Are we completely missing the boat with digital technology?

Bob poses an interesting and important question. Are we the true guardians of artistic tradition, or just a bunch of old farts who do not recognize that the world is moving on without us? History shows us that the "guardians of artistic tradition" are the ones who have the least impact in their fields.

However, as an enthusiastic amateur, I am quite happy if once in a while I can create a wonderfully derivative good picture which I can hang on wall in my house and say: I made that.

- peter
 
The icons in still photography of the past have been the single shot that captures and conveys the entire message.

You suggest extending past that tradition and convention to produce a mixed-media or multi-image "presentation" (for lack of a better word), that is as "great", which I'll define here as captivating and unique.

Makes sense to me.

- Charlie
 
Bobfrance said:
I 'communicate' visually for a living and am not interested in communicating with my photography. I enjoy the process and exploring aesthetics. I share the images with friends and on some networks, but I don't consider that I have an audience. For most of us to think we do is a conceit in my opinion.




.
Click to expand...

i have an audience...it is very small but it's there...most of the comments on flickr are from mostly the same people...and a handful check out my image blog and make comments to me in person or by email...these are mostly friends.
i don't have a 'buying' audience though...
 
this attitude that says film is real and digital is not...is funny to me...because it's only on the net that i experience it.
most of the local shooters think i am a dinosaur because i prefer rangefinders and that i'm satisfied with a crop sensor camera.
when i was still shooting film i think they actually felt sorry for me.
i can see how small fueds turn ugly and into large battles...it's sad.
 
back alley said:
this attitude that says film is real and digital is not...is funny to me...because it's only on the net that i experience it. .................................
Click to expand...

Joe, Joe, Joe: I tried so hard from the beginning to say this had nothing to do with capturing by digital vs. film. It is not about gear at all. It is about utilizing new opportunities for the presentation of the photographic images. I have tried along the way to insure this thread did not make a hard turn and become yet another film vs. digital discussion. It appears I have failed.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Joe, Joe, Joe: I tried so hard from the beginning to say this had nothing to do with capturing by digital vs. film. It is not about gear at all. It is about utilizing new opportunities for the presentation of the photographic images. I have tried along the way to insure this thread did not make a hard turn and become yet another film vs. digital discussion. It appears I have failed.
Click to expand...


It's no failure on your part Bob because you are one of the most balanced fair minded members we have here IMO and if people can't follow your lead it's not your isuue!

You can't control the weather either don't forget! 😛
 
Bob Michaels said:
Joe, Joe, Joe: I tried so hard from the beginning to say this had nothing to do with capturing by digital vs. film. It is not about gear at all. It is about utilizing new opportunities for the presentation of the photographic images. I have tried along the way to insure this thread did not make a hard turn and become yet another film vs. digital discussion. It appears I have failed.
Click to expand...

i was reacting to other's attitudes bob...not yours.

digital is very new and i don't even know where the boat is!
 
Bob Michaels said:
Joe, Joe, Joe: I tried so hard from the beginning to say this had nothing to do with capturing by digital vs. film. It is not about gear at all. It is about utilizing new opportunities for the presentation of the photographic images. I have tried along the way to insure this thread did not make a hard turn and become yet another film vs. digital discussion. It appears I have failed.
Click to expand...

So....it's about slide projectors ; )
 
Bob,

Multimedia presentations are fine and dandy.
I even enjoy some of them.
But I have no desire, let alone compulsion to produce one.

A single image.
A single image + a profound title.
A single image + a poem.
A set of images displayed side by side in a gallery.

That's about as "multimedia" as I care to do for my own photos.
And I can use digital or film to do it.

Come to think about it, I don't really care where "the boat" is, really.
 
I was brought up believing one image, if done correctly, could tell the whole story.

I've done slideshows, videos, etc. for clients since 2001 or 2002. I think for me it started with a product called "FlipAlbum". Canon had video/slide software I used for a short time. I was always looking for the next "gadget" that would allow me to present photos in a unique and "inspiring" way.

I've come back around to the "less is more" belief.

Personally, I can see a gallery using electronic displays to show a photographer's work. But, a really fine image can stand on its own, or should. A photograph hanging on a wall gives the viewer time to take in the photograph and see what the photographer saw, what drew him to click the shutter.
 
I think some of us has misunderstood the point Bob has intended, including myself.

I think Bob actually was inquiring whether we are aware of the new possibilities, especially multimedia, to make our pictures get more attention, how to impress the "onlookers" more than what could be done by conventional methods? At the end how we make our art known by more people and how to improve the sales of our pictures?

(Pls correct me Bob if I interpreted again in a wrong way..)
 
I was impressed by a web documentary on the housing crisis in France that demonstrated the potential of story telling with new media - see it here http://www.samuel-bollendorff.com/en/portfolio/webdocumentaries/.

I think this is expanding the creative space for photographers whose work is suited to new media and techniques. I still love traditional prints just as much. New technology = more possibilities.

Quality work using either traditional techniques or new technologies will always be welcomed. Finding that quality work amongst all the rubbish on the internet is the difficult bit. The curatorial skills of web masters and gallery owners becomes more important.
 
Missing opportunities

Missing opportunities

I think that many older photographers, established in their methods, are missing the opportunities. That includes image processing (HDR as an example, whether I like it or not) and image/audio/video presentation. We see new things as gimmicks, not as turning points; new stuff is (youthful) trickery (like abstract art) that can't be any good because we are not comfortable with it.

Happily, the younger folks (and the braver older guys) are experimenting and pushing the edges outward. Some I guess miss the opportunities, some pick them right up and run.
 
And don't forget the still video... where a video camera* images a fixed point (i.e. the same frame), often of a static object.

Is it a video? No. Is it a photograph. No. It looks like a photograph but then you notice subtle movement, such as a shadow or cloud changing.

This type of image is gaining in popularity among fine-art photographers.

[* Hey, Luddites, let's move into the 21st century and just call it a "camera" shall we, since there is no longer any difference between a video camera and a still camera? And a photograph is no longer necessarily a small, flat, static object hung on wall within a frame, typically revolving about a decisive moment.]
 
For me it isn't a technology thing, it's the loss of control that these things cause that I find difficult.

If I go to a "normal" exhibition I choose where and what I devote my time to, some stuff I dismiss, some I may spend a lot of time on ...

... but with video or the like I have to forgo that choice, I have to become passive and be dictated to by the artist. The two are quite different and for me anyway the former is a more rewarding experience

regards Ned
 
My summary: more photos are being seen today by electronic means (primarily internet) than prints hanging on walls. So let us not cling exclusively to the old "one at a time" methodology when we display our images electronically when there are new options available. Each has it's place.
 
I assume you are distinguishing mechanics from medium.

There is a Miles Davis (or was it Coltrane? - my LP's are all in the States) that seems analogous in portraying a certain sort of jazz as Japanese sumi-e painting.

Boats make me seasick.
 
Bob Michaels said:
My summary: more photos are being seen today by electronic means (primarily internet) than prints hanging on walls. So let us not cling exclusively to the old "one at a time" methodology when we display our images electronically when there are new options available. Each has it's place.
Click to expand...

.. but in a gallery environment would you not say that it is the new technology that imposes precisely that "one at a time" methodology? ... the interweb works in a wholly different manner, the viewer retains control almost completely
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom