skandy32 Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 Jerry Uelsmann has anybody heard of him? or his amazing work?? well, i have and i'm completing my A-level 3000 word essay on him as we speak, what i would like help with is this quote i have found.... “People constantly would respond to my work by saying ‘that’s interesting but it isn’t photography.’ I bought everything I used at a camera store and spent long hours in the darkroom, so what was I supposed to call my work?” So should his work be classed as photography? What do you think? i would like to see as many opinions as possible.... He manipulates photos in the darkroom just like we do digitally, and you must of heard of people accusing you that your edited photos aren't "real" photos. Uelsmann has never touched a computer. Every inch of his photos are edited traditionally, and if your into photography you can understand how hard this must be. If you dont understand just ask.... but any help would be greatly appeciated.... cheers :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_P Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 Hey, His work is "interesting as you say" but I still think it is photography! It may be somewhat more art rather than photography but the way that he produces it makes it photography. Printing and editing stuff in the dark room takes ages and ages!! Digital much easier :P Rob :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyroo Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 He uses a camera doesn't he? So its photography. Its like saying that someone who who paints half a butterfly, and folds over the drawing to create the impression of the other half isnt a painter. Silly critics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skandy32 Posted April 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 brilliant chaps, thats exactly the response i am looking for..... keep it up please :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spunkey_monkey_boy Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 from a photgraphers point of view and having spent a long time in a dark room i'd say yes its still photography, he may be manipulating the images and showing that a photo 'can lie' but the work that goes into it and the techniques used to get it definately make it photography :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skandy32 Posted April 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 bump, i just need a few more opinions .... . .. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tod Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 I really like it, Ive never heard of him before but his stuff's really interesting. Im kinda into photography myself, so I know that when you look at something and think 'ooh, that would make a good photo' its not too hard, you can either do it or you can't. But to look at something, and think 'ooh, if I merged this shot with another frame that I took a week or so back, that would look rad' that must be really hard, I can imagine it takes a real natural talent to do something like that. So yes, I would definetely call it photography, infact it must be a damn sight harder than some of the more 'traditional' styles of photography too. Thanks for the link, t'will keep me interested for a while. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChai Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 well simply since the images are produced on photosensitive material then it has to be photography, because thats what it says in the dictionary. photography is also an art, which includes distortion and the word where images are mixed together. so there isnt really a reason why his work should not be considered as photography. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted April 22, 2005 Report Share Posted April 22, 2005 I suppose it depends how you define photography. But I would have said that just because he bought everything from a camera shop, doesn't mean that it's photography. I would just call it graphics or something, but I'm no expert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted April 22, 2005 Report Share Posted April 22, 2005 its just the new step in photography, you can see hes taken an amazing picture of a sky, then added to it. i cant see why people dont call it photograpy because, its not a "true" photograph (just one image), but it is several, put together to make an astounding photo. as someone said, photography is an art form, and this is just expanding art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.