Fall 2012 Tu/Th History of Photography

Of course the app can be considered an independent work of art! It obviously has all the qualities that consider “art” to be art. It’s original, unique, and by far an amazing utilization of modern technology. I believe the renowned photographer Edward Burtynsky really displays a level of competition in the photography industry. He sets the bar high for other aspiring photographers because he has done something he has a deep passion for, and transformed it into a masterpiece.

According to the Oil App review by Photo District News, the original publication of the book is 218 pages and costs a whopping $128 (I might as well just enjoy public exhibitions for this price). Now the price for the app version is tremendously different. It costs less than half of the original print (selling at just $9.99) and includes even more features than the book including: several photographs found exclusively in the app version, a map displaying all the locations Burtynsky has photographed, and even virtual video tours of Burtynsky presenting his work in the exhibition. Plus, the quality of the image is much more greater than that of his published copy.

All in all, I honestly believe that buying this App is a wise investment, especially if you’re into industrialization.

The way I understand it, art is an intentional depiction of appealing mixture of the form, composition and color. Art can be visual and auditory as well as functional. Art can be innovative, but more often it is an expression of someone’s emotional state on regular basis.

Work of Edward Burtynsky is manifold. Each of his productions can be considered to be an art.

His use of camera produces amazing results. It is clear, sharp images of great resolution. Most of it should be attributed to the camera itself. But camera alone can’t to a thing. In hands of Burtynsky it produced images full of pleasing color interactions, and compositions. It doesn’t really matter, at this point, what is depicted in photographs; images do make you stop and adore the picture as if it was an abstract painting.

Burtynsky does something extra. He adds commentaries which explain how one should interpret photographs. Now it isn’t just an art but documentary photography as well. It is like a “bait and switch” technique; Burtynsky lures his audience with art but then exchanges the esthetical information with political one. It is done quite masterfully.

Lastly, Burtynsky uses new media to deliver his message to people. Article Anatomy of an iPad App: Edward Burtynsky’s Oil Embraces the iPad Format dedicates quite a lot space describing the App and how it works. The App does more than just show image or two, it does so in an appealing way. Programing involved to make it possible have to be thought through and compiled in a way to be not just functional but attractive.

In conclusion, I’d say the work of Edward Burtynsky and his team is an art form, regardless of the political message it was created in the name of.

The wet-plate process is indeed the magical process of photography. This process is what  dedicated photographers used back in the nineteenth century and what passionate photographers today, in my opinion wouldn’t mind going back to. I think people in today’s society have photography all mixed up. People with IPhone’s and simple digital cameras consider themselves great photographers just because now a days there’s a filter to change the way a regular photo looks, and because they know how to use Photoshop. Just like in the article Corey Keller stated “Look at Hipstamatic or Instagram where you get a look of old photographs by just laying over a filter”.

Photographers like Sam Taylor-Woods, from the Louis Vuitton campaign, states that the wet-plate process is really time consuming but the end result is worth it. After watching how the process really works and what the results of her picture was I totally agree. It must be nice for photographers to go through that slow process and see how their photograph develops. This process gives the photo life, and the details of the photo are more noticeable and amazing. Taking a photograph of something and getting to see the image right away is so easy now, and the pictures don’t even compare to the how the pictures looked back then using this “pain” process.

I think it is well known for artist to recreate art work that has been famous and known throughout the entire world in the past. I can relate to that because, most students i think have taken art class and the art teacher told tells us to recreate an art work from the past and most of these art work were and still famous at the time, and it was hard to recreate the same thing as the original.

I think it is great how modern artist are trying to recreate the past, by recreate the art that was made by the most well known artist in the world. They might be showing the viewers out there, that the past has not yet changed into history facts.

The wet-plate process is much more harder on both the subject and the photographer, because the photographer must use many chemicals to produce one photo at a time and long exposure time gives rise to poses and expressions one doesn’t usually see in modern photography. In comparison to having digital images taken instantly on a camera screen, the poses can only have been taken for a few seconds and does show that much interest in the photo.

Wet -plate collodion is a photographic process that basically dates back to the birth of photography. It became very famous during the Civil War. According to , A Haunting Old Photographic Process Reappears, this process requires a large-format camera, a subject who can remain still for 10 to 30 seconds, and immediate development, by hand. The pictures were described as “arduous” to make with rewarding techniques  that cannot be match by iPhone or  modern cameras. In the Louis Vuitton Double Exposure video Sam Taylor said, “the quality is very hard to find in photography” and that the “technique is wonderful”.

I believe the technique, quality, and detail that the wet-plate images offer is why some photographers has returned to the nineteenth-century processes. It gives the people viewing the images  a different way of looking at portraiture, especially for those who have never witness how photographs look when they are done using this process. Even though it is old, the process is now being viewed as something new and exciting because many people have never seen it before. This is even more beneficial for designers, like Louis Vuitton, advertising their new collection because the images will be eye catching. In conclusion, people are always looking for new ways to express things which is why many photographers today are reviving the wet-plate process.

The wet-plate process (originally called the Wet Collodion Process) was developed in 1848, by early pioneer Frederick Scott Archer. This form of photography uses glass plates to produce photographic negatives. The glass plate must remain wet the entire time, hence the term “wet-plate process”. Prior to reading this article, I had never heard of such a “magical” process of photography.

I think the main reason photographers are using the wet-plate process is because they want a more authentic looking photograph rather than have an instant digital one. Although this is a long and tedious process, the end result is definitely worth all the time invested into making it. As Mr. Malmberg put it, its “a pain”. This is why only truly dedicated photographers get involved in such a project.

In Louis Vuitton’s Double Exposure film, the photographer explains that because of the wet-plate process, she views portraiture in a completely different way and I agree 100%. It adds a “stillness” to the photograph, which is apparently hard to come by in modern photography today.  The film states that it takes an entire day to develop just two photographs. Honestly, I wouldn’t be able to replicate the wet-plate process because it’s such a time consuming process.

The wet plate collodion is a processes that we never got to experience first handed, I think that one of the reasons why photographers are starting to turn to it.  It gives the photographer the feeling that they are in an actual darkroom.  I think after the rise of digital photography, analog photography isn’t as common as it was before.  So photographers turn to a new technique to produce photograph that they have not experienced before, and that would be the wet-plate collodion.  As a photographer who has experienced analog and digital processes, I would certainly be curious about the wet-plate process.  In the article Corey Keller said “Look at Hipstamatic or Instagram… by just laying over a filter.”  Instagram provides us with filters to use on our photos we took a vintage look to them, this could be one of the reasons photographers. I have not have not heard of the wet-plate process before and it catches my interest to give it a try.  It makes me appreciate how photographers in the nineteenth century and how it is more difficult to produce a photograph back than compared to how we can easily produce a photograph now.

I think it’s great that photographers are using old processes in their current works. Every so often photography needs something different, something refreshing. Most photographers today rely on digital photography and it’s impressive that other photographers are going back to 19th century processes to create something more artistic.

 
The New York Times Article makes a good point when it states that “There’s an angst about digital photography and a proliferation of nostalgia…” especially when phones have apps to lay a filter over a picture. I think photographers today want to put character into their photographs instead of just an image on paper. The wet-plate process is described as time consuming but with a great outcome. It’s rewarding to spend all day setting up a photograph, developing it and getting and outstanding photograph.

I really like the photographs that are attached to the New York Times article. I see what they mean when they say that the photographs have character because they’re not just a black and white photograph, it creates a mood. The detail is also amazing. It’s interesting that they are using it for advertising; it’s not a process that people are familiar with and they are using it in a modern way.