Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do digital photographers have a new artform?  (Read 33139 times)
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7790



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2007, 08:38:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If we use the same approach for naming styles of inkjet (a trademarked term...) prints as is used for paintings, ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm curious just who is supposed to own the 'trademark' for 'inkjet'? If it is ' a trademarked term', then a lot of manufacturers are using it without attribution.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
AndyF2
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2007, 11:26:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm curious just who is supposed to own the 'trademark' for 'inkjet'? If it is ' a trademarked term', then a lot of manufacturers are using it without attribution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually I may have been mistaken; HP did own ThinkJet and I thought owned inkjet as well.  Canon trademarked bubblejet.
Logged
TaoMaas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2007, 08:53:08 AM »
ReplyReply

If there is a new artform emerging, it's not digital photography, but PhotoShop that is the artform.  I see too many digital photographers making images which, on their own, are decidedly NOT art.  But these same mundane images can become part of a greater whole through the use of PhotoShop.  That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7776



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2007, 10:53:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Last year my wife & I attended a local art festival; one of the booths was occupied by a photographer selling average quality inkjet prints on canvas. We overheard her tell a potential customer "my art is 'zhee-clay'; it's a French process..." We fought to to suppress derisive laughter at such pretentious nonsense.  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As an OT comment, allow me to laugh at the idea that everything French is "pretentious".  Who knows the intend of the artist when she referred to her process as being French.

Although I agree that it is "non sense" since the work "giglee", although of French extraction, was in fact selected by Americans to describe the early digital prints.

Cheers,
Bernard

p.s.: I am not French.
Logged

A few images online here!
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2007, 11:08:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If there is a new artform emerging, it's not digital photography, but PhotoShop that is the artform.  I see too many digital photographers making images which, on their own, are decidedly NOT art.  But these same mundane images can become part of a greater whole through the use of PhotoShop.  That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Never did any darkroom work, eh?
Logged
TaoMaas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #25 on: May 16, 2007, 09:15:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Never did any darkroom work, eh?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


All your images need help, do they?
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7790



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 16, 2007, 10:39:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As an OT comment, allow me to laugh at the idea that everything French is "pretentious".  Who knows the intend of the artist when she referred to her process as being French.

Although I agree that it is "non sense" since the work "giglee", although of French extraction, was in fact selected by Americans to describe the early digital prints.

Cheers,
Bernard

p.s.: I am not French.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117803\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah, Bernard! But why did the Americans choose the French word "giclee?" Surely because they wanted a pretentious-sounding name and they believed the stereotype that anything French is pretentious.    

Cheers,

Eric

P.S. I'm even less French than you are.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 10:40:54 AM by EricM » Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #27 on: May 16, 2007, 11:00:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
All your images need help, do they?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A rather non-responsive reply, don't you think?

But from it I can guess that you don't have much experience with making a photograph.  Notice that I didn't say "taking" a photograph.

Snapping the shutter is just step one in making a photograph.  It's the writing of the symphony.  Next comes the processing of the shot, the performance.

And, yes, all my images need "help".  I intentionally shoot under-staturated and under-sharpened.  And I usually slightly over-shoot the frame to give me a bit of room if I want to adjust the horizon or perspective.

Additionally, I don't have as much control over DOF as I would ideally like so sometimes I have to finish that job while editing.

And on top of that, I shoot my share of bloopers.  Just as I did with film.  More than once I've gone into the darkroom with a negative that was just not very good and figured out how to make an interesting image from it.

So back to the original question - do photographers have a new art form via Photoshop?

No.  Just an easier, more convenient way to do what they've been doing all along.
Logged
TaoMaas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #28 on: May 17, 2007, 09:15:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But from it I can guess that you don't have much experience with making a photograph.  Notice that I didn't say "taking" a photograph.

Snapping the shutter is just step one in making a photograph.  It's the writing of the symphony.  Next comes the processing of the shot, the performance.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117911\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, you'd be partially right.  No, I don't have that much darkroom experience.  I took college classes where darkroom work was required, but early on I found I preferred color slides, so that's where I've done 99% of my shooting over the last 35 years.  But that doesn't mean I don't understand or appreciate digital manipulation, though.  It's just that my professional experience is with manipulating video, as opposed to still pics.  And let me assure you that I have absolutely no shame in doing whatever it takes to my video to get the response I'm seeking.  I'm a 'ho in that respect...have been for almost 30 years now...and I freely admit it. lol  That's why I understand that sometimes a person IS creating a symphony when they use a computer to manipulate an image after-the-fact, but I also believe that, far too often, they're just creating another Milli Vanilli, to use your musical reference, and trying to pass the finished product off as a symphony.
    I also don't buy the notion that fixing horizons, exposure, and depth of field in the computer is somehow "making" a photgraph (and therefore more creative), while fixing those same problems before tripping the shutter is "taking" a photograph.
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2007, 12:10:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
    I also don't buy the notion that fixing horizons, exposure, and depth of field in the computer is somehow "making" a photgraph (and therefore more creative), while fixing those same problems before tripping the shutter is "taking" a photograph.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118177\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Making a photograph, at least for me, is a combination of getting the best capture that one can under the  circumstances and then finishing the job in the computer.

There are things that I can't reasonably do prior to snapping the shutter.  Perspective correction, for example.  Neither do I have the ability to selectively illuminate a portion of the screen and later need to do a bit of dodging or burning.  And sometimes I just plan need to correct mistakes made.

As someone who also almost exclusively shot transparencies for four decades I can tell you that I'm glad to leave that medium behind me.  There's a lot more to photography than just setting up the shot.

(BTW, have you scanned in any of your slides and taken them to the editor?  Wonderful how we can now take care of those little problems that we had to live with before.)
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1662


« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2007, 09:56:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So back to the original question - do photographers have a new art form via Photoshop?
No.  Just an easier, more convenient way to do what they've been doing all along.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117911\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

AND easy, convenient ways to do things many photographers never dreamed of.  
It could be argued that Photoshop is now as important as the camera itself.

P
Logged
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2010, 09:07:35 AM »
ReplyReply

FWIW, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gicl%C3%A9e):

"The word "giclée" is derived from the French language word "le gicleur" meaning "nozzle", or more specifically "gicler" meaning "to squirt, spurt, or spray"[1]. It was coined in 1991 by Jack Duganne,[2] a printmaker working in the field, to represent any inkjet-based digital print used as fine art. The intent of that name was to distinguish commonly known industrial "Iris proofs" from the type of fine art prints artists were producing on those same types of printers. The name was originally applied to fine art prints created on Iris printers in a process invented in the early 1990s but has since come to mean any high quality ink-jet print and is often used in galleries and print shops to denote such prints.

The earliest prints to be called "Giclée" were created in the late 1980s on the Iris Graphics models 3024 and 3047 continuous inkjet printers (the company was later taken over by Scitex, now owned by HP). Iris printers were originally developed to produce prepress proofs from digital files for jobs where color matching was critical such as product packaging and magazine publication. Their output was used to check what the colors would look like before mass production began. Much experimentation took place to try to adapt the Iris printer to the production of color-faithful, aesthetically pleasing reproductions of artwork. Early Iris prints were relatively fugitive and tended to show color degradation after only a few years. The use of newer inksets and printing substrates has extended the longevity and light fastness of Iris prints."
Logged

- Dean
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2010, 09:19:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DeanChriss
FWIW, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gicl%C3%A9e):

"The word "giclée" is derived from the French language word "le gicleur" meaning "nozzle", or more specifically "gicler" meaning "to squirt, spurt, or spray"[1]. It was coined in 1991 by Jack Duganne,[2] a printmaker working in the field, to represent any inkjet-based digital print used as fine art. The intent of that name was to distinguish commonly known industrial "Iris proofs" from the type of fine art prints artists were producing on those same types of printers. The name was originally applied to fine art prints created on Iris printers in a process invented in the early 1990s but has since come to mean any high quality ink-jet print and is often used in galleries and print shops to denote such prints.

The earliest prints to be called "Giclée" were created in the late 1980s on the Iris Graphics models 3024 and 3047 continuous inkjet printers (the company was later taken over by Scitex, now owned by HP). Iris printers were originally developed to produce prepress proofs from digital files for jobs where color matching was critical such as product packaging and magazine publication. Their output was used to check what the colors would look like before mass production began. Much experimentation took place to try to adapt the Iris printer to the production of color-faithful, aesthetically pleasing reproductions of artwork. Early Iris prints were relatively fugitive and tended to show color degradation after only a few years. The use of newer inksets and printing substrates has extended the longevity and light fastness of Iris prints."

Lot of grave-digging going on today - this is an almost three-year-old post that got resurrected  
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad