srt101fan

On that we can agree to agree...

srt101fan

Don't you think that people can agree to at least some standards for what is good or bad art, literature, architecture, music....?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Where I would differ is that I would say that you do not have to use "Auto" anything to use the camera's capabilites. That's where I think some of the misconceptions are. If I know that the lighting on my church's platform is close to 2700K, I can set to that when I am shooting, or I can do it later in post processing. I am not ceding any control to the camera if I do it before shooting nor anything to my PP software if I do it later. The difference, though, is that if I do it first, I can give much better "proofs" to my music director much more quickly. And that is a big deal, especially to him.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Not art! What is terrible to you might be awesome to me. I hate abstract art but the artist thinks it’s great! What is truth?

Photogirl17 Loc: Glenwood, Ark.

Gorgeous Image Linda, well done..

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

No, I really don’t think we can. There is just too much diversity of opinion. Mappelthorpe, Warhol, even Picasso, were ostracized in their time.

And that’s actually okay with me. There is room in this world for many views.

Andy

srt101fan

Andy, I respect your taking an opposing view but I don't think your examples support it. Mapplethorpe turned off a lot of people because he produced some works that were pornographic. As far as I know Warhol was never "ostracized" for his art (which I personally don't care for!) - it was his eccentric lifestyle that some people objected to. And Picasso ostracized? He successfully painted in so many different styles that I just don't see that you can say that.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I respect your photographic views a lot. But all of the artists I cited were both loved and hated by their contemporaries. Check my post on Fred Sandback - love him or hate him?

I have found very, very few artists in my lifetime who were universally lauded or excoriated.

Andy

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Bipod

I don't ignore cogent arguments and evidence. I do ignore baseless insults.

I think the majority of well-known photographers would agre that this is not a golden age of photography,
and that since the 1980s there has been no new movement or shared vision, as there was in straight photography
from the 1920s though 1970. Most art historians agree with that.

There are always fine individual artists. I posted the work of one here--not that you cared, tdekany.
But there are somet things that only a art movement -- such as Impressionism -- can accomplish.
A movement captures the imagination and the spirit of the times, and it can change public taste and
leave a lasting legacy. But when a lone artist dies, that's it.

These are serious issues, and deserve to be seriously considered, not bandied about.

Show me the "new vision". Show me the iconic phtographer of today--the one's who have eclipsed MATHEW BRADY,
EDWARD STEICHEN, ALFRED STIEGLITZ, ANSEL ADAMS, EDWARD WESTON, PAUL STRAND,
MINOR WHITE, DOROTHEA LANGE, HENRI CARTIER-BRESSON, YOUSUF KARSH, ELIOT PORTER, etc., etc.

We've got all this computer technology, but only about a dozen photographers in the world are
working in dye transfer process. Kodak stopped makig the materials. But nothing else looks
like dye transfer color print. Dye Transfer is the Rolls Royce of color printing. But not of
interst to Joe Consumer thereefore it is going extinct.
http://ctein.com/dyetrans.htm

There are in fact hundreds of B&W and color processes. But only inkjet and laserjet computer
printers are of interst to Joe Consumer. So the rest exist only in industry and to photographers
willing to become a cottage industry.

I know how difficult that is. Obviously, you do not. Go make your own process, then come
back and talk to me.

There is only room in Joe Consumer's world for digital color, minature format, two processes and
three types of cameras. What an huge impoverershment of photography.

You may think this is a golden age of painting---but painters don't: There is no painter alive today who
who even claims to be as good as Vermeer, Caravaggio or Cezanne. You may think this is a golden
age of classical composition, but there is no composer alive today who even claims to be as good
as Mozart. Suggest that someone is, and you'll get a laugh. They KNOW.

You flatter your generation, your region, your favorite technology, and so yourself. But history is a
harsh judge.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I wonder why you are on this forum, full of owners of digital gear. Why not join a message board specifically for film?

Time moves on, but it sounds like that you can’t move with it. That is on you. As I said before, you will not convince ANYONE to go back to film.

Even with all the pollution today, light is light and a talented artist can create work of art. Now to you, since you are very narrow minded and bias, you can’t be objective, but beauty is still being created, whether you admit it or not. But on the other hand, like most everyone else, what you personally think is irrelevant. Which remind me, where are your work of art? How come that you don’t post any examples?

Talk is cheap and OPINIONS? Everyone has one.

I’ll suggest that you focus on what you prefer, instead of wasting you time telling the rest of the world about it, because quite frankly, no one is listening.

Slightly off topic, but I wonder why you consume mostly processed foods, and all those soda pops, instead of eating healthy Whole Foods.

Bipod

I's sorry you didn't like my post, Susan. But I'm sure what set you off,
since you don't mention a single statement of mine with which you disagree.

If I've said something that is inaccurate or untrue, please tell me and I will correct it.

You've picked up the mime that I "insult people" from tdekany and you are repeating it.
Who did I insult, specifically? But look at how I am insulted by people who do not
make a cogent argument or present a single fact.

I apologize for being fond of painters, if that upsets you.

I apologize for daring to actually point out a flaw in an image. Obviously, it's
a lot more pleasant if we all just gush praise. "Log-rolling" is common
on UHH: "I'll ignore your blown highlights if you ignore mine.". But if we all
do that,, then how will anyone learn anything?

I apologize for believing theory and science are important. But painters believe
that too. Almost all have studied color theory and perspective, many study
human and animal anatomy. And except for Banksy, most are concerned about
their canvases not cracking and their colors not fading.

No artist ever was more diligent in the study of anatomy than Leonardo.

You seem to think art is all about "doing your own thing" and "experimenting".
But even so visionary an artist as William Blake started by engraving drawings
of copies of Greek sculptures that his father purchased. Engraving and printing
from engravings is highly technical. Two of his early inspirations were
Michelangelo and Albrecht Dürer.

The truth is that nobody just wakes up one morning knowing how to paint
like Vermeer or draw like Pizarro. They go to art school, they study the history
of art, they read books, they learn perspective, and above all they look at the
paintings of the great masters.

I totally agree that both painting and photography are about capturing light.
So not surprisingly, the same applies to photography: nobody just wakes up one
morning knowing how to photograph snow like Ansel Adams,

He explains how he does it in his book The Negative but that's "too technical"
and "just theory" according to UHH posters. Photography is suppose to be "fun"
(we are told by advertising).

If painting and photography are both about capturing light, then why is it that
more painters than photographers study the laws of light? Many great names
in the history of photography were scienctists: William Henry Fox Talbot,
Humphre Davy, John Herschel, Carl Wilhelm Scheele. Many other were
artists: Louis Daguerre,

Are there any artists or scientists on UHH? Very, very few posts.
Let's all change the world! But let's make sure the change is an improvment.
No single person every changed the world more than Adolf Hitler (who was,
incidentally an artist, a vegan and a believer in astrology--very "New Age").

Also, no one ever changed the world by buying products, or by agreeing
with the majority, or by pimping for corporations.

People now have boundless faith in technology. But the single greatest and
longest-lasting changes in the world accomplished by 300 years of industrialization
are... climate change and mass extinctions. These will outlast even the effects
of the World Wars that technology made possible or the industrailized
extermination of the Holocaust.

It's easy to accept the beliefs of one's time, whether its slavery, anti-semitism or
technologism. (Have you ever noticed that the solution to any technological problem
is....more technology? If the product killed you, you need to buy the upgrade.)

People forget that there are two kinds of innovation: good and bad. Examples of
the former category include aspirin and indoor plumbing,. Examples of the latter:
cigarettes, thalidomide, asbestos and novochok.

The environment was the first casualty of technologism (the religion of technology).
Next came mechanized murder. And now privacy and democracy are disappearing.

Next to these, the conquest of photography by consumerism has almost gone
unnoticed. But not by art historians. And not by future generations--history is
a harsh critic.

Bipod

Finally you've asked a good question.

I am here because, unlike you, I don't want to talk only to people who agree with me.
But thanks for the suggestion that I go find a film ghetto.

Nonsense. I'm a computer engineer and engineering manager by occupation.

BTW, "Get with the times!" is what supporters of the Nazi Party said in the 1930s.
They had their own "racial anthropology" and "eugenics science". Those who
disagreed were portrayed as clinging to the past and as "enemies of the people".

Is that what I'm trying to do? Ha ha ha.....

Look at what I've specifically advocated:
1. Phototographers need to understand how their camera works. If they can't
then they need a simpler camera.
2. Processing software should warn users before running information-lossy filters.
3. More optically capable digital cameras (not more features or more automation).
4. Better human interface design.
5. Less overloading of controls.
6. Longer battery life.
7. Longer camaera life.
8. Appropriate technology: testable, diagnosable, repairable.
9. Standardization of lens mounts, battery packs, and EXIF data.
10. Bring back the "pro" camera as a non-consumer product.

I may not convince anyone, but it's worth a try.

Agreed.

Now you are just slinging mud.

I certainly admit it.

But there is a limit to what individual artists, working alone, with no support, can create.
A movement (such as Impressionism in painting, or the straight photography of the
1920s-1970s) builds on the work of many peoople and can chage public taste and leave
a lasting legacy.

For one thing, most individuals are limited to the equipment and materials they can buy. \
If that's being dictated by consumer demand, that's a big problem.

In the art world, nobody cares that consumers prefer paint by Krylon and Sherwin Williams.
Grumbacher, Utrect, Winsor & Newton, Williamsburg, etc. make paints specifically for artists--
consumer preferences are irrelevant.

The economics of paint production make this possible: it's profitable to make paint
in relatively small quantities, and the captial requirements to get into the business of
making artists colors is small.

But the production of digital devices and new ICs requires vast amounts of capital and has
huge economies of scale. It can only be done for a mass market. This is economic reality.

The consumer may well opt for a computerized camera--or cell phone. But there is not going
to be a model for fine art landscape photographers or even wedding photgraphers. They will
just have to use whatever the consumer uses.

Remember, consumers did not buy the Nikon F2. But they buy D850s by the thousands.

Irrelevant to what? To you? That's obvious.

I have explained that, but you are simply hectoring.

You have a habit of speaking for everyone, which is very presumptious.
But I don't remember anyone voting for you\ or chosing you to kick people off this forum.

Instaed of attacking me, why not talk about some aspect of photography that you care about?
Am I the only thing you care about? How extremely strange....


Even stranger. What is your topic besides personal attacks, tdekany? Do you have one?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

What about saturation, sharpness, etc. settings when you go manual? Camera is still doing that. No matter what mode you set the camera to, if you are saving a JPEG, the camera will run a recipe, that is default or you modified, against the RAW information to create the JPEG. The camera will not change the RAW info.
(I'm not one for caring about SOOC. To me SOOC is simply what I get before I work on it. I certainly do not strive to get the final image SOOC. I almost always tweak something.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

ART--- A paint brush and paint is the tools of a painter---- A hammer and chisel to a sculpture---- A camera and ???? is a photographer. Is ???? a computer or isn't the camera also a computer especially with JPG (also but less with RAW)
ART is still in the eye.