Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Revisited Article  (Read 4781 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16614
Revisited Article
« on: February 28, 2014, 10:29:32 AM »

It's been a while since Pete has been on LuLa - I don't know why - but reading this again put me in mind of Chris and his current love affair with digital techniques.

I suppose that digital style dates just as rapidly as did film-based ideas. Nonetheless, I think the short article makes for interesting reading.

Rob C

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Revisited Article
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2014, 01:31:26 PM »

Nice reading and exactly to the point.

It doesn't help to look back and cry after the film days.
It is necessary to embrace current technique.
I still like film - but when taking film images, I process them after digitization and I print digitally.
Many of my images have not much to do with what can be seen on the unprocessed RAW scan.
I still try to stay photographic and believable, but with total utilization of the techniques Lightroom and Photoshop offer.
For certain images I still think film is superior, for others clearly digital.
It is hard to stay medium and technique agnostic, but it helps a lot to keep on your track.

The keys are vision, deep feeling and reflection and being true to oneself.
When these are given you know how to use the technique in a creative and believable way.

Thanks Rob, for posting the link - I enjoyed the read.


  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5821
    • M&M's Musings
Re: Revisited Article
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2014, 01:45:25 PM »

What Chris said... me too.

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~

My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings


  • Guest
Re: Revisited Article
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2014, 09:14:38 PM »

This has been going on for at least 120 years. PH Emerson was adamant that pictures were taken, not made. Made pictures, a la HP Robinson, were anathema to Emerson. Photography is about about seeing, it is not painting. He went on at substantial length.

Robinson felt that you made the things. Anything goes as long as it looks True in the end. Arguably he was not entirely successful at this. And, to be honest, I think the author of the essay also fails to produce results which look True.

In this modern age sensible people have dropped the debate entirely. Do what you will. Fussing about the process is a waste of time, and claiming that your process is Correct and Virtuous while other processes are not is not only silly but rude.
Pages: [1]   Go Up