Jump to content

Age of digital photo art.


pavel_l.

Recommended Posts

 

I see very unexpected paradox in the age of digital photography that can be sign of splitting of the main stream and could be considered as suicide of the digital photography. The same software (PS) that was originally created to replace the darkroom and as one of the steps of sharing of photographer's work, became the force that is pushing photographer to the pool of "paint artists" (which is, probably, unconscious feeling of every photographer.) The digital pic is becoming just a blueprint for the photoshop product. The second branch of trend could be the film photography.

 

Cheers.

 

 

  • Like 1

"... Our perception of the world is a fantasy that coincides with reality."

Chris Frith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Suicide of the digital photography"

Wow..dark, dramatic. How is this a problem? Look back to Man Ray and other "art" photographers, its not a new concept and certainly wasn't invented by Adobe.

Edited by Spearhead
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, Those impressionists, what were they drinking? Absinthe? Did it alter their vision? That guy Ansel Adams just took the negative and printed it...not. Had a lady tell me what I was doing shooting for planned major transformation in post was not "real." Told her, that is not a photographic term of which I am familiar. If I want something that apes reality, I use a copy machine. Like seasoning, post is to the taste of the individual.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art scares people because one of things art does best is break from the comforts of the past and look, instead, imaginatively into the future. Remember the uproar when Dylan went electric! A lot of people can't quite cope with moving forward. I'm all for nostalgia but, like anything, it can also be an unhealthy preoccupation.

 

Somewhere I've heard something along the lines of "It's not the tool, it's who uses it and how it's used." That rather simple idea ought to be applied to Photoshop. Photoshop in itself is neither good nor bad. Photoshop is often used poorly, sometimes with the subtlety of a jackhammer. Then, the only thing that ought to be concluded is that someone with bad taste or bad aesthetics used it. On the other hand, Photoshop has given access to post processing (an integral part of the photographic process) to many people who wouldn't otherwise have that access. And it's being used in a fine and creative way by millions, often to the point where we don't even notice its use because it's used so well and sometimes where it's use is very noticeable and pushes boundaries and envelopes, which art is prone to do.

Edited by Norma Desmond
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't label my negative impressions (to the extent they crop up from time to time) of post production as "fear". When I see a photo and it looks "perfect" I want to know the baseline.

Doesn't mean I don't like or appreciate what I'm looking at but my curiosity can get the better of me when I am left wondering "How'd he do that?".

So all in all it's a small tidbit in the overall composition, that remains unsettled in my appreciation or lack thereof of what I see.

Reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld where a particular woman looked both beautiful and alternatively hideous depending on how her face was lit.

Curiosity wants its satisfaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, just to be clear, I was thinking about the OP when I used the word "fear" in my comments, Because the OP talked about the suicide of photography, and others who seem put off by Photoshop also talk about the death or demise of photography, there does seem to me an element of fear often involved. Like you, I can often be curious about how a photo has been made and how that affects what I think about what I'm seeing. That seems a much more reasonable place to be than thinking in terms of uses of Photoshop being a photographic suicide.
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part about suicide was something I don't agree with in the original post.

I thought he pointed out a valid reason for the recent fascination with film, the digital generation seems to have these days.

 

So much of the discussion comes down to personal taste.

The old cliche "That painting looks like a photograph" comes to mind.

Today's version is "That photo looks like a painting" …...

 

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.

Edited by Moving On
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate simplicity at times as well. Simplicity in a photograph can be very appealing as it can be in any process. I don't see what you're describing, though, as simplicity. I just see it as giving over part of the process to someone else. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of folks have not wanted to do their own processing throughout the history of photography. Even plenty of famous, great photographers didn't do their own processing. But it seems more that it was something they were uninterested in doing or didn't think they could do as well as some people who were better at it than a desire for simplicity.
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is is that it is all so subjective.

A good example that comes to mind is that I have recently been going through a pile of old photos boxed and put away for years.

Some of the old color stuff was taken with an old Kodak 104 instamatic.

I scanned a particular image that had grown yellow over time. It was taken on one of the many canoe trips I took as a kid. When I hit the auto color correct tab, the picture popped and triggered the memory in a way the washed out picture hadn't. Like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle snapping into place. I know that my perception of that photo is shaded by memory. A memory that others who assess the photo do not have.

I think that when a photo works on a broad level, heavily post processed or not, it appeals across a wide spectrum of individual experience, even to some extent, on a subconscious level.

Edited by Moving On
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viggo does a great job of acting in a terrific movie from last year called Captain Fantastic. See it if you can. It mostly went under the radar but is well worth a look.

 

[by the way, despite the title, it's not a Superhero movie. It's about a guy bringing up 6 kids in the Northwest U.S. Wilderness, his way.]

Edited by Norma Desmond
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP ...

 

do what you enjoy and enjoy what you do.

why does it matter what someone else is doing ?

 

Yes I agree with you.

 

That was a flash of thought in Casual Photo Conversations.

 

Cheers.

"... Our perception of the world is a fantasy that coincides with reality."

Chris Frith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...