[rollei_list] Re: [OT] film vs digital

I have read others messages and then I'll use this
message to answer all them:

1)I did not write about manipulation or no
manipulation Frank, I was talking about film as
artistic expression, the discussion if the digital art
(BTW a digital art exists) is considered fine arts
like painting,sculpture, music or traditional
photography among others is older than three years .-

2)Robert, I prefer as syntax the silver grains burned
by the light directly , they are better representative
about the light than an electronic signal interpreted
by software talking about artistic expression.-

3)I never wrote about high or low prices,that is the
sender interpretation, I wrote about which thing the
market considers a valuable masterpiece and fine art,
I was talking about the artistic worth, not the price
, and BTW thanks for the URL about the digital work, I
could do similar images via software, it would be the
software merit of course and for any case several of
the digital images (in general) considered "art" are
more paintings than photographs.

All the best
Carlos




 
--- Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
escribió:

> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===



      
____________________________________________________________________________________
¡Sé un mejor ambientalista!
Encontrá consejos para cuidar el lugar donde vivimos.                       
http://ar.yahoo.com/promos/mejorambientalista.html
---
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: