tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post4195441151240947153..comments2024-03-27T00:32:29.877-07:00Comments on Photos and Stuff: Colberg on Picturesamolitorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-27332265143949984452017-08-05T12:20:46.129-07:002017-08-05T12:20:46.129-07:00There's a *place* for it, sure, but it's a...There's a *place* for it, sure, but it's a minority position. There's a place for practically anything, as a minority position.<br /><br />Color precision is a bit of a chimera, honestly, and my opinion - an admittedly personal and idiosyncratic one - is that there are very very few photographs which require much color precision.<br /><br />Tonality is more important, I think. There certainly are photographs which rely pretty strongly on the overall tonal placement (most of Adams's work disintegrates into an unremarkable mess without strong blacks).<br /><br />But the vast majority of photographs out in the world don't need either of these things to function in the way they are intended to function. Colberg's diner snap is a snap, evidence that he was there, evidence of a sunset. As it stands, it doesn't need much of anything in terms of reproduction "accuracy" (whatever that might even mean) to function.<br />amolitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-69852429962333273622017-08-05T12:03:11.116-07:002017-08-05T12:03:11.116-07:00"Nobody cares much if colors look a little di..."Nobody cares much if colors look a little different on their phone and your screen."<br /><br />Except possibly the photographer and discerning viewers?<br /><br />I, for one, very much care about such things, which is why I greatly prefer to view photos in print and book form, not as .jpgs on a monitor. And the same is also true when it comes to displaying <i>my</i> photos.<br /><br />This is because I know the photo they the viewer sees in front of them is the same photo I signed-off on and released into the world.<br /><br />This creates a connection between the viewer and the photographer's vision as expressed by the photo that does not -- <i>cannot!</i> -- exist otherwise.<br /><br />I will admit this is a minor point for many, but I believe it's also a crucial one, because printing and/or publishing a photo effectively fixes it in time and locks it into a final, finished form.<br /><br />It represents the photographer's intent and vision at the time it was made and while this may or may not change over time, I believe there is something noble and worthwhile about preserving its original form, if only because the resulting connection between the viewer and the photographer is both more direct and more reliable.<br /><br />This is the reason why many collectors focus their efforts on collecting a photographer's vintage prints instead of modern ones, even when they are made by the same person and, quite often, visually inferior as a result of improvements in materials and techniques over time.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the distinction between vintage and modern prints will disappear once technology makes it impossible to lock a print into final form the way that making a print or publishing it in a book does now.<br /><br />In the future, the only way to determine the vintage of a photo will be to look at the timestamp on its digital file (and even that isn't a reliable indicator, because it, too, can be modified at any time who possession of a copy of the file.)<br /><br />And when this happens, it will be a shame, because it will no longer be possible to study how a photographer's vision for their photos evolved and changed over time.<br /><br />Or is this just old-school thinking by a boomer-generation photographer that will have no place in our brave new world?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com