f.64 or pictorialism, go.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2007:01:25 16:39:57 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 598 Image Height 397
f/64
otherwise gearfagging wouldn't be the default
>>2790279
I didn't ask who won...I asked who was right.
>>2790281
Right is only expressed through might.
He who won was right.
The world, this world, it's not black, or white.
>>2790281
So you're saying you started the thread because you're a neo-pictorialist and you want to scream into the void?
ok.jpg
>>2790290
Nope. I think especially in the modern age with more difficult image manipulation techniques democratized that the debate between these two schools of thought are more relevant than ever, and frankly I'd like to see if /p/ can engage in philosophic discussion for a little while.
>>2790293
Then why don't you formulate your own thoughts on the matter first to get the conversation going?
Wouldn't this make sense?
>>2790293
why does it need to be a debate?
both sides are wrong for trying to deny the other
there is no 'right', in hardly anything
>>2790298
Because my thoughts on the matter in general are a boring midpoint that thinks extremes of both sides are ridiculous (my tldr is that pictorialists are right in so far as the final result is all that matters, but the mastery of concepts and techniques required by f/64 are vital to fully being able to express oneself through photography), and I figure there are people here who have pretty damn strong feelings.
I think what's a slightly different, but possibly more important question is whether or not someone like Gursky is a photographer...it's a pointless demarcation of labels, but one that I think packs in a lot of how we think about photography.
>>2790303
Andreas Gursky or Sergey Prokhudin Gursky?
>>2790310
>Andreas Gursky
Basically in terms of how he heavily manipulates images to the point where they are almost unrecognizable from what was originally shot.
>>2790311
like this is
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:11:10 09:07:12 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 512
>>2790313
where he took the picture that's the basis of this piece from.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1372 Image Height 768 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:11:15 06:51:44 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 500 Image Height 280
And here's another illustration of how he retouches images
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 100 dpi Vertical Resolution 100 dpi Image Created 2013:05:04 09:11:32 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 750
They were both right, autism just wasn't coined yet.
You need a working understanding of each.
>>2790321
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-Pro1 Camera Software Adobe® Photoshop® Touch Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Maker Note Version 0130 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:10 23:24:22 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Brightness 7.1 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 16.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4896 Image Height 3264 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown Sharpness Hard White Balance Auto Chroma Saturation High Flash Mode Off Macro Mode Off Focus Mode Manual Slow Synchro Mode Off Picture Mode Manual Exposure Continuous/Bracketing Mode Off Blur Status OK Focus Status OK Auto Exposure Status OK
I'm totally lost in this thread, please, keep posting so I can learn more about F/64 and pictorialism
>>2790315
>that shitty ass mirror-flip curve on the bottom
how did i never see that?
>>2790325
It's very easy to fool an eye that doesn't have a before/after comparison
>>2790324
The basics is late 19th/early 20th century, you had pictorialists who were all about doing anything to "make" a picture -- we're talking multiple exposures, compositing, painting, etc. You'll see a billion and one definitions for the term pictorialist, but it's kind of an "anything goes" photography.
A group of photographers thought this was kinda lame, so they founded the f/64 group whose aim was to create art through no manipulation of the images -- basically just using their knowledge of how cameras, optics, chemistry, and light worked to get it right in camera (basically) and create art with those limitations.
>>2790326
Yeah, but I'm pretty good at spotting patterns that the clone stamp inherently leaves behind. The tire track that forks off is a pretty big clue.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer RangeMenaul Image-Specific Properties:
>>2790330
You never noticed that in the Gursky piece that literally made no sense as a track?
>>2790332
You can't see the whole track anyway. It could have been much bigger than you see in the photo.
>>2790334
Nah, even just this one area makes no sense. It might just be that I'm far more familiar with how tracks are setup than you are, but it literally took me a quite a while to figure out that it was based off a track because of how little it looks like one.
Curious if the day group has anything to say
>>2790646
>implying we aren't the same group and don't shitpost 20 hours a day
>>2790646
All that matters is the end result. Know what you have to know to produce what you want to produce. And try not to get caught putting a plane at the top of a fire escape. The end.
>>2790649
I figure most Aussies are drunk enough that operating technology is very difficult around this time of day though.
>>2790652
That's worth extra points for Canon Canada.
The initial action of photography is manipulation.
Art can be made on Auto.
Visual art is stupid.
pictorialism just thrived to imitate romantic era paintings, with all its cliches. looked dated as fuck.
f64 embraced the machine. it was futuristic and delivered awesome stuff.
>>2790277
As with most competing theories the answers lies somewhere in the middle. It could be argued that f64 are not even creating art and that pictorialists would be painters if they had the skill. I think both f64 and pictorialists are wrong because they try to limit the scope of photography. The only limit to photographer should be set by the photographer himself.
f/64 are our guys
>>2790324
Please. PLEASE. If you are actually interested about the topic,
don't for a moment think that you'll get something from /p/. It is
a very interesting topic with more than adequate bibliography. If
you end up feeling comfy with what you get from here, you'll also
only end up thinking in stereotypical terms about it.
Take for example >>2790329
It is so reductive, it hurts. Also, at the same time, it could be at
the right track (if only it was but a sentence on a book about to
elaborate on the subject).
In similar fashion, I could say: "pictorialists where actually painters
trying a new medium for painting" and "the f/64 group, like some
others, where modernists, and as the m.o. of modernists goes,
they attempted to do work specific to the inherent qualities of the
medium".
Both phrases are right, but there is so much more to it. Historically.
>>2790311
So, if Gursky (and others) were doing manipulations so good that
it would be impossible to recognize, and if he never ever mentioned
anything about it (manipulating I mean), you would take his work as
some sort of "photographic truth"; something actually existing in the
world? (I'm not talking about "liking it". I think that's irrelevant here).
I take this cue from: >"unrecognizable from what was originally shot".
If so, what is it that makes it so different that you know that the
images are "fake"?
Do you, in 2016, still hold some belief in photographic truth?
Elaborate.
>>2790858
I don't really like pictorialist photography too, but some of
it was and still is interesting. I mean as images and not
necessarily as photographs. And the thing is, we now
mostly have pictorialist works in photography, as most of
it is necessarily manipulated in one way or another.
Also, many photographers from the later half of the 20th C.
while embracing many tenets of f/64, they also did quite
dated images equally heavy on aping romantic and/or
neoclassical patterns/mentalities.
>>2791086
crossover always occurs. but f64 mindset pushed stuff forward and in unexpected paths, because it wasnt trying to be another medium.
>>2791132
medium purity is a vague theoretical concept.
Can you elaborate on what it means and why should it be important?
>>2791143
its different to share stuff with other media, than try to BE other media. the medium itself becomes a gimmick. does anyone take imitators seriously?
>>2791144
this does not answer the question.
And besides, all media share certain properties
anyway.
Also, yes, many many people take "imitators"
seriously: movies imitating life par example (and
in equally vague terms).
>>2791158
>movies imitating life
life is not a media. dumb retard, get out.
pictorialism is an abortion and i'm glad we killed it
>>2791162
reads "movies imitating life" as life is media.
top kek.
Like many I don't think one or the other is necessarily right. I wouldn't even argue that you *have* to incorporate methods or theories from both in order to succeed. The real question is what are you trying to do as a photographer? Why do you photograph what you do, what are you trying to achieve or hoping to say? If you really just want to use a camera as a tool to capture beauty that exists in the natural/built environments, then just do that. You don't have to incorporate things from other areas or methods to do better, you just have to do better at what you're already doing.
I'm probably more aligned with the f/64 way of photographing than anything else. I don't think they're necessarily right, but this debate is interesting to me because I haven't been acquainted with it before. However, a lot of my immediate peers were more leaning towards the fine art/pictorial side of photography, and as such would challenge me a lot to try and steer me away from what I was doing. It took me a couple years to realize what was happening, but at least now I can try to find people who understand better what I'm trying to do and steer me more toward that direction, so I can focus on improving my photography in a way that's congruent with my personal interests, not the interests of others.
>>2790277
in short:
> f64
and
>why?
consider the following:
(a bit of a long read but well and it)
> The Art Motive in Photography
> Paul Strand, The British Journal of Photography, Vol.70, pp. 612-15, 1923
> A discussion of all the ramifications of photographic methods in modern life would require more time and special knowledge than I have at my disposal. It would include all the diverse uses to which photography is being put in an essentially industrial and scientific civilization. Some of these applications of the machine, the camera, and the materials which go with it, are very wonderful. I need only mention as a few examples the X-ray, micro-photography, photography in astronomy as well as the various photo-mechanical processes which have so amazingly given the world access to pictorial communication in much the same revolutionary way that the invention of the printing press made extensive verbal communication possible and easy.
> Of much less past importance than these in its relationship to life, because much less clearly understood, is that other phase of photography which I have particularly studied and worked with, and to which I will confine myself. I refer to the use of the photographic means as a medium of expression in the sense that paint, stone, words, and sound are used for such purpose. In short, as another set of materials which, in the hands of a few individuals and when under the control of the most intense inner necessity combined with knowledge, may become an organism with a life of its own, as a tree or a mountain has a life of its own. I say a few individuals because they, the true artists, are almost as rare a phenomenon among painters, sculptors, composers as among photographers.
continues at:
> http://www.jnevins.com/paulstrandreading.htm
>>2790281
>implying f64 won
> 2016
> not knowing pro pics are edited to fantasy
man, 500px, 1px etc are pretty much pictorialism. there's no difference except by being digital photography.
hell, even photojournalism have established its aesthetics more successfully than f64.
if there's anything f64 legacies to main current photography, it's gear faggotry, and that's all. today f64 photographers -such as clyde butcher- are often neglected and considered antique or pastiche by art snobs.
>>2790646
>Curious if the day group has anything to say
Get fucked, cunt.
We'll shitpost when we choose.
And I'll also take a photo at f32 on expired colour film that gives strange colours.
There is no objectively superior school of photography, every image stands on its own.
>>2790329
Ha, okay, it's a lot better than retards who would only take pictures at f/64
>>2791143
I see medium purity in two different lights (usually a little of both):
It's a way of showing off mastery of a medium like the hyper-realistic drawings you keep seeing passed around as "art" when they're nothing but high level studies.
and/or
It's a constraint, and laboring under constraints can give great results like poets who write in a given meter or poetry style instead of free verse.
bump because useful/interesting thread
>>2791976
The constrain bit is definitely valid, but that line of thinking
cannot be taken as some kind of ultimate m.o.. I mean, not
in terms of "who's wrong who's right" and that kind of stuff.
And on top of that, it is definitely not a practice that will
make your output "good" just by going on with it.
Also, one can invent all kinds of constraints for the purposes
you mention, without any of them having to do with "medium
purity".
The hyper-realistic drawings example is not a good one I
think. It is in the realm of painting, and it is a practice
that, among other things, attempts to take some "revenge"
of sorts from photography. It is like, once photography made
redundant a list of subjects for painting, and pushed painters
to explore new directions/methods, some painters decided
to make a return into an attempt to overtake photography in
certain aspects; image clarity and definition.Well, whatever
rocks their boat.
Still, this type of painting does have a rather painterly quality
whether we like what we see or not: they are unique in a way
no photograph can be unique (no copies etc.).
Yet, this does not upset the fact of photographs being unique
in a way no painting can ever be: the temporal character of
photography, and its link with what it depicts, no matter how
manipulated the final image is (no matter how many copies
you make, this characteristic is always there).
>>2790325
Because it's an isi photo, you never bothered looking at it for more than 2 seconds.
>>2793349
>Because it's an isi photo
It's an Andreas Gurksy photo, you fucking moron.
How about instead of trying to start shit as an attempt to fit in, you actually educate yourself?
>>2793363
Smooth cover friendo.
>>2793600
You actually think anybody would ever mistake one of isi's photos for one of Gurksy's? Either you're certifiable, or you're isi.
>>2793363
>log photo
where the hell are you from that logs look like that?
>>2795195
A place where shit edits make things hard to identify.
>>2795199
You're terrible at shitposting, just stop.
>>2795203
Made you bump, so not that terrible.
>>2795205
I'm isi posting as anonymous, remember? I was going to bump it anyway.
>>2795234
Confirmed.
>>2795234
Are you seriously implying that you can't sage as anon?
>>2795236
How did you get that from my post?
