|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-19-2023, 03:51 AM
|
| |
Good post! It's hard to admit to some things as you have here. But if you are fortunate to have a long marriage, you will have gained plenty of experience at it. The thing that stands out for me is that you took the time to analyze what was going on. I got a chance to see how you thought your way through the issues. And I feel that I now have some perspective on the lenses. That is worth gold.
|
|
Forum: Winners' Showcase
12-07-2022, 08:50 PM
|
| |
One of the oldest and certainly among the very greatest intellectual and recreational pastimes man has ever devised. The fasination for chess unites a world across the generations and the social divides.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
12-07-2022, 08:42 PM
|
| |
Social rituals that never change. This picture could have been made today or a hundred years ago. Or if cameras existed, even a thousand years ago.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
12-07-2022, 08:37 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-10-2022, 07:54 AM
|
| |
Thanks EVERYONE! The responses have been great. Based on everything said, I'm going with the Calibrite ColorChecker Display Plus. It is the pricey option from Calibrite and seems to offer better staying power in that it should be able to handle the 2000 nit HDR monitors that will be becoming the standard in the next decade. In any event, I'm finding print service labs resistant to synching calibration across customer and lab monitors. In fact a surprising number won't even calibrate their own monitors. Strange world we live in.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-07-2022, 08:54 PM
|
| |
I am having issues getting some of my pictures printed through a print service company. The process can take sevral rounds of proofs causing significant delays and additional costs. In the end I often need to rely on the judgement of the printer to get things right. Works well at times (they are the experts at making good looking prints). Not so well at other times. I have been thinking that the process could be improved if I worked from a calibrated monitor. What a notion!
Two companies seem to dominate the field: Datacolor and Calibrite.
Anyone have experience with these guys and their products? Any advice or lessons learned?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-02-2022, 03:48 PM
|
| |
Given some of the fascinating replies, I'd like to expand the scope of this thread to include any other lenses that folks would rather use in place of the two 100s I started this post with. And of course a discussion as to why.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-22-2022, 11:06 PM
|
| |
How do these lenses compare optically? What are the idosynchracies inherent in each? All round which is best and why? Any other thoughts?
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-27-2022, 09:43 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: General Photography
06-27-2022, 08:16 PM
|
| |
I have heard it said, the history of art is the history of man's learning to "see" the physical world around us. In latter centuries this grew into making images that not only reflect the real world we've learned to see, but also to represent images that literally form in our "mind's eye." And throughout all this time we have given names to the elements and qualities that makeup what we see in an image. Back in the renaissance, the masters struggled to define the laws of physical geometry as they relate to sight. Before them, folks were only vaguely aware of geometric perspective, and their representations of the world looked primitive and flat. From them we got tricks, procedures, descriptions, and even mathematics for describing and constructing the 3-dimensional images that now so fascinate and drive our sense of art. Key to all this are the visual ideas that are made accessible through language and math. For such, we need a vocabulary that allows us to communicate, think about, and explore ideas and images. "Bokeh" is just one such "word and idea pair," that we now use to have discussions like the ones in this thread. Without the word, the idea is just a vague notion that some are dimly aware of and others are not at all. The word makes the notion accessible and we now can speak about it to any sighted person in real and understandable ways. OK! So now we are talking. Some like this, some don't. But the interesting thing is that the phenomenon of "bokeh" has always been with us. It is the inevitable consequence of light passing through lenses. And our eyes are made of lenses. Hence we have been subjected to it for as long as we have been using our eyes. What has been missing until recently is a word for it. Now we can notice it. Experience it. Revel in it. Or hate it. I for one have enjoyed the whole range of reactions people have had in this discussion. All possible because we now have a word for it. And much to the chagrin of some, it not a fad, it is real. And different lenses emphasize it in different ways and to different degrees. It is up to the photographer to exploit or to minimize this fact to make great art.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-24-2022, 01:14 AM
|
| |
I currently shoot with a Panasonic MFT G9, the Leica 12-60 kit zoom for general work, the Leica 100-400 for wildlife, a Pentax A 2.8/50 macro (superb in every way), and the Pentax 400-600 Reflex (very interesting!). I consider myself an old 60s & 70s 35 and 120 film photographer who took a thirty year vacation. I did a lot in B&W, landscapes, portraits, still life, and macro work before quitting. The Nikon 990 got me back into things (my daughter still uses the 990 and gets some great shots). However it did not take long for my appetites to exceed a 4mp sensor and eventually I landed in the Panasonic camp with a G1, some native MFT lenses and some old Pentax glass. The experience was amazing. Compared to 60-70s 35 film and even some of the 120 I used, the new MFT stuff was a huge step forward. Small. Light in weight. Exceptional post processing control. And affordable glass. Did I mention affordable glass!!! Plus the wonderful reuse of old Pentax lenses. If I had it over to do, I might go APSC, but I am committed now with the G9. If I feel cramped by the sensor again, I will consider the Panasonic S series stuff. But that takes me out of affordable, lightweight, and hand-held glass. And that is why I hope Panasonic is truthful when they say they are committed to MFT over the years to come. I don't think (certainly hope not) that we are quite at the edge of what can be done with MFT sensors. When I compare the superb Pan-Leica MFT performance (not to mention with the old Pentax glass) with what I got on 35 and 120 film (with lenses I could afford), I'd never go back. Sharper. Better depth. Amazing auto focus (I have 70 year old eyes!). Lightweight and stabilized (I can actually hand shoot wildlife!). Small. I can focus on taking pictures again! Bad pun yes, but a lot of fun. MFT plus old Pentax glass has made an old man into a kid with new toys at Christmas.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-23-2022, 09:54 AM
|
| |
Really enjoyed the rant. I'm an old 1960s vintage photographer and have gone through my share of photo fads. So I hear the the exasperation! As far as justifying the "need" to put subpar lenses on expensive cameras, well, everybody does like to justify. Human nature I guess. Personally if the final output is good, I dont really care how you justify making it. Good is good PERIOD. Not so good is another story. But in any case it is the FINAL WORK that speaks loudest and with ALL the justification it needs. As far as "bokeh" goes, I have to agree that its value to a photo is a bit overblown. Gotta go back to the final output argument again. If the photo works, the "bokeh" either works or is irrelevant. I do think some lenses are almost magical in the way they separate the in-focus regions from the out-of-focus. Leica glass has been legendary for this (whether deserved or not). I have some old Japanese glass that is simply wonderful. But for good or bad, it is still up to me to make the final output work.
|
|
Forum: Repairs and Warranty Service
05-12-2022, 09:11 PM
|
| |
Thank you for the thoughtful post. I have fought the 400-600 Reflex over focus for some time now. Your comments about the difficulties of using digital cameras for focusing such a lens really hit home. My eyes were never very good. Recently I had cataract surgery (the Mono Vision option) and the focus game is now very different for me. My dominant eye (the one I use to focus my camera) has an implant that is optimized for near real world focus (20in - 40in or 50cm - 100cm). Not close enough for images on ground glass nor far enough away for optics focusing at a distance of many feet. So it is surprising that I can focus at all, yet I do reasonably well despite the implant. But I do have to fight for it. Hence my reference to "fussing over the focus." Using the camera's focus assistance options are a big help when I can take the time to "fuss." But I am still learning to see with my new eyes and I expect that my focus technique will evolve as well. In the meantime, thanks be to autofocus!
Your point about shooting the Leica lens at f8 is a good one. The lens will preform quite well at f8 and I should expect an even better picture. Though at some point the differences will be so subtle that my eyes will not be able to see them. The purpose of using the the Leica was to not to test its capability so much as to have a known high water mark against which to compare the Reflex. Even not controlling for aperature, it did that job admirably. It was the better lens, period. Though next time I try this experiment I will take the time to control all the varibles as well as I can and that means shooting them all at f8.
Also I think I will take more time with subject staging and establish several known focus planes separated by 2cm or so. That should give some interesting results, particularly for the Reflex. Thank you for this idea.
I really expected the Super-Takumar 200mm/f4 prime to show its weaknesses. Instead it really performed quite well. I'd expected the lenses to place best to worst as Leica, Reflex, and SuperTak. Instead I got Leica, Super-Tak, and Reflex.
This tells me that either I desperately need to get a handle on achieving optimal focus for each lens, or that something is wrong with my Reflex or in the way I am using it. I would dearly like to find a vintage skylight filter for the Reflex and see if that has a bearing. When I began using a HOYA EVO UV(0) 40.5mm rear filter, things really turned around. The lens went from being essentaily useless to basically functional. The HOYA at 0.236mm is thinner than vintage filters at 0.286mm so I wonder if I still have filter issues to work out.
|
|
Forum: Repairs and Warranty Service
05-11-2022, 04:38 PM
|
| |
Here I have appended shots taken by my:
1- Pentax 400-600mm Reflex zoom (shot at 400-f8)
2- Pentax Super-Takumar 200mm/f4 prime (shot at 200-f4)
3- Pan-Leica DG 100-400/F4.0-6.3 zoom (shot at 200-f5.1)
I arranged the distances between subject and lenses to give photos that span essentially 12.5 inches in the vertical axis. Hopefully the spans are close enough from photo to photo to give reasonable comparisons across the lenses.
