andy_laycock

"I have moved away from thinking of gallery prints on the wall to the printed page, even newsprint, as the natural vehicle for photography, and one that asserts personal expression as well as hanging a "fine art" print."

 

Thank god you didn't say the internet was the vehicle. I agree with your statement as I've always found the gallery to be too impersonal to really appreciate a photo - although it is impressive to see the real thing without the restrictions of the printed page.

Good idea and I think using MF colour will definitely help you avoid the cliched, cemetary pitfalls. I think in order to focus on the atmosphere you may have to work with the people who visit the cemetary - which could be a very long, difficult process. I like to photograph in a cemetary near me, mainly because it's one of the few places that is relatively peaceful and quiet in the bustling city I live in. Quite often I feel uncomfortable when people are there visiting their departed loved ones and I wish I was brave enough to talk with them to see if they would mind if I photograph them with the grave sites...but I'm not brave and I hope someone does this.

 

For books I highly recommend Hart Island by Joel Sternfeld. It's a book on the 'potters' cemetary on Hart Island off of NYC. I won't go into details about the book itself because I couldn't do it justice. I'm not sure if it's still in print but you can probably find a used copy on Amazon or Abebooks. Good luck with the project.

"Any recommended links you can provide?"

 

Sorry but I'm a bit old fashioned and use the library for this type of thing. Any decent photo history book should cover it. Perhaps a search using 'dageurrotype and america' might net something.

Thomas it goes much further back than Steiglitz and Pictorialism. You should read about the enthusiastic adoption of the Dageurrotype and the depiction of realism in America. It was very different than what the British were doing in the same period.

I'm not that familiar with the posted photos on Pnet but I do know that the differences between American and British photography goes all the way back to the very beginnings of photography itself. Any decent photographic history book will give all the details much better than I can.

 

It is an interesting question that you do pose though but I would be surprised to see much of a difference in the type of photography that you would see on Pnet, or any other posting site. Most posters shoot popular photography which seems to have a universal subject matter and appeal. I would expect that differences may be more apparent in art photography.

I am so glad to read this and couldn't agree with you more. Fortunately this is mainly happening in popular and commercial photography, which I have no interest in. However I am glad that there are voices of reason speaking out and hope that you can influence your club to expand their horizons a bit.

I hope you have learned from your mistakes and now are spell checking. It looks as if you were typing while under duress or something.

"I recommend that you pick up a book on computer architecture (e.g. the classic by Tanenbaum) and read how computers really work. It's an entertaining read."

 

Did I say anything about computers? You're reading what you want into my comments.

Ilka,

 

anything circuit using capacitors or inductors could be analog modulation.

 

Yes the chemical transmission in the brain is chemical in nature and does not use electrons. However the AP, which is the transmission that I'm referring to is 'digital' in nature. Either it happens or it doesn't. There's no in between. It's the major tranmission source for information along axons. You can delve as deeply as you like into all of the biological systems involved in signalling (such as second messenger systems etc.) but you won't alter the fact of the AP. That's the last I'm going to comment on this. I stand by what I say and nothing is going to sway me, so live with it :P

"...analog processing (for example the massive dentritic arborizations of cerebellar Purkinje cells are primarily analog signal processors) are essential as are also the digital signals of the nervous system, the action potentials"

 

= modulation of digital signals

Ilkka,

 

You are missing my point entirely which is that the eye is more like a digital camera than film. Not only is it regenerative but also the transfer of the information from the eye to the brain is by action potentials, which are discrete and repeatable. Action potentials are more 'digital' in nature than analog. I also said there was a great deal of modulation which is what you are mainly talking about. But that modulation is concerned with whether an action potential is going to be generated or not and at what frequency. There is also a great deal of modulation in digital electronics.

 

As for Pico's discussion on quantum mechanics I'm not sure why that's even being brought up, especially in such large cellular structures as microtubles. To me it just seems like a red herring.

"That is so completely wrong that I have to believe you have never met one of the greats. So many of them were so tightly coupled to their thoughts and unconcerned with WTF you were there for that you would probably walk away from one."

 

Pico, I'm going to assume that you have met many of 'the greats' and my question is did you know them intimately enough that you were able to gauge their true personalities?

Pico, you're missing the point, splitting hairs and forgetting that transmission of information (via AP's) is not a continuous function. It's a discrete event that is heavily modulated by many inter and intracellular processes. Most of the modulation, at a basic level, is not only if an AP will be generated but also the frequency of the generation. Even synaptic transmission is a fairly discrete event since the vesicles containing the neurotransmitters are relatively constant in size and will produce a repeatable effect. Have a look at some of the basic research on synaptic transmission and also of single channel recordings - which will give a good graphic represenation of the voltage changes at a very minute level.

