painting cones

[DrWho]

----------------

On 8/24/2005 9:48:40 AM colterphoto1 wrote:

Keep that sense of humour, okay?

----------------

aw, does it have to be british? oh wait, i like british humour

[colterphoto1]

I also enjoy saying agAin and sh-edule. Just to amuse folks.

And don't forget my famous Ozzie impersonation:

"I'm not gonna pick up that turd Sharon, I'm a f$#%ing ROCK STAR!'

Michael

[colterphoto1]

omigawd, I can't believe that word got through the censors.

[D-MAN]

----------------

On 8/20/2005 10:00:15 PM colterphoto1 wrote:

Sepia toned prints can now be obtained without all the tedious and nasty chemistry. In the old days, you made a bw print, bleached it to take the black off, then used a sepia (or other colored) toner chemical to add the dark shades back in. It smelt of rotten eggs, was very horrible to work with, and not at all good for the health

----------------

I hated the Kodak Sulferous-stench-based stuff (great for making a stink bomb) for the newer Edwal toner, and it's WAY better and doesn't stink at all. I also found it easier to control the color, although the process is somewhat the same.

Remember this: if it ain't chemical, it ain't ****.

Or at least it ain't real ART! Anyone who pays money for a digital print deserves it.

DM

[Jay481985]

----------------

On 8/24/2005 1:23:04 PM D-MAN wrote:

----------------

On 8/20/2005 10:00:15 PM colterphoto1 wrote:

Sepia toned prints can now be obtained without all the tedious and nasty chemistry. In the old days, you made a bw print, bleached it to take the black off, then used a sepia (or other colored) toner chemical to add the dark shades back in. It smelt of rotten eggs, was very horrible to work with, and not at all good for the health

----------------

I hated the Kodak Sulferous-stench-based stuff (great for making a stink bomb) for the newer Edwal toner, and it's WAY better and doesn't stink at all. I also found it easier to control the color, although the process is somewhat the same.

Remember this: if it ain't chemical, it ain't ****.

Or at least it ain't real ART! Anyone who pays money for a digital print deserves it.

DM

----------------

Too bad all magazines, newspapers, media related are exclusively digital. I can see why as most magazines don't care too much for quality over speed. But that is the trend as always, speed.

[D-MAN]

And digital is perfect for publishing. That isn't what I consider ART... that's strictly commerce.

ART is hopefully under glass in a nice frame and indicates an artist's vision - not a snapshot held up by magnets on the refrigerator or something in a magazine.

DM

[Marvel]

----------------

Too bad all magazines, newspapers, media related are exclusively digital. I can see why as most magazines don't care too much for quality over speed. But that is the trend as always, speed.

----------------

Not ALL. Most, but not all.

Perfect for newspapers and a 65 to 80 line screen.

Even okay for magazines. I am sure there are some still using film. So far. Would be nice to have one of those 11 megapixel backs though...

As if one expensive hobby isn't enough.

Bruce

[Jay481985]

I remember going to an photo art museum in manhattan, I believe the kodak one. Where there was a new exhibt, the photos of the shock and awe campaign. Please do not get political or pro or anti war. I don't care. But just to say that those photos which were very nicely done in a photographer's viewpoint not the iraqi people or american viewpoint. They were all done on digital cameras and some of them if not all of them should be hanging in some museum. They were on tour and owned by the respected photographer so I am not sure they are still hanging. Also I believe all national geographic photos are digital now. And you must agree that many of those photos are worthy of the term "art".

[colterphoto1]

Jay, that would have been the Internation Center of PHotography at 43rd Street and Avenue of the Americas. I stop by every time I go to New York. Those were magnificent photos. These days there are many photo assignments such as news and sports coverage that demand the speed that digital realm allows.

For portrait photographers and my personal candid style, I prefer the exposure latitude that film allows me.

Michael

[D-MAN]

Okay, now you got me started. I am certainly biased - I think the chemical B&W photograph is ART (snapshots notwithstanding). If a computer touched it, it's crap. And that rule of thumb never fails.

We are talking the finished product, and how everything in it and how it was made adds up to what-it-is. It doesn't matter what the subject is, it's the final product and how it got to be.

Skill and talent is what really counts, not manipulating it with a computer program. Where's the skill and talent in manipulating a digital file (maybe in the program that somebody WROTE that is being used)? But the ability to create something from "nothing" is sublimated by the tools of manipulation. Art is NOT democratic, kids, its the OPPOSITE of democratic.

Put another way, the playing field is not level with a computer. Wherein chemical processing, the playing field is indeed quite level and everyone is restricted to the same degree by the laws of physics and chemical science. What makes one stand apart is the skill, experience and knowlege of the processes, from the lens, camera, film, and chemical processing and optical printing involved.

All of the sciences are invoked, mix in a human soul, some talent, and PERHAPS some ART comes out. Maybe not. You know when you see it.

I'm not going to argue about the longevity of digital ink or the paper that its printed on. That fact is, digital can be manipulated by a 8-year old kid with a computer. Vision? I don't frikkin' think so. Cutting and pasting doesn't "cut it", and changing the colors is far to easy to mean anything... and then there is the enherent problem of unrestricted and physically unencumbered production.

Yeah, you can buy a digital print. It won't appreciate in value... You will find in the future that the real value will be placed on the hand-made, the old-fashioned, and the skilled and talented work that went into it. I place no value on computer manuipulation. Far too easy to have meaningful value. Dime-a-dozen, anyone can do it.

Ease and speed of production has never done anything but lower the price of goods. True ART always goes the other way. Another rule of thumb that never fails.

DM

[DrWho]

Though I completely agree with your sentiments (D-Man) I have to interject a slight stipulation...just because something is digital/uses a computer doesn't instantly negate its status as ART. I do agree however that computers and all the digital "tools" out there only help to ruin the "ART."

For example, I know of a few guys who take pictures in the digital domain and even "edit on the computer"...however, I wouldn't disregard their work as non-art because they have a vision in their head (forethought if you will) and they know exactly what they want to do in the picture before they snap it. Then they put the picture onto their computer and the tools there allow them to CREATE something totally new and original...something you would never see without the tools available and its way cool. I'm off at college at the moment, but I believe my bro left a few of these kinds of pictures on our family pc back home. I bet if I had prints made and framed it that nobody would be able to tell that they were digital...other than the fact that through deduction it would otherwise be impossible.

[D-MAN]

Yes, but it cheapens the vision if it doesn't take talent, skill and knowlege to make it. Anyone can shoot photos with the new cameras these days, they need not know anything about photography... point and shoot, auto-focus, auto-exposure.

And anyone can alter and manipulate their digital files, press the print button, and there you go: it's instant ART with no talent, skill or time required! I don't think so.

Let's face it, the human being is the LEAST important element in the process. He/She is there simply to move the mouse and press the buttons. Cheapens the whole thing. Lacks dedication and its the dedication that counts in the end, that's what we see when we see ART. Well, good ART anyway! I WANT to "see" the person making the art in the art itself. I am specifically looking for what makes it unique to them and them alone.

I guess the bottom line is that ART is the PROCESS itself.

Artists NEED to do their ART, not just want to do it. Whereas they may make it seem easy for them because they have the innate talent in them, that same gift drives them to do it. That's the dedication part, I guess, sort of an all-consuming desire that goes hand-in-hand with the talent. I don't want something that someone didn't struggle to do. Sometimes willingly, sometimes unwillingly, but they HAD to do it regardless, it's part of them. That is part of the meaning and the value.

DM

[DrWho]

have you ever done any digital editing before?

you might as well call "digital music" not "music" while you're at it.

[D-MAN]

Please, that is unrealistic. Music is simply moving soundwaves of a particular mathematical order. The storage medium doesn't matter.

