In a message dated 11/19/02 6:47:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Hi Bob.
That's my whole point. I shouldn't be able to point to photographers who have created their own 'digital' look. I should just be able to point to photographers who are creating great images in their own style ,irrespective of technique. >> Dear Bob My question wasn't meant to be a criticism of any method of image making. Nor was I trying to go over the digital v analogue debate. Actually I am convinced by many of your arguments. But, we can point to many photographers who made film capture of one kind or another into a very distinctive personal style. I'll name a few. Pete Turner's Kodachrome dupes. Bruce Davidson's Harlem B&Ws Jerry Uelsmann's double printing montages Lartigue's snapshots Fulvio Roiter's 35mm landscapes. Art Kane's underexposed Kodachrome II Avedon's B&W portraits Penn's 10x8 still lifes. (The first three are all very different and were all students together at Rochester Institute of Technology and taught by Ralph M Hattersley!) Now I know that all the above can be emulated on digital but is there a distinctive digital look which stands alone? And is creatively original and sincere? You mentioned William Curwen's prints which I haven't seen. I have an idea that it isn't going to be digital capture alone which determines a digital style but the inkjet printer which is now so common on all our desks. I have never delivered a colour print to a client in my entire photography career. B&W prints in the early days but 99.9% of my work has been transparency, either on assignment or for stock. I didn't even take my inkjet printers seriously until a few months back when my local repro bureau stopped doing proofs and I bought an HP DesignJet. Perhaps digital capture is still in early days and has a problem with the history of analogue. We are all used to what makes certain types of images and it will be hard to get away from. Back in the 1950s a news photographer called John Sadovy was covering the terrorist struggle in Cyprus. He got up close to his subjects and took sharp, well exposed pictures. Back in Fleet Street the picture editors would ask the B&W printer to kick the enlarger to give the pictures that shaky, newsy, sense of danger which they expected. This is similar to a digital capture image being turned into a very film based look. Jorge mentioned http://www.rjmuna.com/fset.fineart.html. I think this is confusing what I originally asked. I know that many photographers are shooting digital and making it look like film effects, sepia, blur, selective colour toning, surrealistic images etc. Muna does them all. What I'd like to see is a distinctive "look" which is a/ consistent b/ original c/ not related to film. d/ creatively interesting e/ And moves the "language" of visual creation forwards like the analogue examples I quoted above. OK, I've thought of one. Harold Feinstein with his 10x8 scanning back. His images in the original Epson prints are mind blowing. The original US edition $60 books are pretty good too. Regards Bob Croxford =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
