Front Porch No. 3

FRONT PORCH NO. 3    by dah

171 Responses to “Front Porch No. 3”

  • Thank you everyone. i didnt mean to hijack anything but I was pretty happy when these came back from the Lab yesterday and I just wanted to stick these up for a day or so. And it sort of fits with the ‘picture number 3 deal…..OK really loosely but…’
    I didnt think I had anything (and wouldnt have had without clip tests …lesson there ) and now I do.

    WENDY. No use at all other than to make a picture that I can like.


  • DAVID, OK, but strange.

    Anyway – for the two missing to complete the set of 3 pictures, I would go for both pictures of “summer job”

  • DAVID,

    Everytime I try to link “summer job”, the entry is not visible.
    Yes, some glitch maybe.


    This is a link to summer job, the two pictures, which go before Front Porch #3, I think…

  • HAIK,

    is there a rule putting links to spam if they are pointing back to burnmagazine?

  • ‘photophilosophers’ nice term civilian.
    Master of Arts in Photophilosophy …sounds probable :)

  • THODORIS. I moved this here. OK? (no wish to hijack the other thread)

    If you shoot a bunch of instagram and believe its hip..then thats your trip. I aint gonna follow you there, but its fine. stuff looks kinda funky. Its all good.
    But, If you shoot a bunch of the stuff and try to pass it off as type 690 thats another matter altogether. Coz it aint. You really wanna shoot 690….guess what? Shoot 690

    You want your 5d files to look like Kodachrome?? Cool! Its a good look. You want to pretend they ARE Kodachrome…??? WHY???

    I guess I see a difference between a look and an attempt to pass as real (even if it is just by omission of detail)

    And yeah I sound like some stuck in the mud dick. Good.

  • Fair enough John. Only asked because it seemed a bit odd comment coming from you. Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning. Not sure if I agree (literally, I’m conflicted about it), but I do get your point. Cheers

  • Thodoris. Listen, I am conflicted too. I state this position, but it seems at odds with how I felt a couple years ago. And Yes I have stated, very strongly that the image is everything…..but I believe that less and less….AUTHENTICITY…,.thats the thing for me now.
    And what the hell is authentic or not in this day and age??? probably best to ignore me entirely as some drunken fool.

  • John, experiencing internal conflict and having the ability to change your mind over time are preferable attributes to the opposite, as far as I’m concerned. I take it you’re doing better health wise if you’ve started drinking again. cheers

  • JOHN

    you are confusing Instagram with Hipstamatic….Instagram pictures can be totally straight out of the camera…any camera….i think you are assuming manipulation when that is not necessarily the case…i love the Instagram app….shoot em straight…my main mantra is authenticity…however, for you i think authentic is technical, and for me it is about intent, morality, etc…

  • Authenticity.

    Is it more authentic to shoot with b&w film than to do a digital conversion in lightroom?

    What’s more authentic? A polaroid print or a polaroid-looking image from instagram?

    If I scan a polaroid print and put it up on the web, is that less authentic than holding it in your hands?

    Do the stories told with digital imagery have less authenticity than those told with film images?

  • Today I made patatoe soup.. onions, garlic, carrots, chili and patatoes, all homegrown.. tomatoes bought at the store, same for salt and pepper.

    Why? Because I enjoy making it, and because it tastes good, every time a bit different, but good.. or better, we like it..

    My choice, works for me.. to each his own.. just don’t try to convince me an instant soup is the same.. that is how I feel about hipstagram and fake borders.. and that is why I print in the darkroom.. I enjoy the process.. and it’s never the same.. and it’s mine, from start to finish.. joy.. I understand what John is saying..

  • I’ll lean heavily towards David’s view of authenticity. Intent, morality. The technical aspects are more a question of aesthetics. Though if one is actually trying to pass something off as something it’s not, that would, I think, preclude it from being authentic under the morality clause.

  • Eva,

    I just re-opened my own darkroom (printing family snapshots, the largest I can….)… it was such a long time since the last printing session that some sort of life appeared in the forgotten chemicals… homegrown, we can say ;)

  • Eva,

    No one is saying you should not enjoy what you do. “Authentic” is a bit of a loaded term is all.

  • I have a little area in my basement I use as a darkroom. I haven’t used it in years, but I used to quite a lot. I loved the process. The tactile aspect of making a print. The smell, the wrinkled fingers. Could spend hours into the night trying to get it just right. And pleased as punch in the morning when I got it. But those photos were no more or less “authentic” to me then the prints or digital images I produce today.

  • Also, what are “fake borders?”

  • It’s not the camera or the technique .. It’s just the “who” was behind it (camera/technique)

    (proof here):

  • EVA

    i understand what John and you are thinking about process…you like the traditional process…i do too….yet, i do not think any more “authentic” than a picture taken with an iPhone…the friggin machines are artistically ARBITRARY…only one way or another because of the sequence of SCIENTIFIC INVENTION..but the sequence of science doesn’t mean anything to me as an artist..

    for all i know as a non scientist is that it shoulda been harder to invent wet plates than the iPhone….and now i stand here with both available simultaneous i can just choose one or the other…why be a prisoner of this arbitrary scientifically linear sequence of events? what is the difference between a machine that makes digital pictures than a machine that makes film pictures , EXCEPT that one was invented before the other?…

    they are still both recording MACHINES…that is all they ARE….the ONLY artistic thing in the entire equation is your EYE….whether you print on toilet paper or silver bromide or this camera or that is a craft issue, a tech issue, maybe even a motive issue, but not a pure art issue…craft DOES become a part of the final OBJECT..but the pure artist can either just draw or just paint or draw AND paint and sell both in the gallery! now you will excuse me, i am going to my darkroom!!

    i have said this before and i will say it again..the discussion over b&w and color and the discussion of digi vs film are the two biggest wastes of group mental energy and discussion of all time…they are personal decisions…all equal…for heavens sake, i vote to get on with it!!

  • Go David go….
    I feel your passion…..

  • Also, what are “fake borders?”

    Excellent question, Michael. The invisible lines separating people, perhaps?

  • “hating” or rejecting/preferring a Samsung camera over a Nokia one or an apple vs Sanyo /onkyo/ Panasonic / Carl zeiss or Olympus vs Nikon vs Pentax , mentax, cheddar vs Gouda erc…Blah blu blo blin blun.. balloni.. No substance ..
    Since when a semi conductor on a camera circuit will dictate quality?
    Well… When substance gone then all is left is camera gear..
    And the “I prefer Samsung vs apple ” argument for me reminds me the old fashioned canon vs Nikon argument..
    Bullshit! Canon vs Nikon? Oh please ! How about none of the above.. How about a Nokia with a zeiss lens or an iPhone !!!
    And remember , nobody forces anyone to use filters like hip dramatic Etc,,
    No no no.. Shoot as it comes STRAIGHT OUTTA YOUR PHONE..
    btw.. INSTAGRAM is JUST a sharing feature.. NOT a cheap photoshop version et all…
    Do not worry my purists friends..
    It’s ( INSTAGRAM ) is “clean”…
    The advantage over any SLR though is that since the phone lacks a mirror the results in slow speeds are highly unpredictable and that’s PURE FUN!!!!

  • panos authentic!!! see my link above

  • “..the discussion over b&w and color and the discussion of digi vs film are the two biggest wastes of group mental energy and discussion of all time…”

    Hey, I totally agree with this.

    But wasn’t John’s original point that taking a digital photo and sticking a film negative border around it – that wasn’t there in the first place – a bit disingenuous? I mean, yeah I can get some nifty software to do that but would I really want to? And why? I have no idea if that’s been done here, and neither does John, so maybe it was jumping the gun a bit but it does seem a valid point of critique to raise.

    Am I understanding this discussion correctly? It’s a bit unclear spanning a couple of threads as it is.

  • Man, for sure, with this discussion you guys have lost the attention and interest of those two luscious young Ukrainian gals who were making themselves so available on the front porch! You blew it! When will you get another chance like that?

  • In definite agreement that tools are tools and heart is heart. One is just the means to showing the other.
    The image is the only thing that really matters but it is interesting to discuss this issue.

    When I think of the term and judging ‘authentic’ it is how true you are to your soul and subject while working …how do we measure that? Well seemingly with our gut unless obvious otherwise. I think this conversation started because borders that imitate 35mm sprockets and perhaps are not from that particular process.

    you know, I liked the bleed-over way back when I was printing in a darkroom. Even then I was questioned on why I was doing it. Whether adding a border for effect adds something to the artistic vision and purpose of the image. I had to justify why I was doing it to more strict minded professors (I am still thankful for the roots they gave me!). No matter how you add it -lab or on computer- you are purposely adding a mistake-ish looking quality for artistic effect, no?

