10D for "Fine Art" - pros say no.

Started Oct 12, 2003 | Discussions thread
Rip57
Junior MemberPosts: 35
Like?
Re: 10D for "Fine Art" - pros say no.
In reply to emily knight, Oct 21, 2003

emily knight wrote:

A respected professional photographer and teacher
once noted that, "a photo negative is the score to a
symphony, and the printing of that negative the
performance."

Adams also said (in 1983) that "when electronic imagery becomes a manageble medium the aesthetic principles of color will be retained, but the technical procedures will vastly change".

The photogs at the arts and crafts fair (refered to by John L. in original post) remind me of the fine arts elite from when I was in colege in the 70's. They railed against the idea that color photography could ever be considered "fine art", but what they really meant was that they had yet to master the medium. If they couldn't, how could lesser mortals?

In the book "Ansel Adams in Color", James Enyart disucsses the frustration Adams had with color photography (versus black and white) mostly due to his inability to control the medium. He had absolutely mastered ("defined" is more like it) the aesthetic of black and white printing, and considered his color transparencies to be "significant achievements", but was unable produce prints that met his high standards of excellence.

Unlike the artsy craftsy wankers that John encountered, Adams was honest in his assessment of his own limitations and on the potential of new media.

-- hide signature --

  • Rip

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
No.New
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow