RE: Crappy/Krappy

From: Christopher Lovenguth ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/02/05-06:19:58 PM Z
Message-id: <>

I feel this same way.

Although recently I have been thinking this is discouraging and/or matters
only to people who understand the detailed description. I was in the Whitney
awhile back with a friend who is a painter and we went in some photography
exhibit and I was looking at what print materials were used and I was like
(wow this is blah and or that is blah) and she, my painter friend, didn't
care at all because she doesn't know any of the processes and was focused on
content in the image. But I also think it was because process didn't matter
to her for any medium once something is on the wall (unless the piece is
entirely about the process). When we went in and looked at paintings, she
didn't go wow this is acrylic and this is tempura and that one oil, although
I know she understands most materials AND knows how each one reacts
differently to get a different feeling in the painting. Now there are
probably people who care about this when it comes to other mediums, but
honestly, out of so many people I know working in so many different mediums,
really it's only my photography friends (well actually printmakers act the
same way too for some reason) who really care about what film, lens, etc is
used all the time even when standing in a gallery. I think it's one thing
when you are at a friends and you want to know how they did it, but why does
it seem to matter to most photographers all the time. I can't even number
the many conversations I've overheard in galleries, museums in front of
photographs and I know who is a photographer because they seem to only be
talking about what camera or developer was used. But listen to painters,
sculptures in front of paintings, etc and they talk about composition,
color, feelings, etc.

I think it might come down to the idea that many years ago when photography
was so new that it was all about tinkering until you got what you wanted and
that is how it has continued to be discussed. I still do it, even though I
try not to, because it's so ingrained in me from it happening all around me.
I don't see painters saying "I used a #3 round head brush" and measuring
with scales exactly what combinations of paint they used to get that color
or timing how long they let their canvas dried before applying the next
coat. But I will here a debate on this lens being better then that one or
that the image should have been shot with Portra instead of Superia when
photographers are discussing an image.

- Chris <>

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Crappy/Krappy

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
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 18:20:41 2005

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