Digital BW, The Print

I think part of the issue here is that big ol' view cameras and dedicated
darkrooms were always somewhat intimidating to the average Joe who liked
taking pictures. It used to be easier to tell the "professional" from the
amateur (from a consumer point of view, anyway) because the pro had all this
fancy stuff that you could not understand, let alone afford. There was a
mystique.

No more. I'd suggest that with the advent of affordable, fully automatic
cameras and now digital, photography feels much more approachable to the
average person. People feel like they have essentially the same tools as
pros, so how come his photos look so much better than mine? There must be a
catch. Of course, what they fail to realize is that what's always separated
the artist from everyone else is more talent and a better knowledge and
command of the tools that are available.

How truly awful life would be if every restaurant had to post its recipes,
every musician had to include sheet music with his CD, and every artist had
to reduce an object of beauty to a formula of tools and techniques. It takes
away the magic, it takes away the uniqueness, and it takes away the art.
Unless you call yourself a "photojournalist" or a "documentary filmmaker", I
don't WANT to know how you did it. I just want to enjoy it.

Doug


> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:55:46 -0700
> From: Richard Sintchak <richard@...>
> Subject: Re[2]: Pumping up the saturation
> 
> Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 11:26:54 PM, david_bookbinder@...
> wrote:
> 
> dsc> I am curious as to who you are talking to about this bias. Are
> dsc> these gallery owners, collectors, dealers? And, do they make
> dsc> a regular practice of inquiring about how a photographer comes
> dsc> to a particular final image?
> 
> dsc> - David
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> No just general public type people. Friends, relatives, friends of
> friends. I have no doubt that many dealers, collectors, etc. would
> have no problems especially if it helps to sell the work. My "fear",
> as it may be, is that there really seems to be a public perception
> that most photographs seen *are* realistic examples. Perhaps there is
> a long history of manipulation done in the darkroom (much of it the
> "same": as what we can do with PS today) but, and as has been
> discussed, much of this had been more difficult and not as prevalent
> as today's use of PS. I get the feeling that it may be "diluting" the
> parameters upon which photographers may be judged or respected.
> 
> Again, I have just found that when told of use of saturation tools in
> PS, etc. that most non-photographers do *not* say, "oh, well that's
> great" but more often say such things as "Oh, so THAT'S how he did it"
> and is often followed by "I did not think it was real..." and their
> attitude has changed from awe and respect to a sound of being let-down
> and even that they had been subjected to "trickery".
> 
> Best regards,
> Richard  
> 
> mailto:richard@...
> 
> Links to my galleries:
> http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246
> 
>