Compare and Contrast

[jonk]

<p>If we only had a good photograph of Homer..............</p>

[jtk]

<p>Jon: http://it.geocities.com/giocchi27/h1a.jpg</p>

[james_parkin]

<p><strong>A reply for john kelly</strong> <br /> the world is awash with images, the internet isn't the right place, i believe, to look at the images i like to make... or photographs in general...even when we like them, we go next! next! next!...perhaps this is similar when you say? "I rarely buy photo books if I've not seen actual photographs". Maybe its a matter of how we believe our work(our others)is best received? i believe a little time spent with one image or group of them can go a long way.with the internet it becomes all about quantity.... i perfer a slow simmer when looking at photographs. i'm not sure this is possible with the internet, i might change my mind though.</p>

<p>to be frank...your tone comes accross as arrogant. this seems a shame because you have interesting things to say...so if you'd like to see some of my pics (depending on where you live of course!) i have two small exhibitions coming up in london(both start end of may) and a book of my photographs will be published in about 18 months...so if you live near london, and would like to see some of my work, please get in touch and i can give you the details<br /> all the best</p>

[jtk]

<p>James P, one's preferences are inherently worth attention when written reasonably well...especially when that person substantiates the worth by sharing photographs online: this is an online photo Forum. </p>

<p>Many fine photographers who struggle to write in English get serious attention in Photo.net discussions.</p>

<p>Rather than merely expressing agitation and unfounded preferences when confronting ideas that disagree with yours, you might develop writing skills and, as soon as you are able, post samples of your photography.</p>

<p>That "the world is awash with images" is not necessarily a bad thing. It's Spring, much of the world will soon be awash in flowers.</p>

<p>I love the work of Edward Weston and many others in photo history. I don't think many of the best pre-digital photographers were as good, in many respects, as the better digital photographers. </p>

<p>That you (or I) may prefer prints, even platinum, doesn't address the original question of how best to learn photography. </p>

<p>Personally, I tend to devalue the work of photographers who aren't skilled enough to print their own...resorting labs, or not printing at all. Call me snobbish or old-fashioned.</p>

<p>However, I reluctantly admit that many of those that I tend to devalue actually deserve a lot more credit than non-digital photographers like to give them, often a great deal more than acclaimed traditional photographers.</p>

<p> </p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>"Enthusiasm for Frank or Winogrand or Weston or photo-Frenchies from eras past is wonderful but it regularly seems to go along with ignorance of the best work of today</p>

<p>Would you please explain on what basis you've reached that conclusion? Furthermore stating the obvious doesn't help any discussion. Of course seeing an actual print is great but does that diminish the value of good books on photography? No it doesn't and yet it's still what you imply.</p>

<p>Lastly, you seem to have fallen into an age old trap and that is confusing your own opinion with actual facts. If not that, you're merely trying to provoke answers. You comparing in virtually one sentence the value of visiting galleries with sites like Flikr and PN is merely ludicrous.<br>

Enough said, I should think.</p>

[susan_tschantz]

<p>Personally, I tend to devalue the work of photographers who aren't skilled <br />enough to print their own...resorting labs, or not printing at all. Call me <br />snobbish or old-fashioned.<br>

While I can appreciate this, and if possible, I think it does help get rid of some of the real problems in newbies photograhy,<br>

some of us can no longer take the chemcials of delveloping, and frustrated with the lack of quailty available to us in labs anymore, have opted for digial, as the only way to have any control over the "deveoping" again.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Ton, I admire your online photos. Your type of photography will survive forever, along with other longtime darkroom-oriented types (I mentioned my enthusiasm for Weston) along with the more recent, entirely different types that make you anxious.</p>

<p>You posted you photos online specifically to be seen by thousands. You are no different than a photographer with a cellphone camera in that respect. Your images are fine, but there are thousands of fine photographers on Flickr as well, people who have never even exposed film.</p>

<p>Photography has been repeatedly reborn in new modes ever since Nicéphore Niépce got the ball rolling.</p>

<p>Personal insecurity in the face of new ideas is all-too-common. I hope you're not as anxious as your post indicated.</p>

<p>Your response to my post, above, seems "factual" evidence that partially supports my ideas. To quote a recent President, "Mission accomplished!"</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Susan, I agree. I've suffered chemical allergy (from processing thousands of rolls of Ektachrome on reels), but that's not my reason for drifting away from wet darkroom work. Despite being skilled in B&W/color wet darkrooms, I drifted digital. Initially that was a matter of convenience . However, I'm convinced that inkjet printing has become superior to wet darkroom work in all visual respects, obvious when you compare dye transfer, Ektacolor, and Cibachrome darkroom prints to recent scan/inkjet of the same transparencies or negatives. It's easy to see that contrast in big city galleries and museums.</p>

<p>My own work is now mostly DSLR>Lightroom/Photoshop>Epson 3800 printer... however I spent the last few years with rangefinder/SLR>my Rodinal or E6/lab>Nikonscan>Photoshop>Epson 2200.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>John,</p>

<p>did you even read what I wrote? Not only didn't you answer my question but you just spread platitudes around. Maybe that's your way of having fun, for me it's a waste of time so I'll move on.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Ton, looking at your DIGITAL photos (that's all we have, no matter your processing) I'm sure you have thoughts to contribute: Your photos suggest that, if you tried, you could express ideas in writing...people who barely speak English share their thoughts wonderfully well here.</p>

<p>OK, I didn't get your point (I did'nt miss your anxiety, however).</p>

<p>Perhaps your careless writing is the problem. You're right though, I'm "having fun" with ideas AND photography. How about you?</p>

<p>Is "fun" such a bad thing? </p>

<p>I think most of us here are into "having fun," often exploring tentative ideas (like mine), trial balloons...some of us are more into passion and deep thought. Is your hostility necessary?</p>

<p>C'mon, express your own ideas, step up to the plate. It won't hurt...even if somebody gets upset.</p>

 

[susan_tschantz]

<p>I am still in the process of learning or rather re-learning "dark room" skills and finding out the best ways to process/print with my new work, which is one reason I joined in this forum after reading a lot of the tutorials.<br>

I have an HP printer, but want to do much more of my own work, so I am looking for a wide-format photoprinter to do the kind of work I used to do with black&white etc.<br>

I do love the flexiblity of a new DSL and working with raw. I haven't mastered the printout end yet. Had some good results and some not-so-good, but that is all a part of the learning curve.<br>

I work with a gallery of artists, and run several open entry shows, and the digital images are rapidly improving, especially in the print stage. The range of papers and the quality of the pigments are fast improving.<br>

But sometimes I wish for the dark-room experience for the younger photographers. It explains so much of what happens and how much control the creative photographers can and should have. That with every image the clicking of the shutter is a small part of making art.</p>