Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Is it the New Art?  (Read 8332 times)

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1478
    • 500px
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2016, 05:59:57 PM »

 :D
Logged

JNB_Rare

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • JNB54
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2016, 10:56:12 AM »

60s art was the best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQBKpV9emKc

Rob

As the blues musician Howlin' Wolf said, "And women, great googly moogly!"

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 16379
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2016, 11:08:34 AM »

Yep, that brunette certainly knew how to make the most of a gig! But then, she came equipped.

With hindsight, the singer shouldn't have made her appearance with that girl competing for camera time.

Have any of you tried to do the footwork? It's the most tiring thing I've ever attempted in the way of exercise: almost impossible to do. One really needs some invisible Photoshop supports holding the weight of the body off the feet. Thought it looks a bit Charleston, it's not. Shame FFF isn't here any longer - he'd have known what was what.

;-(

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 16379
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2016, 09:08:45 AM »

And here's a bit of another - possibly with undercurrents!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzKd0aiaK4c

Rob

Peter_DL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 518
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #24 on: September 18, 2016, 08:17:02 AM »

Some of the other reasons cited for the return to film really have nothing to do with film: "It slows me down. I have to be more disciplined." Hmmm. Use a hand-held light meter (or, at the very least, manual mode). Use manual focus. Use primes (or take only a single prime). Use a tripod. THINK about what you are doing.

Another little trick is to use a small memory card of just some few gb which only takes a limited number of images like it was with film. To keep this limitation in mind can contribute to more conscious shooting approach, without imposing too much complication.

Also, it is certainly part of the charm of retro styled digital cameras to have a more physical/mechanical interaction with the camera again, as opposed to being distracted from the photographic subject by digital menus and sub-menus.

Peter
--
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 16379
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #25 on: September 18, 2016, 10:11:17 AM »

Another little trick is to use a small memory card of just some few gb which only takes a limited number of images like it was with film. To keep this limitation in mind can contribute to more conscious shooting approach, without imposing too much complication.

Also, it is certainly part of the charm of retro styled digital cameras to have a more physical/mechanical interaction with the camera again, as opposed to being distracted from the photographic subject by digital menus and sub-menus.

Peter
--

Which Nikon blew with its Df by not giving the choice of a split-image screen. 'Confirmation' lights can't replace a split-screen image because you still have to move your eye/attention off-image to see that blasted light come on. That's a killer with non-af lenses, which most of mine are.

Rob

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #26 on: September 18, 2016, 08:36:25 PM »

I would like to see split-screen as an option on all cameras. There was a company who made them even for AF cameras without interchangeable screens but it was tricky and expensive. Split screens do not work well with slow lenses so that is one downside.

I have a few nice MF primes and do not have any real problem with the focus light on my D750....but would still prefer a split screen.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

JNB_Rare

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • JNB54
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2016, 10:20:18 AM »

Another little trick is to use a small memory card of just some few gb which only takes a limited number of images like it was with film. To keep this limitation in mind can contribute to more conscious shooting approach, without imposing too much complication.

Peter
--

The first DSLR I owned was a Canon 300D Digital Rebel. That camera broke new ground with its pricing (something I could afford). During the boxing day sales, I purchased 3 primes, and that became my "kit". I remember one of the first "walkabouts" I did with the kit. I walked for almost 4 hours through the city, looking at many things, and framing the odd scene. But I took only 4 exposures that day (and one continues to be a favourite). You'd think I was still carrying my old 4x5 Technika with 2 film holders, back when I didn't have two cents to rub together!  :)

Today, I still take fewer images than friends who visit the same places with me. However, I'm not so miserly with my exposures anymore. One advantage of digital (and not worrying about the number of exposures) is that I can take many slight variations of the same subject. If a scene is visually exciting to me, then I'll take quite a few pictures, perhaps bracketing apertures for slightly different DOF, or shifting my perspective a bit this way or that way. I like to "walk into" a scene, exploring new perspectives as I go. In the early days of digital, I often bracketed exposures on bright, contrasty days, with an eye to making sure I had both highlights and shadows captured. But modern sensors have quite good dynamic range, and I do much less of that.

Having said that, it's remarkable how many times it's the first exposure I take that turns out being the best.

Peter_DL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 518
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2016, 01:57:53 PM »

 
two further related articles on this trend:
http://www.europeanceo.com/culture/film-photography-makes-a-stunning-comeback/
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-have-we-reached-peak-digital-photography

In order not to get too much drawn into the idea to shoot film again, I was recently reactivating my old film scanner and spent a long evening with it - to get just some few slides scanned & post-processed. Done. No thanks. I'll stay with digital capture.

Nonetheless, the question remains which aspects we may have left behind which we would want to recover again, in some (digital) way.

Peter
--
Logged

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2016, 02:35:38 PM »

I had a similar experience with my film scanner recently. A fairly high end one that Nikon no longer supports. I purchased VueScan to drive it. I recently developed (at home) some Acros B&W negs. The whole process was slow and tedious and the rewards, out of 36 frames, were few.

But, I still like dabbling in film, older film cameras and a few chemicals. I'm glad I don't have to do it all the time anymore but I enjoy occasional exposure to the old process.

And I would still never put forward an argument that film and its processes have any remote advantage over digital. I don't do it for the results.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 16379
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2016, 03:48:55 PM »

The first DSLR I owned was a Canon 300D Digital Rebel. That camera broke new ground with its pricing (something I could afford). During the boxing day sales, I purchased 3 primes, and that became my "kit". I remember one of the first "walkabouts" I did with the kit. I walked for almost 4 hours through the city, looking at many things, and framing the odd scene. But I took only 4 exposures that day (and one continues to be a favourite). You'd think I was still carrying my old 4x5 Technika with 2 film holders, back when I didn't have two cents to rub together!  :)

Today, I still take fewer images than friends who visit the same places with me. However, I'm not so miserly with my exposures anymore. One advantage of digital (and not worrying about the number of exposures) is that I can take many slight variations of the same subject. If a scene is visually exciting to me, then I'll take quite a few pictures, perhaps bracketing apertures for slightly different DOF, or shifting my perspective a bit this way or that way. I like to "walk into" a scene, exploring new perspectives as I go. In the early days of digital, I often bracketed exposures on bright, contrasty days, with an eye to making sure I had both highlights and shadows captured. But modern sensors have quite good dynamic range, and I do much less of that.

Having said that, it's remarkable how many times it's the first exposure I take that turns out being the best.


I almost never do a similar shot of the same thing at the same shoot with 'fun' photography.

The moral, which you probably prove to your own satisfaction, is: go with your instincts! They live in the first take.

Rob

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1478
    • 500px
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2016, 04:52:05 PM »

What did Margaret Bown say? "The first and the last shots are always the best, so I stopped taking the ones in between" :)

Anyway, today I found this

http://www.simonerosenbauer.com/LIKE-ICE-IN-THE-SUNSHINE-1

If you're going to be an art photographer, it's best to have a sense of humour, I think. Since I grw up in Sydney, I can identify n 8 as a "Golden Gaytime," which was named long, long ago...  ;D
Logged

Peter_DL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 518
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #32 on: September 19, 2016, 05:56:31 PM »

Aside from the nostalgia factor for some older photographers, I have to think that some of the motivation to return to film is "differentiation" (i.e. not like the billions of others who are using digital imaging). One would be further differentiated by using an even older photographic process, perhaps. There are instructions on the Internet for making tintypes and albumen prints and the like. In the art (fine-art photography) world, being different is one way to attract attention, or to suggest added value. But being different doesn't automatically mean better. A selenium-toned, wet darkroom, fibre print of a teenager displaying her tongue piercing is no more art than the same "selfie" taken with a cell phone and posted on facebook.

The emulation of film or retro styles is also a popular field in digital post processing.

Even said teenager taking a "selfie" with a cell phone would possibly use an app to furnish the image with some vintage look.

Not sure if the motivation is only "differentiation".

