I feel as though these discussions are getting too far away from the basic overall point. Before we can get into semantics over terms like, 'easier' and 'cheaper' the major differences in how we are coming at this must be pointed out.

I do not believe that the act of shooting digitally and the act of shooting with a chemical (film) process can be easily interchanged at will.

Because of this, I inherently do not believe one can make an assumption about any one photographer who has gained fame (or not...we should all be so lucky) using one process to simply switch over and continue while using the alternative process. Some have made suggestions that famous photographers would been shooting digitally if it were available to them in their day. I can see the reasoning for this, as one would reasonably think that a photographer such as Ansel Adams, who had to lug pounds upon pounds of heavy equipment through forests and up mountains to get his shots, just to return home and fiddle around endlessly trying to get his perfectionist images to turn out just right in a darkroom, would very much enjoy the prospect of getting to his spots and making his photographs quicker and easier. But this reasoning and assuming would be neglecting the fact that Ansel Adams might have actually enjoyed the hardships presented to him by his overweight equipment and imperfect chemicals. This neglectful assuming is being used as a broad stroke across all photographers by individuals that have changed over to another means of production without seeing a difference. They assume that if they have switched and seen no difference in their image making, then others should be able to do the same. I have no issue with these people switching over, but I do have an issue with them supposing that one = everyone. Supposing that the way they personally look at taking photographs is the way we all look at taking photographs. When one is making these assumptions they are missing the bigger point. It is the act of making that has just as much value to some as the finished piece, and this act of making might be altered beyond an acceptable point by some who look at switching to a different means of photography.

Just as anything in life, there are many intangibles that are sometimes hard to pick out. There is no solid and easy answer as to why I personally enjoy the extra time and effort it takes to photograph with film, for example, but there are many little intangibles that can help to make up a better understanding of my views on photography. Some of the intangibles include: Not knowing if I have gotten the shot. Not knowing if I have already taken a similar shot half a dozen frames ago. The idea of a physical, framed piece of imagery that can be seen either in a solitary setting or in conjunction with its neighboring frames. Even the simple acts of loading/unloading film, winding film, and rewinding film after exposing half a roll just to load a different type of film for the next shot. To me these are all valid and valuable items that I correlate with film photography. They help me enjoy the act of making as well as the created photograph.

Is Cinema like Photography?

This NYT article mimics the discussion we are having with photography and the proliferation of digital devices. Very interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/magazine/23wwln-lede-t.html?_r=1&ref=movies


The more I read the more it becomes so obvious that all of the arts are connected, and can be easily compared to one another in their struggles and resistance to change.

Looking at Photographs

I visited my friend Tetsugo's studio last night and was amazed again by his work. His attention to detail makes you want to get as close as possible to the large prints and examine every little facet and texture. Then you back up and look at the larger image and are amazed at how well all the tiny details end up forming a wonderfully coherent composition.

The fun(ny) part of all this looking I was doing is that not once did I look at his work prints that were pinned to the wall as objects. So, as much as I may love the idea of creating objects out of my images, it never prohibits me from enjoying images for just what they visually represent. There may be the differences between object photographs and digital reproductions, but there are also differences between amazing works of art that are reproductions that you want to linger over, and digital reproductions that are meant to be glanced at.

I want to linger over photos more often than I get to these days...objects or not.

Object Photography & Digital Captures

What is so inherently wrong with looking at photography and creating photography as a physical object?

Why must the image and idea be sacrificed when the photographer explicitly spent time to emphasize the "object" of the piece?

I believe that one can view an object photograph for both its represented imagery and the beauty of its constructed form. I feel that it is more valuable to view an object photograph for its construction and for what it is showing in its imagery. By its fortune of being explicitly crafted and possibly selectively produced, the image helps to underwrite the idea that a photograph can (should?) be a timeless capture representing one specific moment in time that is never to be repeated. Does this not help photography in that it creates that specific moment that viewers cannot see elsewhere, over and over again, at any time of their choosing, with as much repetition as one desires? The viewer must recognize that this one representation they are viewing is possibly the only visual representation of that moment, and therefor must truly pause, look, analyze and enjoy.

The idea of digital photography indeed can help more people see more images faster and easier, without even the need to produce or own a print if not so desired, but it also helps to move the viewer along to the next image, and then the next image, and then the next image, in the process slowly removing the time spent viewing each image (think of all those internet slideshows that allow you the option of looking at each picture for 1, 3, or 5 full seconds before jumping to the next image). The whole point of creating still images is to produce something worth looking at and analyzing. The removal of photographs as objects in conjunction with the overabundance of digital images in fact acts against the inherent nature of photography (the capture of a specific moment). It becomes more about capturing anything and everything and less about looking at any one thing in particular.


I have been thinking about this...

What are your views?

New Photo Blog

Some friends and I have started a new photo blog...

http://photomedium.blogspot.com

The Photographic Medium

"The Photographic Medium is a forum designed to promote the production and discussion of photography. The contributors to this dialogue will propose their own topics and contemplate others. This is a composite of its members talents and a venue for creative output and artistic theory."

Each week there will be an assignment handed out by one of the members. All members will create a photograph for the assignment, post it to the blog, and contribute to the public critique of all the photos. I encourage anyone with an interest to add their input to the critiques and help us push forward with this sort of 'group motivation.'

Work is alread up, check it out...Photo Medium

Update

Yes, I know, it has been a while. Things have been progressing slowly. Sorry to the people I have not been in contact with concerning the Photo House 144, but it looks as though it will be too difficult to continue with any shows because of my schedule and the fact that I am moving out of the city at the end of May. I have had to make a decision to either throw together a show with only limited participation/interest, or get my own stuff together and start actually creating the projects that keep flowing through my head. Getting the pen on the paper, if you will. So here I go getting the pen on the paper...

One Night Art Show in NJ

Hey, last minute notice...


Please join me and other artists for one night of art on display at the Exposure Gallery in Colingswood, NJ this Saturday from 4-9pm.

Exposure Gallery
559 Haddon Avenue
Collingswood, NJ 08108
Phone: 856-854-7557


Looking forward to seeing everyone there!

The Photo House 144 Submission Guidelines

The Photo House 144 submission guidelines:

• E-mail files at 72 dpi resolution with a reasonable height and width for on-screen viewing (8 to 10" for example).
  



• No limit on number of images that can be submitted



• A separate title list with size of actual image, finished framed size, price and title for each piece



• That is it...seriously. I don't any money to look at work, and I don't want a bunch of overbearing requirements for artists to send in their work. I just want to look at a bunch of photographs and see which ones fit best within the space.

I am taking submissions now for the next two shows, with the cut off for sending in work as follows...

The Salon show in February : Submissions must be received by December 21, 2007

The Photographs as Objects show in May: Submissions must be received by March 28, 2008

Please don't hesitate to leave comments or e-mail me directly ( derek@dwillm.com ) with any questions...

Thanks.

Derek

Getting the work out there...

New work on display...



http://www.photo.net/photos/dwillm

Power Lines : Horizontal Combo #01