----- Original Message ----- From: "Digital Image Studio" Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow)
> On 11/01/07, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> And how did you, or do you, deal with B&W? >> >> Youir comments suggest that you're not a photographer but some kind of >> technician. > > I'm a bit confused and surprised at some of the comments relating to > Cory's posts. Whether somebody is making photographs to create art or > records surely they are still a photographer if they control how or > what is being photographed? By definitions I have read here, as soon as you pick up a camera, you are a "photographer". I started out as a "technician", in that I used the camera as a means to an end, that being to get into the darkroom and make pictures. This was when I was 13 I got very proficient fairly quickly at the technical aspects of photography, but really, it wasn't until after I met Roy Norberg when I was around 20 that would consider that I became aware enough of the asthetics of photography to call myself a photographer. This photography thing is a two edged sword, not a butchers knife. There is both a technical aspect and an aesthetic aspect involved. We tend to denigrate the "dummy mode" camera users who call themselves photographers, since they don't have a clue about the technical aspects, the *hows* of what we do, but really, if you don't have a sense of the aethetic you are even more crippled regarding photography. The camera can make you sufficiently technically proficient, even on green dummy mode, but some education that trains the aesthetic eye is also required, to give you a sense of the *whys* of what we do. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
