Adox ORT 25 developer

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

foolscape
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby foolscape » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:32 am

Remember, I'm talking about those of who show at galleries, not the average snapshooter or commercial photographer, but If someone picks up a camera intending to be merely a stenographer, then why bother? If you don't see the world with the same compositional skills as a painter, i.e. POV, dynamic lines, color (or tonal scale in B&W), and pathos, you will never be a good photographer. If you don't understand depth like a sculpter, then you will never be a good photographer. If you don't hone your skills for years like any fine artist, you will never be a good photographer. Look at the best paintings, and the best photography, and they both use the same skills of seeing. Not all photography is art, but neither is all art.

--Gary


Jim Appleyard
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby Jim Appleyard » Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:46 am

Forget it Gary, you might as well talk to a houseplant.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby Ornello » Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:43 pm

Remember, I'm talking about those of who show at galleries, not the average snapshooter or commercial photographer, but If someone picks up a camera intending to be merely a stenographer, then why bother? If you don't see the world with the same compositional skills as a painter, i.e. POV, dynamic lines, color (or tonal scale in B&W), and pathos, you will never be a good photographer. If you don't understand depth like a sculpter, then you will never be a good photographer. If you don't hone your skills for years like any fine artist, you will never be a good photographer. Look at the best paintings, and the best photography, and they both use the same skills of seeing. Not all photography is art, but neither is all art.

--Gary

A good photographer indeed does these things, but that doesn't make him an artist. 'Artist' and 'art' are technical terms that designate a specific kind of work, and part of the definition involves direct creation by hand, as well as uniqueness. If you consider Michelangelo's David, for instance, a plaster cast of it that is absolutely indistinguishable to the eye from the original is not a work of art. Why? Because it's not made by human hands, but is in fact a sort of reproduction, a copy.

A photograph is not the creation of the human hand but rather of optics, or else it's not a photograph. A photograph can only be derivative of, and dependent upon, something else that already exists, without which the photograph cannot be made. Art is not causally related to anything that exists; the relationship between art and anything else is intentional, not causal.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby Ornello » Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:44 pm

It is impossible for a photograph to be a work of art because of what the word 'art' means.

foolscape
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby foolscape » Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:44 am

As I said before, we're going to have to agree to disagree about this. You make some good points, but I don't accept them as relevant.

--Gary

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby Ornello » Fri Oct 01, 2010 1:09 pm

You may not accept them as relevant, true, but perhaps you should be aware that these things are part of the discipline of aesthetics (a branch of philosophy), i.e., the 'theory of art'. As such they may not seem relevant, but this is what philosophical theories are: explanations of concepts. If you don't have a philosophical //background// they may seem pointless and irrelevant to you. On the other hand, cricket scores in India are irrelevant to me, but to those involved they are of the utmost importance. What I'm trying to say is that this discussion is not one for most photographers; you cannot be expected to get it at first. If you want to understand why they are relevant, you may want to refer to some philosophical texts. I suggest Roger Scruton's work The Aesthetic Understanding.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:56 pm

I would like to think what is most relevant, is that those who visit this forum, will enjoy their photography.
I think we should also not take things too seriously when the 'A' word is mentioned. ;-)

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby Ornello » Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:58 pm

It's fine, really. Just don't call yourselves artists. To be called an artist is not to make yourself more important or more dignified. Those who think so obviously don't know many artists. They not infrequently smell.

:lol:

foolscape
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby foolscape » Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:11 am

My wife is an artist. I studied art, art history, and art philospohy in college (as electives, not as my major). Art is a much more fluid term than some folks may think.

--Gary

foolscape
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby foolscape » Sat Oct 02, 2010 4:42 am

And, lastly. If you were to take an Ansel Adams photo, say, Clearing Winter Storm, and print the negative straight--no burning, dodging or other manipulation. By his own admission, it would be really quite dull. What Ansel Adams did to his images to produce the final print was much more than "optics." He called the negaitve the score, and the print the performance.

My last words on the subject.

--Gary

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:59 am

"It's fine, really. Just don't call yourselves artists."

Photographer is fine with me. :lol:

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:26 am

Art needs to be clearly defined before someone can say for definite whether something is art or not. I haven't read anything by Roger Scruton, so cannot comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
Photography does get mentioned in that link although I honestly cannot say if photography can be art or not. It's one of those topics that might never be agreed on and has been discussed many times on various photo-forums.

I do think it is worthy to discuss if anyone considers photography as art and why it can be as well as those who claim that it cannot be art for what ever reason(s), as long as there is no nastiness involved.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby Ornello » Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:05 am

And, lastly. If you were to take an Ansel Adams photo, say, Clearing Winter Storm, and print the negative straight--no burning, dodging or other manipulation. By his own admission, it would be really quite dull. What Ansel Adams did to his images to produce the final print was much more than "optics." He called the negaitve the score, and the print the performance.

My last words on the subject.

--Gary

Though I agree that some negatives may need a lot of work in getting a good print, this does not affect the fact that the process as a whole is not "made by hand".

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:34 pm

Gary's original post asked which developer would be suitable for Adox ORT 25 film. This thread has gone off topic long ago.
I think it would be better to start a new thread to discuss whether photography can be considered as art or not.

foolscape
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Re: Adox ORT 25 developer

Postby foolscape » Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:34 am

"Gary's original post asked which developer would be suitable for Adox ORT 25 film. This thread has gone off topic long ago.
I think it would be better to start a new thread to discuss whether photography can be considered as art or not."

I'm done with it. I do, however, think that Ornello should apologize for the "They not infrequently smell," comment. I have been perfectly civil in my discourse.

--Gary


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests