admin
duluthiscool 3:40pm, 24 January 2008
Is the Art of Photography Dead? That's the topic on the radio... on Minnesota Public Radio... at 10 AM TODAY... you can catch the stream at www.mpr.org or listen in at 100.5 if you are in the Duluth area...
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
My guess: probably not.

Jason
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
JoAnn Verburg... one of the photographers in the interview.

calendar.walkerart.org/canopy.wac?id=4172

Jason
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
admin
duluthiscool 10 years ago
of course it is not dead... the question is both sensationalist as well as it is naive... however... it is a more interesting conversation to listen to than listening to the people talking about all the things that they talk about in the cube next door... right?
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
Totally; I was being a snarky punk. Actually the piece has been pretty darn interesting. I really enjoy JoAnn Verburg's opinions. Bill Allard seems a bt crusty to me.

Jason
admin
duluthiscool 10 years ago
bill allard: "...i've been taking photographs even before there was film to fix the image onto... in fact... i invented it...."
admin
Barrett 10 years ago
I think that when they said "photography" they meant to say "rock and roll."
admin
There was a recent podcast from Lens work that touched on this subject. The editor basically said that with so many new digital photographers out there it seems that the new photographers are most noted on technique and not so much on a single image like Ansel Adams and Yosemite. So is the art of single image photography gone? Does this make sense?
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
You know, I'm going to toss this issue into the "you're getting old" pile along with the folks who are vehemently complaining that the so-called "Generation Y" has no work ethic. If you think that the style of art that you cherished is "dead", you're old.

I think that the "old school" is having trouble adjusting to the lowered bar of entry for digital photography, and the proliferation of photographers that has come out of it. It seemed clear that Bill Allard was really cynical about the idea.

In my opinion, the proliferation of digital photography is fantastic. Lots of opportunities to put art into the hands of people, where it should be.

Jason
admin
aReasontoHope 10 years ago
It's a pretty tough subject.... simply because practically anyone can pick up a camera and take a photo these days. But picking up a camera doesn't automatically give you talent. Sure, someone who spends enough on an expensive, sharp, clean camera is sure to come out with some crisp images. But they will bore you. They'll be the same old thing, over and over again. To be a photographer is to be what you love to do. I see all kinds of teenagers taking photos with digital cameras and cell phone cameras. But when I look at WHAT they're choosing to document.... sometimes I really do wish cameras were only given to those who're going to use them for "good".

To me, capturing images and freezing time forever in the palm of my hand is beyond ecstasy, and it does pain me to see everyone calling themselves a "photographer" because they own a camera, or when people tell me photography isn't an art because anyone can do it.
NOT everyone can be a photographer.

And that is for DAMN sure.


-Allison.
admin
Barrett 10 years ago
There have always been lots of artforms that, technically, "anyone can do."

Anyone with access to a pencil can, technically, be a writer.
Anyone who isn't mute can, technically, be a singer.
Anyone who can move their body can, technically, be a dancer.

Personally, I believe that in order to learn a skill like photography, a person has to fail at it repeatedly, learning what doesn't work along with what does work. I'm not a poor person, but if I were limited to film, I couldn't afford to learn what I am learning now.

It doesn't bother me that the world is filled with other people taking pictures, with varying degrees of ability and experience. As long as there are people craving to follow the art beyond the rudimentary, the art will thrive.
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
"I'm not a poor person, but if I were limited to film, I couldn't afford to learn what I am learning now"

The price of shooting film and shooting digital are comparable. A good, but used, SLR can be had for $100 (from HBR, no less!). $400 will get you 26,000 exposures if you know where to buy film. I think once you've shot 26,000 exposures you would probably upgrade your entry level DSLR, anyway.

Jason
admin
HBRstudios 10 years ago
"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

-- Ansel Adams

A well known and well used quote, but very fitting, nonetheless.
admin
aReasontoHope 10 years ago
I agree Brian.
I agree.

(And it must be a sign that Ansel and I share the same birthday.)
MOD
Randall Cottrell 10 years ago
would the stuck up members of the deleteme group catch on if i posted an ansel adams pic to the pool? lol
admin
K. Praslowicz 10 years ago
randeezee - Here is the Cartier-Bresson piece that got deleted. Hilarious.
admin
Barrett Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Barrett (admin) 10 years ago
jnovek: And processing? How much does that add? Plus, I'd like to add the advantage of knowing right away whether my photos are hot or not. My time is money.

I would like to shoot film someday. But I'm not going to waste my hard-earned cash on my mediocre talents just yet.
MOD
Randall Cottrell 10 years ago
bah! "next time use a good tripod"

i can't wait to try something like this...ansel seems a bit too popular though...doesn't he? hmm...
admin
K. Praslowicz 10 years ago
novek: And processing? How much does that add?

My chemical set up using premixed chemicals runs me about $0.36/roll for black & white.
admin
Hambone Lewinski Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Hambone Lewinski (admin) 10 years ago
Barrett,

Mine cost about $.25 a roll to process.About half of my negs are actually processed in a developer that I make myself out of dollar store tylenol and lye. Color costs me about $.35 a roll.

So, that's a fair cost to add. It does add up over 720 rolls of film to $180. So now my mythical film camera costs me $680 for 26,000 exposures.

As for "instant" gratification, you don't get the same immediate response that you do with digital. It usually takes me about 1/2 an hour after I get home before I get to see my negatives. If I'm going down in the darkroom I'll make a contact sheet, otherwise they wait until I scan. I can usually make my first assessment based on the negs... honestly, I suspect that how good a photo is isn't apparent until after you've looked at it a couple different times... digital or film.

Jason
admin
Hambone Lewinski 10 years ago
Barrett,

...And, certainly, film is not as easy or convenient as digital. And a DSLR is an SLR, after all... I don't have any beef with people who prefer to shoot digital. Although film is roughly the same cost.

Now, if you really want to get me fired up, we can talk about manual vs. automatic shooting. I don't know how much experience you need to have before you are ready to take your camera out of manual mode and put it into fully auto mode... but I know that I'm not there yet. Probably sometime after you are better than the camera at determining exposure and focus.

Jason
Groups Beta