"To leap into "it is like a digital camera" because the brain might have a signaling method somewhere that strikes one as "digital" is incautious at best."

 

Might? It is digital in nature Pico. If you've taken any courses at all about neuronal signalling or even action potentials you would know this. Everything from single ion channels to synaptic vesicles are discreet entities.

"Nonsense. When the paradigm was clay for everything, the mind was likened to clay. When electricity prevailed, it was like electricity. Now it's digital. Bullocks.

 

The eye's "sensor" is indeed altered by the light entering it. Study up on that.

 

And just because cells, synaps and so forth are discrete does not make the system digital. Some signaling is slow chemical, and some is fast electric (believe it - yes, true electricity, microvolts) and although I am not convinced, it has been posited by some very bright people that some of it is quantum. Quantum is not digital, either."

 

Where do I start on this one! I have studied how the eye works as well as neuronal signalling. I also worked in the field of neuroscience for 10 years measuring the ionic currents of single cells in brain tissue (including human) as well as tissue culture.

 

The point about the retinal cells not changing was referring to the fact that they are not permanently changed when exposed to normal light levels. This is very much like a sensor in a digital camera whereas film IS changed permanently. The cells do send out discrete signals which, depending on the cell type, will carry information on the colour and intensity of the light. Put together this will form a complete image after processing in the brain. If you are going to compare the eye, and how it transmits it's information, to anything man-made then a digital camera would be it. The currents may be different (ionic versus electronic) but the actions are the same.

"The brain isn't really digital although impulses are sort of digital. There is a whole lot of analog stuff going on in the cells that determine when a cell fires."

 

Digital electronics also have a great deal of analog modulation as well. The point is that the transmission ('impulses') are by and large 'all-or-nothing'. Don't forget that the gating of many of the ion channels have definite voltage thresholds.

"As for conscious recollection: close your eyes and try to imagine two colors side by side. Say, red and green. Not a very good digital data storage system, is it."

 

Not a very good analog storage system either.

Pico,

 

Maris is right. The eye and resulting vision is very much like a digital camera both in the way the sensor detects and transmits it's information and the fact that the sensor is not altered. There are analog-like components to the processing in the retina itself (via gap junctions) but the transmission of information to the brain is very much digital in nature, as it is in all neuronal tissue.

As far as photography goes I find that normal, well-adjusted people tend to produce safe, standard photographs (ie camera clubs). This is a very general statement of course and I'm sure everyone can think of exceptions. On the other hand, dysfunctional artists seem to produce unique and memorable art. I believe that the so-called 'tortured artist' has a much larger mental repetoire to work with.

"Andy Laycock Since you are so pretty I will just say that it's a great idea and a nice prop.

Andy, you are so easy!

 

Not that I mean that in a Bad Way."

 

Ha! I'm a middle-aged man so I now appreciate what I couldn't when I was young and totally into myself :) Young women are completely wasted on young men.

Since you are so pretty I will just say that it's a great idea and a nice prop. The technical issues can be dealt with easily enough.

"Andy,

 

I would love being able to take pictures even half as good as the one's in National Geographic. :)Roger"

 

I totally agree with you Roger. I wish I had the skill of a good photographer regardless of the genre.

"IMHO if photographer needs to title, or even worse - to add text to his picture to make his message clearer, than he has failed as a photogarapher."

 

I have heard this quite often in the online and popular photography circles and have always thought it was extremely limiting and shortsighted. Of course if you only take obvious photos, such as flowers, mountains, boats, seashores etc then nothing is needed since the message is invariably "Ain't nature grand" or "this is a beautiful object". If, however, you are into more challenging concepts and ideas then text or labels are totally appropriate and the photograph is then part of a larger concept, although usually the major portion. For instance see Joel Sternfeld's 'On This Site' as an example of a very strong body of work that absolutely needs text to explain the situation. It immediately transforms the images, which are quite banal, into something with much more significance and to me much more interesting than the typical, in-your-face, overbaked Nat Geo images.

"I tried to break my stuckness last night. An associate took me to a neighborhood worker's bar. It's in the industrial zone. I was doing just great (love the folks) until I about got sh*tfaced trying to blend in. :) But I have pictures!"

 

Recreational boozing is a wonderful way to find inspiration. You'll constantly wonder 'why hasn't anyone photographed this yet'...and when you look at the results the next day you'll have your answer :)

Trees are very graphic in nature and often make for attractive images that most people can relate to. Also they don't move or try to attack you when you photograph them as happens when you photograph people.