If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The End Times Are Here
Tom Gardner (nospam) wrote: "Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... Tom Gardner wrote: "Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message ink.net... Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph and can be considered ART. Even Adams wrote that the next step in photography would be purely electronic. You're misquoting Adams... I don't remember the exact phrasing, you might know the correct quote. I think it was in "The Negative" I'm pretty sure it was along those lines. I don't think Adams was repulsed by electronic imaging though. I guess it's a moot point as he is dead now and there's no way to guess what he might have done with digital imaging. My point is that what takes place in the brain is what counts, the rest is translation. Digital imaging is a different animal, it's not photography it's more just documentation...if that conveys my thought. I think digital has "Art" potential but the creative process takes place in the brain then in Photoshop, if at all. The end product image is not a photograph but something else that I don't really know how to define. I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other 'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons, which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on photographic paper, then it can be art. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The End Times Are Here
David Nebenzahl wrote: UC spake thus: [...] I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other 'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons, which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on photographic paper, then it can be art. Or even just place objects on photosensitive paper and expose it, making a photogram. That's art. Yup. But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose... -- If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent-- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The End Times Are Here
UC spake thus:
[...] I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other 'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons, which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on photographic paper, then it can be art. Or even just place objects on photosensitive paper and expose it, making a photogram. That's art. -- If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The End Times Are Here
I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other 'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons, which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on photographic paper, then it can be art. I knew I wasn't saying what I was trying to. Let me say more. Neither silver or digital are inherently "Art" and neither are exclusively non-art. Silver based photography is a different craft than digital and has different potential. Personally, I use different mediums for different purposes. I think I have a good understanding of your thoughts and have seen some of your images and I agree and understand your point. I think your stuff has more interpretation (Art) than you admit to because you just follow the "Muscle Memory" that you have developed over the years...it's just ingrained in your work and is instinctual now...you don't think it, you just do it. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The End Times Are Here
Only if by 'art' you mean something different from painting and
sculture, the true fine arts.It's possibly 'pseudo-art', if you will. Tom Gardner nospam wrote: I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other 'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons, which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on photographic paper, then it can be art. I knew I wasn't saying what I was trying to. Let me say more. Neither silver or digital are inherently "Art" and neither are exclusively non-art. Silver based photography is a different craft than digital and has different potential. Personally, I use different mediums for different purposes. I think I have a good understanding of your thoughts and have seen some of your images and I agree and understand your point. I think your stuff has more interpretation (Art) than you admit to because you just follow the "Muscle Memory" that you have developed over the years...it's just ingrained in your work and is instinctual now...you don't think it, you just do it. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The End Times Are Here
"UC" wrote in message
oups.com... David Nebenzahl wrote: UC spake thus: [...] I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other 'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons, which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on photographic paper, then it can be art. Or even just place objects on photosensitive paper and expose it, making a photogram. That's art. Yup. But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose... Bull****. It's the human mind that makes art, not any particular process. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The End Times Are Here
In article ,
"Matt Clara" wrote: But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose... Bull****. It's the human mind that makes art, not any particular process. Give up on the twit,...... finger painting is the only true "Art" according to the little a-hole. -- "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The End Times Are Here
Matt Clara spake thus:
"UC" wrote in message oups.com... David Nebenzahl wrote: UC spake thus: [...] I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other 'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons, which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on photographic paper, then it can be art. Or even just place objects on photosensitive paper and expose it, making a photogram. That's art. Yup. But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose... Bull****. It's the human mind that makes art, not any particular process. But even accepting this axiom doesn't make a photograph "art", because the mind doesn't make the photograph. It assists with setting up the camera and other parts of the process used to make it, but the *camera* makes (or more accurately takes) the photograph. The mind doesn't capture photons on film; it just aims the camera, focuses, composes, etc. The scene paints itself, unlike painting, sculpture, etc., where the mind really does make the art. Unfortunately, it's become a shibboleth, this widely-accepted conceit that because there's something vaguely "creative" going on under the dark cloth, it must be "art" when hung on a gallery wall. ("Shhhhhh, Johnny! Don't disturb the artiste. He's *composing*!") -- If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The End Times Are Here
Matt Clara wrote: Yup. But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose... Bull****. It's the human mind that makes art, not any particular process. But the CAMERA LENS makes the photograph. You merely POINT the camera. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The End Times Are Here
Mike wrote: Anyone who believes a digital camera is a camera (oops, sorry...FILM camera) also likely believes in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Time to grow up... You are arguing about the meanings of words. The "meaning" of a word is typically determined by what the majority of people interpret it as. no, I'm not. I'm stating the differences in the processes. Digital is not a photographic process. Anyone who thinks so doesn't even understand the photographic process as a matter of science... digital cameras are scanners... Take a poll and 99% of people will think that a digital camera is a "camera". Which proves what? That 99% of all people also think the crappy repros they see in the newspaper are actual "photographs"? Sorry, they're not photographs, they're reproductions of photographs. snip remaining ignorat b.s.... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TIMES SQUARE BALL HAPPYNEWYEAR | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | January 4th 06 02:42 PM |
Boot Times and Recycle Times | Moo | Digital Photography | 2 | November 20th 04 12:31 PM |
Old Tri-X, new development times | J D B | In The Darkroom | 26 | September 10th 04 03:20 AM |
FP4 classic (not plus) developing times | Chris Loffredo | In The Darkroom | 0 | May 6th 04 11:04 PM |
Suggested development times for 400TX in Rodinal? | jjs | In The Darkroom | 0 | January 24th 04 01:13 AM |