hxpham
Established
Is there anyone who simply appreciates looking at good photographs [to your own eye], regardless of medium, despite preferring to do your own work in only one?
Hopefully there are a few of us
Hopefully there are a few of us
_larky
Well-known
Yes, of course. I don't care what medium anyone uses, I care about the final image.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Again, yes, of course.
But equally, choice of medium often introduces unique (or at least new) ways to do things badly, as well as unique (or at least new) ways of doing them well.
Cheers,
R.
But equally, choice of medium often introduces unique (or at least new) ways to do things badly, as well as unique (or at least new) ways of doing them well.
Cheers,
R.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Yes, I think you would be a fool to let personal prejudice as to what medium the photo was made with interfere with your appreciation of an image.
Bob
Bob
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'll look at anything & everything- been loving Instagram on the iPhone, which is lots of iPhone images. I don't mind the messenger, tis the message I'm after. I find some who have opinions that only film is photography in this area go way too far. Shoot what you want I say.
Neare
Well-known
Of course, good photography is good photography and I certainly don't have a bias to whoever using whatever medium. However, thinking "only the final image counts" is wrong, recognizing the process in which the photography was created is also extremely important for appreciating and understanding the work.
hxpham
Established
While I do appreciate the choice, or lack of choice of medium for older works where the photographer had to overcome significant technical issues, I don't really understand why people would purposely choose the wrong tool for the job and then use it as an excuse. I'm not really a 'process' person I guess. If you know of any good examples in which the process is a big part of the work, I would love to see and learn!
Neare
Well-known
There is a process in everything, film and digital photography both. A lack of an intensive process to create a image is a process in itself. If anyone does not understand that then they cannot understand art.
By it's nature, film has far more process opportunities to it than digital does. One could argue that digital lacks any processes beyond pressing the shutter as digital editing is done post image creation and is therefore not a photographic process.
And as photography is art, there is never a 'wrong' tool for the job. There is only using the correct method to obtain the aesthetics the photographer/client wants.
I can provide examples of extremely intensive photographic processes, but that is not the point because those photographs are no more 'right' or 'better' than a snapshot done on a digital p&s from an artistic perspective provided the photograph is good. But an artist has to understand how they have created that photograph for them to be the artist.
I hope I'm making sense
By it's nature, film has far more process opportunities to it than digital does. One could argue that digital lacks any processes beyond pressing the shutter as digital editing is done post image creation and is therefore not a photographic process.
And as photography is art, there is never a 'wrong' tool for the job. There is only using the correct method to obtain the aesthetics the photographer/client wants.
I can provide examples of extremely intensive photographic processes, but that is not the point because those photographs are no more 'right' or 'better' than a snapshot done on a digital p&s from an artistic perspective provided the photograph is good. But an artist has to understand how they have created that photograph for them to be the artist.
I hope I'm making sense
hxpham
Established
Thanks for the in depth reply, Neare, but I was hoping for an example analysis of a piece that takes into account the process of the piece. I somewhat understand what you are going for but an example would help greatly. I've never been much of an "art" person. For me, photography has been purely visual. So any examples would be appreciated!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Is there anyone who simply appreciates looking at good photographs [to your own eye], regardless of medium, despite preferring to do your own work in only one?
Hopefully there are a few of us
I *enjoy* looking at any good photographs.
I *appreciate* it more if I knew that the said photographs were created by the photographer using film photography methods. Why? Having done both digital and film, something about being a unique outcome of a chemical process is more satisfying to me than typing in some numbers and hit the "Print" button. And sometimes that rubs off to my thinking process when viewing other people's work also.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
maclaine
Well-known
I enjoy both, although I only use film. Here in Seattle there's a place called the Photographic Center Northwest, and part of their space is a gallery which has lots of prints of all sizes from both film and digital images. The color stuff is generally digital, and it looks fantastic.
hxpham
Established
This comment makes me disappointed and sad.
Neare
Well-known
Alright, if we use your work as an example I would say that you generally use focal lengths of 50mm and longer and most of the time shoot wide open and tend to compose off center (just taking guesses here
now you could do far more than that but lets just use those points as an example). Shooting like that is a process which you have knowingly engaged in, in order to create photographs that look the way they do. I'm sure you have an understanding that your photographs have shallow DOF and you are purposely using your camera in a way which obtains that effect. You are applying a process. If we were to look at a more intense process, say Ken Kitano's "Our Face" http://www.ourface.com/english/works/ourface.html we would see there are many more steps.
That involves taking many many portraits on 8x10 b&w negative (choosing b&w film over colour is also a process, and also all other shooting conditions are each a process), developing them, laying them out on a lightbox and rearranging them so all their facial features are aligned, taking another 8x10 of the lightbox and negative, developing that one, then printing that photo as the final result.
There is a lot more 'process' there. Now it does not make his photographs any better or more significant to any other artists out there who are producing great work, simply because he went to such efforts. But if you understand how he has done the work, it then holds much more significance than simply being a 'pretty' photo. It is understanding that his photos look the way they do because he did all that, and only because he did all that.
Hopefully I'll cover Roger here as well. Now it is not necessary to understand another persons work, you can write it off as 'pretty' or 'meaningful' for whatever personal reasons you have. But if you also fail to understand your own work, can you call yourself an artist? I think there is another thread happening right now with the question "do you understand why it is good?" and that is very much what this entails. If you do not know why your photo looks the way it does then you have not payed attention to the process in which you arrived at that photo and therefore that photo is only good by chance (chance does play an important part in photography, but I doubt there is anyone who would argue that a photographers skill and 'eye' are essential to a good photographer and that continuous good imagery cannot be created by chance alone). However, if you intentionally engaged in a process to create a photo that would look a certain way then you have the right to say that it was due to your efforts and imagination that this piece of art is good. 'Intention' also allows for the photographer to communicate to the viewer.
This is where it is also beneficial to try and understand other peoples work. That is because if you can view their works, understand the process and what the artist is trying to communicate then you have seen beyond the photo as simply being 'pretty' and a photo can develop depth personally for the viewer.
However, no one can be forced to understand the process, even one's own work. Though in my opinion, no half decent photographer falls into that category. You have to recognize that there is more to it than simply "focus and it will be sharp" and that it is most certainly MORE than "only the final image matters" because a photo looks the way it does due to the processes the photographer applied to create it. ///Fin.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Why is that?
dave lackey
Veteran
Ahh...these discussions get too detailed for my interest. But the original question, IIUC, is whether I like photographs in both mediums even though I might have a preference.
Difficult to answer that without saying that I use both mediums for different results. Do I have a favorite? Depends. I have digital images that I personally could not produce with any of my film tools and the reverse is also true. (Don't even start the debate about photoshopping to change the original images to mimic the other medium results).
Having done mostly digital photography since 1998, I now do projects either digitally or in film exclusively for different reasons. I match the tools for the particular projects and see no reason to mix them, but that is just my personal decision. However, I have done weddings in both mediums and it worked out okay as in "value added" film images for the digital wedding, it just doesn't work for the projects that I am doing these days.
So, yeah, I appreciate both but for very specific reasons.:angel:
Difficult to answer that without saying that I use both mediums for different results. Do I have a favorite? Depends. I have digital images that I personally could not produce with any of my film tools and the reverse is also true. (Don't even start the debate about photoshopping to change the original images to mimic the other medium results).
Having done mostly digital photography since 1998, I now do projects either digitally or in film exclusively for different reasons. I match the tools for the particular projects and see no reason to mix them, but that is just my personal decision. However, I have done weddings in both mediums and it worked out okay as in "value added" film images for the digital wedding, it just doesn't work for the projects that I am doing these days.
So, yeah, I appreciate both but for very specific reasons.:angel:
dave lackey
Veteran
I agree, why would it make you sad when a photographer has a personal appreciation for a particular medium, or for that matter, gear, or style?
If it were reversed that shadowfox had mentioned that digital was his most appreciated medium and the photos generated as such were more appreciated, would the response be any different? Personally, I appreciate both. But, if given a choice to have one camera for the rest of my life, the M3 will do quite nicely!:angel:
Metaphors are not my strong point, but in the past, I have thoroughly enjoyed our many extended tours to the mountains in the MGTD but not so much in the SUV (long-since gone Navigator with all the bells and whistles). The ride experience was totally different and the results of the trips (memories, photos, war-stories, etc.) were also very different. So, which would I prefer? Depends. My heart says MG when time, weather and health conditions allow, but the mind says SUV when TWH are not in alignment!
But I can always appreciate having accomplished a week long tour in the 1951 MGTD.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Alright, if we use your work as an example I would say that you generally use focal lengths of 50mm and longer and most of the time shoot wide open and tend to compose off center (just taking guesses here
If we were to look at a more intense process, say Ken Kitano's "Our Face" http://www.ourface.com/english/works/ourface.html we would see there are many more steps.
That involves taking many many portraits on 8x10 b&w negative (choosing b&w film over colour is also a process, and also all other shooting conditions are each a process), developing them, laying them out on a lightbox and rearranging them so all their facial features are aligned, taking another 8x10 of the lightbox and negative, developing that one, then printing that photo as the final result.
There is a lot more 'process' there. Now it does not make his photographs any better or more significant to any other artists out there who are producing great work, simply because he went to such efforts. But if you understand how he has done the work, it then holds much more significance than simply being a 'pretty' photo. It is understanding that his photos look the way they do because he did all that, and only because he did all that.
Hopefully I'll cover Roger here as well. Now it is not necessary to understand another persons work, you can write it off as 'pretty' or 'meaningful' for whatever personal reasons you have. But if you also fail to understand your own work, can you call yourself an artist? I think there is another thread happening right now with the question "do you understand why it is good?" and that is very much what this entails. If you do not know why your photo looks the way it does then you have not payed attention to the process in which you arrived at that photo and therefore that photo is only good by chance (chance does play an important part in photography, but I doubt there is anyone who would argue that a photographers skill and 'eye' are essential to a good photographer and that continuous good imagery cannot be created by chance alone). However, if you intentionally engaged in a process to create a photo that would look a certain way then you have the right to say that it was due to your efforts and imagination that this piece of art is good. 'Intention' also allows for the photographer to communicate to the viewer.
This is where it is also beneficial to try and understand other peoples work. That is because if you can view their works, understand the process and what the artist is trying to communicate then you have seen beyond the photo as simply being 'pretty' and a photo can develop depth personally for the viewer.
However, no one can be forced to understand the process, even one's own work. Though in my opinion, no half decent photographer falls into that category. You have to recognize that there is more to it than simply "focus and it will be sharp" and that it is most certainly MORE than "only the final image matters" because a photo looks the way it does due to the processes the photographer applied to create it. ///Fin.
Neare,
That is brilliantly stated and it counters the misconception that people who appreciate the process *as well as* the final results are simply technique-obsessed and aesthetically-insensitive souls.
It is understandable for non-practitioner viewers to extol the virtues (or vices as in the case of Susan Sontag) of "the final image" because they are not equipped nor inclined to appreciate the processes behind it.
But it boggles my mind that many photographers themselves avoid talking about appreciating the process for the fear of ... something, I'm not really sure what (being regarded as nerds, maybe ??).
In addition to Neare's examples above: How can you decouple the process when viewing an alternative-printing processes works? (google pt/pd printing, argyrotype, kallitype, etc.)
Take a look at one of these *in person* if you had the chance. I did when I visited the MFA in Boston, they are exhibiting 8x10 platinum prints by Edward Weston. If I don't know the process behind it, it would look to me just like another print. I would miss looking for the subtlety that is the hallmark of that specific process.
Lith printing is another example. Some lith prints will take your breath away. And when you understand how lith prints works, and how your chances of producing an *exact* replica of your successful print is basically none, your appreciation will increase, not decrease.
Now, there is of course a difference between appreciating and being obsessed with the process solely. I also cannot stand people talking about printing techniques until their faces are blue without showing any results.
So, I encourage to those who are still feeling iffy talking about processes, to get to know more photographic processes. I (a digital only dude then) took that path a couple of years ago and I've been lost since, and I'm happy
There are more variety and history than any photoshop tips and tricks out there.
NOTE: I am *not* putting down digital, okay, let's be clear on this. If later on in life I found a digitally-based process that is as fascinating as those I've found that uses film, I would be just as excited to learn and appreciate it. After all, a good process *is* a good process.
For those "old guards" who know much more than what I'm talking about here, feel free to chime in and we'll have a good discussion about the merits of the appreciating the process behind the picture. Would love to hear from you.
Last edited: