Erwin: "Photography does not exist anymore!"

[Spearhead]

<i>On the digital side a software piece is "intrepreting" the information from the sensor, according to a programmer's instructions based on his (her) ability to "understand" nature.</i><P>What film was designed by someone other than a scientist? Same thing, someone has to make materials designed by someone else into what they want.<p>What happened to logical thinking?

[jtdnyc]

Perhaps we need to distinguish image capture from image production. Capture on film or sensor may both be photography, since both types of records are "written with light." Darkroom printing, too, is photography because light is used to produce the print; but, in that sense, inkjet printing is not. Similarly, image manipulating that is accomplished by "writing with light" -- for example, dodging and burning -- is photography, while rearranging pixels digitally is not "writing with light."

 

For some people, this may be the proverbial "distinction without a difference," but for others it's a distinction that defines an art.

[Brad_]

>>> For some people, this may be the proverbial "distinction without a difference," but for

others it's a distinction that defines an art.<P>

 

For <i>photographers</i> who actually shoot and make prints, it's a who gives a rats a##,

it's the result that counts - but for others who spend more time pigeon-holing rather than

crafting photographs, it's a huge deal and worthy of the most extrodinarily deep

contemplation...

[jtdnyc]

If you really think this discussion has no value, you can always choose not to participate in it rather than lower it to the level of vulgarity and insult.

[jtdnyc]

<For photographers who actually shoot and make prints... it's the result that counts>

 

For some photographers -- you, Jeff, and others -- that's no doubt the case. For many hobbyists, however, the process counts, too, just as for many travelers "getting there is half the fun."

 

If results were all that counted, I'd hire a better photographer to take my pictures for me.

[Allen Herbert]

Erwin is a gearhead, who talks about minor quality issues between lenses,and other such nonsense.

 

He would enjoy himself a lot more if he spent his time taking,and talking about photos. But he turns a good coin by being some sort of religious guru to gearheads. Good luck to him.

[Allen Herbert]

Anyway,the ultimate Leica cam, with a lens to match. Who needs a Erwin to tell you such things...believe your own eyes.<div></div>

[travis1]

ok ok, photography is dead. So what do we do now? Anyone wants my m4p and summaron?

[travis1]

" while rearranging pixels digitally is not "writing with light." "

 

I agree. But it's the process is half the fun. No?

[travis1]

Actually I like looking at Bob Todrick's classical b/w film photography as well as Brad's digital stuff. I don't think Brad manipulates alot(as if anyone can tell how much and where). Both gentlemen Im sure have enjoyed the process towards making the final print. So you're saying you can have fun in the darkroom but you can't have fun in the digital darkroom? Ridiculous. You don't define what fun is.

 

Im pretty sure no one in this thread started with digital first. So telling them what they are missing(film) is er, what's the point?

 

I like how Erwin Puts it in his essay. But to me it's either he haven't stepped into a darkroom before or he know nuts about photoshop.

[Spearhead]

<i>If results were all that counted, I'd hire a better photographer to take my pictures for me</i><p>Hmmm, if I couldn't produce photos that said what I want to say (or get paid for), I would find something else to do. I couldn't imagine hiring someone else to take <i>my</i> photos.

[jtdnyc]

Well, Jeff, I'm glad to see you agree that photography can be about self-expression and not simply about "the result." Like you, I wouldn't really hire someone to take my photos for me; rather, it's those people who care only about "the result" that might be tempted to do so.

[peteradownunder]

Nice camera Allen - this one is even cooler baby... :)<p><center><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/33093861@N00/936340378/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1341/936340378_6d3bc31959_o.jpg" width="500" height="750" alt="" /></a></center>

[jacob_brown]

"If results were all that counted, I'd hire a better photographer to take my pictures for me."

 

Ever hear of Jeff Koons? Or look at much of modern sculpture, whose creation is directed, sometimes marginally, by the 'sculptor'? Or the history of Renaissance art studios, in which artists were hired to work in the studios of established artists who would touch up (or not) the work of underlings and sign it?

[lee_shively]

"Since Lee agrees, now he has to say what number he is agreeing to."

 

Eight.

 

No, make that twelve.

 

Maybe more. Maybe not.

[jtdnyc]

Jacob, my point exactly. "Result"-oriented "artists" often sacrifice self-expression in favor of, well, results. Artists who care about the process are less likely to do so. Thanks for the examples. I guess you could add Kostabi to that list.

[Brad_]

>>> "Result"-oriented "artists" often sacrifice self-expression in favor of, well, results. <P>

 

Do you have any idea what you are talking about with respect to photography? Any examples

of the "often" you so easily toss out? Every <I>photographer</i> I know makes prints of

some sort (paper, web, book, etc); ie a tangible result of their artmaking. Except you

perhaps, where I guess just talking is apparently artmaking and a result doesn't need to be

produced to show people.

 

Does this tie into Puts' artical somehow?

[Brad_]

>>> Well, Jeff, I'm glad to see you agree that photography can be about self-expression and

not simply about "the result."<P>

 

A huge mischaracterization of what Jeff said. Why am I not surprised you resort to that?

Every <i>photgrapher</i> I know has their expressive vision embodied in a print that's

made- ie a result. You're just stating the obvious and adding nothing. I don't know any

<i>photographers</i> who just talk and philosophize about what they could do, without

actually producing something. Well, maybe here...

[jacob_brown]

Jonathan, sorry I meant Kostabi, not Koons.

 

As for the 'results-oriented artists' remark, I can't parse it and I think Brad makes good points.

[travis1]

if results are not important, why bother stepping into the darkroom? The smell?

[travis1]

" photography can be about self-expression and not simply about "the result."

 

how do we know what you are expressing without a print?

[sven_ochan]

Bob T: "sven...give me a break. For f**k sakes what has gone wrong with the world where

having experience and knowing what your doing is far less important than getting the best

price?"

 

Bob, you're having as much difficulty understanding my words as you are understanding

the modern world. I'm suggesting that genuinely talented and creative photographers

should be (and are being) rewarded. I pointed out that: "The market is polarising. It's never

been harder for the mainstream hack photographer, but, at the same time, genuinely

talented photographers who offer something better/different are doing well". The reason

that wedding photographers are struggling is that what they offering isn't sufficiently

differentiated from the output of the weekend happy snappers.

 

You carry on: "Case in point...one of my 'clients', a 'pro' shooter (actually a stay at home

mom who has Saturdays free...Had her husband (who thought an extra $500 or so a

month will be nice) helped her put up a little website."

 

I hear yer. Another bain of the modern age, the laydeez getting ahead of themselves. Just

a few years back she'd have been sitting at home stitching a quilt. I actually blame her

husband for encouraging her with the "little website". Before you know it they'll be asking

for the vote.

 

"I've now had complaints about her. I'm fairly high profile in the pro businessl"

 

You tell them brother. Woman + Digital = Catastrophe. Plus it puts hard working guys out

of business.

 

"Sure, if conditions are right any dufus can pick up a DSLR and bang away...checking the

LCD screen till they get the shot that looks nice (and of course deleting the bad)."

 

Kind of like marking up a contact sheet?

 

"500 bucks...such a deal. Just like so much in our fast food society today, photography is

falling prey to the 'why take time to do it properly when I can do it RIGHT NOW'...and

digital goes hand in hand with that attitude."

 

Maybe join the Angry Analogue Man Militia. They're mad as hell, and they're just not

gonna take it anymore...

[jtdnyc]

No problem, Jacob. I suspected you might have meant Kostabi, but I wasn't sure.

 

Brad, as I've mentioned in previous threads, I choose not to publish my photos on the web. You choose to post your pix, and I respect that;it's just not the medium I choose, and I would hope that you would respect my decision, too. In fact, in two previous threads I offered to send you actual prints or to e-mail you samples of my images. You never responded to either offer and so I will assume that you simply want to continue to be condescending and not actually see any pictures I have made. Since we're in the Leica Forum, I suppose I could ask how much experience you have with Leica equipment; and why, if the answer is "little or none," you feel qualified to comment on matters concerning Leica.

 

As far as what any of this has to do with Puts's article, all my posts have been responses to the discussion as it evolved...unlike your remark, early in the thread (7/26 at 11:02pm), in which you suggest, bizarrely, that Leica owners keep their equipment in aquariums. (Who knows? Maybe one does, and maybe he has a reason...)

 

Have you ever considered buying a Leica and joining in the fun, instead of taking potshots at us from the sidelines?

[jtdnyc]

Travis, results are important; I think we all agree about that. My point is that, for many hobbyists, the process is imporant, too.

[jtdnyc]

I should add that the process can be traditional or digital, whichever you enjoy. Puts tends to stress the differences between the processes, and this seems to drive some posters to distraction.