Digital BW, The Print

Children, Children,

Must we start a flame thread over something as silly as this?
Everyone please take ten deep breaths and let it go.  Time to go back
to profitable pursuits.


Regards,
Clayton

Have to disagree with you Clayton . . . the list is "digital b/w the print",
the implication being the holier than thou space left by AA and others.

Yes if it degenerates into name calling then it is of little use . . . but I
would suggest that some people, especially those who don't even remember/or
know what film is would hardly have had any exposure to "photographers" or
is it "artists" who value the work they do. You yourself make and sell
beautiful prints . . . do you advertise yourself as a "photographer"? or
just a "snapshooter" (that is stretching it a bit . . . but the implication
was there in the original thought).

Digital b/w doesn't have to be ONLY about how many grams of ink you can
squeeze into a re-usable cartridge, if so then the list ought to re-name
itself as popular (and messy) mechanics . . . period.

I think there should be some  . . . oooh, I hate saying this, but "cultural"
content on the odd occasion. The comment that started this whole she-bang
hi-lighted a total lack of understanding of the predecessors who forged the
space we are in now. There are thousands of photographers, some still with
us, many dead, who are/were/and always will be . . . artists.

I am a commercial shooter . . . have been for virtually all my life, and
don't consider myself an "artist", though frequently in the problem solving
I have to do, artistry does enter into it. I enjoy and in some cases revere
the artistry that I have seen in the past, and present from some of my
fellow photographers

Perhaps, the original remark was aimed at (and rightly so) the frequent
"artist's statement" . . . if ever there was a justification for an air
sickness bag, that has got to be it . . .

"Art" like politics, and religion, is usually not a simple subject to
discuss, but I do think the justification for the "trashing" of most of our
finest photographers should be open to a little discussion. Some of the geek
heads might actually look up some of the names and learn a little about
photography . . . that wouldn't hurt a bit.

all the best
Paul Aparycki

I also think the relationship between photography and other pictorial arts  
is an interesting subject worth a lot of discussion.


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

Hello Paul,

>..the list is "digital b/w the print", the implication being the 
>holier than thou space left by AA and others.

I never thought it implied that.

I see your other points and don't really disagree, but I think you're
reading more into this than was ever intended.  This started out as a
joke, and now it's evolving into one of those mindless debates on one
of those subjects that can never be resolved which clog up forums
everywhere and accomplish nothing. 

One of the things that I have loved about this forum is that we make
an effort to keep that from happening here (sometimes more
successfully than others <g>).  If you want to see what happens when
that gets out of hand go visit the dpreview forums.  In the average
thread you're lucky if there are three entries of useful exchange
before people start sniping at each other and it devolves into drudge.
 It must be a sport or something.

I never said there was anything wrong with discussing how drawing
relates to photography, and I'm sorry you misunderstood my meaning. 
I'm personally interested in it and would love it if it was a
meaningful exchange.  What I object to is that it's turning into one
those idiotic mindless flame debates.  Please, everyone, make the
effort.  This isn't dpreview.



Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

What's in a name? I recently saw a documentary on Helmut Newton,
and he made some comment about 2 things ruining photography. One
was "art" and I don't recall the other one. When HCB died recently, I
also recall some article where he said he didn't consider his photography
as "art" but as a "craft."

Just two data points. Doesn't mean a thing, or at least not without some
further exposition, examination and exploration. In any case, I would
personally attribute not just "artistry" in these two photographers'
works, but an "artistic impact" on our culture by teaching us some new
ways of seeing.

So why the craftman designation? I don't know, but there seems to be some
minor tradition of at least some photographers aligning themselves with the
"craftsmen" or "practical arts" rather than the "artists." Perhaps because
both of these photographers executed (very different types of) commercial
assignments? Perhaps it's a kind of false modesty, with these photographers
trumpeting their success, reknown and cultural impact while eschewing the
"artist" self-attribution (cloak of dignity) taken on by their 
(presumed) lesser
peers?

Maybe it is something of the latter. In both cases, these two very different
photographers made a similar claim. HCB claimed (disputed) that he only
used a 50mm normal lens on his Leica. In the documentary, Helmut Newton
claimed he almost always used a "normal lens" on a few MF cameras ('blads,
Rollei TLR and a few Fuji/Plaubel MF RF's). Each as if to claim that they
were not "gear heads" or "technicians," beholden to, or much aided by, the
more advanced capabilities of the camera technology; instead attributing 
their
photographic work and its power almost solely to the power of their vision,
their eyes or seeing in a fairly literal sense, translated nearly 1:1 
through the
"normal lens." A claim, I would probably not dispute. It is a claim, to my
ear, like that of "an artist."

Ok. I've gone far out enough on a limb on this topic and trying to 
psychologize
two giants of photography :-)

Who knows? But a bit of success mixed with bit of modesty is, in fact, 
usually
rare and almost always endearing. So if "photographer" is it, I'll take 
it, especially
as I have few aspirations for success :-)

Oh, and to keep it on topic, my printers seem to be working fine, a good 
friend
of mine surprisingly much prefered a BO print on Kayenta to some prints 
of the
same subject made with quad inks on Kirkland, and I still haven't 
screwed up the
courage to dive into profile making for QTR :-)

Scott

Paul Aparycki wrote:

>
>
>
> Children, Children,
>
> Must we start a flame thread over something as silly as this?
> Everyone please take ten deep breaths and let it go. Time to go back
> to profitable pursuits.
>
>
> Regards,
> Clayton
>
> Have to disagree with you Clayton . . . the list is "digital b/w the 
> print",
> the implication being the holier than thou space left by AA and others.
>
> Yes if it degenerates into name calling then it is of little use . . . 
> but I
> would suggest that some people, especially those who don't even 
> remember/or
> know what film is would hardly have had any exposure to "photographers" or
> is it "artists" who value the work they do. You yourself make and sell
> beautiful prints . . . do you advertise yourself as a "photographer"? or
> just a "snapshooter" (that is stretching it a bit . . . but the 
> implication
> was there in the original thought).
>
> Digital b/w doesn't have to be ONLY about how many grams of ink you can
> squeeze into a re-usable cartridge, if so then the list ought to re-name
> itself as popular (and messy) mechanics . . . period.
>
> I think there should be some . . . oooh, I hate saying this, but 
> "cultural"
> content on the odd occasion. The comment that started this whole she-bang
> hi-lighted a total lack of understanding of the predecessors who 
> forged the
> space we are in now. There are thousands of photographers, some still with
> us, many dead, who are/were/and always will be . . . artists.
>
> I am a commercial shooter . . . have been for virtually all my life, and
> don't consider myself an "artist", though frequently in the problem 
> solving
> I have to do, artistry does enter into it. I enjoy and in some cases 
> revere
> the artistry that I have seen in the past, and present from some of my
> fellow photographers
>
> Perhaps, the original remark was aimed at (and rightly so) the frequent
> "artist's statement" . . . if ever there was a justification for an air
> sickness bag, that has got to be it . . .
>
> "Art" like politics, and religion, is usually not a simple subject to
> discuss, but I do think the justification for the "trashing" of most 
> of our
> finest photographers should be open to a little discussion. Some of 
> the geek
> heads might actually look up some of the names and learn a little about
> photography . . . that wouldn't hurt a bit.
>
> all the best
> Paul Aparycki
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     * Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on
>       the web.
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

At the risk of being redundant . . . (I will go out back and slap myself
after this, I promise), I did say that it wasn't worth persuing the point if
it was going to degenerate.

But I felt the original remark showed a lack of discretion (count to ten
before hitting send . . . I have been guilty of that myself), or a lack of
perception of what ONE DOES before finally making a print . . . some call it
photography . . . a good friend of many years always referred to me making
"snaps" . . . he knew how it irritated me . . . I loved him, and his
insight/slap in the face?, for that description ;-).

I think my angst is (and perhaps wrongly directed) at the "new" photography
. . . re: digital, where everyone says , oh, I can fix it in PS, or some
other futile remark, like "photographers aren't artists" (by the way, I
could clog the list with thousands of names of photogs past and present who
are indeed "artists" . . . recognized throughout the commercial and artistic
community . . . I won't though).

I don't use digital capture, but I do work extensively in digital after I
get my film processed so I am not a luddite. I, like many other talented
individuals go to great extremes to get it right before we push the shutter
button. In my case I have always considered myself to be more of a mechanic
or "problem solver" than an artist . . . I do it for immense profit
(sometimes . . . alas), but there are the Sextons, Sieffs, Turners, Maisels,
Strands, Haas, etc, etc who are first and foremost artists . . . to dismiss
them out of ignorance is an insult (not yours by the way).

I have seen other lists where the discussion has spiralled down the toilet
bowl and I agree it is not a pleasant sight, but, it happens sometimes . . .
such is opinion.

any hoot, thank you for hearing my $0.02

all the best
Paul Aparycki

C'mon, we all know that cameras work with the help of tiny imps who paint 
really quickly. ;) (Discworld joke)

        ~twi~ (too much of a novice to do much but lurk)

I do not know whether it is true that HCB only used the 50 mm. Newton used lots of different cameras and lenses. Some of them are exposed in the Berlin Museum of Photography, built up with Newton's heritage and very recommendable for everyone who has the chance to visit it.
Newton called himself "A Gun for Hire" - but this he has in common with many famous painters.
I think he disliked the expression artist because it sounded pretentious to him.

I always thought it was a bird chipping away at everything that didn't look
like a picture, deep in the fiery bowels of the camera . . . a la
flintstones (now I suppose someone is going to tell me that it wasn't
reality tv) . . . alas

Paul Aparycki

C'mon, we all know that cameras work with the help of tiny imps who paint
really quickly. ;) (Discworld joke)

        ~twi~ (too much of a novice to do much but lurk)

> C'mon, we all know that cameras work with the help of tiny 
> imps who paint really quickly. ;) (Discworld joke)
> 

Iconographs! 4 years at f/16 guvnor. And I've run out of black....


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.