Basically, these techniques introduce/produce some partial abstraction, leading away from a "clean/accurate" depiction of reality.

I'm not solid enough on art/psychology to understand the driving force here.

Just can say that it is often enough my preference as well.

Peter
--
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 16379
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2016, 05:17:08 PM »

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1478
    • 500px
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2016, 03:01:14 AM »

Similar things were said about that other dreadful idea, adding sound  ;)
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 16379
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2016, 04:38:55 AM »

Similar things were said about that other dreadful idea, adding sound  ;)

Were they wrong?

Rob

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1478
    • 500px
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2016, 06:27:06 AM »

Depends on the purpose, of course...
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1478
    • 500px
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2016, 11:41:21 AM »

Of course it's a moving game: digital video has improved a lot, so the fact that someone loathed it in the past doesn't necessarily mean anything now.
The second point is that while Tarantino is a superbly gifted director and film writer, he's also out of his tree (the two may be related). Viz the rant about the magic of still pictures at 24fps, which of course is no different in modern digital (was he still thinking interleaved analogue TV??)

Probably the greatest advantage of film, in my mind, is that it made it harder to go overboard with processing. Give people a tool and someone will use it to excess, then competitive human nature will lead 95% of the market to follow them, just to show they can. In related news, SanDisk have announced a prototype 1TB SD card. That would allow me to take 19,200 photos without stopping to up-load to a pc. That's one every 3 secs for 16 hours straight, rather a lot of decisive moments. Better order 3.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2957
    • Flicker photos
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2016, 11:27:43 PM »

I enjoy the technical aspects of digital but also the traditional aspects  of using  film.  It depends when and where.   If I'm on a vacation, I take my small digital to record the trip in stills with some movie clips and then put it all together in a DVD show for my TV with background music, menus etc.  However when I'm in the mood, I'll shoot  my medium format film camera with tripod and separate light meter.  I'll spend the time looking for the "right" shot and then shooting even bracketing the shots. Love Velvia color.  Lately I've been messing with Tmax BW film and using contrast filters.   Then waiting for the develop film from a pro lab.  I don't have a dark room.  Scanning (which can be a drag) the film and editing and lately just posting on the internet.  So even film has a touch of digital. 

But so what. It's all good.  They all have their place. 
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 16379
Re: Is it the New Art?
« Reply #39 on: September 22, 2016, 04:58:33 AM »

I enjoy the technical aspects of digital but also the traditional aspects  of using  film.  It depends when and where.   If I'm on a vacation, I take my small digital to record the trip in stills with some movie clips and then put it all together in a DVD show for my TV with background music, menus etc.  However when I'm in the mood, I'll shoot  my medium format film camera with tripod and separate light meter.  I'll spend the time looking for the "right" shot and then shooting even bracketing the shots. Love Velvia color.  Lately I've been messing with Tmax BW film and using contrast filters.   Then waiting for the develop film from a pro lab.  I don't have a dark room.  Scanning (which can be a drag) the film and editing and lately just posting on the internet.  So even film has a touch of digital. 

But so what. It's all good. They all have their place.


That's actually the bottom line.

I find that it's really down to what's possible at the time. I tried film here in Mallorca before the advent of digital, and had to close my darkroom due to the water shortage and the impossibility of filtering out enough grit. As bad, due to said water shortages, I went onto plastic multigrade papers and hated them.

In the end, I shot only transparencies for work (which was nice) but stopped doing much personal stuff at all.

Only through digital, compounded with the eventual loss of my wife, did photography return as something to spend my life doing as a way of filling the void it would otherwise have remained. So I guess that I have to thank digital for allowing me to find a solution to current life circumstances.

But insofar as film is concerned, I owe it everything. I also feel that unless one takes the process, personally, right through to its logical conclusion, not a lot is gained. Were I an art photographer with gallery back-up etc. I'd want to print wet, but that would mean setting up an entirely new way of life to the one I have at present.

Perhaps, when I boil it all down, what I miss most of all is using my old film 'blads. God, it felt good, on so many levels.

Rob
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up