hahahahahaha…

kat-

i totally agree with you. But i have been able to view much more photography thanks to the computer than i could possibly have books in my house. i have more than i can accomodate as it is, plus art and photos all over my walls. i have to say that before i ever went on the internet i never bought a single piece of art or even an art book to tell you the shame-faced truth. And i was an art major for heaven´s sake. But the internet connected me with the most amazing work, stimulated my curiosity and ignited a passion for photography that i could not have believed possible. The internet has been my contact with a world of beauty and magic and mystery…a WORLD…not a country, not a city, not a coupla friends sharing prints, but a WORLD of creative photography. It offends me to hear someone sniff at the idea of a fuzzy 72dpi photo as being unspeakably inadequate. If the viewer has a fertile imagination and a curious intellect and an open mind, even a 72dpi fuzzy photo can evoke magic.

my best to Hervette, the little minx
kat-

Kat, not sure what you mean by real photo?!?!? But I myself am not so sure that the computer screen could be the only and last abode where a photo would achieve its worthiness as an object of artistic expression. There is something about prints and books that really brings out what photography is all about, and that a screen does not quite achieve. Somehow/sometimes for the soul to be engaged, the tactility of touching that object, or one’s singular presence in front of it, matters more than the swiftness of cyber delivery.

I do not love screens but I love books is a shorter way to put it, and I think it’s a distinction that matters.

our world – at war

download the exhibition poster and view photographs from the 8 photographers here – http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ourworld-yourmove-events-globe

“The sad part is that everyone will think 72 dpi images on fuzzy, badly color corrected monitors is what “real” photos look like. I think that’s a huge loss for those who will only see these photos on their laptop.”

Photos on the net are as real as photos held in the hand. They are as good or bad as photos printed well or poorly. The internet is far more accessible, does not eliminate museums, galleries, photobooks and probably stimulates appreciation for these outlets. The net has undoubtedly had a depressing effect on newsprint. But a newspaper image is certainly the physical equivalent of a 72dpi fuzzy print on the net. And the net’s a far more democratic outlet than any other, bar none.

I find this statement from you very odd considering that you have been compulsively browsing the net and viewing photos on line since the early 90′s. If it was so unsatisfying to you why, um, well why do you still do it? And that’s a rhetorical question. I don’t need or want an answer which would only be more of the same. In fact, why oh why did i post this? i swore i wouldn’t…grr…i am guilty of the same “noise” mentioned above..ok, well, my name is Kathleen Fonseca and i am a “Jim” addict. Hi, Kathie, don’t worry, that’s why we’re all here. It’s not too late for your 3 month pin, just don’t get sucked in again, k? phew…said with some relief, ok..i won’t do it again, i promise!

my best to Tyler County anyway
kat~

kat~

i do not think i was making a point….just an observation….of course, i realize the power of the net…after all, here i have been for the last couple of years….but, there is still an element of real surprise when i show up at a place like Ryerson Universtiy for example and quite literally meet the dozens of readers here who are hanging on your every word!!

cheers, david

Why are you surprised by “the weight they give material on the net?”

I think the one of the hardest concepts for the “older” generation to get a handle on is that the net is the new world of print. Don’t get me wrong, I agree there is nothing like relaxing with a good photography book. And although I don’t do a lot of reading, I am not sure I would ever be interested in reading a book on a computer screen. It seems to cold and uninviting for a novel or such.

But I think the net is becoming a wonderful place to view photographic work. And it may end up being the ultimate free advertisement for the photographer’s work to entice people to go seek out the printed version.

Or did I misunderstand your point?

Hope all is well and Jen and I will see you at Look!

Thankyou,
Johan

i agree with you on this point Jim….it would be most relevant if in fact non-photographers were at least sometime readers of BURN….since Nachtwey’s name is being bounced around now, i will say that Jim has agreed to do an original assignment for BURN…new work produced specifically for BURN…he is not the only one….perhaps in depth articles and original photography on relevant issues may attract a wider audience….some of the writers here are professed non-photographers…if the ratio non-photographer writers is the same as photographer writers to our recorded readership, then we already have many non-photographer readers……however, i think we should always stay relatively boutique in nature…getting too big is my worst fear…

i too have print as the ultimate use of photography…at the same time, i have seen the power of the net that reaches out in a way that print never did….i am sure you see BURN as some kind of exercise rather than an actual use of photography…i can see why you would think this way…however, as i travel around and meet young BURN readers, i am constantly surprised by the weight they give material on the net….and were we to publish one or more of your photographs here it would reach way more readers than you reach on your paper…and to an international community to boot….of course a print version of BURN has always been in the works…

many photographers share financially and otherwise with the subjects they photograph…Magnum gave the largest percentage of profit(1 million dollars) of their 9-11 book to the New York Neediest fund to go towards aid of various kinds to families of the victims…hardly a week goes by in New York and elsewhere where there is not a print auction from legendary photographers who donate prints where the sale money goes to help whatever cause….

thanks Johan, you are right on it…..

cheers, david

Some photographers actually plow the profits from photo sales or books back into the effort to help those photographed, and I applaud with that.