newly humbled

[protos]

Been reviving my old passion for film photo recently & today saw the "Krappy Kamera" (mostly lomographic cams and pin-holes) show at Soho Photo Gallery here in NYC. It was humbling. I thought I was taking good photos - mine aren't bad, but, wow, theirs', these photographers, they are great artIsts. No kidding.

And in my humbled state, I'm wondering about the "technique" in printing or, in producing the viewed image, that dominates in this exhibit.

How important is that to the end result? The so-called "krappy" camera is not really krappy at all. Krappy cameras, some by design, produce interestingly quirky images.

Maybe I'm just feeling like these great photos weren't made in the recording device used to create them but, instead, in the darkroom (or photoshop in a few cases)?

Has anyone here seen this show? What do you think? (personally, I love it but am befuddled too).

 

[dcclark]

I haven't seen it, but great images aren't made by cameras -- they're made by photographers. There's a great old Ansel Adams quote that goes something like "The most important part of the camera is the 12 inches behind it."

Then again, I may be totally missing your point.

 

[chadsdphoto]

Have to agree with dcclark and Ansel Adams. Without even seeing the exhibit, I can tell that what you are impressed with and what the point of the exhibit is this - artistic talent is every bit as important to a successful photo as the equipment and techniques used to make it.

 

[Torus34]

I am still searching patiently for a link to a site where the brushes or brands of oil [or watercolor] paints used in creating a specific painting are critiqued by fellow artists.

"See there? In the upper left hand corner? He should have used a 1/2" bright brush instead of the 3/8" filbert!"

 

[protos]

Yep, that is the point of the exhibit, that it's the photographer/artist that makes a great photo, not the camera, hence the strict rules that the camera be "krappy" in the first place. I guess I'm confused on some level because these same images could've been made or, better yet, produced using a top of the line camera too. I guess that I just made their and AA's point. Somehow still feel disappointed b/c I suppose I wanted to see the exploration of the unique territory of krappy camera photography rather than how a great photographer can make a photo taken with a krappy camera look like a photo they could have taken with the best camera in the world. Anyway, it's a wonderful show & anyone who can should go see it.