On Mar 26, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
2. Fast forward to digital era, I have a feeling that what people
talking
about here as "art" is mostly the post-processing work flow,
particularly
the PS manipulation. I am not sure if this is truly the "art'
part...
The art of photography is the same, and is separate from the
technology of capture or rendering. If you don't understand that, you
don't understand the art of photography.
Digital enthusiasts shoot raw like machine gun (well, not quite
but you know
what I mean) without much regard to the ambient light etc (AWB) ,
as they
(we) determined that those could (and should) be processed later on
computer. There lies some grief by film enthusiasts (or
traditionalist, I
should say). Craft of taking good photos are now transferred to the
mechanical post-processing in what is called the work flow. Now
people call
it the "art". Perhaps, but I have to wonder how much creativity
is included
in that (in general terms). PS allows real creative manipulation
of the
photo but how many people are doing it, using the real capability
of the PS?
Most are just scratching the surface of the software.
Again, you're right.
Utter nonsense. Hobbyists and people do who not understand
photography handle their cameras as gadgets and toys. Photographers
work to exploit whatever equipment and techniques that are at hand to
produce photographs.
I think that it is general tendency of modern homo sapiens to put
more and more trust into technology. Take this for example - "The
Art of Computer Programming"... Actually it is a craft.
more bs.
I further think that as technology advances we stop being in
control, we become operators of complex machinery, instead of
photographers, musicians, etc.
If you don't think that a guitarist playing an acoustic guitar is not
an 'operator of complex machinery' all you are doing is playing a
game of semantics.
3. ... In Japan (not that Japan is any special, but simply because I
watch more posts in Japan), this trend (coming back to film) is also
a big tide.
<sarcasm>
I bet the photofinishers of the world are just trembling with delight
watching the huge amount of new photofinishing work rolling in the door.
</sarcasm>
I cannot quantify it but there seem to be more and more
of those people and even the resurgence of film is being talked about
in some quarters (Fuji are officially forecasting this and it may not
be just a commercial wishful thinking). People who desire this are
almost without exception the most experienced group of people.
There is indeed the joy of using your tool to "create" good photos
being
taken away by the digital process, and perhaps that's what the
experienced
people are feeling.
more bs.
It would take great amount of self-discipline to:
1. Do as much as possible with the camera.
2. Do only raw processing and then spend no more than 5 min per
photo in PS which would be roughly equal to whatever averaging the
mini-lab does.
My average photo takes less than 5 minutes of Photoshop work to
produce and looks a heck of a lot better than what I see coming out
of the current minilabs.
I guess I'm doing as much as possible with the camera, eh?
4. And then, there is an aspect of "pride of ownership" of fine
photographic
instruments or tools (you could call it a gadget factor :-). Today's
digicams, particularly DSLRs are like computers in early '90s.
You know
that the moment you purchased a model, it is going to become
obsolete in a
very short time, even 6 months, so the manufacturers keep pumping out
expensive toys using cheap materials, whereas the film cameras are
matured
technology and once you bought a decent one (and at some $500 to
$1,000), it
will last almost a lifetime. Unlike digicams, all film cameras
produce the
same decent images in the hand of the experienced as much depends
on which
film is used.
Ken, gadget factor is very destructive. Take *istD. To average
amateur enthusiast it is absolutely sufficient for all their needs.
It gives you A4 prints natively and with minimal ressing up you can
have A3. It is 99% of what is necessary re prints.
Now, look how much PDML mental power was absorbed in discussing the
would-be *istD successor. It may have more pixes, USM, IS, what
not. Will it make *average amateur enthusiast* a better
*photographer*. Profoundly *no*! It will not. It will make the
manual so many pages thicker. It will ruin so many photos because
certain mode was forgotten to be turned on or of. It will make so
many photos because of the same modes. Notice - none of the above
has to do with photography - but with operation of a tool, a machine.
My brother just enabled himself with Optio S60 (you obviously
realize why he chose Pentax). He's extremely good with computers.
He read the manual - he couldn't get it :-(. Yes - he is not a
photographer - he merely want to go around and click around. Yet he
wants to know what kind of gadget he has - he got lost in the
manual. I'll rescue him, but the trend is evident.
I don't know what you are saying, either of you. People like toys,
and gadgeteer camera buffs like camera toys. So what? These are not
photographers. So they buy whatever new toy a manufacturer makes that
delights them. That's their right and privilege. So they yak about
them to ridiculous extent too; although I find it noisome and often
ridiculous, that's their right and privilege as well.
Photographers like cameras and the technology of photographic
production not for the things themselves but for the photographs
which express their art. What they buy is of concern inasmuch as it
advances their ability to do their art.
Of course, some photographer are also camera buffs and enjoy the
technology itself too. Nothing wrong with that either.
I can go on and on like this and know I have not even touched more
critical
points (which I usually remember AFTER posting :-).
I just thought that, after the original post of this thread,
suddenly people
all became self-acclaimed artists of some kind (I respect many are),
promoting as if the post processing is the sophisticated art. I
believe
there is an increasing group of appreciating the old craft, and
make a
pause.
I am not saying that those people suddenly are dropping the digital
photography. They are not. But some people are increasingly
beginning to
pick up more film photography as they used to. They know the
advantage of
both digital and film photography (I know it cots more if we keep
shuttering
away like we do with digicams). We'll see.
The art of photography is in seeing and expressing what we see by
capturing and presenting it. The tools ... the technology of capture
and the methodology of rendering it for presentation ... is essential
to that art, although the art transcends those tools. The tools
themselves are mutable and transitory, the art is not.
You can choose to accept this or you don't, but this is the basis of
photography as an art form. Otherwise, you are a recorder of scenes
in time ... a documentarian, a snap shooter ... or a camera buff.
There's nothing wrong with any of them, but as I said way way earlier
in this thread:
"If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your
problem."
Godfrey
