Latest B&W magazine

[megan]

I needed some fodder to get me through yet another mind-numbing week of work. I picked up the February issue of B&W magazine. There are some really wonderful images within - especially the work of Harvey Stein. http://www.junebateman.com/artists/stein/index.html

(Unfortunately, the images from his "Projected Memories" series that were printed in the current issue don't seem to be on the website. Check out his Holga gallery, though.)

Among other wonderful articles and images, I found an article about APUG - the Analog Photography Users Group. From the article interviewing Sean Ross, who started the group: "'Artistic craft plays a role in defining overall artistic value, and the medium we choose to work in plays an integral part role in defining the artistic vision and beauty of the finished work,' Ross goes on to explain. 'I believe that handcrafted photography has an intrinsic value that digital photography cannot compete with. The art market must take a leadership role in recognizing and protecting the value of handcrafted work.'"

Then from a different article, an interview of Bonni Benrubi by Shawn O'Sullivan, he asks what her feelings are on digital photography: "...The main focus here is no manipulation—a picture may be more than one negative, but it's always about letting you see what the camera can do—the magic of photography as opposed to digital photography creating fake magic. This is real magic..."

Now - by posting this I am NOT trying to create yet another nasty film vs. digital thread. While I personally accept digital as another tool to create with, we are all well aware that others on both sides of the issue can be much more biased. And I agree that the work flow is perfect for commercial photogs and journalists. But what are your feelings in regards to art? Gerry Widen had once posted a link to an essay titled "The Dilution of Effort" which carried some of the same feelings towards the debate as the two people quoted from the articles in B&W magazine above. It's a concept that I mull over constantly, as I am passionate about film yet force myself to be "PC" in my approach to digital. I think it's a current concept and debate many may wrestle with, and I'm interested in people's thoughts on the Sean Ross and Bonni Benrubi quotes. Nicely, civilly, and thoughtfully, of course.

Megan

[megan]

I highly recommend you treating yourself to an issue. It's gorgeous! wonderful reproductions, full of information about exhibits all OVER, and insightful articles.

Megan

[Seb]

I needed some fodder to get me through yet another mind-numbing week of work. I picked up the February issue of B&W magazine. There are some really wonderful images within - especially the work of Harvey Stein. http://www.junebateman.com/artists/stein/index.html

(Unfortunately, the images from his "Projected Memories" series that were printed in the current issue don't seem to be on the website. Check out his Holga gallery, though.)

Among other wonderful articles and images, I found an article about APUG - the Analog Photography Users Group. From the article interviewing Sean Ross, who started the group: "'Artistic craft plays a role in defining overall artistic value, and the medium we choose to work in plays an integral part role in defining the artistic vision and beauty of the finished work,' Ross goes on to explain. 'I believe that handcrafted photography has an intrinsic value that digital photography cannot compete with. The art market must take a leadership role in recognizing and protecting the value of handcrafted work.'"

Then from a different article, an interview of Bonni Benrubi by Shawn O'Sullivan, he asks what her feelings are on digital photography: "...The main focus here is no manipulation—a picture may be more than one negative, but it's always about letting you see what the camera can do—the magic of photography as opposed to digital photography creating fake magic. This is real magic..."

Now - by posting this I am NOT trying to create yet another nasty film vs. digital thread. While I personally accept digital as another tool to create with, we are all well aware that others on both sides of the issue can be much more biased. And I agree that the work flow is perfect for commercial photogs and journalists. But what are your feelings in regards to art? Gerry Widen had once posted a link to an essay titled "The Dilution of Effort" which carried some of the same feelings towards the debate as the two people quoted from the articles in B&W magazine above. It's a concept that I mull over constantly, as I am passionate about film yet force myself to be "PC" in my approach to digital. I think it's a current concept and debate many may wrestle with, and I'm interested in people's thoughts on the Sean Ross and Bonni Benrubi quotes. Nicely, civilly, and thoughtfully, of course.

Megan

Hello Megan,

This is an interesting topic. While I don't want to oversimplify things I can't help myself but wonder: could this be a generational issue? What I am saying here is that historically, art has been handcrafted. It was the only way to do things until a variety of new technologies arose, mostly in the 20th century.Digital photography started somewhere arround 1993 or 1994 (or at least, the first digital cameras hit the market at that time) and it really took expansion over the past 5 years or so.

Personally, I started to learn photography on a 35mm SLR a little less than 3 years ago and naturally moved to digital 10 months ago as I was drawn by this approach.

Back to the topic, I strongly believe that quality photography, remarkable work with an artistic value is hard to craft, regardless of the gears/methods chosen. As for Bonni Benrubi quote, I must ask, what is reality? Why/how film magic would be any more true considering that the camera format, the lense, the film and the post processing will all directly affect the end result?? I don't mean to answer to any of these question but I think that they should be asked in order to put things in perspective.

I can partly relate to the "no manipulation" argument. I personally try to do as much as possible with the camera and to keep post processing simple. But then again, this is just a way to do things among other valuable approachs. Beside, manipulation is by no means a digital exclusivity.

Moreover, I feel that an artist should use any tool/procedure he/she thinks is right to create. I think that film and digital both hold a tremendous value but these are just means to an end.

Seb

[Gerry Widen]

The people that are familiar with me and my work here at PR know that I am strictly an analog photographer. I use totally manual rangefinder cameras and lenses from the 1950's usually without a light meter and I print my work in a traditional wet darkroom. I primarily use fiber paper as to me resin coated paper looks too plastic to me. As to the APUG forum Megan mentioned I have been a member from their inception and was a semi-finalist in having my work included in the B&W magazine. Unfortunately my work was not chosen. I frequent the APUG site because for myself I feel strongly about traditional photography

That said, I feel there shouldn't be any restrictions as to how an artist in this case a photographer chooses to create and present their work. If someone shoots multiple digital images does some additional creative work in Photoshop and the result is a piece of art totally different than how traditional photography looks that is fine with me. The result may be called photography, illustration or a combination. It may look real or surreal. I've seen hand drawings over distressed photographs that were beautiful IMO.

Artists throughout history have always been looking for new ideas, new presentations, something different that hasn't been done before. If in photography or a mixed media using photography that means using digital it is the result that is important to me. Not how it was achieved.

[Asylum Steve]

Besides the fact that I think most of us are simply tired of continuing with any old film-digital arguments, the fact that you presented this in a very non-judgemental way should keep the discussion from degrading into that.

The absolute truth of the matter is, as much as I admire and respect analog photographers (hmmm, a new term for me) and the work they do (and of course, how they do it), personally I was never able to create the photographic imagery I REALLY wanted to create with a film/darkroom/pro lab setup.

I mean, it's not that I couldn't come up with anything to my liking, but every success came at the price of a temendous amount of time and materials, and more often than not I compromised, settling on results because it was either too much trouble or too expensive to reshoot or redo darkroom or lab work. Yes, I realize, my shortcomings...

A digital workflow, both with a camera and a pc's digital darkroom, has opened up what seems like an infinitely larger palette of expressive tools to me, and much greater ease in using them. IMO, It does not diminish the skill I feel it takes to create an original in the camera, just greatly enhances what you can do with that original.

The technology alone has sparked a flurry of ideas in my head and a renewed passion for the medium, and for an artist that's (as the commercial goes) priceless...

One thing I can say for sure is I don't believe there is "real" magic or "fake" magic. To me, visual magic created anywhere along the way by any means still feels the same... ;)

[megan]

Interesting and well thought out answers!

I have to admit that the "magic" that I create now would never have happened were it not for Photoshop. Before I learned Photoshop, I was traditional - 35mm, Tri-X, straight shots. After I learned Photoshop and it became part of my livelihood from 9-5 and beyond, 5 days a week, (and I found a the Holga), my work changed completely. Having used layers and masks so much as Photoshop grew (I learned on 3.0!), I started double and triple-exposing, using the camera as I would use Photoshop. Kind of ironic, eh? I came back to the camera from a digital POV, and not the opposite.

Gerry and I have a conversation about this at the opening last night. (We've got some work on the wall at the member's show at the co-op gallery we belong to.) We discussed how the problem with digital photography is not that it's digital, but that so many people are just trying to duplicate what film does. Why not divorce one's self from the film concept entirely and let digital be it's own medium? Each has it's strengths.

Another member printed 2 images on an Epson 2200 - color images on a dead matte paper. It was amazing to look at. Digital. I've never seen color on a dead matte like that - a matte that you can only achieve on B&W fiber-based. It's really beautiful - and it was what it was. A digital capture and digital output. Beautiful.

I think what Seb said is interesting - that part of it is a generational thing. I never learned how to do a layout using press type, Exacto knives and mechanical lettering and all that - why do that when there's Quark? (Or In Design, these days. See, I'm already getting obsolete, and I'm part of the whole digital thing!)

Random thoughts - again. Thank you to those who responded, and if anyone else wants to jump in, please do.

Megan