Very good discussion, Barry.
I agree with your point re getting to the end result through whatever means
you have at hand. With art it is about many things, and while the process
is important it's the result we look at and interact with.
My regret isn't that digital is here or even that it will one day supercede
a then-dead emulsion side of photography. It's that it must lead to a
diminution of photographic knowledge and experience all around. Society
will be the loser if I'm right. Again, I hope I'm wrong.
Tris
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:49:55 -0800, Tris Schuler wrote:
>This corruption (as I see it) is already underway and somewhat pervasive.
>For instance, it exists in all of my work today--only part of my
>photographic workflow remains analog, the rest digital. In fact, this has
>led to an improvement in the apparent quality of my photographic end
>result, and I've no quarrel with that, but no matter how much I praise my
>SprintScan, no matter how much further Adobe might refine and enhance
>Photoshop, these tools take me away from photography in the strictest sense
>and into a branch of (for lack of more ready terminology) visual arts.
There's where we differ. While I draw a distinction between journalism and
art, When I'm working on a piece of art, I make no distinction between
digital,
chemical, physical or other manipulation of the image. I simply use the
technology that will get me to the desired result. And I decidedly consider
photography an art, on an even par with painting, drawing, or digital
manipulation.
So while I'd recognize different techniques from a technical standpoint,
and have aesthetic preferences, I don't see the artistic difference
between chemical
based photography and digital imaging.
>But that's me. I can understand the difference because I note it within an
>understandable context. A generation or two down the road, when there is
>virtually no one around who has experience of any kind with photographic
>expression of the analog kind, only the digital,
I don't think that will happen. There are basic qualitative differences
between analog and digital, and analog techniques will remain viable as an
alternative
to digital. Consider that among blues and many rock musicians, 1950s and
1960s tube amps and effects are preferred over solid state and digital for the
particular distortion they provide. I've recorded on tube based mics
before because a producer wanted a specific sound that simply couldn't be
mimiced with
digital equipment. I anticipate the same sort of thing happening with the
chemical darkroom vs the digital darkroom.
>This isn't a rant, just an expression of what I see.
>If you _want_ a rant I could jam this list for a week (easily) with my
>feelings with regard to same. But I don't think you want a rant so I
won't. <g>
It'd beat a rant on going to war in my SUV with the gunrack and the "I
vote pro-choice" bumper sticker. At least it'd be on topic!
--
Barry B. Bean
Bean & Bean Cotton Company
Peach Orchard, MO
www.beancotton.com
www.beanformissouri.org
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|