Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
plasticman

Photography dies?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, before I begin my vacation I thought I'd light the fuse...

 

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c039.html

 

(I have a feeling this must have been discussed here before, but I can't see a reference to it, so here goes!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami

He is clearly out of his depth with this........... an article that smacks ... Now the tank is a bit dry what can I write.......................... it's all a bit like watching porn on free air TV while your wage turns into whiskey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you believe comentators, the symphony's dead, the novel's dead, and now photography's dead. The strange thing is people are still writing symphonies and novels, and people are still taking photographs.

 

Erwin is very good discussing lenses from a technical point of view - and I appreciate that - but he loses the plot with digital and philosophy IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an opinion. Nothing more.

 

Something that painterss might have written in the 19th century.

 

And painting is still here.

 

So are people who like to publish lengthy tomes. And others - like us - to read them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started working with Digital imagers over 25 years ago. We made our own, and I mostly wrote custom software for image processing. About 20 years ago my boss, who knew I was "into photography", asked "How do you feel that your chosen profession is going to kill your favorite hobby". Here we are 20 years later.

 

Photography is from the Greek, and is "Painting with Light". So on this planet, until the Sun dies out, somebody can land on it and be "painting with light" with their Holodeck imagers.

 

Think I'll go load some Kodak Ultra into the M3 and try out that 1931 Tessar on the Contax adapter. Took it apart last night and cleaned out the haze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I started working with Digital imagers over 25 years ago. We made our own, and I mostly wrote custom software for image processing. About 20 years ago my boss, who knew I was "into photography", asked "How do you feel that your chosen profession is going to kill your favorite hobby". Here we are 20 years later.

 

Photography is from the Greek, and is "Painting with Light". So on this planet, until the Sun dies out, somebody can land on it and be "painting with light" with their Holodeck imagers.

 

Think I'll go load some Kodak Ultra into the M3 and try out that 1931 Tessar on the Contax adapter. Took it apart last night and cleaned out the haze.

 

<pedant-mode> Photography is "writing with light" </pedant-mode>

 

 

How easy is it to put back together a lens that you have taken apart? Further, what do you clean the lenses with?

 

I have just authorised Leica UK to CLA a 54 year old Summaron. If I find that it's dead simple to DIY, then I won't bother in future, and save myself a hundred quid.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Theorists are very good at expounding theories (duh), but often, as in this case, miss the mark when it comes to making their theories mesh with actual human experience. Human beings are an irrepressibly creative bunch, and have a way of shooting down theories that are based primarily on technical/semantic argument.

 

In short, what a crock! After 160 or so years photography is just beginning to take off! We are in the midst of a renaissance, not a funeral!

 

(That's "renaissance" in the sense of "re-awaking" as opposed to "rebirth," just to preempt any counter-philosophical philosophy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What an attention-seeking troll It's a little silly.

 

Oh come ON! For goodness sake! I actually object to that tone. DON'T put me in a bad mood when I'm on my way out of the office. A link to Erwin Puts is always interesting, regardless of whether you agree with his opinion. Can't you do better to discuss this essay than call it 'trolling'?

Pathetic.

 

Right - I'm off to Denmark for a little tour around. Enjoy yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, logic did not enter into the thought process of this essay. It's probably because Irwin was using a computer to write it. Of course, as everyone knows, you can only think cogently when writing with a quill. And then there are some purists who insist that scratching cave walls with a flint is the only legitimate way to write.

 

Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm BS of the highest order and pretentious BS at that too. Love the use of French to make it seem more hi-brow

 

How does Puts relate his thoughts to the 'snapper', the regional press photographer or perhaps the estate agent taking photos of houses for their website? Perhaps these don't qualify as photography?

 

By definition, if I write a shopping list then I am an author?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Erwin should stick to lenses.

 

No he's not a troll, but he is being completely silly. Try reading that article and replace film with "glass plate technology" or "collodion materials" and you'll see why the only reason why people don't completely throw the argument out is because there were no vanity Web sites in the 19th century

 

His point once more boils down to some strange romance with the ineffibility of "capturing" a "moment" of "time" that can't be changed once on film. Leaving aside all the issues of this (I personally think Proust does a better job of teasing time, though even he wouldn't be so bold to say he's "captured" it)--of course there were ways to alter an image with film. Sheesh. Heck, even film choice made significant differences!

 

As to the workflow being fundamentally different? Hmm. Turn the chimp off your M8 shooting for awhile and it's really not very different than an M6 with a winder.

 

Of course, post *is* different. But if you want the feeling of it being the same, drop your SD card at the lab and be done with it! Request prints that someone else has colour corrected, cropped etc... and you have the consumer / pro film *lab* experience!

 

If you want to work in the "darkroom" things are quite a bit different. Wet chemistry and digital processes aren't the same; you need to learn both, though printing is still, to me, a lot like printing; down to the test strips!

 

See, his argument is truly just elitist nonsense: it boils down to "is digital photography worthy to be called photography"?

 

Look at this quote: Puts writes, "Human interaction and manipulation are minimized and reduced to the location, viewpoint and moment of exposure by the photographer." And then he goes on to valorize HCB as if he's the only photographer ever in the entire world who made interesting art with a camera. If I were really to take him at his word, the archetype of his notion of photography would be Mike Meyers as Austin Powers in the first film, where he reaches an orgasmic pleasure shooting models (with a long lens--I didn't say it was subtle) and then is completely and totally 'spent'...

 

I hate to say it, but his viewpoint is therefore quite infantile: the parents have entered the room and forcibly rested the romance of the "Photographer" away from his ideas. And while I love Erwin's analysis of lenses, you can't help thinking, reading this, that this is all a little sad. It's not photography that is dead or dying (far from it) but the mystery cult that used to "keep" its "secrets" is certainly looking the worse for wear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly, logic did not enter into the thought process of this essay. It's probably because Irwin was using a computer to write it. Of course, as everyone knows, you can only think cogently when writing with a quill. And then there are some purists who insist that scratching cave walls with a flint is the only legitimate way to write.

 

No, no. True communication can only be achieved by grunting while picking fleas out of you mate's mane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while I love Erwin's analysis of lenses, you can't help thinking, reading this, that it's a little sad. It's not photography that is dead or dying (far from it) but a mystery cult that used to "keep" its "secrets"...

 

There have always been two approaches to photography. One were the image was paramount and what you used or how you got there was of little interest. The other elevated process to the same level as what it produced. For those wrapped up in process using an enlarger rather then making contact prints, using film rather then some more arcane process, using digital instead of film, using a roll film camera instead of a 8x10 view camera (-you can pick your process) irreparably compromised or lent credence to the image. As if somehow the process and secret knowledge of it lends creditability to the final image. It's the Alchemists school of photography and is very popular especially with male hobbyists.

 

For me I could care less if you used a camera phone, pin hole camera, grabbed a still from a video stream or made a contact print from a 20x24 banquet camera negative on to paper you coated yourself . If you created something worth looking at it really doesn't matter how you got there and it all falls under the umbrella of photography. Whether the photographer is a master printer, photoshop artist or leaves it to someone else matters little as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not photography that is dead or dying (far from it) but the mystery cult that used to "keep" its "secrets" is certainly looking the worse for wear.

 

This is the rub of the traditionalists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> How easy is it to put back together a lens that you have taken apart? Further, what do you clean the lenses with?

 

Regarding the 1931 Tessar (Must be first year issue, SN range puts it in 1931 and Contax I hit the market in 1932)

 

This lens comes apart with a simple optical spanner, found on Ebay for $20 or so. The older Leitz lenses often just unscrew, or use a rubber gromet to get a better grip. I've taken a Canon 50/3.5 "Elmar Copy" apart using a small rubber gromet. These were from "dumpster diving" at work, and were used to pass electrical cables through project boxes. They are heavy rubber, varying size, all hollow for the cables to pass.

 

I use an ammonia-based eyeglass cleaner. It is effective on even the soft-coated Leitz lenses. I've used it on a coated Summitar, collapsible Summicron, and Type I Rigid Summicron. Product name is "Insta Clears". It took some light fungus off of the Summitar and left the coating intact. Seemed to remove the damaged layer and leave the rest intact. It dramatically improved the performance.

 

So easy a FORTRAN Programmer can do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...