise. Draw the dodge tool with the stylus, and use your finger to move it across the image while the computer models the effect. And post-process perspective control, could have a virtual easel that is projected onto.
Are there software packages that create a virtual darkroom, using color filter wheels as you would on an enlarger, dodge/burn tools, image projection onto easels, simulated developing time, contrast filters, etc? If not, just write one.
Last edited:
peterm1
Veteran
"If a photographer needs to spend hours playing around with a photograph in Photoshop or some other image editing program the problem isn't with the program the problem is with them. Simple put they either know little or nothing the most basic areas of photography such as exposure and/or composition or their just mindlessly pressing the shutter hoping to get a half way decent photograph through pure dumb luck. On the other hand for people who have clear vision of what they want to portray with their work Photoshop and/or other image editing programs are simply a small intuitive step in the processes that involves very small rather then dramatic changes. In other words if its a lot easier to achieve a given result if one has some basic idea of the final results from the beginning of the process, that being when they press the shutter."
I always photoshop my work as it is now an integral part of my creative process. And yes sometimes I will spend hours transforming an image into something new and interesting.
I think it can result in something that is "better" - as far as I am concerned anyway. At least it allows me to reflect my creative vision better than just taking a film based photo and ending it there. Speaking purely personally, what did I do with 99% of the photos I took on film? I put them in a shoe box and forgot about them that's what, because they were nothing more than snapshots - just like so many snapshots that I often see in black and white and labeled "street photography" on this and other sites.
(If you wish to hear my personal prejudice it is that too many photographs taken by wannabe Cartier Bressons are in fact often nothing more than crude black and white snapshots with no message or artistic merit - no matter how well exposed and composed. So maybe I do not totally disagree with the author of the above comment - people should stop and think before pressing the shutter button.)
Photoshop and its equivalents has freed me artistically and opened up a whole new world of artistic creativity. If others feel differently about how they want to work that's up to them, but to imply that anyone who uses Photoshop extensively as a part of their creative process necessarily does not know what they are doing or lacks photographic skills really is really very narrow minded.
As far as I am concerned only one thing matters - the end result and whether you get there by film or digitally is of little consequence. Of course if you enjoy shooting film than by all means go for it. I do not so much any more as I have never had the luxury of owning a darkroom and so cannot have access to that part of the creative process. And I can see little point in shooting film (and paying over a dollar every time I press the shutter button in film and processing costs) only to then have the negative scanned to complete the creative process digitally. I keep asking myself why not shoot digital from the get go. (Again this is me - if you feel differently its your call.)
A final point. Maybe in theory and for some people film has particular advantages - a "look" if you will. But I certainly do not feel that I have ever been able to access that in my own work, partly because for me the film processing has been by a commercial main street film lab so I have not been able to do my own processing and have missed out there. . And so I prefer digital where I have that endless possibility offered by digital post processing with a foundation based on good composition and exposure.
I always photoshop my work as it is now an integral part of my creative process. And yes sometimes I will spend hours transforming an image into something new and interesting.
I think it can result in something that is "better" - as far as I am concerned anyway. At least it allows me to reflect my creative vision better than just taking a film based photo and ending it there. Speaking purely personally, what did I do with 99% of the photos I took on film? I put them in a shoe box and forgot about them that's what, because they were nothing more than snapshots - just like so many snapshots that I often see in black and white and labeled "street photography" on this and other sites.
(If you wish to hear my personal prejudice it is that too many photographs taken by wannabe Cartier Bressons are in fact often nothing more than crude black and white snapshots with no message or artistic merit - no matter how well exposed and composed. So maybe I do not totally disagree with the author of the above comment - people should stop and think before pressing the shutter button.)
Photoshop and its equivalents has freed me artistically and opened up a whole new world of artistic creativity. If others feel differently about how they want to work that's up to them, but to imply that anyone who uses Photoshop extensively as a part of their creative process necessarily does not know what they are doing or lacks photographic skills really is really very narrow minded.
As far as I am concerned only one thing matters - the end result and whether you get there by film or digitally is of little consequence. Of course if you enjoy shooting film than by all means go for it. I do not so much any more as I have never had the luxury of owning a darkroom and so cannot have access to that part of the creative process. And I can see little point in shooting film (and paying over a dollar every time I press the shutter button in film and processing costs) only to then have the negative scanned to complete the creative process digitally. I keep asking myself why not shoot digital from the get go. (Again this is me - if you feel differently its your call.)
A final point. Maybe in theory and for some people film has particular advantages - a "look" if you will. But I certainly do not feel that I have ever been able to access that in my own work, partly because for me the film processing has been by a commercial main street film lab so I have not been able to do my own processing and have missed out there. . And so I prefer digital where I have that endless possibility offered by digital post processing with a foundation based on good composition and exposure.
Last edited:
Mcary
Well-known
Let me ask you something when your spending those hours working on an image in Photoshop how much time are you spending correcting mistakes you might have made during capture and how much time do you spend being creative?
JMO but there's a big difference between people who use photoshop as a creative tool and those with the mind set of "don't worry I can fix it in Photoshop. Some how I think you fall into "creative" catigorie!
I don't know about you but I get pretty pissed at myself when I'm editing images and have to correct stuff that I should of taken care of before I pressed the shutter.
Last edited:
peterm1
Veteran
I do fall into the creative category.
In answer to your opening question I spend very little time fixing my mistakes. I do however acknowledge that it is almost invariably necessary to spend some time fixing the technical limitations of digital photography. I do not profess that digital cameras are without shortcomings. For example pretty well every photo needs to be sharpened, have digital noise reduced and have its tone adjusted (current digital technology is notorious for its poor dynamic range.) In the main though, this takes a few minutes - unless it is necessary to play extensively with tone as some photos reflect the poor dynamic range of digital too much and need a more than the average amount of work that has to be applied selectively to different parts of the image.
Admittedly for some photos this is enough and I have spent at best 10 minutes or so.
But very often I will do more because I am seldom satisfied with a plain image. I may adjust color saturation (usually down not up) adjust local contrast (as opposed to global contrast) and apply various special effects to get what I am looking for. Sometimes of course I am not absolutely sure what I am looking for at the outset but as I work on the image it just "talks to me" and I follow its lead. (If you have done this you know what I mean.) Does it result in great art - no I am not that good. But I am convinced that O produce images that interest me much more than I would otherwise do.
Here is an image I recently took of my wife. Its had the above technical adjustments applied that I mentioned above then I softened the color and sharpness, applied a little glow and applied a vignette for a classic portrait effect. Like I said not great art but without these adjustments it would have been a very very average snap. In this case I did not work on the image for hours maybe 20 minutes tops but to me its a nicer image and one that has been lifted somewhat from the mundane. Incidentally this is best viewed in IE as for some reason in Firefox that browser seems display at a lower bit depth or something.
photogdave
Shops local
Perhaps this is the very thing some people are objecting to. You yourself use words like average and mundane. I think people are tired of seeing average snapshots being elevated to something supposedly better through photoshoppery. They would prefer to see skill and talent put into creating an image that stands on its own, where the subject, composition, technique etc. come together to make a memorable image. They feel cheated seeing an average snap shot that's glossed over with computer actions posing as real photograph.
I'm just supposin' though! I like the picture, however it was done. 🙂
Mcary
Well-known
I like it too! and infact I disagree with Peter that it's only an average snap shot. No what I see is an excellent combination of natural lighting, composition and DOF which together produce a beautiful portrait.
amateriat
We're all light!
Peter & Mike: This is exactly the thing that photographers go at each other, hammer-and-tongs, about.
Peter's portrait of his wife is interesting, actually good, but it's the composition that gets to me most; I somehow doubt that I'd find the un-PS'd version "mundane", but that's my taste versus Peter's no more and no less. In a way, showing me the "unretouched" version might not do much, given that I know what he did, before and after, in which case my biases come to the fore. He's doing what works to his eye, as well he should.
As far as "mundane" versus "interesting" photographs are concerned: we're never going to finish that one, are we? Part of what makes the whole thing interesting.
Bonnie, Prospect Park, 2004
- Barrett
Peter's portrait of his wife is interesting, actually good, but it's the composition that gets to me most; I somehow doubt that I'd find the un-PS'd version "mundane", but that's my taste versus Peter's no more and no less. In a way, showing me the "unretouched" version might not do much, given that I know what he did, before and after, in which case my biases come to the fore. He's doing what works to his eye, as well he should.
As far as "mundane" versus "interesting" photographs are concerned: we're never going to finish that one, are we? Part of what makes the whole thing interesting.
Bonnie, Prospect Park, 2004
- Barrett
peterm1
Veteran
Thank you all for your positive feedback about my photo. I am glad you like it. I like it too. Perhaps its gilding the lily to say that it would have been mundane without post processing, but to my way of thinking at least it would have certainly been less interesting than it is now. I must admit the "bones" of the photo where there at the beginning - the composition, how I captured her at a certain moment, the out of focus areas in the background and so on so its not as if the photo is entirely fabricated.
I do agree with Amateriat that composition is important and most of this is down to what the photographer does with the camera more so than what he does later with photoshop - although there have been cases where I have, for example, cropped a photo in post processing and even added background blur selectively to improve composition and the focus on the main subject. And by the way Amateriat I like your image. The subject is attractive and is nicely engaged in what she is doing so it tells a nice story about someone enjoying themselves, by the looks of it, in the company of others whose company she enjoys.
I repeat all that matters is the end result. I do not really care if its film or digital or part film and then digital. What matters is if it is a good image. I happen to like a certain style in my work and that style is best captured by digital as it is not amenable to coming stright form the camera and relies on post processing to get me there. But that's just me.
I do agree with Amateriat that composition is important and most of this is down to what the photographer does with the camera more so than what he does later with photoshop - although there have been cases where I have, for example, cropped a photo in post processing and even added background blur selectively to improve composition and the focus on the main subject. And by the way Amateriat I like your image. The subject is attractive and is nicely engaged in what she is doing so it tells a nice story about someone enjoying themselves, by the looks of it, in the company of others whose company she enjoys.
I repeat all that matters is the end result. I do not really care if its film or digital or part film and then digital. What matters is if it is a good image. I happen to like a certain style in my work and that style is best captured by digital as it is not amenable to coming stright form the camera and relies on post processing to get me there. But that's just me.
redpony
Member
Since he posted the photo and provided commentary to it, I'd like to respond critically to peterm1's earlier post. I don't mean for this to be personal in any way and I hope it doesn't come across as such.
I do not feel that the photo peterm1 posted is successful. I don't think the composition works; the hand holding the cup juts up awkwardly and looks oddly disembodied. Her gaze and the way in which it crosses the visual path of the gentleman in the background behind her suggests some sort of relationship, esp as he appears to be holding something in his right hand too (he seems to be chatting with someone; is she eavesdropping?) and is the only other person in the shot. However, the soft focus an sepia tone presents this photo as more of a genre photo, so these elements read as mistakes.
Also, the processing is too heavy handed and does not look natural. It looks like the photographer is simply trying to hide the woman's imperfections. This is exacerbated by the wrinkles that have somehow been left behind, like the crease above her left eye. Unfortunately, this becomes the shot's punctum.
In short, one is left feeling that the image is somewhat uncertain, and even a bit dishonest.
peterm1 states that without some intervention on his part the photo would have been rather bland and uninspiring. I think this is a common feeling amongst digital shooters and the impetus for much of the over-manipulation we see in digital imagery. The question is, is it the very nature of reality that we feel needs embellishing or is this compunction simply the result of the anesthetic quality of the digital image?