Photography as ART is NOT a storage medium, nor is it simply a piece of paper with ink on it, is it?

- Rant ends -

DM

[Jay481985]

BTW D-Man I still enjoy using my hasselblad 500 c/m every so often. Just the fact that finding a place that will develope and print is wholely another propostion. Even the fact of getting 120 film these days are hard. I have to goto manhattan to BH Photo to get some portra (do they even make that anymore?? I think they changed the name) film. Then the fact that its only 12 prints per roll, manual advance and manual rewind, extremely heavy, awkwardly held in the left hand with a left hand shutter release. And then when the time when you want to take massive pictures that you know maybe one or two might be actually worthy comes, it goes already. Simple fact I love my hasselblad. I loved a leica I used a m6. But there is a reason that people switched over from leica back along time ago to nikons and canons. They offered good quality with speed. I have used my father's nikon n8008s, n90, f4s, f5. But now a days even with my father loving film cameras, he questioned nikon's decision to make the f6 film based and not digital based. BTW I always leave in my car or my pocket a canon sd10 which is a 4 megapixel ok for those quick shots. They come out reasonably well enough. And its about the size of a cigarette pack and 2/3 the width of it. I got my mother a sony t1 for her birthday and thanked me well enough as she had enough with the fact with having to use my father's cameras to take pictures. Hence we know when she used the camera as the settings would all be automatic. Hey there are some times when I trust the camera more then I trust my eyes and they come out better. Most of the time I use manual or shutter or aperature priority. Funny thing on the little canon though even when I use manual, somehow the automatic comes out better then I could ever manipulate using manual.

On another note, when I worked at the apple store there would be this guy who keeps coming maybe every 4 weeks to buy a new external harddrive. Then one day I ask him what do you do with 2 terabytes of harddrive already? He told me and the next time he brought it in. That canon 17 megapixel digital camera. He was a freelance photographer and he said that is a required thing now. It was rather funny though he said that he was a die hard nikon fan so he had to switch so it was $$$$ and the fact that when he gives the photos they are soo big a file and too big a size that they actually goto photoshop and reduce the size and quality. I asked him so how big are those files. He said a usual Tiff is about 100 megabytes a picture. hence 7 pictures a cd so he came in and brought 500 gig hd all the time. But I viewed some of his works on the 30 inch lcd and they are magnificant. That is the only camera I believe detailed enough to actually call it equal to film. It caught the subtle lighting and skin tones and so forth. When you zoomed in you could actually see skin pores But it did lack a little soul of a film and chemical based picture.

[D-MAN]

Hey, that's real cool! I picked up a 500C (1966) last year! My first Hassy. I have a spare bedroom set up as a B&W darkroom. I have a couple 4x5 cameras, too, but got tired of lugging them around. Wista RX (metal) is nice and rugged, but about 6 lbs + 3 lenses and holders gets alittle rough on long hikes. Lately, its been all Hasselblad.

I minored in Photography, majored in painting. Now everyone knwos why I feel the way I do.

I have worked as a computer programnmer for the last 19 years, and think that I have a pretty good handle on digital, and I think that its great for publishing on the internet or in magazines, brochures, etc. but NEVER on the wall.

DM

[Deang]

Now get out there and shoot someone you love!

I would, but I'm a little low on ammo right now.

Great thread guys.

[DrWho]

----------------

On 8/25/2005 5:08:10 PM D-MAN wrote:

Please, that is unrealistic. Music is simply moving soundwaves of a particular mathematical order. The storage medium doesn't matter.

Photography as ART is NOT a storage medium, nor is it simply a piece of paper with ink on it, is it?

----------------

again, have you done any digital work with photography? I can think of thousands who are apparently misled if its impossible for digital photography to be an art (and they produce some really wild stuff too).

Btw, light too is simply moving electromagnetic-waves of a particular mathematical order. And as far as I can tell, a picture on analog film or on digital is the exact same picture, but just exists in a different medium. Yes, there are certain attributes to analog film that might give it a "3D effect" when the artists wants it (for lack of a better term), but not every single ART in the world needs to have that attribute to be considered art. Seriously, that would be as ridiculous as me claiming that all oil paintings have to be painted on acrylic canvas in order to be considered art. There are times when a different medium (like an oil canvas for an oil painting) better addresses the aspirations of the artist (heck, if the artist wants to, let him put his oil painting on a brick wall! It's all what he wants to do). There are times when pictures HAVE to be taken digitally in order for the artist to get what he wants...but apparently to you it is no longer art at that point...

Just like music, there is a point where the digital resolution is fine enough that the human eye can't tell the difference; it can even be finer than that of analog...ie, those 100mb+ pictures sure are hard to tell the difference and usually it comes down to how the picture is developed.

For me, when it comes down to art the medium makes absolutely no difference. If it's a good song, then I could care less that it was recorded on a crappy audio cassette being played over the radio through my blown bose speakers in the car...granted, I would prob enjoy it more as a good recording, but perhaps that crappy medium is actually part of the art...I have heard many bands that remake old songs with better equipment and it totally loses my interest.

In my books, an artist can do whatever he wants as long as it turns out as he intended.

[colterphoto1]

awkwardly held in the left hand with a left hand shutter release.

Jay, no, no, no.

Victor taught us best. You cradle the Hassie body in the left hand with the index finger wrapped around and on the trigger. The right hand does the over-the-top focusing, then springs into action to crank the wind lever between shots. Using this technique, I can go manually faster than the CW auto winder.

It does give a terrific hand cramp at the end of a wedding though. And my left arm is getting bigger than my right (no jokes please).

But the Hassie feels right and the photos are incredibly sharp!

I'll never sell. Never.

[Jay481985]

----------------

On 8/25/2005 10:38:14 PM colterphoto1 wrote:

awkwardly held in the left hand with a left hand shutter release.

Jay, no, no, no.

Victor taught us best. You cradle the Hassie body in the left hand with the index finger wrapped around and on the trigger. The right hand does the over-the-top focusing, then springs into action to crank the wind lever between shots. Using this technique, I can go manually faster than the CW auto winder.

It does give a terrific hand cramp at the end of a wedding though. And my left arm is getting bigger than my right (no jokes please).

But the Hassie feels right and the photos are incredibly sharp!

I'll never sell. Never.

----------------

Hence left hand shutter release. I meant that your left hand is the one taking the picture while your right hand is primarily focusing. It is sorta backwards thinking since you normally write with the hand that you are better with. Most 35 mm cameras emphasize left hand focusing, right hand shutter release. Also most people with smaller lenses also emphasizing holding the camera with the right hand unless your one of those 600 mm zoom lense guys.

I know it feels comfortable after a bit of use but when I first started to use it or when i would take long periods of time away from the camera, it seems very awkward. I know basically your left hand holds the camera (or cradles as you said michael as that is infact how you should handle that camera) but yes it is a fast way of taking pictures. I am not sure how you can press the shutter with the right hand, it seems sacrilegous.

Also as I speak of the hasselblad I can hear it in my mind I still have the older circular winder not the new geared winder so. Click (mirror goes up) Chick (a little quieter the lense shutter releases, no focal plane shutter here baby!) gshck gshck ghsck (three winds the charm) ready to shoot.

No one beats hasselblads in terms of sharpness with the zeiss lense not the newer japanese lenses ( i believe they are made by panasonic ) Shcnieder are good though.

Btw I dare you Michael to describe to anyone who does not know about hasselblad to actually load the 120 mm film inside the cartridge without a diagram. People had enough trouble with 35 mm so they made advantax ROFL!!! imagine those who have advantax to tell them to load a hasselblad. You unwind what??? when you are finished rewind with your arm? and then lick the sticker??? hahahaha