But, the photographers have control over artistic point of view! I don't believe the kind of photographer are sadly gone-sounds we need to be in charge of digital technology and not let it take control over us-they are all just tools in the end-if one is a bad photographer-wouldn't matter if he/she uses films or digital-we have to learn to use the technology to express ourselves.

By KaWai at 03:17 Sat 27 Jan 2007
reply to this

Agreed KaWai!

By Josh Baker at 12:05 Sat 27 Jan 2007
reply to this

WHAT?!!

By Josh Baker at 12:04 Sat 27 Jan 2007
reply to this

I disagree. In my opinion the subject being photographed is equaled in authority by, if not more so than, the photographer. Both construct the image.

By Josh Baker at 12:45 Thu 01 Feb 2007
reply to this

I thought the quality of the picture is interesting-not great, not bad, but Andy Warhol did bunch of polaroids and the quality of them was similar, but it was different because no one thought of bad/mediocre quality photos to be worthy of printing in magazines until he did it. I thought where he flashed the light was clever-showing all without letting us see full frontal. Sometimes we just want to do something interesting, just try for the sake of trying-without any purpose or message to convey.

By KaWai at 20:32 Sat 27 Jan 2007
reply to this

...but Andy Warhol ...that is a totally different story...he was as a matter of fact experimenting...pushing the boundaries...the comparison , sorry to say so, does injustice to Andy Warhol’s unique talent.....we are 'millions of years ' away now so to speak....and Andy always had the right shot at the right moment...an incredible good " timer " .....to do something ‘interesting’ was not his aim as I see it or just out of vanity and mind you vanity was somehow an element of his work ......he had always a purpose and the message was arguably always subdued......and not just trying to “impress.”.....but it was a story and a message....

By Galileo's Universe at 08:07 Sun 28 Jan 2007
reply to this

I don't think it's so much the retouching part(since it's something I do and I enjoy doing), of course we cannot go back, but lately I find myself feeling bored flipping through pages of fashion magazines, when every page tries to be eye catching and exciting, I somehow find nothing stimulating-it's like an overload of poppy images. Showstudio is great-it's a new medium. But I was referring to print magazines. This is so off the topic from the Mario Testino self portrait, but interesting how his seemingly snapshot evolved into discussion of the quality of photography, perhaps we are so used to seeing extremely manipulated print images that his snapshot seemed too casual but maybe that's exactly the quality and look Mario was after.

By KaWai at 04:23 Mon 29 Jan 2007
reply to this

The discussion perhaps is spinning into the abyss now...of coursse I might sound contraditory when I myself talked about everything is just tools and the photographers have their own point of view. The challenge with commercial art/photography is to try to do something different, or beautiful, or exciting, within deadline timeframe(even just for the sake of trying, many wonderful things happened by accidents, or what seemed to be mistake-Helmut Newton's story of using the Ring Flash the first time, he ended up with models with batlike eyes in photos, he was horrified, but thought maybe it would be ok, since no time to reshoot; French Vogue editor decided to use the shots), and try to convince the clients it's ok to take risk a bit. The really busy commercial photographers such as Mario Testino, are given many opportunities to try-within the best arena-high fashion-with all the support, of course there's always limitation to tools and technique, and time and the unexpectedness of things, and everytime is a challange. Maybe the best part of the process is in the doing, that's where the meaninfulness of it all comes in, not when the pictures are published, by then the rush is gone. Blah, blah, blah....

By KaWai at 18:09 Mon 29 Jan 2007
reply to this

I absolutely agreed with you when you write about unexpected things happening in the process, etc...and what might be perceived as a mistake can very often be the trail to something good...or new.....of course it is also instinctive.....You mentioned time limit as a drawback very often in commercial photography there you have a good point.... but for some people the high pressure is just the best motivation....it works different for everyone....I suppose....:) :)

By Galileo's Universe at 20:02 Mon 29 Jan 2007
reply to this

The irony of high tech digital photography is-dispites all the high tech stuff, the photography part of it-the set up, working with a model, doing the hair, makeup, posing, the lights, props, are all still very organic, still in the end about working with people and ideas of people. Doing digital manipulation is actually quite an organic process too-about creating your own techniques and using them to create somemore-it's almost about when to not overdoing the digital effects nowadays-knowing when to stop doing the manipulation.

