And I was only responding to the fact that some photographs that are
realistic and look like realist school of painting can be made.
Roy
In a message dated 12/18/2009 9:19:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
tmi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
photoroy6@xxxxxxx wrote:
In a message dated 12/18/2009 11:50:22 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
tmi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Paintings that attempt to be
photographs seem to disappoint
as much as photographs that attempt to
emulate
painting.
It depends on the ability of the artist. I viewed a juried show and
there was a picture of an old fashion looking ship done on canvas that was
completely excellent and was the only one in the show to have been
sold.
I really have nothing against gum bichromate or
any other technique of making images. I was simply responding that creating
color images that reproduced color accurately was as valid an artistic pursuit
as any other. Here is the comment that caused me to point out my
opinions.
"Or, you could just produce color separations for digital
negatives and make tricolor gum bichromate prints."
I made many such
images back in the 1960s. Now my interest is in creating color images that are
as accurate for color reproduction as feasible. It amazes me that such a
desire seems such heresy to some here on the Rochester Institute of Technology
forum. I guess I am glad I went to art school long ago when there was a
greater freedom to pursue art where you felt it useful. Would a student today
be faced with harassment for wanting to pursue photographic images that
reproduced color as accurately to subject color as possible? How
sad.
Ed