    I added it in then and I think people would do so now because of the feeling of rawness and immediacy that is conveyed. When we allow for those borders to show when actually printing b&w aren’t we making that same artistic decision? purposely adding for effect? Is there anything wrong with that?
    Perhaps because a particular device is readily available?

    Certainly things will always be better with an 8×10, printing in a lab with light and deliciously smelly chemicals. And this adds to specialization perhaps, rarity. I think the spectrum can be wide here. Digital has always been it’s own beast. I’m sure the Lithographers are still pissed about the Talbotype …eh, maybe not:) Where you land on it is a personal decision for one’s own work but shouldn’t we be judging others decisions purely on the work’s overall effectiveness?

    Just adding in the mix…..

  • The prophet Panos… not the virgin imants!

  • a civilian-mass audience

    The virgin PANOS…???

    oime,IMANTS…what are you smoking?:)…I want the same…:)))))))))

    “Any authentic work of art must start an argument between the artist and his audience.”
    Rebecca West (English Writer, 1892-1983)

    P.S THOMAS…are you in Athens?…be ready for delays…strike days ahead…embrace the unexpected!!!
    you know where to find me…

  • Imants….
    I almost peed my pants..:)
    cool ;)


    Ok, let me pick up the worms and get them back into the can!


    We’re not talking about the same thing I think.

    I do so NOT CARE whether a picture is shot on film or digital, what camera was used, if it’s black and white, what it is printed on, if at all.. in fact, the only photograph hanging right now in my home is a colour one, I have absolutely no idea if it’s digi or film, I love it, it’s on my wall.. and defending it against family, ’cause it’s not even sharp, go figure. Next one I will mount and frame is by Kyunghee Lee, black and white, no idea if digital or film. I love the photograph, that’s why I bought it and why I will put it on the wall.

    What my comment was about is what Tom Hyde points out (“But wasn’t John’s original point that taking a digital photo and sticking a film negative border around it – that wasn’t there in the first place – a bit disingenuous?”). And I would have no problem with that either, if the billions of pictures we see around and are manipulated, either through hipstagram or adding the borders or filters or what not, were not ‘looking’ all the same.. I do not say they ARE the same, but the look of them is the same.. there was a time when we were inundated with war hipsta pics, it was a trend, and the look was the same.

    With so many possibilities, what I wonder is why so few do take advantage of them and create their own thing? If you are an artist, take whatever you need and MAKE IT YOURS. Just adding a filter or a border is, to me, the cheapest solution, especially if you do it because it’s hip.

    Now, those wondering about the border, the fake border thing.. ever seen a film strip? If I put a neagive under my enlarger lens between glass I have to decide where to set the border, I can use either a frame on the ground plate to put over the paper, or I can use the movable things in the enlarger head by sliding them forth and back. Both of these options will make me TAKE OFF something, either only the border, or cropping the photograph. Or, as in my case, I use a negative carrier, which is slightly larger than the negative itself, thus a small black border will show up when printing.. (which, to me, and only to me, is important, it is proof that the whole negative is printed, means that I got it right IN camera.. again, that only matters to ME, MY way of seeing photography, what others do is none of my business). On the other hand, if I open a digital file in the computer, there’s no border at all. If I want one, I have to ADD it, it is NOT THERE to start with, it is the opposite of what happens under the enlarger, I do not decide what to take off, but what to add.

    That’s all fine, everything goes. But it is not the same. And that’s fine as well, it would be boring otherwise. The only problem I have with all this is when technic overrides, when it becomes more important than the eye. If a photograph (in this case, but counts for every artform) is strong enough by itself, it will stand. And for that, the eye is the only thing that counts. I think that is what the photographer on the essay was talking about when he said ‘authenticity’, not the process, but the intent.

    I do think I’m lucky to know what works for myself, what I feel comfortable with, what I can stand behind. And that counts for me, and me only. It doesn’t matter, not for the photographs I take, not for others. It is my personal need and choice.

  • For the writers out there:

    Borderlands: Call for Proposals

    Deadline: February 6th, 2012

  • CIVI,
    kali mera!

    YES! I am in ATHENS. now every week from Mondays to Thursdays until March.
    Tonite I’m bound, but usually the evenings are free.
    5-to-9 going to a new chapter.

  • THOMAS.. YAY!!!

    Abele.. homegrown family snapshots :D

  • a civilian-mass audience

    THOMAS…i am gonna wear my silver pan…facing west(the one that JIM gave me few years ago)…:)
    we will meet…!!!

    EVA…wait…don’t put all the worms back in the can…I need some for my baby chickens…
    they are vegetarians too…love you!!!

    Can someone open the windows…?:)))))))))

  • Tom Hyde. Yes , you are correct. I was asking the question on a hunch.
    David. Yes I meant the hipstamatic. and Eva is right, this was NOT about digi vs film.

  • a civilian-mass audience

    and JOHNYG…we love you!!!


    sorry, i did digress a bit bringing up digi vs film argument but honestly is pretty much the same discussion about whether or not traditional tech is more valid than new tech…or, in this case about the “varieties” of manipulation….manipulation is manipulation…

    if all three of you were standing in front of my camera in a line a equidistant (which i would dearly cherish) , and i chose right there on the spot to leave out of the frame young Tom and the picture is just now only Eva and John, then i have manipulated the reality which stands before me…Young Tom is not “there” because i moved the camera a half inch to the left…it is a lie that Young Tom is not there…a cold manipulation of fact…but Young Tom has on a red shirt and both Eva and John are wearing blue, so i crop Young Tom OUT…gone…i am doing blue monochromes, so the red shirt is manipulated out…Young Tom is a real person, a great guy, deserves to be represented, but he is out..wrong shirt.


    waiting for the light to get “right”…choosing a longer lens to throw out the background…”fake borders” (real film borders are a very old manipulation)…we select…we eliminate…we choose…whether to shoot this direction or that direction is in theory a manipulation of the “reality”…

    since we cannot damn it manipulate actual life, our real lives, we manipulate the pictures we take to represent life…we come up with all sorts of philosophies to justify this or that, but let’s get real here…photography is not real…life in front of you is real…and everything you do with your camera the minute you take it out of the bag is a manipulation…glory halleluja we are FREE to create…yes, yes, this is WHY we do this…

    it is just easier with an iPhone!!

    and i do love all three of you whatever you are wearing….

    abrazos, david

  • David, good points, but manipulation can go far beyond what you describe. For example, you could take that photo of John, Eva and Tom, then select their outlines in photoshop and composite them in front of Niagra Falls. As art, so what? As journalism, a definite no-no. In between, well, I think that goes to Gladdy’s point. Perhaps it’s okay if you acknowledge the manipulation but one can easily argue that if you try to pass it off as an actual photo of the three in front of the falls, then it is inauthentic, to say the least. How would you feel about an essay in which the people were shot in front of a green screen, the backgrounds shot separately, like in India or somewhere, and then the two composited together? As a publisher, would you conceivably run something like that. If so, would you expect to be told that the photos were composited? Would you inform the audience?

  • MW..

    ahhh yes, good discussion…i think we are talking about two different kinds of “authentic”….if journalistic “truth” is the issue, then yes that is another story…perhaps my brush strokes were too broad….just like in any bookstore, one must have categories…fiction, non fiction etc…the setting for the presentation is part of the presentation.. a photo in Time Magazine is different than a photo in Aperture…editors DO have the responsibility, as you suggest, to label photoshopped art…yet still THEY , the editors of Time , are manipulating in the broad sense by their choice of totally “non manipulated” pictures, words, cover shot, etc…all a matter of degree and interpretation i suppose…

    FYI, go back and do a bit of retro homework on the OJ Simpson picture on the cover of Time..when he was on trial…that is a textbook case discussing a part of this dialogue

  • Ahhh, David..

    Nono, still talking about different things I think.. PLUS! I got my Eta Beta* trousers on and hand a blue shirt over to Tom.. wanna have him in the picture too ;)


  • And wait a sec.. we can not manipulate our lives?? We do nothing else all day, manipulate our lives.. at least those that LIVE and not only vegetate! By every decision we take we do so! Either that or I do not understand what you mean..

  • EVA

    well we TRY to manipulate our lives of course…at least i do, and you do too…and we certainly can tweak things a bit for sure…but there is a certain amount of fate in there…not sure the proportions…i just cross my fingers, light a candle, make sure my good luck charms are with me, and hope for the best, and well work really hard!!

  • David..

    Now I can agree.. and you know, it’s a real pleasure to be here, with you and all those that care and hang out here!

    Ok.. I better go to do that last ‘work really hard’ part!

  • David, Interesting that the Washington Post is getting some scrutiny for using HDR on an image as this discussion is once again unfolding here on Burn.

Leave a Reply

You must login to post a comment.