dickhilker

<p><strong><em>Who discards their own photographs or labels those of others as non-artistic ?</em></strong><br>

I do all the time, my own because I realize most of them aren't worth keeping, and those of others because a gallery can't afford the space for junk.<br>

<strong><em>Who can say that a photograph taken today in one geographical area will not be considered an art-form by someone in a completely different geographical area ? Or by someone viewing it 50-75-100 years from now? </em></strong><br>

You're right, but who is going to archive their output on the slim chance it may be true? Even if the work is eventually considered worthy somewhere, sometime in the distant future, the likelihood is that it won't be.<br>

<strong><em>Who cares which camera you shoot with ? You are either a working photographer</em></strong> <em><strong>or you are not, but rules don't make that decision.</strong></em><br>

If you're a working photographer, you should realize that, to some extent, prospective clients will judge you not only by your portfolio but also by the professionalism of your equipment. Do you feel that being a working photographer and an artist are mutually exclusive? Rules? "The man with the gold makes the rules" applies to the photography business and it's the client who has the gold.<br>

<strong><em> </em></strong></p>

<p><strong>"What rules?" </strong>Maybe it would help to think of them as a discipline of expression that enables us to convey what we mean with some accuracy. If we consider them a form of language, we could equate ignoring them with "speaking in tongues" or attempting to communicate in a foreign language: no matter how loudly you shout, it's not going to help.<br>

If we consider rules to be guidelines that help the viewers of our art to understand what we're trying to express, they lose their constrictive connotation and become signposts that keep everyone on course.</p>

<p>I prefer to think of myself as an artist with a camera, rather than an artist with a brush or chisel. Though each art form has its own mechanics and chemistry, the common purpose seems to be the abstraction of an idea, emotion or experience and its representation in the form that expresses it most effectively.<br />I'm currently managing the galleries of an art association that regularly exhibits approx. 200+ pieces of art, including all types of paintings, some sculpture and photography. We're in the midst of deciding how best to deal with the mindset that refers to members as either artists <em>or</em> photographers.<br />Because I consider the classes equal, I've hung paintings and photography together based on theme, size, color harmony, etc.. This has resulted in some of the better painters feeling that their art is being demeaned by association with lesser works (i.e. photographs) and my own observation that simply framed photographs can sometimes suffer by comparison with larger, ornately framed paintings.<br />Though I'm wary of the "artist of a lesser God" connotation of segregating art into separate groups for hanging and moving photographs away from the "real art," it seems the best way to show each to best advantage.<br />So, although I consider a photographer who approaches his work as an artist to, in fact, be one, I recognize that we're still dealing with the common perception that those who create art with a camera are no different than any shutterbug who runs around clicking his camera aimlessly. I'm hopeful that by showing photography in a separate but equal venue, we'll be able to present it as an art form in its own right and worthy of the respect accorded all the other classes of art.</p>

<p>I prefer to think of myself as an artist with a camera, rather than an artist with a brush or chisel. Though each art form has its own mechanics and chemistry, the common purpose seems to be the abstraction of an idea, emotion or experience and its representation in the form that expresses it most effectively.<br>

I'm currently managing the galleries of an art association that regularly exhibits approx. 200+ pieces of art, including all types of paintings, some sculpture and photography. We're in the midst of deciding how best to deal with the mindset that refers to members as either artists <em>or</em> photographers.<br>

Because I consider the classes equal, I've hung paintings and photography together based on theme, size, color harmony, etc.. This has resulted in some of the better painters feeling that their art is being demeaned by association with lesser works (i.e. photographs) and my own observation that simply framed photographs can sometimes suffer by comparison with larger, ornately framed paintings.<br>

Though I'm wary of the "artist of a lesser God" connotation of segregating art into separate groups for hanging and moving photographs away from the "real art," it seems the best way to show each to best advantage.<br>

So, although I consider a photographer who approaches his work as an artist to, in fact, be one, I recognize that we're still dealing with the common perception that those who create art with a camera are no different than any shutterbug who runs around clicking his camera aimlessly. I'm hopeful that by showing photography in a separate but equal venue, we'll be able to present it as an art form in its own right and worthy of the respect accorded all the other classes of art. </p>

<p>Have you tried an acrylic protective spray such as PrintShield? It resists smudging, provides some U/V protection and might be an easy solution.</p>

<p>I plan to make pictures that are more about the subject and less about me.</p>

<p>I'm a PrintShield fan, too, and have found that 5 - 6 coats provides sufficient protection to display prints unglazed. Of course, they'd still be subject to serious abuse, but have held up well otherwise.</p>

<p>Thanks for the considered advice:I should probably have added that I'm printing from Lightroom2 in PSD format and yes, it's the smooth gradient that I'm looking for. Having spent over 60 years playing in a wet darkroom, I've only recently made the leap to all-digital workflow after scanning medium and large format films until the allure of RAW files won my heart (and a pile of cash!)</p>

<p>Is there any advantage to sending 16 bit images vs. 8 bit to the driver with the input from a 21 Mp camera at 360 ppi for a 24" X 32" print on glossy stock @ 1440 dpi? </p>

<p>Just found the answer -- sorry! Not sure if the price differential would be worth the price increment, though.</p>

<p>What's the difference between the two models? Do you feel the Mk II is worth twice the price?</p>

I love the idea, but in some places they might call the Bomb Squad as they did in Boston a while ago when some odd-looking boxes were found in tunnels,etc.. They turned out to be an ill-advised advertising stunt that got the guys in a bit of hot water after shutting down the city's roads for an hour or so..

Out of curiosity, John, I revisited the slide show, especially the beginning, to find those "nice" shots of children and all I see is poor starving kids wallowing in filth, starving refugees, pregnant women, suckling infants dressed in rags and more scenes of misery. If that's the good stuff, I guess I'll settle for the "seed package photos."

 

Since I don't have the patience or time to listen to talkshow hosts, I'll have to defer to my close friend and self-described "pragmatic Socialist" who thinks Limbaugh's nuts. From what I hear, he's a discredit to the profession.

 

As I said before, many of the images I saw were strong, visually compelling and in some ways beautiful. And, if you'll recall, I also stated that what I had seen (about 2/3 of them) had depressed me enough that I stopped before perhaps encountering those that might have changed my impression of the whole series. It wasn't my desire to condemn anything, but simply to comment on my limited reaction to what I'd seen. I apologize if I hit a nerve, John, because that wasn't my intent.

 

And, no, you're not supposed to become blind, though I confess I don't fully understand what you meant by that. I was tempted to say,"There are none so blind as those who will not see," but that didn't make much sense either!

When you say it doesn't match the macro approach, do you mean in terms of sharpness, tonality or both? Any decent scanner should do an excellent job if its software is used correctly.

 

I do quite a bit of photo restoration and giclee printing for artists and find scans to be at least as good as macro shots of paintings with a 4 X 5 view camera. There's plenty of detail and the color's right on. Does your scanner autofocus and/or permit spot focusing?

A truly impressive collection of some very strong images, but so depressing I couldn't finish watching them. Isn't anything good and kind and beautiful part of the human condition, or is it all so dreary and horrifyingly sad? I can appreciate that from a photojournalistic viewpoint that this is what most people want and expect of the mainstream media, but the editor's selection seems to support a particular agenda. Quite an accomplishment!

This debate's been going on for quite a while. Since I use EEM a bit on prints that I sell, I conducted an experiment in which I made several identical Epson K3 pigment ink prints, storing a control print in a cool, dark place, one framed on my office wall away from direct sunlight and two taped to the inside of a southeast-facing window that receives direct sun for nearly half the day: one was sprayed with 3 coats of PrintShield and the other left unsprayed. In short, after 6 months there was no discernible difference amongst the prints. Maybe not scientific enough a test for some, but I continue to use EEM without worry as do several highly-regarded members of these forums.

 

It's a fine paper.

Thanks, David: my observation was based on the only three labs I could find, all probably with high overhead from their locations, front-end expenses and the other factors you mentioned. The exchange rate's a big factor, of course, even with the fairly high shipping costs for small orders. And, perhaps even more fairly, my overhead's very low since I'm retired and working at home.

 

I wonder why the UK labs can't deliver the consistent quality you need, even at their somewhat elevated price levels and the apparent sophistication of their facilities.

Thanks,Julie! Of ocurse, that begs the question, "If you let maggots squiggle paint around on paper, are they the artists for their contributions, or are you as their mentor?" Hmmmmmm . . . think I'll forward that to some of the art teachers in the guild and see what they think.

I guess their prices aren't crazy -- especially since it appears that's what they can get, but giclee prints on any top-quality paper, printed on an Epson pigment ink printer are currently being shipped from here to a client in London for much, much less: for instance, three 24 X 20 prints recently were billed at 20 quid each, including shipping costs.

The way I see it, Dan, a camera's no different than a brush or a chisel in the hands of an artist. If you can mindlessly "point & shoot" and somehow create something you and perhaps others consider beautiful, then I guess you're an artist. Chimps and elephants given paint and brushes have created what some call art.

 

Generally, though, an artist will be inspired by his subject to see in it something he wants to abstract and present in a thoughtful manner in whatever medium he's working. We've had many discussions on what consititutes art that you might find interesting and there seem to be as many opinions as there are contributors to the discussions.

 

Many of us, I'm sure, share your frustration at finding what they consider original, but maybe it's not as important as you think. Perhaps it's best to simply find subjects that appeal to you, look for what's especially attractive about them and photograph it in a way that means something to you. Don't worry about being original -- with so many people using so many cameras for so many years, being original's almost impossible. But, you can stil be good! And, most importantly, you can still have fun!

I'd also be interested in a good, but reasonable printing lab in London for high-end work. A friend there is being quoted 10X what I charge in the Boston area. Of course, part of that is the exchange rate, but it's still 5X at par.

Oops! Should have said the Healing Tool's good in P/S 7 (NOT P/S 5.)

"The Healing Tool alone (starting with CS1) is worth the price."

 

It's pretty good in P/S 5, too. If P/S 7 is working well for a person's needs, does it really matter if he misses all the goodies in CS3 that he may never use?

Matt, your substance justifies the form. Are there any generally-available lenses you could recommend as having that good bokeh? Mine are all the usual "sharpies" and I'd like to add another dedicated to portraiture. I recently played with pinhole work and was charmed by the effect, but frustrated by the lack of exposure control with fast film.

In selecting a source, Pamela, the two important issues are the quality of the ink and the paper. The industry standard has been the pigment inks used on Epson printers and 100% acid-free cotton rag papers that have projected lifespans of over 200 years.

 

If you could live with a life of 70+ years, there are many good papers that might qualify, but you'll still need archival quality ink.

 

I do a lot of giclee printing for local artists in Southeastern Massachusetts, but don't know who to suggest as an online source.