Digital BW, The Print

On 5/1/03 Alan Zinn wrote:

> ...

> I'd love to see a useful, short statement that addresses print v. original
> film image honesty.  Something like:  "Un-altered camera image."

On 5/1/03 Robert Morrison wrote:

>...but if you are an artist...what difference could that possibly make?

>Art is about the final image and message that it
>conveys and it seems to me irrelevant how you created that image. ...

>If you are a photojournalist, ...I think we all want to
>know that the news that we see and hear was true to what happened...but for
>art...at least I want to know that the art was true to what was imagined.

Well, I love many art and photographic forms & categories (sub-markets?).  I
have no idea how one defines "art," but I see or feel it in the very best
performances of many communication forms, as well as jobs that are just so
well done that they demonstrate a deep understanding of the "medium" in
which the person participates.

Some photojournalism rises to the level of "art," in my view.

Being a fan of landscape photography, I also love the wild, fantastic
computer landscapes. However, for my photography, I prefer a subcategory
that is, perhaps, most influenced by the f64 group's approach.

When a person sees -- and even walks up close to -- one of my display
prints, I want that viewer to feel that they are, in effect, looking through
a window to a slice of reality.  I guess part of what I want the viewer to
feel is what Alan refers to as "original film image honesty."

I do "alter" the image in the sense that I emphasize certain patterns more
than others.  One photography writer once said that the making of the final
image was a progression of tonal compressions and expansions.  I think the
eye & brain do this in the real world, and I feel much of my printing is
simply replicating this process on paper.  I, of course, have to fit the
dynamic range of the scene onto a low-dynamic-range piece of paper with
appropriate local contrasts, but I also guide the eye in a pattern that
shows the viewer what I saw at the scene.

The abstractions and non-literal interpretations that one might see in my
work, however, are the person's own.  All I've done is emphasize the aspects
of the scene that made me smile.  (Of course, the B&W image is, by its
nature, more abstract than a straight color photo and, in my view, helps
free our minds to enjoy the patterns of nature.)

I consider my self a "photographer," but I seem to be doing well in my
Artist Guild competitions.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com