[rollei_list] Re: [OT] film vs digital

Carlos,
I don't agree with you at all. The method of production is not the means by which an image becomes art.
As to producing a list of digital images sold as a masterpiece. Firstly there are over a hundred years production of chemical photographs available for sale, quality digital has only been available for 3 years or so. Secondly, I assume when you write valuable you mean "for sale at a high price". The only "valuable" photographs by this measure are by photographers long dead and the increased "value" in the art "market" is based on speculators being happy in their rarity and the fact that new works won't be done. Neither of these are relevant to digital photography yet.
If you read the books by Ansel Adams you will find that he did far more image manipulation for his prints than most. Certainly more than I do. He used darkroom "trickery" rather than photoshop, that is all. His results are still astonishing, way more impressive than a straight print of his negative would be. Many great digital images have been printed without any photoshop manipulation. 

Frank



On 23 Jul, 2007, at 14:21, Carlos Manuel Freaza wrote:


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
http://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
http://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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: