Perhaps everyone has forgotten that the moment an image is consigned to silver or silicon, it has been "manipulated". First and foremost, the image is a crystallization in two dimensions of a very small part of a real three dimensional world. It has been extracted from its overall context, and abstracted into a visual metaphor or signifier of some intended meaning. Of all the great wet darkroom photos, how many are not manipulated in some manner? Or have we forgotten what AA meant by visualization... The vast majority of any sort of art photography prints, be they conventional or digital are not "straight" works, but enhanced or contrived in some manner. How many skies, reflections, luminosities, fogs, etcetera never appeared in the straight negative or RAW format?
I for one could care less the actual methodology Sr. Cuadrado used to arrive at his visualization here. I like it, for it is something both tangible and ephemeral, an artifact of one man's artistic vision. Others may not like it, or be neutral. That is their perogative, and what art is ultimately about. Comment on technique may help build the skills of others, but it amazes me to no end how the digital darkroom crew not only wishes to comment on technique, but to actually take an image someone else has created, and re-engineer that art themselves to their own vision and claim it to be "criticism."
I live in both photographic worlds. Mayhaps it is the dinosaur in me, but the idea of saying, "hey Alfred, Henri, Ansel, how bout giving me the negative you used for that print, and making it something I feel is a little more expressive?" ?Gracias por la gran fotografía, mi amigo!
Alone
in Landscape
Posted
Perhaps everyone has forgotten that the moment an image is consigned to silver or silicon, it has been "manipulated". First and foremost, the image is a crystallization in two dimensions of a very small part of a real three dimensional world. It has been extracted from its overall context, and abstracted into a visual metaphor or signifier of some intended meaning. Of all the great wet darkroom photos, how many are not manipulated in some manner? Or have we forgotten what AA meant by visualization... The vast majority of any sort of art photography prints, be they conventional or digital are not "straight" works, but enhanced or contrived in some manner. How many skies, reflections, luminosities, fogs, etcetera never appeared in the straight negative or RAW format?
I for one could care less the actual methodology Sr. Cuadrado used to arrive at his visualization here. I like it, for it is something both tangible and ephemeral, an artifact of one man's artistic vision. Others may not like it, or be neutral. That is their perogative, and what art is ultimately about. Comment on technique may help build the skills of others, but it amazes me to no end how the digital darkroom crew not only wishes to comment on technique, but to actually take an image someone else has created, and re-engineer that art themselves to their own vision and claim it to be "criticism."
I live in both photographic worlds. Mayhaps it is the dinosaur in me, but the idea of saying, "hey Alfred, Henri, Ansel, how bout giving me the negative you used for that print, and making it something I feel is a little more expressive?" ?Gracias por la gran fotografía, mi amigo!