steve_sharf1

<p>Fred" You state above: "I've never considered art to be a totally subjective or individual experience"<br>

There can only be subjective experience. ...</p>

 

<p>Barry: I'm on Tiger and use Photoshop CS3. I do not do anything hugely complicated and mostly use it for Black and White. I have had no issues and find it to be a decent set-up.</p>

<p>I have an iMac 24" OS X version 10.4.11 with 2.33 GHz almost 2 years old. I have 3 GB Ram which I think is the maximum for this model. Am I correct about 3 GB being the maximum? I thought you couldn't put 2 2's in mine but maybe my memory is faulty.</p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>I may use the 750 for larger format negatives as well.</p>

<p>Re. my recent post on a perfect digital darkroom that I'm trying to design in a post above: Any suggestions on the best scanners for prints (best flatbed) to be combined with a drum scanner for film. An Epson 750 combined with a Nikon CoolScan 9000? Actually the 750 may not be big enough but which suggestions for the perfect set-up?</p>

<p>Chris: Here's an easy solution to your problem after you've cleaned your reels. Before loading your film next time, clip a small amount off of the edge of each corner of the film before loading it, so as to slightly round the leading edge of the film. You will be surprised how easy loading will become.</p>

<p>Wash the film again. Use the proper dilution of Kodak Photo Flow and be careful not to exceed the required time(about 30 seconds). Do not squeegee the film. Hang to dry with about four clothes pins on the bottom in an environment that is dust free with at least 40% humidity level. If its too dry add a humidifier of some sort to the area a few hours before. That should get the film about as straight as is possible.</p>

<p>Frans: Excellent material on lighting specs that I will certainly put to good use. As stated I'm presently using a 24" IMac and an Epson Stylus Pro 3800. My monitor is calibrated using the ColorEyes Display Pro, (about 2 years old).<br>

I also trim , mount, and matt my prints using a Rototrim, Seal Mounting Press and large Fletcher matt cutting equipment. The Flethcher Matt Cutter will be placed on an Island in the center of my new room. <br>

Do you have an ideal set-up for workflow and equipment that you would recommend as being absolutely ideal including everything on a wish list (except for a viewing room) using the room dimensions mentioned in my thread above? I could make my seperate smaller room for printing and viewing room as well.<br>

Any others wish to offer their ideal set-ups?</p>

 

<p>I'm building a new home with plenty of room set aside for a Digital Darkroom. I'm moving from my old home that had a beautifully designed wet darkroom that I used for many years and was a duplicate of Ansel Adam's darkroom 2 room configuration. Now I would like to build a dream digital darkroom. I also do my own matting with professional equipment that requires a large island work station. I have set aside two rooms in my new house. The main room is 19' x 13' 6" , with a seperate 12' 6" x 6' 5" room connected to it. Can anyone provide the work flow for this area including all equipment for an ideal set-up, keeping in mind that the center of the room will be an island for Matt cutting. I thought that the printer should be seperate in case of dust, so plan on keeping that in seperate area mentioned above.<br>

I currently use an Imac 24" computer with a large Epson 19' printer. I will add a scanner to this room and any other equipment that is necessary. Please provide ideas or sources.</p>

Fred: The argument is simple, but as photographers many of us will not allow ourselves to come to terms with, or address this simple fact: A camera cannot comprehend. Correct? If we agree on that then the next step is to now realize that, even though you may pre-visualize and plan out your image as a photographer(which are subjective decisions),lets say you are shooting a flower, you cannot subsequently transmit that concept of "a flower" into the camera. (You must familiarize yourself with the term concept for the sake of this argument. Concept is an abstract idea based on experience.)Cameras record light waves. They record the external world. They do so objectively. They cannot record image concept. As photographers we must "shop" to find something that approaches our concept, however the camera will not record the actual concept. It cannot.

 

We have an idea to photograph a flower and plan it all out, but in the end the camera lens records the external light waves onto film or a sensor. The result is an image that deals with "aspect" or the appearance or quality of the flower.

 

We have an idea to paint a flower. Our eye receives the image, the aspect of the flower, onto our retinas however the message is sent to our brain and our brain interprets the image "conceptually". It is impossible for our brains to avoid doing so. We see not just a flower, but a flower that represents many abstract things based on our experience with flowers. Maybe a particular flower stimulates me in such a way that I immediately associate that particular flower with a particular event; maybe a twenty-fifth anniversary. The result is a painting that reflects these idiosyncrasies. No two paintings will identically resemble each other, or, will come close to the likeness that can be produced by the photographic rendering. They will not resemble one another due to the conceptual process that "interferes" with likeness. This, to many, is what makes painting so interesting. The fact that you can delve into the very personal conceptual interpretation of a flower, for example, that is absent, or stifled by the photographic process.

Fred: I don't believe that you are straying from your original intentions at all. It is a very good discussion and I find it interesting. It is a fundamental issue of much of Sontag's argument. I agree with much of what she has to say. And, I still maintain that: People "see". Cameras do not. Again, and I'm sorry to belabor my past points from earlier threads, but I use the term "see" with respect to the process of addressing "concept". A camera cannot conceptualize, nor can a photograph. A camera deals solely with image "aspect". Painting deals with image "aspect" and "concept". Jazz deals with "concept", as does sculpture.

 

The problem I see (as well as many artists, philosophers, etc.)in these discussions, is the assumption of many photographers that they can somehow transport a concept of something into a camera and resulting photograph. Therefore they are "artists". I have difficulties with that belief, certainly in respect to most of photography, and Sontag certainly had issues with this assumption as well.

Julie: Your statement:

 

"Depending on the skills of the painter, writer, musician, or photographer, the audience/viewers will (hopefully) to a greater or lesser degree, if they are able (socially, culturally, intellectually, educationally, etc.) and willing, "get" the image's conceptual intent -- i.e. "have the same conception" as the person who made the thing."

 

What do you mean when you say "get" in your statement re. "get the images conceptual intent." and again , what is meant by your saying: "i.e. "have the same conception""

 

This is an interesting argument but strays from the original argument re. the camera being able to deal with concept. If I correctly understand what you are intending to say, you are implying that another person, upon viewing your produced image, may understand the idea or message that may be apparent in a piece of art. But I would strongly disagree that two people can as you say "have the same conception" in any set of circumstances. As I stated earlier this argument is futile as there is no method of comparing experience and there are no means to relate experience to another other than "external cues", to quote Wittgenstein. This was discussed in his example of relating "pain" through the use of external cues such as a "grimace". Conceptualization, is the process of forming a concept out of data and experience. One can experience, but cannot "share" the experience. You feel pain but cannot "share" or "give" the pain. You can, however relate external cues as in a grimace.

I should elaborate. The image of which you refer(through the viewfinder) is not the photographic image. Nor is it the conceptual "image" within your mind.

Julie: I am sorry. I have misquoted you. And twice at that! You said "pre-image" very clearly. My point though is that a camera cannot form a pre-image. A person forms a pre-image.

Julie: you state:[Please note: I never said "affords a free image" as you quote me.]

 

But you did, here:(read above) April 2 3:34 p.m.:

 

 

It is possible (if unlikely) for two people to make the same photograph of a subject if they are in the same place at the same time -- because the camera affords such a perfect pre-image and execution is exact (to that pre-image).

Hi Fred: I didn't read everything here(I skimmed most of it)but I did read this comment of yours regarding your photographs:

 

"They LOOK AT more than they SEE."

 

 

That"s something I didn't think I'd hear from you. Your points of last week in this forum("is there any art in point and shoot?-Dan Ellis Mar 21") seem to take issue with the above comment. Has Sontag changed your views? Have I? Or am I making an incorrect assumption?

 

Steve

The last statement of your paragraph is a reference to my statement re. concept. That is my argument Julie, nothing else really. So, with all due respect to you, I would like another attempt.

I think my point is clear, however, the fact that most photographers take issue with this whole idea is due to, what Sontag has referred to as, "the mistaken belief that a photographer is an artis". I would not go that far but I would say there is some veracity to her statement in that:

 

Preconceiving your shot before you photograph is not the final image. The final image is the final image. In photography, we need a camera(usually)to produce an image. A camera is "blind". It cannot deal with "concept" It has no brain. It is a device used as a middle step in transferring your idea to paper. The concept cannot be transferred from your brain to a camera because the image recorded is produced by light waves that exist externally to you and which do not become altered by concept. You are required to "shop" in order to satisfy some element of your original concept. The light waves can be altered by adjustments relating to the "aspect" of the image.(usually to a minor degree in most photography)

 

Your statement:

"It is possible (if unlikely) for two people to make the same photograph of a subject if they are in the same place at the same time -- because the camera affords such a perfect pre-image and execution is exact (to that pre-image)."

 

A camera does not, cannot, "afford a free image" Only your brain does that.The camera will then only "see" what it sees according to physical laws no matter how much you try to make it "think" about the image.

 

Finally: Your comment: "In that case we might share the same conception (assuming we are not talking to each other and therefore promoting our own conception"

 

I believe that there is no way that two people can have the same conception. How is it possible that two people with the infinitely different brain wiring, emotions, experience could produce the same concept of an image? It is a futile discussion anyways, I think, as there is no possible way to tell. The fact that no two paintings are alike (those that are not copies)is a good indicator that concept is idiosyncratic. The same image "aspect" however can be produced very easily; identically, with a camera, by two different photographers.

Julie: Another point I would like to make is a response to your last sentence. You state:

 

"To say that painting's fuzziness of conceptualization and execution make it more subjective is to equate subjectivity with difficulty almost for its own sake."

 

I do not understand this point. Conceptualize, according to my Collins dictionary on my desk here at work, is to "form a concept out of observations" I would say that the act of conceptualizing cannot be "fuzzy". Your idea, in a painting may not be clear, but the act of conceptualizing a "thing" either occurs or doesn't. The process is one that happens in the brain; an idea that changes the image that you see from one that is based solely on experience. Photography is a process that deals with aspect not concept.

 

To go on, painting, or dealing with images conceptually need not be difficult at all. For example, a five year old will most likely not find it an overwhelming process to draw a flower. We see this all the time. The viewer most certainly will recognize the image as being a flower. The drawing is conceptual in that it is a drawing, albeit a "primitive" rendering, but a conceptual process nonetheless.

Julie: your comment:

"The fact that I, with my camera, have a quick and nearly perfect way of rendering what I have chosen is not a fault,"

 

I never indicated that this is a fault. I have compared the process to painting and other art forms and have stated that the act of producing a photograph deals almost exclusively with the aspect of an image as opposed to the concept of an image in most photographic images. Because of this photography is a much less subjective art form than is, for example, painting. I stated as well that much of photography is not at all subjective.

 

You also state:

"If we are there at separate times,[photographing a flower] we would not have made the same picture, I am quite sure)."

 

What do you mean by the word "same". I suggest that the images of the flower are the same when considering the "aspect" of the image. You see a flower in both images, and though the composition, exposure etc. may be different, the flower image is identical (from the same unaltered light waves reflecting from the flower). I , of course, also say that the concept of the flower within the photograph is absent as the recorded image bypassed the brain.

 

You state:

"The fact that the painters can not do this (setting aside those counterfeiters who can), is, to my mind a weakness of painting, not a fault of photography:

 

Your word "weakness" is meaningless in relation to the above discussion. The two "art" forms are not in competition within my argument. I merely point out the differences in how the two "art" forms address and render a subject. At the same time, I think that stating that painting suffers a weakness as it cannot render an exact quick image is like stating that a foible of painting is its inability to swing like jazz.

The points I make in all of my previous argument(in previous threads) stem from my concern, as a photographer, of the lack of conceptual rendering in the production of photographic images, and the abatement of subjectivity in the production of the final image when compared to painting as an example. I am troubled, (or interested is maybe a better word)with the fact that taking a photograph with a camera is so very unidiosyncratic and that as photographers, most of us automatically assume that we are artists.

Julie: there's no reason why we have to agree.

 

...another point you make:

 

"Every single movement, however slight, changes the picture; changes the meaning/effect of the picture."

 

Does the image then become your image?

I would answer no. Its your composition, yes. But the image itself (not the composition)has not been conceptually altered. We realize that it is a flower, to use your example, because of recognition or past experience with flowers. But the flower and the light waves reflecting from it that form the image have been created without your brain. They have been created by nature not by your brain addressing the concept of the flower as opposed to the aspect of the flower. When you move the camera here and there are you not shopping for an acceptable image? Are you not hunting for an acceptable image. In painting a flower, I may arrange the flower and move about, however, the image of the flower must be processed conceptually.

 

Finally to expound on my previous thread. (The point above, where I ask you to go out and shoot 50 photographs of an idea I have and then find one I like and sign it as my own to illustrate the shopping analogy)Let me refine it: We both decide, to use your example, to photograph a flower. We will do it together. I have the idea in mind as to how I want the image to appear. You do much of the work and you move the camera about, play with the exposure etc., and you then take 50 shots of the flower, you click the shutter but with me right at your side. I pick out the shot that represents my original idea. I sign it and hang it in a gallery as my own. ... Is it?

 

If not, whose art is it? Is there any inherent characteristic in that image of the flower that one could point to that makes it mine or yours?

 

 

Now, we are two painters and we undergo the same procedure as outlined above. I have the idea to paint a flower and we set everything up and so on and you do the painting. I sign the painting as mine. Is it mine?

 

I would say most certainly not.

Julie: you state:

 

"The photographer does not accept whatever his camera gives him. He accepts what it gives him when he says YES. And that YES is entirely subjective. If, later, he finds that the camera did not give him what he saw in his mind when he said YES, then he discards the picture -- or looks at one of the fifty other frames he took of the same place."

 

That is, to a large extent, the point.

 

 

What about this. I give you an idea and instruct you to go out and photograph. I have you take fifty photographs, and, if I find one that represents an idea I have, I will say YES, my YES being entirely subjective. I then sign it as my own and place it in a gallery.

Fred: Have your guests draw the Golden Gate Bridge.

Julie: You have stated that I am combining conception realization and execution as one.

Please paste my exact quotes so that I may refer to what you think I have previously stated

for further discussion as I do not believe that I am making myself clear or possibly you are

not understanding what I am stating.

 

Whether these processes are separate or not is not the main concern of my discussion. I

have stated many times already that my argument concerns the fact that a camera

produces the recorded image mechanically and in so doing it bypasses the brain. Lenses

are adept at capturing the aspect of a thing but are blind when it comes to the concept of

a thing.

 

I am not discussing the pre-visualization or pre-exposing procedures. These are

subjective, I agree, I have been very clear about that. But I have also made the statement

that what goes into producing the image is craft, not art. Art, is what the final result

should be. A print that evokes an experience. What you did beforehand cannot be

definitively determined by the viewer and plays no part in the experience. ...You can think

all you want before you photograph but eventually you have to intervene with a camera

which cannot think when it records.

 

What happens after pre-visualization(if it does occur) is where the subjectivity is lost, or

becomes hugely abated in most of photography. No one can make a claim that a camera

can "see" or record a concept. You can argue until you're blue in the face about all the

subjective pre and post exposure work that YOU have put into an image but the fact

remains that the image was recorded by an external unthinking device and most

photographic images remain very close replicas of the captured image. They may

represent what you preconceived however you had to shop to satisfy the imagined notion.

 

Again I state that this lack of subjectivity was addressed by Susan Sontag in "On

Photography", by Henri Cartier Bresson, in (I believe) "The Decisive Moment", and in at

least a few notable interviews, and by Paul Levinson in "The Soft Edge" . Heres another

source from outside the school of photography if anyone wants more. John Sloan, the

famous American painter, member of the "Aaschan School" of American painting and

longtime esteemed teacher at the Arts Students League addresses this same argument

starting on page 43 of his well known book "Gist of Art"

 

While I was a teacher and lecturer of photography I am not in the league of those above

mentioned authors. Read them for further passages backing my argument,

 

Finally I ask anyone who still takes issue with my argument to answer my analogy that I

provided in my Mar 29 7:00 and 11:10 remarks. Namely: If photography is truly

subjective, than why is it not used in place of, or alongside of, drawing, as a psychological

tool in psychometric testing of personality and brain abnormalities.

Fred: (I'm sorry for chopping up my responses, please excuse me, but I have another)...you also state above:

 

"My images may, at times, enter my brain long before the camera gets involved."

 

 

but then... your camera gets involved.

and...(continued from above)if these same psychometrists think that a better degree of subjectivity can be obtained through the evaluation of photographs, then why doesn't the psychiatric community rely on photographs for the analysis of these patients as opposed to drawings?(I'm referring to house, tree, person tests whereby the patient is instructed to draw a house, tree and person)