[rollei_list] Re: [OT] film vs digital
- From: "Robert Lilley" <54moggie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:12:38 -0400
Carlos,
What you are saying is that there was a major change in the "syntax" (rules
of a structure that makes meaning possible) between painting and photography
in general. William Crawford in the wonderful book "The Keepers Of Light",
Morgan and Morgan, 1979, defines photographic syntax this way:
"In photography, the syntax is technology. It is whatever combination of
technical elements is in use. The combination determines how well the
technology can see and thus sets the limits on what photographers can
communicate through their work."
I would interpret this as regarding both conventional photography and
digital photography as being one and the same technology and so no change in
syntax. Digital photography just pushes the limits (through
software/firmware etc.) a bit beyond the technology of conventional
photography. Therefore, I would imagine that digital photography will be
regarded as fine art as the medium evolves.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carlos Manuel Freaza
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:22 AM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: [OT] film vs digital
For the art market only photographs made by
traditional means are valuable, only traditional
photographs are considered art, no digital images,
please give me a sample about a digital image sold
like a masterpiece, I can quote a lot of samples about
traditional photography and not old photographs,
photographs made today.
Your comparison about the situation for painters and
photography is not valid, photography regarding
painting was a change in depth about the way to
represent the image, changed the means and the final
product too, that difference does not exist between
chemical photography and the digital image. The art
for the traditional photography is in the image as the
photographer work results, the digital image is the
software use results except for the composition work
and this is is the reason it is not valuable for the
fine arts market.
Daguerrotypes are traditional photography using older
processes, it is as fine art as moderner traditional
photography, guessing the image has conditions to be
conisdered art of course.-
All the best
Carlos
--- Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
escribió:
> Grain is indeed a feature of film, and can either
> add character or
> ruin a photograph, depending on intentions.
>
> "Traditional" photography is in no way more fine art
> than digital
> photography. Daguerrotypes are not more fine art
> than silver/gelatin
> either. The art is in the result, not the medium. A
> great picture is
> great, regardless of the medium and a grotty little
> picture from a
> mobile phone or digicam is as uninteresting as
> similar dross from an
> instamatic (or Rolleiflex if the photograph is
> poor).
>
> This risks getting like the old "photography is not
> art because it
> isn't difficult enough" argument we used to get from
> painters.
> Frank
>
>
> On 23 Jul, 2007, at 11:55, Carlos Manuel Freaza
> wrote:
>
> > Grain is superb for the image texture if the grain
> is
> > not exaggerated and according the image
> composition,
> > it contributes for the image character.
> > Traditional photography is fine arts.
> >
> > All the best
> > Carlos
> > --- Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > escribió:
> >
> >> They are very much different but, IMHO, not as
> >> different as, for
> >> example oils versus acrylic paint, and certainly
> >> either of these
> >> compared to watercolour.
> >> At the end of whatever process one has chosen,
> film
> >> - develop -
> >> enlarge - develop print. Digital to print,
> digital
> >> to print via some
> >> sort of manipulation software or a scanned film
> >> hybrid to digital
> >> print a photographic print is the result.
> >> Some people refer to prints from digital as
> >> "plastic" I assume they
> >> refer to the lack of grain (???) in fact for me
> it
> >> has taken
> >> "photographic realism" to a higher plane.
> >>
> >> I processed my own film all my photographic life.
> I
> >> have had a
> >> darkroom in my house most of the last 45 years. I
> >> still take
> >> photographs on film for fun - but for me the
> whole
> >> enlarge and
> >> develop process - which is a technical skill I
> felt
> >> I was still
> >> improving even after so long - particularly
> >> "mastering" the tiny
> >> dynamic range and extreme contrast of Cibachrome
> -
> >> was hard work and
> >> very time consuming.
> >> (Incidentally anybody thinking digital has a
> >> restricted dynamic range
> >> should try enlarging a Kodachrome slide onto
> Ciba).
> >>
> >> I now print entirely from the computer and if I
> am
> >> interrupted it is
> >> no longer an inconvenience/catastrophe.
> >> If your main objective is to consistently produce
> >> good prints my
> >> experience tells me digital is the best way.
> >> The downside is cost. My Canon EOS 1Ds mk2 was
> very
> >> much more
> >> expensive than my Rolleiflex so you need to have
> >> been a real film
> >> eater for digital to be a choice based on economy
> >> rather than results.
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> On 23 Jul, 2007, at 02:57, ERoustom wrote:
> >>
> >>> My first two days in my darkroom have me
> gleefully
> >> puzzled. There
> >>> is so much to learn, and it will be a while
> before
> >> I'm comfortably
> >>> making the all those connections from behind the
> >> lens to in front
> >>> of the fix bath. It makes scanning negatives
> seem
> >> easy and fast.
> >>> Peter's simile is so apt. Gaining skill,
> >> intellectual, physical and
> >>> technical, and truly learning to be patient is
> >> what film
> >>> photography (that goes the full cycle from click
> >> to print) is all
> >>> about. It's a medium, and a discipline.
> >>> My thinking about how I use my camera(s) what
> >> films I choose,
> >>> has changed completely since the darkroom (and
> my
> >> underdeveloped
> >>> film) humbled me this weekend. Maybe film and
> >> digital shouldn't be
> >>> compared. It's clear to me now that they do
> >> different things, and
> >>> demand different approaches.
> >>>
> >>> Elias
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 21, 2007, at 3:06 PM, J Patric Dahlén
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter Nebergall wrote:
> >>>>> Comparing film to digital is like comparing
> the
> >> NY Philharmonic
> >>>>> to a state
> >>>>> of the art rock synthesizer. One is cheaper,
> >> faster, and more
> >>>> convenient;
> >>>>> the other is high art.
> >>>>
> >>>> Very well said, Peter!
> >>>>
> >>>> I own a digital compact camera, but I don't
> like
> >> to use it to take
> >>>> photos of my loved ones... Instead I use it for
> >> fast documentation
> >>>> and when I need photos of something to show on
> >> the internet/send
> >>>> with email...
> >>>>
> >>>> There are more feelings involved when I use my
> >> cameras for film,
> >>>> and work in the darkroom. Then I feel creative.
> I
> >> can always
> >>>> digitalize film/prints when I want or need to.
> >> Digital has it's
> >>>> place, of course, even for me.
> >>>>
> >>>> /Patric
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
> >>>> Trött på att pendla? - Sök jobb där du bor!
> >> http://
> >>>> jobb.msn.monster.se/
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Rollei List
> >>>>
> >>>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>
> >>>> - Subscribe at
> rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> with 'subscribe'
> >>>> in the subject field OR by logging into
> >> www.freelists.org
> >>>>
> >>>> - Unsubscribe at
> >> rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >>>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by
> logging
> >> into
> >>>> www.freelists.org
> >>>>
> >>>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> >>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Rollei List
> >>>
> >>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
