Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Digital vs Traditional  (Read 26452 times)
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 813



WWW
« on: May 24, 2011, 09:48:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I came across a studio tour type of art show recently that specified that the photography had to be traditional film based and wouldn't accept digital. I know there are photographers still shooting film, but is the 'art' world reluctant to display digital photography for some reason?  Is it not art if it's digital?
Logged

Mike Guilbault
MG Photography
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2011, 10:00:34 PM »
ReplyReply

IME, the ART world coud give a crap but there are art niches that care.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 10:03:29 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2011, 10:16:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Send them an inquiry asking if pigment prints from film negatives are acceptable.  If you muddy the waters enough some slight progress is often possible.

Or, ask them if burning and dodging is acceptable.  Ooh, if you really want to be a trouble maker, ask if glossy papers are OK or is this a matte-only show.

Sometimes that stuff is just boiler-plate text that has simply migrated forward over the years and none of the organizers actually understands the difference between digital and analog.
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520


« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2011, 03:12:29 AM »
ReplyReply

If they are film originals scanned for a computer are they acceptable. A lot of people don't realise that an image that has been scanned is now a digital image despite its origin. They maybe playing to peoples prejudices and no doubt people viewing them will be muttering about " the good old days when an image was really an image". A person once saw me using my DSLR and commented it was nice to see someone still using a "traditional" SLR. I told him the make of the camera, a nikon DSLR D300. He then said it wasn't a real camera. Roll Eyes Cry
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2011, 04:52:17 AM »
ReplyReply

If they are film originals scanned for a computer are they acceptable. A lot of people don't realise that an image that has been scanned is now a digital image despite its origin. They maybe playing to peoples prejudices and no doubt people viewing them will be muttering about " the good old days when an image was really an image". A person once saw me using my DSLR and commented it was nice to see someone still using a "traditional" SLR. I told him the make of the camera, a nikon DSLR D300. He then said it wasn't a real camera. Roll Eyes Cry



Well, wasn't he right? After all, that's the reason we both got a D700!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2508


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2011, 05:55:40 AM »
ReplyReply

If you want to classify something as art or not I believe it is necessary to see the whole process, including its reception.
There are images created with the use of digital apparatuses which definitely are art and there are images created with traditional means which definitely are not and vice versa.
So - the tool doesn't make something art or un-art.
Its the whole process from the artists mind over the creative process to the end product and the viewer.
The artist has to decide what kind of process he wants.
Maybe we lack discussion on the process, or types of artistic processes.

I think its valid to say "I don't want to accept digital images for that purpose/exhibition".
But it wouldn't be valid to say everything else is not art.

The whole term "art" as it is used often is sort of flawed ....
Logged

Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 813



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2011, 06:22:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I would also surmise then that an oil painting, scanned and printed should also be considered digital then. 

I wasn't submitting to the show, but was curious as to what everyone thought about it.  My feelings are pretty much summed up by Christoph.
Logged

Mike Guilbault
MG Photography
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6052



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2011, 09:54:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I came across a studio tour type of art show recently that specified that the photography had to be traditional film based and wouldn't accept digital. I know there are photographers still shooting film, but is the 'art' world reluctant to display digital photography for some reason?  Is it not art if it's digital?

Mike, Did they advertise the "art" show as "traditional" or film photography?

English is a wonderful language but it tends to have too many words that try to do too much: for instance, "hot" for spicy and also for an excess of thermal radiation. Thai discriminates with "pet" for spicy and "rawn" for thermal radiation. Spanish discriminates with "picante" for spicy and "caliente" for thermal radiation. "Art" is one of those unfortunate English words that, like "love" tries to cover too many diverse things.

So English tends to be a contextual language. You need to know where a word fits in order to understand what it means. In this case it's obvious that the show's organizers didn't understand the context of the word they were tossing around. Ten years ago there were plenty of "art" photography venues that rejected digital processes, but the folks you ran across are like Rip: not yet awake. Just bloody amazing!

Best to just move on.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 08:22:43 PM by RSL » Logged

Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 766



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2011, 10:05:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I came across a studio tour type of art show recently that specified that the photography had to be traditional film based and wouldn't accept digital. I know there are photographers still shooting film, but is the 'art' world reluctant to display digital photography for some reason?  Is it not art if it's digital?

Those that reject a print because it was produced digitally are dinosaurs. They will eventually die out, regardless of how art is produced.
Logged

~ CB
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2011, 10:37:54 AM »
ReplyReply

English is a wonderful language but it tends to have too many words that that try to do too much: for instance, "hot" for spicy and also for an excess of thermal radiation. Thai discriminates with "pet" for spicy and "rawn" for thermal radiation. Spanish discriminates with "picante" for spicy and "caliente" for thermal radiation. "Art" is one of those unfortunate English word that, like "love" tries to cover too many diverse things.
This reminds me of the time, years ago, that my wife and I were in a New Orleans restaurant offering something in "picante sauce." My wife inquired what the main ingredients were, and the waitress replied, "Oh, it's made from fresh picantes."

New Orleans is famous for Pecan Pie, but I never tried the Picante Pie.

Eric

P.S. if they want "traditional" they should at least require you to mix your own emulsion to spread on your glass plates.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

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

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2011, 11:11:08 AM »
ReplyReply

This reminds me of the time, years ago, that my wife and I were in a New Orleans restaurant offering something in "picante sauce." My wife inquired what the main ingredients were, and the waitress replied, "Oh, it's made from fresh picantes."

Kinda like my failed attempts in identifying the animal my leather jacket is made out of - "genuine" is not on any list of domesticated animals.
Logged

Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 813



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2011, 12:05:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ... can't remember the exact wording now but it caught my attention and was wondering how common that was. 

I'm not fretting over it by any means - just curious.  But good point Eric...

P.S. if they want "traditional" they should at least require you to mix your own emulsion to spread on your glass plates.
Logged

Mike Guilbault
MG Photography
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 733



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2011, 06:32:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Two years ago an art gallery was seeking entries for an art show it had planned in conjunction with a local art festival. It was asking for 35mm slides of six to twelve photographs of art work to be entered. Fat chance I'd do that. Later, during the art festival, I asked the gallery owner when he was planning to open the way to digital entries because that was the only way I would even consider participating. He scratched his head and mumbled that he maybe should be doing that next time because he got almost no entries. Some folks are just behind the curve.

Other observation:
Coating glass plates with emulsion? Fie! True artists are sticking with camera-obscura.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5417


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2011, 06:51:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I came across a studio tour type of art show recently that specified that the photography had to be traditional film based and wouldn't accept digital.

That is the ignorance of arrogance...if you self-limit the "technology" that is "acceptable" then you are self-limiting the imagery which is ignorance at the extreme. Move on...there is nothing of interest here...these are not the droids you are looking for. (hand passing over the eyes of the stormtroopers).

Really, do you need to even ask the question?

Really?
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2011, 03:01:51 AM »
ReplyReply

That is the ignorance of arrogance...if you self-limit the "technology" that is "acceptable" then you are self-limiting the imagery which is ignorance at the extreme. Move on...there is nothing of interest here...these are not the droids you are looking for. (hand passing over the eyes of the stormtroopers).

Really, do you need to even ask the question?Really?



No, I guess nobody really does, but what a dull world if they didn't!

;-)

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 10:11:43 AM by Rob C » Logged

chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2011, 08:16:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I can see this being ok if the theme for the show was traditional photo art...sort of like limiting a show to only black and white photos. I've been to shows in other art realms where only totally hand made furniture was accepted...no electric powered tools.
Logged
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 813



WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2011, 08:47:24 AM »
ReplyReply

That is the ignorance of arrogance...if you self-limit the "technology" that is "acceptable" then you are self-limiting the imagery which is ignorance at the extreme. Move on...there is nothing of interest here...these are not the droids you are looking for. (hand passing over the eyes of the stormtroopers).

Really, do you need to even ask the question?

Really?

Well, "really", I was being sarcastic when I asked, "Is it not art if it's digital?", and was more interested in how widespread this thinking was. Although the post subject is digital vs traditional, my questions was, "is the 'art' world reluctant to display digital photography for some reason?" I certainly don't have a problem with digital - been shooting digital since D1 days. I've always embraced technology (I had one of the original TRS-80's!) and digital photography is no exception.

 
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 08:49:41 AM by Mike Guilbault » Logged

Mike Guilbault
MG Photography
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2508


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2011, 03:12:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry bud, that ship sailed years ago...seriously, it's not in the bit useful to compare MF digital capture to film. Film sucks...move on.

That is the ignorance of arrogance...if you self-limit the "technology" that is "acceptable" then you are self-limiting the imagery which is ignorance at the extreme. Move on...there is nothing of interest here...these are not the droids you are looking for. (hand passing over the eyes of the stormtroopers).

Really, do you need to even ask the question?

Really?


 Kiss


Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2011, 05:01:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Chris, some of these people ride motorbikes!

Rob C
Logged

Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1437


« Reply #19 on: June 05, 2011, 05:10:33 PM »
ReplyReply

If you were truly an artist, you'd have painted it ...  Wink
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad