|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/29/2015 03:01:34 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Let's not sidetrack...
I am asking, if you value process more than end-results. Because, if you do not know a photo done by digital process or by an older styles such pinhole camera, wet-plate or polaroid, would your feeling towards that photo change after find out the method?
I uploaded the pencil drawing as a sample. Most people who wouldn't know the difference at first, most likely value the photo (end-result) more after finding out it was done by hand (the process). |
The problem in this discussion is that you seem to be somehow blind to the fact that the end results are absolutely NOT the same, not by a mile.
If they were, I'd still have a little bit of preference for the artisanship needed to do it the 'hard' way, but I've yet to see a digital filter that delivers great impasto on a print. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 03:05:08 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Let's not sidetrack...
I am asking, if you value process more than end-results. Because, if you do not know a photo done by digital process or by an older styles such pinhole camera, wet-plate or polaroid, would your feeling towards that photo change after find out the method?
I uploaded the pencil drawing as a sample. Most people who wouldn't know the difference at first, most likely value the photo (end-result) more after finding out it was done by hand (the process). |
The drawing was immediately obvious as a drawing, sorry.
What you're saying is that getting in a helicopter and flying to the top of a mountain like Annapurna, K2 or even Everest is the same as mounting an expedition and climbing to the top. It's not. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 03:10:25 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Let's not sidetrack...
I am asking, if you value process more than end-results. Because, if you do not know a photo done by digital process or by an older styles such pinhole camera, wet-plate or polaroid, would your feeling towards that photo change after find out the method?
I uploaded the pencil drawing as a sample. Most people who wouldn't know the difference at first, most likely value the photo (end-result) more after finding out it was done by hand (the process). |
The problem in this discussion is that you seem to be somehow blind to the fact that the end results are absolutely NOT the same, not by a mile.
If they were, I'd still have a little bit of preference for the artisanship needed to do it the 'hard' way, but I've yet to see a digital filter that delivers great impasto on a print. |
So, you are telling me, if I really can't find a way to take film photos or other older styles, but able to create stunning pictures using my perspective ability, processing skills, my artwork worth always less than if I did use the other methods?
Is that what you are saying? Because if that's what you are saying, you are also prejudging way too many people, even without seen their work. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 03:15:38 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Let's not sidetrack...
I am asking, if you value process more than end-results. Because, if you do not know a photo done by digital process or by an older styles such pinhole camera, wet-plate or polaroid, would your feeling towards that photo change after find out the method?
I uploaded the pencil drawing as a sample. Most people who wouldn't know the difference at first, most likely value the photo (end-result) more after finding out it was done by hand (the process). |
The drawing was immediately obvious as a drawing, sorry.
What you're saying is that getting in a helicopter and flying to the top of a mountain like Annapurna, K2 or even Everest is the same as mounting an expedition and climbing to the top. It's not. |
Not everyone could tell that was a pencil drawing, it could be anything from pencil drawing to digitally enhanced... or even just a regular photo from a distance...
Since you brought it up, yes, it would be the same thing to get top of the Everest with a plane or helicopter, if that person is crippled... and can't climb, but wants to live the thrill of being in top... However, this example is far far away from what my point with this post! |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 03:22:39 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Let's not sidetrack...
I am asking, if you value process more than end-results. Because, if you do not know a photo done by digital process or by an older styles such pinhole camera, wet-plate or polaroid, would your feeling towards that photo change after find out the method?
I uploaded the pencil drawing as a sample. Most people who wouldn't know the difference at first, most likely value the photo (end-result) more after finding out it was done by hand (the process). |
Your "end result" seems to be an image on a computer screen. Not all photographs end up on printing paper. I value the process insofar as it helps me achieve a result I'm happy with. I'm not looking to make things easier. This isn't my job -- it's a hobby, a craft, a labor of love. Digital photography is great for making digital images. But it isn't going to give me a wet plate no matter what software you have.-- not one that I'd take any pride in saying I produced anyway. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 03:29:32 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Let's not sidetrack... |
it's not a sidetrack, it's just another example of the differences in the results and the ability to discern those differences. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 03:42:58 PM · #32 |
Wrong...
End results are prints as well...
My gallery
 |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 03:57:36 PM · #33 |
| I thought the old style creating photos also creates flaws. Their flaws now consider art... that's fine with me. Have you seen a wetplate photo, or a pinhole photo? They have flaws like discoloration, stains etc... If to create those staining discolored images are the goal, digital process should have the same values... and then some. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 04:14:52 PM · #34 |
I did a model shoot the other week, I shot with two digital cameras and one film camera. I like the images from both but they are quite different - even though I have had the negatives scanned and even applied some filters to some of them. The film images give me a different type of source image - the quality of the grain and most particularly the way film handles highlights.
Then there is the process, with the film camera I metered off camera, it slowed me down, I got no exposure feedback, no chimping - it both simplified and complicated the process. Both we welcome.
For me, it is about the image but it's also about the process AND what that process does to the photographer and how it makes you approach the image taking process. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 04:54:03 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
... I am asking, if you value process more than end-results. ... |
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the end results were both identical and indistinguishable, and the process for each was unknowable to anyone but the artist, then (and only then) would I agree with your hypothesis that the process is immaterial to the result, at least as measured from the perspective of the viewer (but not of the artist). But change any one of those things, and you change the experience of the viewer ... and then, yes, the process will often matter as much or more than the end result. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 05:26:52 PM · #36 |
| Leo, how do you feel about "antiqued" modern furniture, pre-torn and bleached blue jeans, distressed finishes applied to structural elements in a new home, fiberglass replicas of exotic cars with VW motors in them, and fake Rolexes that weigh a third of the real thing but keep perfect time? |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 06:03:02 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Leo, how do you feel about "antiqued" modern furniture, pre-torn and bleached blue jeans, distressed finishes applied to structural elements in a new home, fiberglass replicas of exotic cars with VW motors in them, and fake Rolexes that weigh a third of the real thing but keep perfect time? |
You are asking to a wrong guy. I am at the bottom of the barrel, none of the antiques or original Rolexes appeals to me. Having said all that, If I can't tell the differences, I am perfectly fine with them all. Unless if you tell me what they are, I won't change my value looking or using those vs. some people just change their ways and not even talk to you anymore, because "now" they know they are not the originals.
Do you understand the point of my view though?
Ok, let me refresh something, I am not talking about collectors looking for a collectable item, or an artist who knows every square inch of an old photograph who can identify original stuff... In DPC we are not all that high level shoppers or collectors I assume, yet, I am asking if and why human psychology of "feeling" value to a photo changes after they find out about the process.
Not complicated but until now, I have heard nothing but my main question, I am not even undermining, undervaluing originals or films or any other older styles... After all, I am talking about "creating similar work", but drop on the value because of digital process.
I though photography is perspective, more than subjects. Any subject can be successful if photographer knows how to look at it. After that, process. Why the process? Because we want our work to pop. Either sharp, blurry, stained, colored or black and white. Now, after I bring everything perfectly together, it doesn't matter if I print it, or show it on a monitor, it is my work... inspired by something, but my work.
Those are the exact same things older photographers thought and created their works I believe. Just because I have the opportunity to use modern equpment, does it mean my perspective just fell short... or my black and white, maybe even little sepia, is not black and white enough?
Did I talk too much :-/
Message edited by author 2015-06-29 18:05:26. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 06:16:15 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Did I talk too much :-/ |
This is the only bit I got. I admit to reading this entire thread but (sadly) am still non the wiser about why. That said, (using an example of Bears) is it cooler to wear a $100 'Rolex' or wear a $10,000 Rolex and pay $1,000 for it to be serviced? They may look the same and tell the same story (time) but the feel is worlds apart.
Leo, I like a lot of your work but do you honestly feel it's 'fine art'? What is your definition of 'fine art? Surely if it is what I think it is (the post processing) then the creators of all your 'apps' should be credited for much of 'your' work? |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 06:46:09 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Did I talk too much :-/ |
This is the only bit I got. I admit to reading this entire thread but (sadly) am still non the wiser about why. That said, (using an example of Bears) is it cooler to wear a $100 'Rolex' or wear a $10,000 Rolex and pay $1,000 for it to be serviced? They may look the same and tell the same story (time) but the feel is worlds apart.
Leo, I like a lot of your work but do you honestly feel it's 'fine art'? What is your definition of 'fine art? Surely if it is what I think it is (the post processing) then the creators of all your 'apps' should be credited for much of 'your' work? |
I actually define my work as "iPhone Photography FineArt", not only fineart... Maybe, just maybe, I creted a new division of FineArt?
I also am not saying my work, or similar works, should be sold as expensive as the original paintings... I am not even saying anything about money value of my work or similar works... Although it is related at the end if purchased, my question is, why do we "feel" less value of a digitally created photo, similar or maybe better looking than a photo created using older styles... Like adding stains, layers, filters digitally! Why a person, any person, changes his or her mind, either walk away or politely rejects the art, "after" they learned how they were created.
At my little gallery a couple of months ago, it happened to me with almost all visitors. I am not offended, because first reactions were very good, even it (gallery ad) was saying what was all about, visitors just seemed to read "FineArt Photography" part, skipped the "iPhone" part. When I told them they all created using iPhone only, amazing how person can change... 180, like I am a retard person and my gallery contains used candy wrappers!
It happened, and so I asked the question openly here!
Message edited by author 2015-06-29 18:49:20. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 07:09:43 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
I actually define my work as "iPhone Photography FineArt", not only fineart... Maybe, just maybe, I creted a new division of FineArt?
I also am not saying my work, or similar works, should be sold as expensive as the original paintings... |
Leo, you hit the nail on the head there, most people (I think) would equate Fine art with a higher price and yes, they probably missed the 'taken and processed with an iPhone' from the literature/advertising. Maybe you should drop the 'Fine Art' from all your advertising and sell inexpensive iPhone photography bit?
I'm pretty sure there is a market for your work as lots of it it very good but imho using 'Fine Art' and 'Master of' will make people walk away from a sale. Cheap and cheerful is the way to go, think of yourself as micro stock rather than Alamy ;) |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 07:53:43 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
I actually define my work as "iPhone Photography FineArt", not only fineart... Maybe, just maybe, I creted a new division of FineArt?
I also am not saying my work, or similar works, should be sold as expensive as the original paintings... |
Leo, you hit the nail on the head there, most people (I think) would equate Fine art with a higher price and yes, they probably missed the 'taken and processed with an iPhone' from the literature/advertising. Maybe you should drop the 'Fine Art' from all your advertising and sell inexpensive iPhone photography bit?
I'm pretty sure there is a market for your work as lots of it it very good but imho using 'Fine Art' and 'Master of' will make people walk away from a sale. Cheap and cheerful is the way to go, think of yourself as micro stock rather than Alamy ;) |
I think I will... So, that was the reason!
Oh well... Live and learn :-/ |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 08:15:56 PM · #42 |
My very last question... Or request,
Take a look at those images, and just for a second, think if they are done by someone who lived early 1950s, hut not alive anymore... a very famous photographer or painter... whatever you may think of him, but don't think they are something else.
If you can, listen to yourself, for real... and feel the value of each image.
Then, know they are created with iPhone...
What changed? Are they FineArts? Are they iPhone FineArts?
Or just worthless digital garbage, and I am just a looser?
You can say anything, I will not be sad, angry or offended. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 08:43:08 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Let's not sidetrack...
I am asking, if you value process more than end-results. Because, if you do not know a photo done by digital process or by an older styles such pinhole camera, wet-plate or polaroid, would your feeling towards that photo change after find out the method?
I uploaded the pencil drawing as a sample. Most people who wouldn't know the difference at first, most likely value the photo (end-result) more after finding out it was done by hand (the process). |
The drawing was immediately obvious as a drawing, sorry.
What you're saying is that getting in a helicopter and flying to the top of a mountain like Annapurna, K2 or even Everest is the same as mounting an expedition and climbing to the top. It's not. |
Not everyone could tell that was a pencil drawing, it could be anything from pencil drawing to digitally enhanced... or even just a regular photo from a distance...
Since you brought it up, yes, it would be the same thing to get top of the Everest with a plane or helicopter, if that person is crippled... and can't climb, but wants to live the thrill of being in top... However, this example is far far away from what my point with this post! |
You're saying that the ends (standing on the mountaintop) are all that matter and how you get there (climbing or helicopter) do not> Do you really believe you'll have accomplished the same feat either way? Bullshit. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 08:43:50 PM · #44 |
Leo, you seem to be shadow boxing in this thread. Fighting an imaginary bout against yourself. If you do what gives you pleasure, why care at all if others think it legitimate or not?
I share your love of iPhone photos, and of the iPhone process, and I think it could be for the same reason ... The fascination, the magic even, of finding out what can be done within the limitations imposed by the tools. Ironically, for me it comes closer to the alchemy of the analogue process than does a 'proper' digital camera; feels similarly miraculous and unexpected, somehow.
I certainly don't think your 4 posted examples are fine art, nor are they iPhone fine art. They look like fairly typical Instagram shots to me. Most of mine do too.
ETA. Oh, and for the record I was alive in the early 1950s. Still am, actually.
Message edited by author 2015-06-29 20:46:56. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 10:14:08 PM · #45 |
I googled 'fine art photography ' & what I saw was in BW, with lots of nudes. Perhaps your customers were disappointed there were no BW nudes? And that's it?
Message edited by author 2015-06-29 22:15:34. |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 10:15:26 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
...Bullshit... |
I know... As I said, that sample is not even close what I was saying here, it is a Bull Shit :-) |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 10:24:11 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by ubique:
...I certainly don't think your 4 posted examples are fine art, nor are they iPhone fine art. They look like fairly typical Instagram shots to me. Most of mine do too... |
That's the reason I started this thread... To hear what people really think about those photos, or similar work of others.
That's just fine, I am not trying to accomplish something for myself here, I allready have... Just trying to fnd out if I am the only one, and so far it does seem like it.
...btw, if you really have Instagram photos like my samples, please do post. Love to see others work (sorry... others snapshots) |
|
|
|
06/29/2015 11:18:34 PM · #48 |
Can you make beautiful art/images on a smart phone? Most definitely yes.
Some can make wonderful art with the simplest of tools. In the end it is not the tool, but the artist.
At the same time, monetarily, certain forms of art command higher prices than others. Add to that, the fact that when people work in new media, appreciation of it as an art form can take time. Photographers used to be considered to be people who could not adequately paint or draw. Attitudes about photography did not reall change until Ansel Adams, and his contemporaries, who banded together to get photography recognized as an art form. There still is a hierarchy, "classical arts" vs the rest. I know "artists" who consider anything but the classical arts as craft as opposed to art.
Art comes from within. Persue your art, so not let anyone deter you. At the same time if it is all about selling art, then unless you are a gallery owner, it isn't art, it is production. |
|
|
|
06/30/2015 12:21:05 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Can you make beautiful art/images on a smart phone? Most definitely yes.
Some can make wonderful art with the simplest of tools. In the end it is not the tool, but the artist.
At the same time, monetarily, certain forms of art command higher prices than others. Add to that, the fact that when people work in new media, appreciation of it as an art form can take time. Photographers used to be considered to be people who could not adequately paint or draw. Attitudes about photography did not reall change until Ansel Adams, and his contemporaries, who banded together to get photography recognized as an art form. There still is a hierarchy, "classical arts" vs the rest. I know "artists" who consider anything but the classical arts as craft as opposed to art.
Art comes from within. Persue your art, so not let anyone deter you. At the same time if it is all about selling art, then unless you are a gallery owner, it isn't art, it is production. |
No sir, it definitely is NOT selling. It is all about (for me) devaluing a photo, especially something very similar to a film, stained old, textured or done with painting-like editing digitally. I am keep saying this, "feeling" of the value, not dollar value.
Again, you look at an image, like it a lot, I mean A LOT, and ask "who did this" or "who's the photographer" assuming you will hear someone that you know... some artist or some photographer... but when you realize it was done by a phone, (or even a point and shoot camera) and editing tools used to create it, such as iPhone apps or PhotoShop... It's like a cold shower! disappointment hits and you just try your best to walkaway.
That's what I am trying to find out, if I was the only one thinking this way... aparently, I am at this point! |
|
|
|
06/30/2015 12:24:36 AM · #50 |
One of my favorite photographers here using his iPhone almost exclusively, and I enjoy his pictures just as much as when he used a "real" camera. Photography is in the eye of the beholder - the tools are just that - tools.
That said, film still has a quality about it that digital can't quite replicate. Doesn't make it better or worse - just different. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 09:06:15 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 09:06:15 AM EDT.
|
