Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by pavel_l., Feb 1, 2018.
do what you enjoy and enjoy what you do.
why does it matter what someone else is doing ?
Did he? I liked the characters he played in Eastern Promises, A History of Violence (he also played Freud in another Cronenberg film, A Dangerous Method), and The Road. He does seem more like an actor who choses his roles based on artistic reasons rather than commercial ones. But to openly hate his Lord of the Rings involvement would be a bit hypocritical. I don't think these movies are awful for what they were aiming to be. Anyway, it's this money making role in Lord of the Rings that surely must have enabled him to set up his printing company Perceval Press.
I'm not criticizing his involvement. He liked the first movie, and urged Jackson to follow up with more of the same, but the director was too full of himself with "CGI Figures" and all that crap, rather than giving viewers the themes of the books. Also, in a photographic note, the color grading on LOTR sucked.
I guess it's a matter of how you utilize it. An example of two major directors working today and who are on the opposite spectrum of each other are David Fincher and Christopher Nolan. Fincher embraces digital technology all the way (not in a gimmick kind of way but in an almost unobtrusive kind of way and as a means for a more 'truthful' expression) while Nolan embraces film and the physical reality of non-digital technology as the means for being the most truthful expression. Either way both can say something true when they're at their best...
Yes I agree with you.
That was a flash of thought in Casual Photo Conversations.
I think the worst of the "digital photo art," the selectively colored black and white photo; the Eiffel Tower sticking out of a volcano with an apple stuck on top; is behind us already. As a teacher, photographer and lover of photographs here are a few trends I see. Full frame digital is now within reach of anyone with $1,000. Not so long ago that number was $5,000. Legacy lenses that used to go cheap are now going up in price because of people seeking to get distinct "character" out of their digital cameras. Some photographers have realized that it's going to be expensive to get medium format quality out of a piece of silicon and are shifting to medium and large format. And finally there's lomography and everything connected to it. All of those trends go against the idea that photography has become only manipulated digital reproduction. The good news is you can do whatever you want. Shoot with a Holga, a Sony AR or a pinhole camera. And if you want to use PS to make pictures of cathedrals floating in the sea, have at it. There are far more options now regarding "how" to practice photography than there were 20 years ago. Does anyone else remember the camera store debates on autofocus, transparency film vs negative film, etc?
Some fine points up there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ John
I thought the "Digital Debate" had run its course.
I do not "like" it or use it. But i have nothing but respect for photographers that are adept with Photoshop. God Knows i have seen Thousands and Thousands of excellent digital photographs.
I am still at home in my B&W darkroom. Lord knows i am still trying to print the perfect picture.
I still, clearly, remember "The Outrage" of many photographers when Kodak put T-Max on the market. You would have thought somebody had run over their F2's with a Truck.
I like the look of T-max film, but i never shoot. I like photos i see printed on Gloss (RC) Paper, but i never buy it myself.
I try to pursue my own passion and enjoy the abilities, in others, that i do not have.
I am not a Saint, i think some stuff is lousy.....but what's new.?
The only thing that is an impediment to me learning how to improve in the context of the great digital debate, is when post processing produces an image hardly obtainable through a baseline of camera use. It is simply a matter of being able to assess limits of various formats. Extensive manipulation beyond the camera makes that nearly impossible these days in cases where it is skillfully done. Chasing digital with film or trying to get from a digital camera what is produced with a computer program can be frustrating if you can’t establish a baseline for comparison.
“Photo doping” if you will.
Add to all of that, competing ego and sensitivity of all varying degree among folks who like “imaging”, and the debate is eternal.
What you describe is referred to in the advertising art business as a "Photo Illustration" category. It was going gangbusters back in the film days in the '70's & '80's when I was a graphic artist thumbing through the list of art categories of paid entries that landed a spot in Communication Art magazine.
Instead of airbrushing, masking and darkroom tricks it's now done with 1's & 0's.
I think why digital is being perceived as it is in topics such as this is that the technology has made it easier for many to make images that are not formulated from within an art aesthetic viewpoint such as those with art training or a natural sensitivity to it.
The really dynamic looking images that seem to be massed produced by the same photographer seen online are being made or influenced by technologists who seek to make the technology only duplicate what they see or what they've been exposed to from pop culture, movies and graphic novels. It has changed the source of the motivation to create an image. Making images using digital technology is more of a novelty for the masses.
I found one of these technologists (mainly with a perspective sourced from the gaming and CGI community) from a link provided on another photography site.
Filmic Tonemapping Operators
Read the rest of those blogs which may teach some things on why we like film over digital and why it seems a lot of photos look the same.
For a huge number of people like myself, we had some film, a camera, and books that taught us about filters, extended exposure, panning and such, but after we dropped the film off at the drug store or sent it in a mailer, the process was out of our hands. A simple matter of frame of reference. Simplicity has its appeal.
For me, in 1968 when I got into a a darkroom for the first time at age 18, I happily discovered a new world: I discovered I could used different contrast papers, control the exposure of the print, dodge and burn, crop, etc. I eagerly devoured Ansel Adam's The Print and The Negative. So for me and others like me, digital is simply an extension of what we were doing 50 years ago.
This shouldn't be an impediment to your progress. Once you know a heavily manipulated image or composite image, you decide which framework is best for you to work within. If you want to do what's commonly called "straight photography" you're not going to produce images of things that don't exist. And if you go with "illustration-enhanced photo design" you'll never get the immediacy of fast street photography.
There are different kinds of image making and they are not necessarily competing on the same playing fields.
Yes but the problem comes in when the “photo” looks too good to be real but might have been produced with no post production manipulation. Just how good is the best in any given format has grown ever more difficult to pin down when looking at what is out there.....
How important is "how good is this" in those terms?
Like I said above, I get curious, too, to know how something was produced.
But maybe it's not such a terrible thing that we can no longer qualify this sort of "goodness" and can just look at the photos and feel or learn or be shown something.
I'm of two minds on this. I think knowing the possibilities and results of a given format can be important to craft and even to response. At the same time, those sorts of things can often be distractions to actually just relating to the imagery itself.
Life's a bunch of trade-offs.
Yes but the problem comes in when the “photo” looks too good to be real but might have been produced with no post production manipulation.
But, all photos are "manipulations" of reality. It doesn't matter if it is slide film, black and white film, digital, whatever. Each medium constrains the image to its own limitations. Black and white is not "real" for instance, but we certainly accept it as a valid art form. Slide film tends to be contrasty and lack shadow detail, compared to prints made with negatives, but lots of people love the look of slide film. The idea of "post production" has been discussed here at length so I won't open that can of worms again!
I simply like to know what I am looking at, beyond what I see.
A lot of this is about context. When I see the pyramids at Giza on the cover of National Geographic I expect to see them as they appear (I know, appearances change). I don't want some photoshopper to have moved the pyramids closer together to make them both fit on a vertical cover. That's journalism. I would never manipulate the "facts" of an image taken for a newspaper. In my own work, which I show in galleries, etc., I'm not beyond cloning out that critical, stupid, distraction I didn't spot but I tread lightly there, too. If I'm looking at a CD cover for a band I don't particularly care if they convert a photograph to all red tones or whatever. I come to that image with the idea that it's a CD cover, not journalism.
Kenneth, what is the frequency?
Separate names with a comma.