Warning: include_once(/home/mdm/2point8.whileseated.org/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-support/wordpress-support.php): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/mdm/2point8.whileseated.org/wp-settings.php on line 220

Warning: include_once(): Failed opening '/home/mdm/2point8.whileseated.org/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-support/wordpress-support.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php:/usr/local/php5/lib/pear') in /home/mdm/2point8.whileseated.org/wp-settings.php on line 220

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/mdm/2point8.whileseated.org/wp-settings.php:220) in /home/mdm/2point8.whileseated.org/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: Against Ease: or How the Inifinitely Reproduceable Pushes Us Further From the Source http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/08/21/against_ease/ A wide-open view of the practice of street photography by Michael David Murphy, While Seated. Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:48:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.10 By: Stu Willis http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/08/21/against_ease/comment-page-1/#comment-92436 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:42:36 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=392#comment-92436 If you were a real photographer, you’d be shooting on glass plates. Anything else is just laziness for the sake of convenience.

“What’s the treasure in owning something that’s potentially infinitely (and inexpertly) reproduceable?”

For the same reason that it is still a treasure to own great music.

You can take pleasure in the object of vinyl, the object of a cd, the object of a tape… but its a different pleasure than the music itself.

Taking pleasure in the print is taking pleasure in the object, not the image itself .The experience

By: russ morris http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/08/21/against_ease/comment-page-1/#comment-90550 Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:20:45 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=392#comment-90550 no limits. no restrictions. no rules. no arguments.

By: boolida http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/08/21/against_ease/comment-page-1/#comment-90031 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:48:09 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=392#comment-90031 crewdson doesnt even press the button, he has set a new standard for lazy repetitive photographs

By: Bennett Levine http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/08/21/against_ease/comment-page-1/#comment-88954 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:21:52 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=392#comment-88954 What about Jerry Uelsmann, Gregory Crewdson, Ralph Eugene Matyard, Les Krims, many others?? Traditional methods. Not historical documents. Who cares? Maybe in court. Where else?

By: Nebot http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/08/21/against_ease/comment-page-1/#comment-88594 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:20:23 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=392#comment-88594 Digital photography, in the strict scientific sense or the more far-reaching philosophical one, is not photography. It may be imagery but it is not photography. And, first and foremost, it has absolutely no worth as a historical document. None.

By: Ks http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/08/21/against_ease/comment-page-1/#comment-88134 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:55:35 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=392#comment-88134 Photography doesn’t work like that. The photograph is not the material it’s printed on. It’s something more.

By: btezra http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/08/21/against_ease/comment-page-1/#comment-87441 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:13:36 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=392#comment-87441 p.s.
Alan George, your work is fantastic

By: btezra http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/08/21/against_ease/comment-page-1/#comment-87439 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:10:44 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=392#comment-87439 to me, what matters most is what ends up on the print, it’s the subject matter and the results that matter most, no matter if produced via a brand spanking new dslr, a tried and true 35mm, a toy camera, a pinhole or whatever means you utilize to end up with an image

BUT, there is a certain character and prose that a film-based print has that was developed in the darkroom that simply cannot be overlooked or ignored, nor outdone by anything digital

I do agree 100% with a comment above, “don’t let the medium become the message.”, what resources you have at your disposal and what you chose to create an image should not be, nor ever be, the focus, what matters most is content, visual impact and appeal and purpose with a dash of passion mixed in

focus on the subject and let the resulting frames speak for themselves!

By: Clayton Salem http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/08/21/against_ease/comment-page-1/#comment-87432 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:26:30 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=392#comment-87432 I just spent one hundred and ten dollars on a box of 50 4×5 color sheets. Considering the cost of development, that’s $210 on 50 pictures, or, $4.02 per pic. The irony is that I will then scan those into my computer and print them on an epson inkjet printer.

No, it is not the most cost-effective way of making art, but for now, and for me, it is what I am comfortable with. I know that the 4×5 will capture a large(20 square inches) slice of the world and I know that I pull a little of the beauty of the world from those negatives.

I think someone has already said this, but my medium just a tool of expression. The fact that I’m dropping a McDonald’s value meal on each shutter-release just makes each picture more important, and I hope, more sacred. It’s not that digital snaps can’t capture beauty, or wonder or the sublime aspects of light, but that I haven’t found the skills to use it that way. Kudos to those who have, could I borrow a couple hundred?

By: niran sabanathan http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/08/21/against_ease/comment-page-1/#comment-87431 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:16:21 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=392#comment-87431 I think digital photography and processing for the vast majority of photographers have lead to a substantial improvement in simple self expression. I am taking far better photographs now than I ever did in the ‘age of film’. I am not talking about gallery quality photos, but photos that get closer to the vision of what I was seeing.

I can do this now because of the relative cheapness of digital photos(it is cheap to experiment) and the ease of editing. In terms of quality, for me, digital processing has produced far better photos because I neither had the time, temperament or funds to personally use a darkroom.