Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is the pace of software development killing virtuosity?  (Read 7694 times)
jhmaw
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2010, 01:13:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Russ.

Something else occurs to me after reading your last post, and that is that quite often in photography two apparently contradictory opinions may each be applicable. I remember an article by Michael Reichmann entitled "Your Camera Does Matter" in which he eloquently demolishes the saying that "It's not the camera, it's the photographer". And yet at times the contrary seems to be true. Maybe in conditions that don't demand very specialised equipment, where a standard lens will do just fine this saying seems to have weight (a Holga may capture the scene as successfully as a 'Blad). Sometimes things that are said are not entirely true but may still be useful. Photography is a complex practice (OK and it's very simple too), with many people practising quite different forms of the craft.

I know this is slightly off the point (I made it in the first place so I feel entitled), but I thought it was worth making. Hope someone agrees.

John
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6085



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2010, 01:49:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PeterAit
I agree with John that making the print is an essential part of being a "virtuostic" photographer. There are exceptions, of course, with Cartier-Bresson perhaps the best know. But for most photographers, and particularly those doing nature/landscape work, the print is an integral part of the process.

Peter, I agree that the print is always "an integral part of the process," just as sitting down and massaging the piano is always an integral part of producing a Chopin Nocturne, but even for a virtuoso printer a fine negative or digital file is essential. To put it a different way, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of performers who can interpret Chopin in a way that brings tears to your eyes, just as there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of printers -- especially with the technology we now have -- who can produce a fabulous print from an Ansel Adams negative. When Ansel was dodging and burning he was performing, but when he tripped the shutter he was composing. Which, in your estimation, is more important?
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6085



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2010, 01:51:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jhmaw
Hi Russ.

Something else occurs to me after reading your last post, and that is that quite often in photography two apparently contradictory opinions may each be applicable. I remember an article by Michael Reichmann entitled "Your Camera Does Matter" in which he eloquently demolishes the saying that "It's not the camera, it's the photographer". And yet at times the contrary seems to be true. Maybe in conditions that don't demand very specialised equipment, where a standard lens will do just fine this saying seems to have weight (a Holga may capture the scene as successfully as a 'Blad). Sometimes things that are said are not entirely true but may still be useful. Photography is a complex practice (OK and it's very simple too), with many people practising quite different forms of the craft.

I know this is slightly off the point (I made it in the first place so I feel entitled), but I thought it was worth making. Hope someone agrees.

John

John, I agree that you're entitled.
Logged

jhmaw
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2010, 02:22:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ.

I notice that you agree that I am entitled, but not that the point was worth making. I hope that was merely an oversight.

In your reply to Peter you ask weather he considers the opening of the shutter or the printing (and dodging and burning) to be more important? My question is should we really be separating the two. To use another analogy, it seems a bit like asking weather the back or the front of a horse is the more important. Yet they are normally rather firmly linked and are in most cases equally important even though they are different (one end bites, the other kicks - different but equal). Surely what matters is going from exposure to print with the photographers vision expressed at its best. So the point is, does the rapid growth in the number of features in software contribute (as the makers would have us believe), detract or is it simply irrelevant except for its function of transferring our funds to the software author?

John
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6085



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2010, 02:51:27 PM »
ReplyReply

John, Let's call it an oversight. I do agree that there are situations where two opposing opinions may both have some validity. I also agree that that's slightly off the point.

But let's deal with the idea that the snap and the print are "firmly linked." I agreeably disagree with that idea. If it were true then it would make sense to destroy Ansel's negatives, because Ansel's no longer with us. The fact is that like a Chopin nocturne, Ansel's negatives are still here and it's no longer possible, in the sense of your analogy, to connect the snap with a print made by a later printer, yet the original negative continues to exist as a masterpiece of composition and exposure and can be turned into a splendid "performance" by a competent performer. To insist on the connection between the snap and a particular print would be similar to saying that only a performance by Chopin himself is a valid expression of one of his nocturnes. Unfortunately we can't know how a Chopin nocturne played by Chopin would sound because we didn't have recording equipment in his day. In the case of Ansel, if his negatives are carefully scanned and preserved we can continue to have "performances" of his compositions far into the future. As far as the kind of creeping featurism we see in software development is concerned, that's a marketing ploy, and sometimes the claims made by the marketers make their companies sound like the end of the horse that doesn't bite. On the other hand, underneath the featurism there are improvements that can make performances of Ansel's negatives even more splendid.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 02:51:51 PM by RSL » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3269



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2010, 09:22:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
The only killer features I've found in the latest CS versions are Smart Filters and the Healing Tool - is it worth the extra to upgrade? Doubt it.
The big changes in PS tend to be an aggregation of lots of little things that improve workflow and is the sort of thing most people ignore when you have things like content aware scaling to wow users.

Quote
But your premise in the case of PS is faulty. There is not much to relearn or unlearn when upgrading to a new version. Unlike MS, Adobe doesn't mess with the entire UI (think Office 2007), so you'll be using the same tools in pretty much the same way in all versions of CS, and even earlier. Therefore there shouldn't be any lost productivity or lack of command of the craft when upgrading.
And that's where most people miss out on new versions as they keep doing things the same old way and miss many useful improvements.
Office's UI overhaul was a big improvement and a brave thing for MS to do with such a widely used programme and the reason it was done was the the programme had out grown the interface paradigm and didn't really work.
Lightroom is a complete UI overhaul for the image tweaking paradigm and remember it is called Photoshop Lightroom and the UI was radically different from PS's to reflect the dramatic change in photographer's workflows and many photographers have moved to LR as it's now the better tool for many.  
John Nack has talked about how he would like to overhaul PS's UI, but he also realises the potential backlash

Quote
But again, if there are no killer features which one wants - apart from the manufactured "needs" Adobe tries to sell with each version -, there's not much reason to upgrade.
My way of testing an new version is to use it for a while, make sure I know what is different and then go back to previous version and if the older version which seemed fine, now suddenly feels a bit clumsier and slower to use, it's a good upgrade. I thought the improvements in ACR were worth the upgrade alone from CS3 to CS4, yet many pro photographer's I've spoken to do not even know what ACR is.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3269



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2010, 10:00:17 PM »
ReplyReply

THis constant learning of new software, cameras, hardware etc is something that sort of annoys me. Even though I love learning new stuff, you can spend too much time learning and not enough time doing. But having said that I think this article is flawed.

Quote from: Chris_T
You are not alone, and may find this article helpful:

http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/pdf/Hamster_Wheel.pdf
The author talks about Charlie Parker not having to relearn to play a new type of Saxophone every 18 months or so and as a result could simply spend time mastering his art. The reason this is a poor analogy is that Parker is using a mature technology and at present computers/software/digital imaging is anything but a mature market. As a result things are being constantly invented/adopted/dropped and when things mature and settle down then the new software every 18 months will stop and new revenues wil have to be found.
The megapixel race is gradually winding down, video is now being used as the selling tool as is higher ISOs with both pocket and DSLRs. But once everyone has caught up, then cameras will last until they wear out just like film cameras as they won't be replaced by a much better model 12-18 months later.
And it will then be like the last days of film, another mature market, where all the rapid changes had been done and every now and again a new film would appear that was very slightly better than the older version and that was how it would have continued if it wasn't for digital changing everything. In 10 years time it'll probably be back to incremental changes again and less angst about keeping up unless another disruptive technology appears.

The author uses old versions of the OS and the image editing programmes to work on OS9 and PS 6. Yet he would almost certainly be far more productive and have more time to practice his photographic skills if he moved to more recent soft and hardware. Even if he had to spend a little bit of time learning the new features, he'd still have more time to simply practice his art as computers and software are so much better and more efficient than what he is using.
He also seems to think that the old days were better as enlargers were standardized and digital technologies never will be. I had two enlargers in my cellar, with completely different mechanical operation and exposure/image modification, no more similar or different in methodology than Apple and MS are really.
But he did write this 6 years ago. I'd be interested to see if he still uses such old technologies and is still the luddite in his views. Digital photography was in its infancy then and has improved so much since then. I was still using film when he wrote article yet doubt I'll ever touch it again.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 23, 2010, 03:42:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting thread and discussion. I know I am not a "photography virtuoso", but I do think about the pace of development. I have used slide film for 20 years, and I have learned a lot from that. I bought my first digital camera (a Powershot Pro 1) in 2004, just to see what it was all about. My previous experience with digital workflow stemmed from using a film scanner, and the concurrent image processing, to scan my slides. It took me more than a couple of months to achieve the results I wanted.

Therefore, by the time I finally let go of my film SLRs, and ventured into the DSLR world (with a 5D MKII in early 2009), I was not new to digital workflows and softwares. I have pretty much maintained my workflow, both while shooting, and processing the image (more or less, of course). For my needs, PS Elements is adequate, with a couple of plugins for noise reduction and curves. I only have to upgrade when I need a particular camera to be supported; it actually annoys me (to be soft on the subject...) when a new version ov ACR does not work with a previous version of Elements, and then I am forced to upgrade Elements...

Anyway, I am one of those guys who do not upgrade just for the sake of it. I have a well defined workflow (heck, I even still use graduated neutral grds in the field, rahter than this HDR merging stuff), that works for me. I suppose this is one of the difficulties for both newcomers and old timers in photography: to try and develop your workflow - in the case of the former - and to try and not disrupt your established workflow too much - in the case of the latter.

The pace of development, both in software and cameras, is just too much. To become good at what you do, you need to learn the software and get experience with it; only then you will be able to tell if a new version will be good for your photography. Without this "learning period" you will not be able to achieve stability to develop the artistic side of your photography. Software should be used as the tool to get you somewhere, and should not be a hindrance. I work for the oil industry, every couple of years or so the subsurface modelling software I use is upgraded, so I have to learn a few new things. This is fine, because I have a lot of experience with the software.

Cameras are like computers and gadgets these days. For example, the pace of release of new cameras, especially compacts, has attained such a level, that what happens is that when a new camera is announced and finally becomes available in the stores, its replacement is announced! I have seen it happen in my local store time and time again. For example, a new camera is announced today, arrives in the store 1 or 2 months later, and then its replacement is announced. This is ridiculous, and confuses people. Also, in the near future, compact cameras and mobile phones will merge into one gadget. Camera makers are incorporating touch screens and GPS, obviously taken from mobile phones.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2010, 04:47:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I tend to be close to Russ thoughts: If possible, onces can delegate and focus on one aspect, learn how to master it totally.
I beleive in exchanges. A super printer is not and rarelly can be a super photographer. If I could do it (because of cost), I'll do it.
Picasso for example, mastered 100% the etching techniques but he did not do his etchings, he had a top etcher that he was used to work with.
Why? Because virtuosity is based on a daily practise of ine medium. Ones adquire a sixth sense, what is called in french "le métier" (the craft).
This can rarelly being acheive when tools are changing constantely at a superior speed of the necessary learning curve.
The problem of virtuosity is that it does not handle scattering. Dispersal, force you to spend a huge amount of time in order to get updated and you never
ende mastering really because you just do not have the time to do so.
Do you imagine a plane pilot that will also have to be a engineer and at the same time an air controler? And if his cockpit changes every one year, if the flight rules are rewrited every 3 mounths....it will never ever had the time to master properlly his job, wich is flying.
He will be in constant relearning, he will always be a student, never a master.
Delegate is a very good response to this crazy speed of our time.

Fred.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3269



WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2010, 06:54:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
I tend to be close to Russ thoughts: If possible, onces can delegate and focus on one aspect, learn how to master it totally.
I beleive in exchanges. A super printer is not and rarelly can be a super photographer. If I could do it (because of cost), I'll do it.
Picasso for example, mastered 100% the etching techniques but he did not do his etchings, he had a top etcher that he was used to work with.
Why? Because virtuosity is based on a daily practise of ine medium. Ones adquire a sixth sense, what is called in french "le métier" (the craft).
This can rarelly being acheive when tools are changing constantely at a superior speed of the necessary learning curve.
The problem of virtuosity is that it does not handle scattering. Dispersal, force you to spend a huge amount of time in order to get updated and you never
ende mastering really because you just do not have the time to do so.
But some people pick up new skills really easily and do not find this  a problem. They are the new masters.

I'd also say that you can be a really good printer and a really good photographer. And you are not a great photographer, if you have to rely on someone else to make your work look good. Good yes, great no.
So much of the skill in photography is the translation of what you seen and how you represent that image on paper or these days on screen.


Quote
Do you imagine a plane pilot that will also have to be a engineer and at the same time an air controler? And if his cockpit changes every one year, if the flight rules are rewrited every 3 mounths....it will never ever had the time to master properlly his job, wich is flying.
He will be in constant relearning, he will always be a student, never a master.
Delegate is a very good response to this crazy speed of our time.
And it is very much of our time and in a short while it'll all settle down as the technology matures and people will start to moan about nothing changing.

It seems like people are not seeing the wood for the trees. We're simply in a transitional period where change is constant. It cannot last forever. Just like economic growth!
But rapid change can also be exciting and can lead to fresh new thoughts and ideas. Though sadly with instant worldwide communication, this now also leads to widespread and instant copying of anything fresh and new.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6085



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2010, 07:35:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Do you imagine a plane pilot that will also have to be a engineer and at the same time an air controler? And if his cockpit changes every one year, if the flight rules are rewrited every 3 mounths....it will never ever had the time to master properlly his job, wich is flying.
He will be in constant relearning, he will always be a student, never a master.
Fred.

Fred, I was a military pilot for ten years. I flew F84s during the Korean war, but getting to the point where I could fly the F84 I flew the AT6, the T28, the T33, and the F80. After I came back from Korea I continued to fly the T-33, I also flew the  C-47, C-45, U-3A, L-20, and, toward the end, the C-54, though I had to move on before I was able to check out in the C-54. I flew all these airplanes simultaneously, flying one one day and another another day. All of these cockpits were different, yet I think I mastered them all. Had I not felt that way I'd not have flown them. I agree that it's nice to be able to fall into the easy chair -- the one you're familiar with -- but it's also necessary, and a lot of fun, to learn new things. I tend to think that photographic post-processing is sort of like computer programming. Once you learn the elements of programming, structures like if-then-else, do while, etc., it doesn't matter what language you use. You can pick up a new one in short order. If you learned to program in Basic, it's not hard to switch to, say C. Switching to C++ is a bit harder because the paradigm involved in object oriented programming is different. But not that different, and not that hard! I see the changes in Photoshop the same way. I recently added the rest of the Nik plugins to my collection. They're a breeze to learn and they simplify a lot of things. I don't agree that it's necessary to stabilize our post-processing tools in order for a good photographer to do good work. I do agree that we see a lot of unnecessary "features" in that software, but that's been the bane of computer software from the very beginning.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2010, 07:49:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
I'd also say that you can be a really good printer and a really good photographer. And you are not a great photographer, if you have to rely on someone else to make your work look good. Good yes, great no.
May I say that what you just write here is absolutely not true?    
The greatest masters always tend to delegate. Because they are great, they know their limits. Picasso was a genius, he mastered the technical skill of painting at the age of 11. Picasso was perfectly able to do his etchings BUT he relied in an etching master simply because he was aware that working daily gives you the wisdom in your particular medium, and Picasso was aware he was lacking this 6th sense in printing. The master always listen to the others, is open to their points of view, he works in team. Only the second-rate-people and average artists think that they can master each and one aspect of all the chain. The real virtuose trust others in their specific virtuosity. The Master and wise man is the one who knows how to  surround himself with the right persons. The incompetent always want to do everything by himself, does not trust the others and think he is a great artist. I do not know any serious artist that does everything alone, if so it is because they cannot afford it, but since they can they do it.
The best projects have always happened with the combination of various knowledge.

Quote from: jjj
It seems like people are not seeing the wood for the trees. We're simply in a transitional period where change is constant. It cannot last forever. Just like economic growth!
But rapid change can also be exciting and can lead to fresh new thoughts and ideas. Though sadly with instant worldwide communication, this now also leads to widespread and instant copying of anything fresh and new.

Yes, a certain dosis of constant evolution is good and necessary. But what is involved know is that they "force" this in order to do quick benefits on a short term basis. The frecuency is absurd and respond only to comercial strategies, not to help people being better.
They want and need this constant changing speed so that the ships do not have the time to think, to rest, to have distance but consume, even if they do not need to.
There is a little difference between an helphy constant evolution and an uncontroled crazy surrabundance of products and updates.
And I repeat my post: If you are so sure about the new masters, WHY we do not see proportionally now more Amsel Adams??? More Picassos?
If the technology brings us incredible tools in order to make us greater...

As someone said in another thread, what a wonderfull life here in LuLa...

Fred.




Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2010, 07:55:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Fred, I was a military pilot for ten years. I flew F84s during the Korean war, but getting to the point where I could fly the F84 I flew the AT6, the T28, the T33, and the F80. After I came back from Korea I continued to fly the T-33, I also flew the  C-47, C-45, U-3A, L-20, and, toward the end, the C-54, though I had to move on before I was able to check out in the C-54. I flew all these airplanes simultaneously, flying one one day and another another day. All of these cockpits were different, yet I think I mastered them all. Had I not felt that way I'd not have flown them. I agree that it's nice to be able to fall into the easy chair -- the one you're familiar with -- but it's also necessary, and a lot of fun, to learn new things. I tend to think that photographic post-processing is sort of like computer programming. Once you learn the elements of programming, structures like if-then-else, do while, etc., it doesn't matter what language you use. You can pick up a new one in short order. If you learned to program in Basic, it's not hard to switch to, say C. Switching to C++ is a bit harder because the paradigm involved in object oriented programming is different. But not that different, and not that hard! I see the changes in Photoshop the same way. I recently added the rest of the Nik plugins to my collection. They're a breeze to learn and they simplify a lot of things. I don't agree that it's necessary to stabilize our post-processing tools in order for a good photographer to do good work. I do agree that we see a lot of unnecessary "features" in that software, but that's been the bane of computer software from the very beginning.
Russ, of course you are right. As a pilot, you want and need to master different planes and licenced for that. My point was, you do not want to do the mechanic or engineer job and at the same time the tower controler.
When you sat on your plane, did you ask yourself constantly if the mechanic guy is ok?
When you talk with control, did you trust their order?
When back from mission after debreifing, did you open the reactor for maintenance?
Well this a bit what we do have to do now.
My point is that you could master the flight as a pilot, and of course, any kind of "birds", but you could not being virtuose in every aspect of the chain.
It is impossible.
Fred.
Logged
Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2010, 08:12:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jhmaw
If I read your comments correctly you are saying that virtuosity exists only in the taking of the picture and not in the processing and editing. For some people in some situations and where little work needs to be done to an image that may be true, but in many cases opening the shutter is only the start of the process. To return to my previous practice of referring to Ansel Adams, I think that he likened the negative to the musical score and the print to the performance. Virtuosity is normally associated with the performance and not with the writing of the score. We refer to the virtuosity of Heifetz or Casals as performers but not to the virtuosity of composers.
In music, there are those who score but do not perform, and those who only perform others' scores, as well as those who perform their own scores. Each can be at the top of their game. The same holds true in photography. (Does that set photography apart from painting? Another worthy topic.)

In photography, I would venture to say that *genres* and *intents* can play a significant part in how a practitioner chooses the above endeavors. Landscape photographers like AA tend to want to score and perform, with high expectation (and control) of the end product - the print. So are the collage photographers like Jerry Uelsmann and Maggie Taylor. (Are there famous landscape or collage photographers who don't?) Commercial photographers like Liebowitz can be somewhere in the middle. For technical capability and business ROI reasons, Liebowitz might very well pass her shots to others to digitally edit and print, but with control of the final product. Then there are the photojournalists. Their goal is to capture that image in time for publication, often only in newspapers. The story trumps quality. They are after the scores, and leave the printing to others.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6085



WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2010, 08:19:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred, I'll concede most of your points. If I was a virtuoso in any of those airplanes it was the L-20. The L-20 was a Canadian Beaver -- a bush plane. You could land it almost anywhere. I flew it all along what we called the "high line," the line of radar sites tucked along the U.S.-Canadian border in the fifties and sixties, some in the U.S., others in Canada. That kind of flying was more fun than any other kind.

But I want to add one thought to what's been said so far: Ansel Adams's dictum: "The negative is the score. The print is the performance," is quite correct if you take the meaning to be exactly what the words say. The problem is that it seems Ansel, and most people who read his statement, think it implies that the performer has to be the same person who wrote the score. But if we're going to use a musical analogy then we have to recognize that though the person who writes a score may be the one who performs it in the beginning, if it's a good score there'll be many other performers down the line, and some of them may even be better performers than the composer. I think the confusion arises from the fact that Ansel followed very closely on the heels of Stieglitz, who, in his attempt to raise photography to the level of fine art, saw the photographic print as analogous to a painting. It was the wrong analogy. As I said earlier, a photograph is infinitely repeatable. A painting isn't repeatable at all. So I'll re-state Ansel's dictum this way: The negative (or digital file) is the score. The print is the performance, and for the performance to be good the score must be performed by a good performer. But the score is where the genius of the composition resides.

P.S. Chris hopped in as I was writing the above. I think he nailed it.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 08:21:39 AM by RSL » Logged

Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2010, 08:23:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
THis constant learning of new software, cameras, hardware etc is something that sort of annoys me. Even though I love learning new stuff, you can spend too much time learning and not enough time doing. But having said that I think this article is flawed.

The author talks about Charlie Parker not having to relearn to play a new type of Saxophone every 18 months or so and as a result could simply spend time mastering his art. The reason this is a poor analogy is that Parker is using a mature technology and at present computers/software/digital imaging is anything but a mature market. As a result things are being constantly invented/adopted/dropped and when things mature and settle down then the new software every 18 months will stop and new revenues wil have to be found.
The author was (and is?) indeed addressing the pain of living through digital imaging technology's infancy, and how he dealt with it. I did not live through the film technology's infancy. But I would imagine that its maturing pace was not nearly as rapid and frequent as digital imaging technology's today.

The article is NOT flawed at all.
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1801



WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 23, 2010, 08:27:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Peter, I agree that the print is always "an integral part of the process," just as sitting down and massaging the piano is always an integral part of producing a Chopin Nocturne, but even for a virtuoso printer a fine negative or digital file is essential. To put it a different way, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of performers who can interpret Chopin in a way that brings tears to your eyes, just as there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of printers -- especially with the technology we now have -- who can produce a fabulous print from an Ansel Adams negative. When Ansel was dodging and burning he was performing, but when he tripped the shutter he was composing. Which, in your estimation, is more important?

I'd say both are integral parts of the process, but the "composing" is more important - not that it really matters which is more important!
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #37 on: February 23, 2010, 08:30:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
But the score is where the genius of the composition resides.
Jerry Uelsmann and Maggie Taylor would disagree. The genius resides in the *final* compositions of their *prints*.

Let me repeat myself, different strokes for different folks.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6085



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2010, 08:52:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Chris, I'm sure Jerry and Maggie would disagree, but then, I have a hard time calling what Jerry and Maggie do "photography." Maggie's spread in Color Magazine was very nice, but Color sometimes seems to get hung up on color instead of on photography.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2010, 09:02:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris_T
Jerry Uelsmann and Maggie Taylor would disagree. The genius resides in the *final* compositions of their *prints*.

Let me repeat myself, different strokes for different folks.
I disagree. Both are genius and masters. That is why in fine arts, you always have mentionned: the artist, the score AND the printer, the composer.
Both are considerated masters. In older times, the printer was a real recognized master=to the artist.
In Madrid, in Paris, (and anywhere else) there are recognized genius printers that works for the best photographers. They earn a lot of money and prestige, but the public doesn't know them. The best photographers works with them because they do not have their knowledge, and these printers do not have either the "eye" of these photographers.

Just have a look here: Gregory Crewdson,
http://www.aperture.org/crewdson/
see how many people are involved in his images? But without Crewdson they do nothing, and Crewdson will be unable to do all the other things alone.
In cinema, good photo director is very respected. Why having a photo director if a director could do it himself?

And this one is for Russ,  
[attachment=20440:beaver.jpg]

Cheers.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad