Jump to content

EVF - how do you like it?


Schittra

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Dr No:

Peers, collectors, promoters, curators, management agents. Provenance, authenticity and these days, pedigree (both birth and mentors), are some of the highest commodities of an artist. Day to day the general public doesn't know or care about such journeys but the inner circles do.

But how would they see this in the final pictures where you do know whether it was based on cropping or not? This does not convince me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never use the EVF for my 50mm, 35mm, 75mm, or 90mm lenses, as the optical viewfinder is perfect.  However, I always use the EVF for my 24mm and (Zeiss) 15mm lenses, and find it more useful than changing and attaching fixed external 24 or 15 viewfinders.  For every tool a proper purpose and place....

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robert Blanko said:

But how would they see this in the final pictures where you do know whether it was based on cropping or not? This does not convince me.

 

Film borders in prints. Cartier-Bresson only ever allowed two of his images to be cropped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am 24.7.2020 um 20:55 schrieb Dr No:

Film borders in prints. Cartier-Bresson only ever allowed two of his images to be cropped.

Thus, this rather confirms that the gravitas is tied to an aspect seperate from the image. I suppose that one could easily add film borders to any photo by using photoshop. If this would make the difference between an image with gravitas and one without gravitas, this concept of gravitas is IMHO nothing more than a myth which helps photographers to incresse their self-satisfaction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Robert Blanko said:

Thus, this rather confirms that the gravitas is tied to an aspect seperate from the image. I suppose that one could easily add film borders to any photo by using photoshop. If this would make the difference between an image with gravitas and one without gravitas, this concept of gravitas is IMHO nothing more than a myth which helps photographers to incresse their self-satisfaction. 

Not really. If someone wants to buy your print for tens or hundreds of thousands or $2 million, for example, I think you or the estate would be happy to arrange a viewing of the negative or image if the buyer felt it important. Those prints that have been in the marketplace for many decades are already known to be authentic and have such provenance.

The gravitas is that the photographer saw and captured the image and the representation of it is pure. It is the stroke of a brush and in it's entirety it is perfect.

If someone is retouching to create the illusion of authenticity then they are only fooling themselves and damaging their own career.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2020 at 12:50 PM, Dr No said:

...If someone is retouching to create the illusion of authenticity then they are only fooling themselves and damaging their own career...

Tell that to Andreas Gursky whose very highly retouched "Rhein II" fetched $4,338,500 in 2011. He didn't just remove human figures from the image; he removed factories!

:)

Philip.

Edited by pippy
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/29/2020 at 2:58 PM, pippy said:

Tell that to Andreas Gursky whose very highly retouched "Rhein II" fetched $4,338,500 in 2011. He didn't just remove human figures from the image; he removed factories!

:)

Philip.

What has digital art made with intent by an artist got to do with retouching fake film borders as a means to create the illusion of authenticity?

Nothing.

Edited by Dr No
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr No said:

What has digital art made with intent by an artist got to do with retouching fake film borders as a means to create the illusion of authenticity?

Nothing.

So digital art made with intent by an artist can be retouched as intended by the artist and will be considered, absolutely, to be 'Authentic'?

Glad we got that settled once and for all.

If Gursky had been using film instead of a digital medium and had left his work completely un-retouched would it have been a 'better' work of art? I'm asking just for your opinion, of course.

Philip.

Edited by pippy
Link to post
Share on other sites

And in addition to that, why should a copped digital photo have less authenticity than a non-cropped digital photo? Digital photos do not have film borders which would have to be modified or faked. 
 

Or, following the no-crop religion, no photo would be ever authentic at all, as each and every photo is always a crop from reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, pippy said:

So digital art made with intent by an artist can be retouched as intended by the artist and will be considered, absolutely, to be 'Authentic'?

Glad we got that settled once and for all.

If Gursky had been using film instead of a digital medium and had left his work completely un-retouched would it have been a 'better' work of art? I'm asking just for your opinion, of course.

Philip.

Yes. Because they are digital artist.

Photography is something else. I don't think it's that difficult to see the difference.

No, 1) Gursky wouldn't do that. 2) He intended to make that work. It's the intent that makes the art. Unless he invents a timemachine to travel back to a time when humans hadn't affected the landscape how else is he suppose to illustrate his idea?

It's not like he just retouched elements out to try and fix a photograph. He made this with intent. And he has spent his life working on a body of work with the same thing in mind, that is his art.

If you intend to be a photographer who uses the capture of a moment in time as your medium then retouching it is changing it. That is a whole other thing to Gursky.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Robert Blanko said:

And in addition to that, why should a copped digital photo have less authenticity than a non-cropped digital photo? Digital photos do not have film borders which would have to be modified or faked. 
 

Or, following the no-crop religion, no photo would be ever authentic at all, as each and every photo is always a crop from reality.

Because it's pure in the way it was photographed and to consistently get it right in camera is the mark of a master. Especially when that is their intent.

Anyone can easily prove their frame is entire with a raw file. If someone is purchasing a print for 2 million dollars the artist or estate could easily arrange a viewing if it was required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Dr No:

Because it's pure in the way it was photographed and to consistently get it right in camera is the mark of a master. Especially when that is their intent.

Anyone can easily prove their frame is entire with a raw file. If someone is purchasing a print for 2 million dollars the artist or estate could easily arrange a viewing if it was required.

IMHO you mix up authenticity with purity. Both are fundamentally different concepts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Robert Blanko said:

IMHO you mix up authenticity with purity. Both are fundamentally different concepts.

No they are not.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 28 Minuten schrieb Dr No:

No they are not.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Source?

One may have a pure object which is not authentic and an authentic object which is not pure. There may also be an object that is pure and authentic. But one does in general not imply the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Robert Blanko said:

Source?

One may have a pure object which is not authentic and an authentic object which is not pure. There may also be an object that is pure and authentic. But one does in general not imply the other.

Pure and authentic are related terms. Merriam-Webster Dictionary

A Thesaurus was not created for finding "fundamentally different concepts".

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by Dr No
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor einer Stunde schrieb Dr No:

Pure and authentic are related terms. Merriam-Webster Dictionary

A Thesaurus was not created for finding "fundamentally different concepts".

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Hm, based on said example and said mere philological level, „pure“ is as related with „authentic“ like „authentic“ is related with „pasteurized“... 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robert Blanko said:

Hm, based on said example and said mere philological level, „pure“ is as related with „authentic“ like „authentic“ is related with „pasteurized“... 😉

What? No, that is completely out of context.

You asked why an uncropped image is more authentic. I said because it's pure in the way it was photographed.

Pure: it's free from imperfections. It doesn't have to be cropped to be perfected.

Authentic: it is genuine. 

It is a genuine full frame because it is uncropped; it is uncropped because it is free from imperfections.

 

Edited by Dr No
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Dr No:

What? No, that is completely out of context.

You asked why an uncropped image is more authentic. I said because it's pure in the way it was photographed.

Pure: it's free from imperfections. It doesn't have to be cropped to be perfected.

Authentic: it is genuine. 

It is a genuine full frame because it is uncropped; it is uncropped because it is free from imperfections.

 

This appears to be non-standard interpretation of „pure“ and „authentic“ in the given context of photography.

Authenticity in the area of photography would be understood by one skilled in the art in the sense that a photo is considered authentic if both aspects of perception, which are the immediate appearance and the actual being of the photographed object, are found to be in agreement.

In the example of Gursky‘s Rhein ll: the photo is certainly not authentic, because it pretends a reality which did not exist. He removed objects from the photo.

On the other hand, is it pure? Yes, it is! It has been cleaned up by removing distracting objects, resulting in a pure composition of lines and well-structured areas. The level of purity of the photo certainly increased by Gursky‘s manipulation.

And now what about a crop? It is hard to imagine a scenario where a crop would destroy authenticity. A photo taken as is shows the reality as is from the selected perspective. This is not changed by cropping. However, purity of a photo may be increased by cropping: Cutting off for example distracting objects from a nice portrait will result in a more pure portrait - without affecting authenticity at all.

In contrast, what you mean is just that the holy axiom of photography would be not crop a photo once it has been taken. Said axiom must not be mixed up with the concepts of authenticity and purity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Robert Blanko said:

This appears to be non-standard interpretation of „pure“ and „authentic“ in the given context of photography.

Authenticity in the area of photography would be understood by one skilled in the art in the sense that a photo is considered authentic if both aspects of perception, which are the immediate appearance and the actual being of the photographed object, are found to be in agreement.

In the example of Gursky‘s Rhein ll: the photo is certainly not authentic, because it pretends a reality which did not exist. He removed objects from the photo.

On the other hand, is it pure? Yes, it is! It has been cleaned up by removing distracting objects, resulting in a pure composition of lines and well-structured areas. The level of purity of the photo certainly increased by Gursky‘s manipulation.

And now what about a crop? It is hard to imagine a scenario where a crop would destroy authenticity. A photo taken as is shows the reality as is from the selected perspective. This is not changed by cropping. However, purity of a photo may be increased by cropping: Cutting off for example distracting objects from a nice portrait will result in a more pure portrait - without affecting authenticity at all.

In contrast, what you mean is just that the holy axiom of photography would be not crop a photo once it has been taken. Said axiom must not be mixed up with the concepts of authenticity and purity.

You're arguing over the semantics of words that you have misconstrued. These are commonly used phrases and concepts used in photography and art to describe these things.

Nominal authenticity covers not only the authenticity of ownership, but also the authenticity of the established modes and traditions of the medium that have evolved since photography began. The tradition of uncropped images has always been one of these modes, upheld by some of the greatest masters of the medium.

Aside from being original, expressive authenticity is one of the most important components of an artists work. It is made of many things. It is inherent authority, the sincerity of the artist, the genuineness of expression and the passion the artist puts into their work. An uncropped image represents these things to many. Consistently capturing a moment of time within the fixed parameters of the apparatus, that needs no further compositional correction/perfecting by cropping is an achievement of skill, knowledge, physical timing and sensitivity that has been acquired and cultivated over a life time of work and/or with natural talent. An uncropped image, found, felt and stolen from the chaos of the world, captured whole in it's entirety and needing no further compositional correction is considered by many as a pure expression of photography.

Gursky's photography is the base medium of his artwork. He has made it with great intent, found in the entire body of his work. It is highly authentic, however it is not a pure expression of photography in the traditional sense. However in the wider context of art it is widely accepted.

Yes, cropping changes the image—of course it does. When you remove elements from it you are reducing it and changing it from the original form. It’s like a nose job on a model—it’s unauthentic. If you can perfect it by cropping, then the photographer could have, and as the argument stands—should have—perfected that composition it in camera. You can believe that cropping a photo makes it more pure, but within the established modes of photography, for many, it does not. It makes it less pure. It is, to some, no different than retouching; changing it from original to perfect it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2020 at 6:15 AM, steve 1959 said:

All the hype about EVF's ,,,what a joke

EVF's are utter crap,only commercial hype creates an illusion of respect.

Laggy crappy EVF trash is best left alone but the hype says otherwise,

marketing rules over common sense in my view.

I respectfully disagree. Unless, of course, if your definition of "utter crap" is very different from mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • jaapv locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...