By KaWai at 20:26 Mon 29 Jan 2007
reply to this

What I personally find about digital photography is that it somehow lacks "soul.'..it is literally like 'cloning' .....The character of ' things' are erased by the absolute 'perfection' , 'calculation', ' manipulation '...It is rather funny to think that somehow it feels as if today’s digital photography is a fore-proof of things to come as far as the developments that are going on in science today about our quest for........’ flawless perfection......
I think that the whole thing makes one 'unconsciously' weary....because ...there is no inspiration in ‘absolute perfection'....the boundaries are then in a figurative speech 'closed ' to pursue further....and there is also no poetry in that...and photography is poetry too..........look at Ansel Adam’s works....it seems visually so perfect and yet it is all very poetic and inspiring that is the difference to digital photography.....it was his and his only.....Of course fashion photography is different but poetry is also part of fashion photography...it doesn't need to be romantic....but inspiring...yes !...that is an absolute must in fashion photography...
We know in our subconscious that digital photography is carelessly used, abused and misused to lie to ourselves......I understand very well what you mean.....but then get away from it all by simply turning to the inspiring things that nature generously has to offer.... she always knows better !.........a simple leaf blowing in the wind can just open the doors to unimagined hidden visual treasures...
We incredible ‘humble' humans seem to be always good at spoiling things for ourselves........more often that less...:) :) :) ...... just write visual poetry by letting out what makes you feel happy and put those mags aside......... :):) because they are there to perpetuate....the “ visual lie “ for a purpose of course....:):):)

By Galileo's Universe at 06:08 Tue 30 Jan 2007
reply to this

Humans have been pursuing perfection for centuries though. I understand what you mean by lacking soul in digital photography. I personally don't like photos that look too high-tech and polished-unless they are done in such a sophisticated and clever and beautiful style. The image must move me, emotionally. Was this something Diana Vreeland said-"Without emotions, there's no beauty." I do lots of digital photography work(styling, working with the photographer figuring out the shot) and retoucing work, and in my own art I am starting to work in photoshop as well. That's the challange I am facing-to extend part of my soul into my art, doesn't matter what tools I use, but if I am not moved by the result, emotionally, it's not good enough for me.

By KaWai at 18:46 Thu 01 Feb 2007
reply to this

I would like to recommend you to have a look at the works of PIERRE GONNORD and MICHAEL O'BRIEN .......a total different story about beauty.....but you might find it very refreshing ......

By Galileo's Universe at 20:19 Mon 29 Jan 2007
reply to this

.........you are welcome !

By Galileo's Universe at 06:19 Tue 30 Jan 2007
reply to this

LOL! I would hope everyone in the industry is supportive of the change to digital. It is the future, and in fact the present. It will eventually be pointless to use film, even to achieve film quality. Digital quality has far surpassed the best 35mm film and is easily on par with medium format film. Besides, I do not believe that equipment has much to do with photography. It is a means to an end. I’m sure that the majority of photographers would agree with this statement.

On the subject of Testino's photo I cannot see why everyone thinks he should have composed a 'glossy' photo. His earlier work, in my opinion some of his best, was very similar to this photo ('Any Objections?'). I think it conveys a sense of fun and relaxation, which is apparent in almost all of Testino’s work, past and present.

In my opinion I do not think digital manipulation is affecting our ability to accept un-manipulated imagery. I agree there appears to be a trend of digital manipulation at present. This is possible due to mainstream introduction of digital products, hardware and software, over the last few years. It is the new, very popular, method of photographic processing. There will be fluctuations in how digital manipulation is utilised, and to what extent, however I believe that digital manipulation is here to stay.

By Josh Baker at 21:47 Thu 01 Feb 2007
reply to this

There is an interesting discussion in film and Photography forum regarding shooting with digital vs. film, you might find it very interesting.

By KaWai at 23:16 Thu 01 Feb 2007
reply to this