Digital BW, The Print

Alan Zinn wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>You have taken this way over the top, 
>>

It's a common rhetorical and debate technique to demonstrate the logical 
inadequacy of a rigid, "supposedly objective" standard, that is in fact 
inherently subjective..

>>and made a lot of silly assumptions 
>>about my point of view (that I've said or implied that photographs are 
>>verifiable, optical, reality or some sort of truth, for example.)
>>
And you haven't answered my questions... nor addressed  my third point..


2)    We already know that B&W imagery is automatically an abstraction...

If I use a red, orange, green or yellow,  filter etc. when shooting I am
altering the image "unnaturally."  The image recorded is NOT accurate in
accord with the film's inherent recording abilities..

So, does your standard NOT allow such filtration.. If it does, how can
you hope to justify it?


3)     You cannot reliably represent a transmissive image (a negative)
as a reflective one (print).  Add in dodging and burning to compress or
accentuate tonalities and you are not rendering faithfully your
in-camera image.. Instead, you are altering that image to be more
aesthetically pleasing (hopefully).



>>  Keeping 
>>the viewer aware of the essential photographic idea is far more than some 
>>stubborn concete.  It is an aspect of the photographic aesthetic just as 
>>paint is an aspect of painting.
>>    
>>
It is not axiomatically an aspect.  Photograms that can only be 
identified as abstractions, not as real particular objects would be a 
simple example that breaks your conundrum.

In an earlier post, you said:

"I am not suggesting that some sort of disclaimer attached to the 
picture is an ethical choice. I want MY images to be understood to be 
the same as what the camera recorded, excepting the customary 
adjustments of tone, etc. That is a substantial part of what they are 
about - the photographic idea, if you like."

In another post you say:

"I had to assume that darkroom practices such as you describe would not 
be considered manipulating" the image. I think conventional wisdom is 
that digital images are freely transformable. Most people are not aware 
of the methods used for darkroom-made prints."

That's a major assumption..   and as I tried to point our, it's an 
assumption based upon your own subjective definition of what might be 
"traditional darkroom tools.":  Eugene Smith added shadows of another 
image to a welder's goggles...  He did that with traditional darkroom 
tools..  By your standard, that would seem unacceptable, yet it used 
traditional tools and methods..

What I'm pointing out is BIGGER than it seems.. Photography, as does any 
art, sits astride a continuum from very close to a projection or 
representation of objective reality at one end to complete abstraction 
at the other.. MY point is painting and photography BOTH cover broad 
swaths and there is not "photographic idea" that predisposes photography 
to a more objective rendering of reality anymore than "painting" is 
predisposed to being a two dimensional process..  

What I'm sensing here as the dividing line for you (and please correct 
me if I'm wrong) are two things:  tradition (which is usually the 
fantasy of of what the past look like when viewed through particular 
glasses) and how hard something would be to do with traditional wet 
darkroom processes...  The harder it would have been, the less it is 
part of  this "more representative reality" of photos..

Your position inherently seems to turn on a belief (again correct me if 
I am wrong) that some label designating imagery as "what my camera 
recorded"  should make such images preferred, more desirable, etc..  But 
that simply isn't how art is judged..  It's judged on its effectiveness 
in conveying emotion and feeling, not some arbitrary rule on technique.. 
 Reactionaries bridled at pointillism, fauvism, dada-ism, cubism, 
surrealism, abstraction, etc.. as not adhering to the ideal of 
painting...  I'm sorry, but even in representational landscape painting 
artists traditionally moved objects (either in real life or  on canvas) 
to create a greater aesthetic effect..

If you go out and change a landscape by moving a cow's skull to improve 
the aesthetic, and then photograph it, would your  desired label still 
be applicable to the image?

If not, I might suggest you simply call your images "found images" - 
implying that no movement of  objects or post imaging manipulation was 
done...

However, if you use any filtration on your lens, the whole mix becomes 
muddled again..  As I've tried to point out, this is a continuum and 
objective reality is NOT part of that continuum.. IT's like a curve in 
math  that continues to approach a vector coordinate without ever 
reaching it.. You get infinitely close, but part of the artist is always 
there..

>>Photography can be about photography - as I'm sure you are aware. 
>>
And what does that mean?

That photography is some type of  objective technical skill?

>> There 
>>are those who examine this idea with engaging and fresh points of view 
>>using primitive or antique methods as well as modern digital means. It's 
>>not an either/or issue as you seem to insist but one part of a broader 
>>aesthetic.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
I never suggested an either / or, what I did was demonstrate the logical 
inconsistencies inherent in a position through expounding upon clear 
extremes..

As for the "unaltered photographs" moniker...  You need something more 
accurate... If that's the case you should be exhibiting unaltered 
chromes and shooting just transparency material.. Then, display them "as 
is"..

You might call them something like "prints of the found"... That would 
convey the sense that nothing had been consciously added or removed 
from  the image captured.
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]