RE: Food for thought

I also agree with Jeff regarding where digital tools fit into photography and image making in general.

I've always thought of myself as a visual artist rather than photographer or painter, enjoying both painting and photography. I have never been very good at darkroom technique, but have instead focused on the image itself - for both painting and pinhole photography, this starts (for me) with the choice of subject matter and then composing the image. Around 8 years ago, I sold my 4x5 enlarger and most of my darkroom equipment in order to make the transition to a digital darkroom. Well, there really wasn't much of anywhere to go at the time, so I just did a lot of playing around with photoshop, and continued to take pinhole photos. And I quit painting. For me, I now use the pinhole camera to select a subject and form a composition, then I use the computer to "paint" the canvas. I don't mean that I apply some magical digital filter to the image to turn it into a watercolor look-alike. Rather, what I do is go over the entire image, almost pixel by pixel and corrent blemishes
or dust spots from the scan, alter the colors as I might select colors when painting, rework any of this as I might a painting, until I have what I want. In almost all things I have done so far in this digital environment, the resulting image is almost completely faithful to the one made by the pinhole camera, except for being much cleaner and perhaps more "brighter". Then I "freeze" the image on a CD, from which I can make prints.

I know there are "professional" businesses that can do a better job of matching colors to a standard, and can produce perhaps more archival prints that I am doing right now. But I'm not really interested in that. I focus on the image I capture digitally and then focus on working on that image until it looks like I want it. These two areas are my new found art form. I respect and enjoy many art forms, but this is the one that I really enjoy right now.

Photography itself did not begin as an art form, but rather as a technology. It was quite a while before it was ever taken seriously as visual art by the art establishment. I imagine that digital tools and media for visual art will continue to be controversial for the forseeable future.

- Gregg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rustart@aol.com [mailto:Rustart@aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:51 PM
> To: pinhole-discussion@pinhole.com
> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Food for thought
>
>
> I have to agree with Jeff. I the early days of photography,
> new techniques
> were being introduced quite rapidly and practitioners had to
> continuously
> learn new techniques, acquire new cameras and darkroom
> equipment. It wasn't
> until Kodak started developing film and making prints for the
> masses that the
> introduction of radically new techniques was slowed or
> halted. Kodak and
> other firms were invested in particular techniques and spent
> their research
> funds in perfecting their investment (I know this is a bit
> simplistic, but I
> hope it gets the point across) . Digital photography is the
> first major
> innovation to come down the pike in a long time and in some
> ways it buts
> photography back into the control of the individual for
> better or worse.
> Another interesting parallel. With the invention of the
> printing press the
> interest in, and sale of,lluminated manuscripts increased ( I
> think I read
> this in a book called "The History of Reading"). Perhaps it
> was because of
> the increased dissemination of printed matter that allowed
> people also became
> aware of hand made books or perhaps it was the need for those
> with wealth to
> segregate their "superior" tastes from common purchasers of
> "pulp" fiction.
> The same thing seems to be happening today but may be not for
> exactly the
> same reasons.
> Rusty.
>
> In a message dated 6/27/01 12:09:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> pinhole-discussion-request@pinhole.com writes:
>
> > > I think that idea of technological depth has some
> > > effect on a print's uniqueness, and more to the
> > > point, it directly relates to the issue I have
> > > been calling "authenticity." The deeper the
> > > technology the less the
> > > authenticity.
> >
> > The following view may not be politically correct, on
> > a pinhole photography discussion group, but here goes...
> >
> > I guess this guy would have to argue that music produced on
> > vinyl is some how more authentic than music produced on
> > compact discs, if indeed "The deeper the technology, the less
> > the authenticity" Technology advances and changes, but that
> > fact doesn't diminish the integrity of the art which it
> > facilitates, at least in my mind.
> >
> > The author appears to forget that the processes that he
> > embraces as "more authentic" were technologically cutting
> > edge at one time, and were undoubtedly denigrated as not
> > being as "authentic", at that time, as the technology which
> > preceeded it.
> >
> > I usually find that people who argue in this way are usually
> > those who have become entrenched in a particular manner of
> > doing things, despite advances in technology. As time
> > progresses, and easier and better ways are found to accomplish
> > tasks, they become frustrated as they see relative amateurs able
> > to effortlessly produce the same photographic effects that
> > they continue to labor for hours and hours to produce.
> > It is no wonder that they become resentful and denigrate
> > other processes as "less authentic".
> >
> > In 200 years, folks will think it is hilarious that anyone
> > ever argued that a darkroom with an enlarger was any more
> > authentic than a "darkroom" with a scanner and ink printer!
> >
> > I love pinhole photography, and the unique images that can be
> > created, but I do not feel "married" to the low technology way
> > of doing everything in photography, nor do I feel my "art" is
> > any more "authentic" if all my output is the result of 50 year
> > old methods of producing images. I like to mix in high tech
> > componants that work for me- a pentax
> > digital spot meter, a palm pilot to assist me with difficult
> > exposure problems, a microtek scanner to scan negatives and
> > digitally adjust output. And, if I choose to make my final
> > prints with an inkjet, then anyone would be hard pressed to
> > make me feel guilty!
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> Pinhole-Discussion@pinhole.com
> unsubscribe or change your account at
> http://www.pinholevisions.org/discussion/
>
Received on Wed Jun 27 14:38:14 2001