Re: Digital is Dumb Well Scott, where do I start . . . . hmmm . . . . at least you are
consistent.
Sure, I know some wedding shooters, and some stock imaging shooters who
only do JPEG. Basically, they streamline the workflow by only needing to
edit and cull out some shots. If it works, why not?
The processing power of the camera is no where near as good as the
processing power of a fairly new computer. This is the true advantage of
a RAW workflow, the ability to do more with the images later using more
capable hardware and software. People who like this often want to
accomplish something beyond the reason they pushed the shutter button.
It seems also to be used to correct mistakes in exposure, or as a
substitute for bracketing.
Some high end gear has allowed direct to CMYK file creation, basically
getting a ready to go to print file immediately from the digital back.
This is another workflow, though not available, nor used, by many pros.
Time spent in post processing is not time behind the camera.
Some professionals are hiring digital assistants to do the post
processing. There is still an editing need beyond just RAW conversion.
There are also some issues with RAW formats, something OpenRAW.org
discusses well. However, these are professional issues that would make
little difference to those not working as photographers.
So because it is easier you make "better images".
Yes, I try to derail these discussions because people miss that the
images should be more important than the technology. Unfortunately, on
equipment newsgroups, the technology is the emphasis much of the time.
Sure, anyone can have technical problems, miss getting focus on what
they wanted, get the exposure wrong, catch someone when their eyes
blinked, et al. There is also an issue in that sometimes you cannot get
close enough to a subject, or not wanting a subject to know you are
taking a photo.
It also seems that you are not capable of discussing any technical
merits of film. Feel free to state something positive about 35mm film,
and prove me wrong. ;-)
And try to note the :-) faces . . . . my writing style can often be to
provoke a response, but it depends upon your sense of humour.
Okay, so out of those, I liked
<http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/60883749>
Why? The composition caught my eye.
Okay, so out of those, the one that stood out to me was
<http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/59711105>
So what does this mean . . . not much really on a basis of technology or
equipment.
I think there has been decades of equipment hunting in pursuit of
imaging. Witness the many attempts at going to the same spots Ansel
Adams or Weston ventured, and trying to remake their photos from the
past. The funny thing is when you look at many now famous photographers
of the past, you can find quite a few that had equipment that was not
state of the art then, and even images that don't hold up to technical
scrutiny.
I think it would be wrong for me to imagine everyone liking everything I
do, or even a majority of people liking my images. I only need a few
people to like a few images in order to keep working, and slightly more
than that to get more work in the future.
Sorry if it seemed like an attack, but you have not been responsive
often without criticism. That in itself would not be constructive, so
perhaps it would be better of me to be constructive. You have to
understand that someone who works as a professional, or even someone who
exhibits fine art, gets tons of criticism on a regular basis. That tends
to develop a thick skin to comments, though I should strive better to
understand that not everyone gets that same thick skin.
So, my feeling is that your hundreds of images in a day, and unlimited
shooting potential with a D-SLR have not made you a "better"
photographer. You might think it did, or maybe gained some confidence
from the way you now approach imaging with a D-SLR. Remember, this is my
opinion, so no need to write out how you disagree. Anyway, if I were to
guess, the images you have that carry some appeal for others might have
been a result of you seeing something, then deciding to push the shutter
button. Outside of that, you might have sorted and edited to show
something of interest, which is a separate skill from taking the shot in
the first place. There are photographers much more well known than
either of us, who likely took far fewer images . . . not that thinking
more and shooting less works better, maybe it did for them, but mostly
because high volume is not a guarantee of "better" images.
I will agree that I could probably state things better. How's that?
What you will not find me doing it telling someone that they need a
certain camera, certain lens, or certain technology to do photography.
If someone finds a digital P&S to free up their creative inspirations,
or even a camera phone, I think that is far better than encouraging
someone towards something different. That is far from suggesting someone
try using a Digital P&S or a camera phone, or another extreme like
suggesting someone use a view camera with large format film.
Other technologies: a car will often be more comfortable and arguably
safer than many motorcycles, yet I would not discourage people from
riding motorcycles; even when choosing to drive a car, an automatic
transmission can be more convenient in traffic than a manual shift,
though many people enjoy using a manual shift transmission, so I would
try not to discourage people who want either.
Enjoyment of a certain camera could help some photographers. When
amateurs and enthusiasts do photography for the enjoyment of photography
(and not the gear), then the enjoyment hopefully will not become
obsolete. When someone does not enjoy using the camera(s) they own, then
the enjoyment is gone; maybe buying something could change that, or
perhaps there are other reasons.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Gordon Moat
|
|