It's interesting that once the image has been, supposedly, untethered from reality, as a series of zeroes and ones, we have returned to the comforting confines of pictorialism. It's the height of irony that with cutting edge digital technologies we find ourselves creating images that look like they came from the 1890's.
I do not feel that the photo peterm1 posted is successful. I don't think the composition works; the hand holding the cup juts up awkwardly and looks oddly disembodied. Her gaze and the way in which it crosses the visual path of the gentleman in the background behind her suggests some sort of relationship, esp as he appears to be holding something in his right hand too (he seems to be chatting with someone; is she eavesdropping?) and is the only other person in the shot. However, the soft focus an sepia tone presents this photo as more of a genre photo, so these elements read as mistakes.
Also, the processing is too heavy handed and does not look natural. It looks like the photographer is simply trying to hide the woman's imperfections. This is exacerbated by the wrinkles that have somehow been left behind, like the crease above her left eye. Unfortunately, this becomes the shot's punctum.
In short, one is left feeling that the image is somewhat uncertain, and even a bit dishonest.
peterm1 states that without some intervention on his part the photo would have been rather bland and uninspiring. I think this is a common feeling amongst digital shooters and the impetus for much of the over-manipulation we see in digital imagery. The question is, is it the very nature of reality that we feel needs embellishing or is this compunction simply the result of the anesthetic quality of the digital image?
It's interesting that once the image has been, supposedly, untethered from reality, as a series of zeroes and ones, we have returned to the comforting confines of pictorialism. It's the height of irony that with cutting edge digital technologies we find ourselves creating images that look like they came from the 1890's.
Last edited:
Oh Two
Established
Is it Windy in Here, or is the Iron Chef Secret Ingredient
Is it Windy in Here, or is the Iron Chef Secret Ingredient
Salt?
When common denominators and numerators hang around 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4, right is a better choice than left, and new trumps old, then objectivity and subjectivity are one and the same.
Subjectively, I like the look of older glass more than the newer. That's my 2 cents, so far I don't think there is dollars worth of anything offered from this thread. i think when it gets to a buck that should be the end of it.
Is it Windy in Here, or is the Iron Chef Secret Ingredient
Salt?
When common denominators and numerators hang around 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4, right is a better choice than left, and new trumps old, then objectivity and subjectivity are one and the same.
Subjectively, I like the look of older glass more than the newer. That's my 2 cents, so far I don't think there is dollars worth of anything offered from this thread. i think when it gets to a buck that should be the end of it.
Matus
Well-known
I am only wondering whether all this "film-digital look" discussions are initiated byt the ones who just realized that their new M9 is just not what they hoped for 😛
peterm1
Veteran
In answer to Redpony (two posts below) I am not in the least bit offended. I have made my point many times - I have one sense of aesthetic and others have theirs. I have come to prefer digital and what it offers, while some prefer film. He obviously has a sense of aesthetic that does not accord with mine. I can live with that.
My photo is not meant necessarily to be a wholly accurate representation of my wife "warts and all" as they say, (or should that be "wrinkles and all")? It was never my intention. And most often its not my intention with other photos I take because that's not really my style.
The only thing I do disagree with is that some people (not necessarily you I might add) seem to think that the only way to take photos is theirs and that all others are not valid. And as a result we keep seeing posts on these forums about why digital is wrong and film is right. My argument is whatever gets you the result you like is OK by me.
Even if its not to my taste.
My photo is not meant necessarily to be a wholly accurate representation of my wife "warts and all" as they say, (or should that be "wrinkles and all")? It was never my intention. And most often its not my intention with other photos I take because that's not really my style.
The only thing I do disagree with is that some people (not necessarily you I might add) seem to think that the only way to take photos is theirs and that all others are not valid. And as a result we keep seeing posts on these forums about why digital is wrong and film is right. My argument is whatever gets you the result you like is OK by me.
Even if its not to my taste.
lawrence
Veteran
Some of the recent posts raise interesting issues regarding the nature and validity of photographic criticism. In particular, I'm not convinced that everything simply comes down to 'a matter of taste' and would like to suggest that perhaps there are some objective criteria with which to measure the success of a photograph.
To me successful photography must must have one virtue above all others: a feeling of authenticity. This is because photography has a closer connection with what we perceive as 'reality' than most other forms of artistic expression. I like to feel that a photograph is a slice of life -- it lives and breathes. If I don't find a photograph 'believable' then I'm not much interested in it and this is the reason why heavily manipulated photographs tend to leave me cold.
Turning to the photograph in question, my problem is that it seems to be primarily an attempt to produce something attractive or 'arty, rather than to convey the reality of the subject; it focuses too much on the intention of the photographer. I don't feel a direct connection with the subject because there's too much in between.
I'm not sure if this is a problem with this particular photograph or digital photography in general but so far I've seen little digital work that has appealed to me.
To me successful photography must must have one virtue above all others: a feeling of authenticity. This is because photography has a closer connection with what we perceive as 'reality' than most other forms of artistic expression. I like to feel that a photograph is a slice of life -- it lives and breathes. If I don't find a photograph 'believable' then I'm not much interested in it and this is the reason why heavily manipulated photographs tend to leave me cold.
Turning to the photograph in question, my problem is that it seems to be primarily an attempt to produce something attractive or 'arty, rather than to convey the reality of the subject; it focuses too much on the intention of the photographer. I don't feel a direct connection with the subject because there's too much in between.
I'm not sure if this is a problem with this particular photograph or digital photography in general but so far I've seen little digital work that has appealed to me.
Last edited:
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I have great admiration for John Sexton. Many years ago he and I communicated on one of the first internet photography forums. They were conversations I enjoyed greatly. A few years later, Kodak put both of us on the same television program. Soft spoken John was wise beyond his years. I was clearly crazy. All this to say that though we come from different photographic worlds, I have immense respect and admiration for John and John’s photography. He is an exceptional photographer and an excellent spokesman for silver photography. But, he does not dismiss digital photography. Here is a quote from an interview on Calumet’s website.
“Today I use digital photographic tools for the delivery and reproduction of photographs, as well as for sharing images on the Internet. The advancements in software, printers, and ink and paper technology in black-and-white has been most impressive. I try and keep abreast of digital technology. I don't consider myself to be particularly knowledgeable and skillful, but I try to protect myself from being ignorant of what is going on in the digital domain.
Today I still find that there is something intrinsically unique about a beautifully executed silver gelatin print. The changes in technology of papers and inks have created digital images that look almost the same as a traditional print. Once a print is framed behind Plexiglas or glass, I would say some are virtually indistinguishable—depending on the media and also depending on the image. That being said, I still find a successfully executed silver print has a unique ambiance that cannot be put into words or graphs. It must be seen and touched to be fully appreciated.
One thing I have noticed is that, because of the plethora of tools available in the digital domain, sometimes the content of the image speaks more loudly of being from a digital process than the meaning of the image. I find that some—certainly not all—photographers working in the digital domain over-sharpen and over-manipulate the image, because it's so easy to do so. Whether in the classical darkroom or the digital darkroom, I think alterations to the image should only be made when it's necessary to achieve your visualization about that photograph. I have particular concern for photographers that approach image making with the cavalier attitude of "it really doesn't matter... I can fix it in Photoshop!"
Naturally I have a concern about the future availability of high quality silver-based photographic films, papers, and chemicals. I am certain that silver-halide films and papers will be made for a number of years to come. The question will be if they will be manufactured by companies capable of producing superb and consistent quality. Certainly today it is easy to get great films and great papers. In fact, a few new papers, as well as some old classics, are being introduced. This is encouraging news.”
Because my background is journalistic, I’ve been working with digital for a long time. In John’s area of expertise, black-and-white, by manipulating curves I am able to duplicate the tonal qualities of silver negatives and silver paper. As the inkjet paper and printers have evolved, I am able to match the quality of silver prints with the exception that ink lies on the surface of the paper and this can be seen with some paper and ink combinations if you look at the highlight areas under glancing light from an extreme angle, not something that someone does if they are looking at the picture. Over and over again, knowledgeable folks I have shown prints have not been able to tell whether the print was inkjet or silver.
As to color, check Wilhelm for permanence and any printer who has printed with a variety of chemical and digital processes for the control they can excercise. I think you will find digital wins.
But, guess what? It’s up to you to know what you want and use Photoshop or whatever to create what you want. If you over manipulate or ignore the very basic but essential controls, don’t blame digital. Did you really blame the D-76 or Tri-X or the enlarger or the hypo when your first silver prints were crap? I don’t worry about John Sexton, even if all the silver papers disappear, because he knows what he wants and he will sit down with a computer and a printer and he won’t stop until the print he wants comes out of the machine.
“Today I use digital photographic tools for the delivery and reproduction of photographs, as well as for sharing images on the Internet. The advancements in software, printers, and ink and paper technology in black-and-white has been most impressive. I try and keep abreast of digital technology. I don't consider myself to be particularly knowledgeable and skillful, but I try to protect myself from being ignorant of what is going on in the digital domain.
Today I still find that there is something intrinsically unique about a beautifully executed silver gelatin print. The changes in technology of papers and inks have created digital images that look almost the same as a traditional print. Once a print is framed behind Plexiglas or glass, I would say some are virtually indistinguishable—depending on the media and also depending on the image. That being said, I still find a successfully executed silver print has a unique ambiance that cannot be put into words or graphs. It must be seen and touched to be fully appreciated.
One thing I have noticed is that, because of the plethora of tools available in the digital domain, sometimes the content of the image speaks more loudly of being from a digital process than the meaning of the image. I find that some—certainly not all—photographers working in the digital domain over-sharpen and over-manipulate the image, because it's so easy to do so. Whether in the classical darkroom or the digital darkroom, I think alterations to the image should only be made when it's necessary to achieve your visualization about that photograph. I have particular concern for photographers that approach image making with the cavalier attitude of "it really doesn't matter... I can fix it in Photoshop!"
Naturally I have a concern about the future availability of high quality silver-based photographic films, papers, and chemicals. I am certain that silver-halide films and papers will be made for a number of years to come. The question will be if they will be manufactured by companies capable of producing superb and consistent quality. Certainly today it is easy to get great films and great papers. In fact, a few new papers, as well as some old classics, are being introduced. This is encouraging news.”
Because my background is journalistic, I’ve been working with digital for a long time. In John’s area of expertise, black-and-white, by manipulating curves I am able to duplicate the tonal qualities of silver negatives and silver paper. As the inkjet paper and printers have evolved, I am able to match the quality of silver prints with the exception that ink lies on the surface of the paper and this can be seen with some paper and ink combinations if you look at the highlight areas under glancing light from an extreme angle, not something that someone does if they are looking at the picture. Over and over again, knowledgeable folks I have shown prints have not been able to tell whether the print was inkjet or silver.
As to color, check Wilhelm for permanence and any printer who has printed with a variety of chemical and digital processes for the control they can excercise. I think you will find digital wins.
But, guess what? It’s up to you to know what you want and use Photoshop or whatever to create what you want. If you over manipulate or ignore the very basic but essential controls, don’t blame digital. Did you really blame the D-76 or Tri-X or the enlarger or the hypo when your first silver prints were crap? I don’t worry about John Sexton, even if all the silver papers disappear, because he knows what he wants and he will sit down with a computer and a printer and he won’t stop until the print he wants comes out of the machine.
amateriat
We're all light!
Bill: I think Sexton's philosophy somewhat resembles my own. As I mentioned before, I shoot mostly with film because it's the process I work with best, even though the resulting film almost always ends up scanned and worked on from the computer. I've used this "hybrid" system for over a decade, and it's served me quite well (although it's only in the last four years that I've managed to make b/w prints digitally that satisfy me...not prints that are "just like silver", but pleasing to my eye). I have no major issues with picking up a digital camera if the job emphasis is on speed and turnaround (although I've turned film work around with nearly the speed of digital capture, though it does take more effort). Keeping a practical head on one's shoulders about all this is always a good thing.
- Barrett
- Barrett
peterm1
Veteran
"To me successful photography must must have one virtue above all others: a feeling of authenticity. This is because photography has a closer connection with what we perceive as 'reality' than most other forms of artistic expression. I like to feel that a photograph is a slice of life -- it lives and breathes. "
You see, there is the problem! I fundamentally disagree with this statement at least with respect to my work - much of which I spend good time on in an effort to remove it from a strict representation of reality! I like my photos to have a slightly abstract or otherworldly quality. Which obviously I am not going to get in most instances from a bog standard photo that is "real."
I full well understand that others like "gritty realism" or whatever. But for the most part this bores me and I like to turn my photos into "something else."
And I ask how does this philosophy sit with those who exclusively work in monochrome - this is hardly a medium that provides a "slice of reality."
"Turning to the photograph in question, my problem is that it seems to be primarily an attempt to produce something attractive or 'arty, rather than to convey the reality of the subject; it focuses too much on the intention of the photographer. I don't feel a direct connection with the subject because there's too much in between."
I can handle that you do not particularly like the photo, thats not an issue for me. But you miss the point - what you say above is exactly what I was trying to do - remove it from reality.
having said that I can of course still aprpeciate the work of iconic photogrpahers like James Ravillious who does shoot in balck and white.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYg8mxvUgJE
In relation to my own humble efforts, here is another example where the original "real" photo bears little resemblance to the final product. I am happy enough with it while not claiming it to be anything special in the overall scheme of things. But I happen to think that the interpretation I have given it turns it from just another ordinary street photo of a particular person (who is unknown to me incidentally ) into something that perhaps is a bit more representative of the idea of motherhood. But if its not to your particular taste, no skin off my nose!
And a little less obviously perhaps - here
You see, there is the problem! I fundamentally disagree with this statement at least with respect to my work - much of which I spend good time on in an effort to remove it from a strict representation of reality! I like my photos to have a slightly abstract or otherworldly quality. Which obviously I am not going to get in most instances from a bog standard photo that is "real."
I full well understand that others like "gritty realism" or whatever. But for the most part this bores me and I like to turn my photos into "something else."
And I ask how does this philosophy sit with those who exclusively work in monochrome - this is hardly a medium that provides a "slice of reality."
"Turning to the photograph in question, my problem is that it seems to be primarily an attempt to produce something attractive or 'arty, rather than to convey the reality of the subject; it focuses too much on the intention of the photographer. I don't feel a direct connection with the subject because there's too much in between."
I can handle that you do not particularly like the photo, thats not an issue for me. But you miss the point - what you say above is exactly what I was trying to do - remove it from reality.
having said that I can of course still aprpeciate the work of iconic photogrpahers like James Ravillious who does shoot in balck and white.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYg8mxvUgJE
In relation to my own humble efforts, here is another example where the original "real" photo bears little resemblance to the final product. I am happy enough with it while not claiming it to be anything special in the overall scheme of things. But I happen to think that the interpretation I have given it turns it from just another ordinary street photo of a particular person (who is unknown to me incidentally ) into something that perhaps is a bit more representative of the idea of motherhood. But if its not to your particular taste, no skin off my nose!
And a little less obviously perhaps - here
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
those are lovely peter, no matter how they were achieved.