From: Rick Becker-Leckrone (rick@picturenetcorp.com)
Date: 09/21/02-03:51:02 PM Z
Totally fair issue I believe. I haven't started making digital negs but
plan on doing so soon. Would love to have this forum for some discussion.
If discussing types of light bulbs is kosher, so too should digital
technology in alt photo processes (IMHO).
Cheers,
Rick
Rick Becker-Leckrone
President
PictureNet Corporation
http://www.picturenetcorp.com
640 Paulson
Las Vegas, NV 89123
702 808-3182
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Roohr [mailto:lrryr@attbi.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 2:18 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: inkjet neg issues - hit "delete" key if they bother you
Steve,
Re: side bar
There are several 'digital' lists. Outside of a random blip or two (mostly
from me) none discuss making digital negatives for alt processes, no one
else on those lists appear to be interested. Making them work for alt is
very different than making inkjet prints, and very specific to alt.photo
purposes. Call them digital-alt issues?
I think it's fair game here.
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Shapiro [mailto:sgshiya@redshift.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 2:20 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Ethical issues - hit "delete" key if they bother you
After investigating the law, and later explained in the introduction to my
book on Carmel, "Carmel - A Timeless Place" it may be known that to make
photographs from public access, like at the side of the road, or even in the
middle of the road without stopping traffic -- without permission from
Public Works, which I have done -- is no violation.
Side Bar: hit "delete" key; regarding digital discussions . . . isn't there
a digital list? Am I out of bounds to question these discussions based on
the argument that digital photographic issues are alt-photo-processes?
Side Bar #2: Yes, painters and sculptors get into heavy technical issues
and discuss the merits of equipment like sable brushes versus synthetic and
mixed sable with synthetic . . . even more detailed is the question over the
synthetic bristles is what type of synthetic materials . . . so there. And,
they make pictures of their materials . . . pertenant to a discussion long
ago with a photographer who was insulted that during a series of lens tests
when they accepted personal equipment and didn't tak pictures of the lenses
tested said artists like sculptors didn't make art showing their tools.
Michelangelo and Rodin, did, little sculptures of their hammers and chizles
and plasteline scrapers show their fondness for such things that become so
close and part of ourselves.
S. Shapiro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Weese" <cweese@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: Ethical issues - hit "delete" key if they bother you
> Lots of things can influence our comfort zone when making photographs. As
> Tillman has indicates, possessions like people's houses can be as delicate
> an issue as pictures of people themselves. Sometimes possessions can form
a
> more revealing portrait than faces.
>
> Back in the dark ages when I was a teenager I worked hard for a time to be
> able to frame and focus accurately without raising the camera, in order to
> work surreptitiously. Problem was, by the time I'd perfected the skill, I
> realized I wasn't comfortable with it, so never actually used it.
>
> Last October I did a series of pictures of the new post-9/11 phenomenon of
> profuse flag displays sitting cheek by jowl with Halloween decorations.
> (some can be seen here: http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/fp1.html)
>
> This involved photographing people's homes, right up close. I didn't make
a
> practice of banging on the door to ask permission, but I did work in an
> extremely open, obvious manner with an 8x10 inch view camera. Some people
> asked what I was doing and all of them were perfectly happy with my
> explanation that I was making pictures of the juxtapositions of patriotic
> displays and Halloween. I think I would have encountered a lot more
> resistance or suspicion if I'd been more surreptitiously shooting with a
> small camera.---Carl
>
> --
> web site with picture galleries
> and workshop information at:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/
>
> ----------
> >From: Tillman Crane <tillman@tillmancrane.com>
> >To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> >Subject: Re: Ethical issues - hit "delete" key if they bother you
> >Date: Sat, Sep 21, 2002, 9:06 AM
> >
>
> >
> > Marcos,
> > I am not a street photographer. I was a photojournalist for a decade
> > and worked in "news" situations. I stopped being a photojournalist
> > for many reasons but being uncomfortable photographing those in
> > distress was chief among them.
> >
> > Working with large cameras I can't hide. Even when the " legal" right
> > to make images of people homes from the street is mine, I don't do
> > it. I have to be comfortable where I am working and I have to have
> > permission to work where I am. That's just me.
> >
> > I have been working on a project for a non profit for over a year and
> > photographing peoples homes was part of it. When I had permission I
> > made some good images. When I didn't I felt like a thief. Finally I
> > put the 5x7 away and used a Hassleblad to "get more images" as I was
> > asked. But it still felt like a drive by shooting.
> >
> > We all have to work with in our own comfort zone. Mine is to get
> > permission if at all possible.
> > It sounds like we came to similar conclusions.
> > tillman crane
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:09 PM Z CST