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 grainisnot exaggerated and according the imagecomposition,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,digitalto 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 meithas taken "photographic realism" to a higher plane. I processed my own film all my photographic life.Ihave had a darkroom in my house most of the last 45 years. I still take photographs on film for fun - but for me thewholeenlarge and develop process - which is a technical skill IfeltI 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 ontoCiba).I now print entirely from the computer and if Iaminterrupted 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 wasverymuch 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 megleefullypuzzled. Thereis so much to learn, and it will be a whilebeforeI'm comfortablymaking the all those connections from behind thelens to in frontof the fix bath. It makes scanning negativesseemeasy and fast.Peter's simile is so apt. Gaining skill,intellectual, physical andtechnical, and truly learning to be patient iswhat filmphotography (that goes the full cycle from clickto print) is allabout. It's a medium, and a discipline. My thinking about how I use my camera(s) whatfilms I choose,has changed completely since the darkroom (andmyunderdevelopedfilm) humbled me this weekend. Maybe film anddigital shouldn't becompared. It's clear to me now that they dodifferent things, anddemand different approaches. Elias On Jul 21, 2007, at 3:06 PM, J Patric Dahlénwrote:Peter Nebergall wrote:Comparing film to digital is like comparingtheNY Philharmonicto a state of the art rock synthesizer. One is cheaper,faster, and moreconvenient;the other is high art.Very well said, Peter! I own a digital compact camera, but I don'tliketo use it to takephotos of my loved ones... Instead I use it forfast documentationand when I need photos of something to show onthe internet/sendwith email... There are more feelings involved when I use mycameras for film,and work in the darkroom. Then I feel creative.Ican alwaysdigitalize film/prints when I want or need to.Digital has it'splace, 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 atrollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxwith 'subscribe'in the subject field OR by logging intowww.freelists.org- Unsubscribe atrollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR byloggingintowww.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