Fw: Crappy/Krappy

From: Nick Makris ^lt;nick@mcn.org>
Date: 01/03/05-08:23:16 AM Z
Message-id: <003801c4f19f$c4896810$6af81718@p266>

This was supposed to go to the list - just not a button pusher.......
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Makris
To: chris@chrisportfolio.com
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: Crappy/Krappy

Chris, I disagree with Argon at least in part, even if you have a prescribed workflow and follow it precisely, you necessarily won't derive the same result. It effectively is saying that everyone uses the #3 rounded brush with the same results.

The parts and processes of an image while not important to most, are at least interesting and meaningful to some - and not just to those discussing photography.

Tools are tools and as we move forward, the tools are going to become more and more widespread - I don't believe we have seen the tip of the iceberg. We can not continue to disparage the tools that someone uses just because it's not tried and true and it hasn't been part of everyone's repertoire for eons.

It makes us sound like the ilk of 100's of years ago when oil painters began using knives and painting from reflective art - you know, paint by numbers. In those days there was a huge backlash about the tools being used. There needs to be acceptance of this transition we're in - of course, isn't there always a transition?

I also believe that it will be appropriate to post the above text to some discussion group 100 years from now. Think about it.........


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Christopher Lovenguth
  To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
  Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 4:19 PM
  Subject: RE: Crappy/Krappy

  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: Argon3@aol.com [mailto:Argon3@aol.com]
  Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 5:07 PM
  To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
  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 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 is...like 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 Mon Jan 3 08:23:32 2005

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