I chose the Pan-Leica lens as its performance has always been rock solid for me and so is the lens to beat of the three.
The Super-Takumar was chosen as Pentaxians don’t consider this lens to be particularly good, and I wanted a low water mark for comparison. To that end I shot it wide open at f4 where it purportedly suffers the greatest loss in sharpness. Being honest, I was surprised at just how well it performed. And I have always enjoyed it for its super colors.
The Reflex was shot at 400mm where it should be at or close to it strongest performance.
As one can see in the bar code, on the white box in the upper right hand field, the Reflex lens is the softest. While the other two shots give pretty good results. I should have arranged the setup to place the bar code in the center so off-axis issues don’t interfere, but I did not even realize the code was there until I got the pics into an editor. Hopefully off-axis behavior is not significant. But then …
The weak performance of the Reflex really bothered me. Perhaps I just did not focus it with enough care. Perhaps the off-axis behavior is significant after all. The lens is a bear to focus and reflex designs do have off center issues.
So I put the bar code at the center and I reshot the Reflex after really fussing over focus. And surprise, a much better photo. Just to cover my bases, I put the bar code back in the corner and really fussed over the focus again. The result is not as good as the center bar code shot but is still better than the first one. So both focus and off-axis behavior are likely issues. With focus taking the prize. In my eval I still rate the Super-Tak superior to the Reflex, but it looks close. You might think otherwise?
Even after all the fussing around, the Reflex comes in behind the other two lenses. The Super-Tak is a much better lens than I gave it credit for being. And my Pan-Leica is a real shooter (of course after what is cost me …).
I don’t know if any of this helps. But I am most interested in what you make of it all.
Log of shots:
1 - Reflex
2 - Super-Tak
3 - Leica using manual focus
4 - Reflex with fussy focusing and centered bar code
5 - Reflex with fussy focusing and corner bar code
Note: The images I uploaded to the Pentax page appear to lack the resolution of their originals. I hope that you have a way to view them with the resolution needed to appreciate what is happening in the bar codes. If not please advise me as to what I can do to get you the required detail.
|
|
Forum: Repairs and Warranty Service
05-08-2022, 01:31 AM
|
| |
steephill, I hope you are still out there and inclined to resume discussion of my 400-600mm reflex lens. BTW thank you for pointing out that the rear filter is critical. On your recomendation, I purchased an inexpensive UV filter for the rear mount. It significantly improved the performance so your assertion that it is part of the optical design appears correct. However it did not bring the lens up to the performance I'd expect from reading the 9.2 sharpness spec listed in the Pentax Lens Review Database or from my own experience with other Pentax legacy lenses. So I tried a premium B+W UV filter. Unfortunately I found no real improvement over the bargain filter. However the thickness of both filters is less than that of legacy filters that I have lying about from the 1980s. So I am wondering if filter thickness is part of the problem. I'd dearly love to try an old "thick" filter and see if that helps. So far I have not been able to locate one. Any thoughts or comments would be most appreciated.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
08-03-2021, 11:40 PM
|
| |
ZombieArmy makes several interesting points. The creative thinking that can come from limited choice is something that folks might call the Creativity of Minimalist Thinking. It is an approach as old as human time and it seeks to focus the mind by eliminating all sources of distraction. That it is still around is a testament to its effectiveness. But these old roads also teach us that there are many paths to a goal. Some might say as many as there are people who would seek a path. In fact, ZombieArmy points out several ways to limit oneself when approaching portraiture. Clearly even minimalism offers choices that will either increase the opportunity to be creative or sally confuse and distract the already perplexed.
Thus, Minimalism can work. But it is not the only path to creative thought. Another road is the Mastery of Discipline. Learn your camera. Learn your photo editor. Learn your craft so thoroughly that there is little in the practice that can give rise to distraction or confusion. Those who play musical instruments are quintessential examples of Mastery and Creativity through Discipline. For them the technology is so thoroughly internalized that their instruments are an expression of their own bodies and minds. How many of us can say that about our photographic gear and tools?
Of course musical instruments have had centuries to evolve their human to machine interfaces and in so doing have become nearly perfect. The film camera of the early to mid 20th century has a similarly perfect interface. Hence in my opinion, we have the desire of some today to return to the photography of those times. Is this desire rooted in a pursuit of minimalism or is it a desire for a perfect interface that makes the technology an extension of body and mind?
Ultimately our work speaks for itself. A knowledge of the photographer and the challenges he or she faced can enhance our appreciation of the work, but the work still must stand on its own. Given that, how we make the picture, how much tech was used, what kind of metaphysical experiences we sought, all matter for little. The picture is the point, the whole point, and nothing but the point. EVERYTHING else is a distraction. A necessary distraction, for some a joyous one, for others a misery, but a distraction none the less. And being necessary, one we must come to terms with. Either through a rejection of technology rooted in minimalism or an acceptance founded in discipline. I suspect that for most of us, we will find paths somewhere between the two extremes.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
07-30-2021, 07:24 PM
|
| |
This image and the ones in your head make for a powerful sequence indeed. Years ago a similar crane collapsed outside of my dorm room window as I and friends actually witnessed the crash. To this day I see in my mind, the crane’s central pedestal rocking like a metronome as the crane operator climbed from wreckage as quickly as I’ve ever seen a person move. I have no pictures of that moment, but your photo is a mighty reminder.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
07-30-2021, 07:06 PM
|
| |
Life is to be enjoyed! This subject is living the lesson and the photographer certainly has an eye for it.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
07-14-2021, 02:42 AM
|
| |
Clackers, you are skilled, wise, and a gracious gentleman. I am very pleased to have run into you.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
07-13-2021, 01:54 AM
|
| |
Clackers,
Thank you so much for the critiques. I think I was right on target when I pegged you as "obviously come[ing from] a base of solid observational and technical skills." Your observations and sugestions are certainly on point. Had I known to apply your lessons, I no doubt could have made better pictures. I will endeavor to internalize you advice and apply it as best as circumstance and my abilities will allow. It is this kind of feedback that allows us to grow.
BUT! Some of your assumptions are off a bit. For one, I doubt I will get a chance to stage this exercise again. The subject is my daughter (that should say something about my age!) and the shot is indeed candid. It was taken along with "Molly Napping." The attached photo should tie it all together. This was taken Christmas 2020 at an all too short a family gathering outside in the cold with Covid distancing observed. She is holding her new baby a few months before Molly died of cancer. These were some of the last days of joy and hope she knew before the kitten was diagnosed.
The light was terrible. Overcast and dark and under some very shady oaks. You mentioned the slow shutter - there was reason for it. I was the proverbial fly on the wall. Weaving in and out of conversational clusters while trying to keep the Covid rules and not disturb the visiting. To be honest, these are family snaps, not formal exercises. Oh I wish I could have done a better technical job of it. No one could have guessed how important these photos would become.
Her gaze was locked on the kitten. Her tight expression is one of adoration and joy. And I caught nothing of that. But you are right to presume that she was "vulnerable" and not how either of us would have wanted her to look. However misleading the expression, all I know is that at the time I caught her in an unguarded moment when she was fully engaged with Molly. However short the photo is, at least I know that it was a genuine and true moment. She will know it too in the fullness of time when she can bear to look on these pictures again.
I never intended to show these. I got caught up in the work you and Niels posted. I got swept away in the analysis of what your work said to me and I wanted to share a pair of pics that spoke for themselves. How ironic that my snapshots would miss that mark. Goes to show that even old fools can be so blinded by personal attachments. I am too close to these photos to be showing them about, let alone objectifying their technical merits and demerits with other photo buffs on the net.
My hope is that by applying your points, I will internalize them, and that creative voice that whispers so quietly that I often miss it, will accomodate the lessons in it's direction, and I will automatically make your suggestions a part of my future work. Maybe next time my snaps will deserve to be called candids.
Thanks again.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-12-2021, 04:10 PM
|
| |
Really depends on the type of shooting I think I will be doing when next I play: General birds, hummers, or general shots about the home and garden. In order of most used:
1) For general birds: SMC PENTAX REFLEX ZOOM 1:8~12 400~600mm
2) For humming birds: Super - Takumar 1:4/200 prime tele
3) General Shots: Leica VARIO-ELMARIT 1:2.8-4.0/12-60 zoom
Lately the reflex zoom is not only THE go-to lens, it really has been hogging most of the time. I’d rather be shooting the 200 or the Leica, but the distance to my feeder dictates the reflex.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
07-12-2021, 02:34 AM
|
| |
Thank you for the kind words. They are not only reassuring, they obviously come a base of solid observational and technical skills. I will consider them well.
|
|
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
07-11-2021, 11:11 PM
|
| |
Stunning photo! Colors are great. Contrasts are strong without going over the top. Concept is original. The lens is shown off fabulously.
My lens is another story. I have great trouble focusing. The depth of field is razor thin. I shoot birds in my backyard which is naturally low in light, contrast, and begs for a tripod when the subject matter flits about too much to allow one. So I have been less than thrilled at the technical excellence of my bird photos.
My other use for the lens is lunar photography. That has proven disastrous. My tripod and head are a bit underclassed, making focus all the harder to achieve. And the lens in general seems to lose resolution as I approach infinity focus. I discovered through this forum that the lens requires a rear filter to function properly. No filters came with my purchase, I bought a Hoya Evo Antistatic 40.5mm Filter for the rear filter element. The use of the Hoya made a tremendous improvement over using no rear filter at all.
So I am wondering, what am I doing wrong? Is there another trick I am missing? Is my Hoya not up to the job? Am I expecting too much from the lens? Is this a classic case of user error?
Any advice or observations will be most appreciated.
Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/4...#ixzz70Nh7TLXR |
|
Forum: General Photography
07-11-2021, 09:30 PM
|
| |
Clackers’ post discusses comments and photos by Niels Hansen. In fairness clackers put his own work on the judging block too. I was taken by the points made and the photos of both photographers. Here are some of my thoughts.
Neils Hansen, picture of a small boy:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/173-general-photography/5404...rca-13-067.jpg
Like clackers, I enjoy this photo too. The subject is delightful. An intimate portrait of a very young boy who comes off looking wiser and more thoughtful than many adults I know. Some might say that there is an “old soul” in that boy’s young body and the photographer was able to capture that essence. The eyes, nose, lips, and to a degree, the cheeks all have specular highlights (or hints of them) that grab the viewer’s attention and marks areas of sharp focus in what is otherwise a fine study in soft features. This is a classic tactic used by great portrait artists from the Renaissance down to this day to establish an emotional link between the viewer and the subject. Cognitive scientists might say these are the landmarks that our brains use to “read” the face and character of others. I doubt these ideas occurred to the photographer while taking the shot. He may have been more aware of them during the processing stage, but for the most part his brain likely said “that looks right” and he simply took the picture and made the image. This is the voice of creativity, always present but rarely heeded; this voice, self awareness, and a bit of luck are what likely landed this wonderful picture.
Neils Hansen, picture of lady with downcast gaze:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/173-general-photography/5404...tivity-029.jpg
This photo is more difficult to read and for the many reasons that clackers cites. But I am not as hard on the picture. As photographers, we are often voyeurs. Not feasting in a sexual sense or relishing the pain of others, but like a fly on the wall, feasting on the subject’s display of humanity and anonymously relishing the intimacy of the moment. WE don’t have to be an active part of the subject’s consciousness. We can be on the sidelines. This is what the great candid photographers do all the time. They eavesdrop. Yes the eyes are hard to read, but the mouth is unmistakeable in betraying the girl’s pleasure at something. Moreover the way her hair is gathered, reinforces a carefree, lighthearted, and jubilant mood. There are technical issues as clackers points out, but candid shots often have them. This can be part of their charm. So I’m OK with this picture.
Clackers’, another photographer’s model:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AM-JKLXVlissR9zAzsmx5xHbc4h3ZJ-m-t_yg3v...-no?authuser=1
Clacker’s shot of this beauty engaged with another photographer (or other person) is better than he relates. Again he has caught an intimate or candid exchange. WE are not part of the interaction and that is OK. Furthermore, the lines of the pose are exquisite. The pose may well have been staged, but it looks spontaneous enough to be believed. If so this is not only a testament to the model’s skill, but to clackers creative eye for snapping just the right moment. And let’s not forget luck. Luck can be the photographer’s greatest ally.
Clackers’, model with outstretched arm:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/62073-clackers/albums/8225-sampl...ture134010.jpg
Now we come to another wonderful shot. Clackers’ own analysis is spot on and I will not try to embellish, except to say that this shot IS staged and clearly not candid. And that’s OK. She is engaging with the photographer, and through him with US the viewers. And it works. I feel that I know something of the young lady. This is what the art world calls a “psychological portrait” wherein the thoughts and emotions of the subject are communicated to the viewer.
Richard Avedon, psychological portrait:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AM-JKLUDJzfBbq6GPH-92xtHrR63WmyxEJronWH...-no?authuser=1
Now we come Avedon’s photo. I won’t even try to critique this one as I bow before the master. I will say that this is a magnificent photo in the “psychological portrait” vein. And in this case, not only do I have a sense that she is telling me something of her thoughts and emotions, but that she is also asking, of me, a response of my own. This is powerful.
Shumilova, little boy:
https://121clicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/elena_shumilova_04.jpg
And finally Shumilova’s picture. The comments made by some who complain of her work as staged, do have a point. This work is obviously staged. But in this case, I don’t really care. The work is so well done (artistically, technically, thematically, stylistically, and so) that I’m OK with it being contrived. Recall that da Vinci’s Mona Lisa was staged too. While not trying to equate the two artists, I am saying that we stage intimate moments all the time. If it’s within the subject’s persona, the photographer’s creative eye, and the technique employed, the art of it all will stand on its own.
Now to be fair to clackers and Neils, I offer a two of my own for your judgements: "Molly Napping" & "Girl Admiring"
|
|
Forum: General Photography
07-04-2021, 11:38 PM
|
| |
I have been following this disscusion and giving the various responses some consideration. And I see the posts here have run a large gamut. Forgive me if I oversimplify, but the original question seems to me about the involvement of technology in the production of art: Is it a good thing or bad? A lot of answers from Yes to No to What Art Is have been proposed along with a number of justifications. And it seems as if we are caught spinning around an axle going over the same ground. But it does also seems to me that this notion of "What Art Is," is a major stumbling block. Moreover, I find that I really don't care what the answer is. What I find fascinating are the justifications. If there is gold to mine, it is in the reasons we have for things.
Since "What is Art" appears central, lets revisit the notion.This is the definition that I found on Wiki: "Art is a diverse range of (and products of) human activities involving creative imagination to express technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas." There! You have it. The "ART" in art is now cleared up. Yeah right! But at least we can start on common ground. From the definition, we see ceativity is central. We see beauty is only one aspect. We see that technology and in specidfic the exercise of technical proficiency is also part. SO! Given this, we can conclude that technology is not antithetical to art. That technology is a part of art and its production.
In an earlier post I spoke of the user's interface with technology. Some are good like the keys of a musical instrument that not only allows the instrument to be played but to be played as if the instrument is a direct extension of the human mind. As if the instrument is a part of the musician-artist's own physical body. I believe that the old film cameras of the mid 20th century also attained that same perfection of interface. They too are consummate instruments for implementing a person's artististic vision. In the hands of an Ansel Adams, Minor White, and Alfred Stieglitz, the camera produced some the most powerful and beautiful images ever made and the instrument itself functioned as projections of their mind's eyes. They shot in black and white. Then Color came along. And guess what, we had the same disussions and arguments about art and technology that we are thrashing about with now.
But this time its about digital vs film. Or automatic vs manual focus and exposure. Or about computer photo editors that use AI to transform our images vs the old fashioned human way. These discussions and arguments are littered with gold. Yet the actual answers to these questions are unimportant as are the judgements over color vs black and white. But what these argument mean to you and what you are willing to share is where the value lie.
I will offer a story. Is is about an important holocaust artist named Gert Jacobson. I met her a few years before her death and we hit it off. She confided in me that she lacked any real artistic skill to draw or paint. Her gift was in her eye. She would paint a series of 100 or so canvases. The exercise would become a medidative experience and a thereputic way to process the horrors of surviving the Auschwitz concentration and extermination camp. At the end of the exercise she would stow all the work away. Then some months later she would pull them out and begin to cull the canvases. Since she felt her drawing skills were so poor (though I would dispute this point), only a few would survive the terrible judgement of her eye. And miraculously, by accident or by the subconsious power of her mind, a few pieces would turn out to be magnificent. How Gert achieved her art was vitally important and crucial to her emotional and mental wellbeing. But how she achieved her art is separate from our experience in viewing it. Knowing of her process may enhance our appreciation, but her work stands fully and completely on its own merits (and as my memory serves, is exhibited in the Guggenheim Museum in New York). So too our own work must stand regardless of our process and the technology behind it.
That was Gert's way. Now we must find our own.
|
