Re: Crappy/Krappy

From: [email protected]
Date: 01/02/05-04:06:58 PM Z
Message-id: <>

I always assumed that the whole "diana" thing was a reaction to photography's
becoming too technical or, more accurately, too concerned with the technical
perfection of images and not with the aesthetic quality of them.
As I mentioned earlier, someone wrote in a recent article that you could use
a Holga and clean the image up in Photoshop...again: why? You can take an
image made with a Hasselblad and scan it into photoshop and make it look like it
was made with a Holga...oh JEEEZ!
Why even give technical details when submitting or showing a photograph?
Just say "here it it? don't like it...fine." This as opposed to
"Leica m6, 90mm summicron, f8/125, developed in microdol 1:3, printed on ilford
whatagrade 2 fiber base, dektol 2.5 minutes...yadda yadda yadda." Or taken
with a cheap digital camera or disposable or... I mean, we traditionally give
certain tech specs like cyanotype or silver gelatin print or kalitype...
I only rant because I'm a little discouraged...seems like Photoshop has made
it all unimportant. Any process can be duplicated with a scanner, a computer
and a printer...where does that leave anyone who has placed importance on
perfecting a photographic process of any kind; traditional or alternative? It's
a hybrid world....negs for alt processes made on printers and not in the
darkroom...does that have to qualified if one is describing the final work?
Handmade versus machine made versus a little of both?


Received on Sun Jan 2 16:07:26 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/01/05-09:28:07 AM Z CST