|
|
|
pachyderm
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:18:46 PM
Posts: 545,
Visits: 2,246
|
|
naturephoto1 (1/25/2008)But, I do see those that are more knowledgeable, more interested, and more discerning in terms of the general public, interior designers, interior decorators, collectors, other photographers, and gallery owners that do see and can recognize and appreciate the "vision", the quality and what goes into "fine photographs" as well as the quality of the workmanship.
Rich One of the reasons I'm so bullish on film photography.
Robert M. Teague---------------------------------------------
Website: www.visionlandscapes.com
Blog: visionlandscapes.spaces.live.com
"Fujifilm remains true to its heritage and to the acknowledged superior image quality delivered by professional photographic film products." -- Fuji Press Release
|
|
|
|
|
lion
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/7/2008 2:49:31 PM
Posts: 135,
Visits: 324
|
|
The problem I see, and I wrote a journal about it (which was taken as being anti digital) is that the essential skills one developed over time to make good photographs are no longer required. Learning to see the light, getting the subject right on the negative or transparency and most importantly utilizing the restraint to forego taking the photograph or developing the patience to wait until the conditions and the light is right is no longer necessary with digital.
I am sure that many of you have decided not to take a picture simply because the light was not right. Yet, with the advent of digital this is no longer necessary, take the shot, fix it in photoshop. Skill in photography has been replaced with skill on a computer program, I don't know how many times I have read "If you think digital is easy then you should try making feathered masks on a multilayer...blah, blah, blah..."
I mention this for two reasons, the first one and most evident is that this is the reason why film is in danger, people do not have the patience any longer, they want instant gratification. This also applies to photoshop, even if you spend a month fixing pixel by pixel, you see the resulting changes almost immediately. Second, it has come to pass that if you give an infinite number of monkeys and infinte number of typewriters they will eventually write Shakespere's complete works....since film and it's associated costs are no longer an issue, people take an incredible amount of pictures, they are bound to get lucky and get one or two that are nice...so then they say..." I can do that".
Nothing, absolutely nothing compares to a LF transparency, so Rich, next time you hear "I can do that" you should wip out one and ask, "really?!? can you do this?"
|
|
|
|
|
pachyderm
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:18:46 PM
Posts: 545,
Visits: 2,246
|
|
Jorge Gasteazoro (1/27/2008)
Skill in photography has been replaced with skill on a computer program, I don't know how many times I have read "If you think digital is easy then you should try making feathered masks on a multilayer...blah, blah, blah..."Ahhh ... one of those arguments that is so easy to debunk, I'm surprised people still bring it up. Software continually evolves, with the express goal of making it easier to use. For example, the latest version of Photoshop (CS3) and Lightroom both have a feature called "clarity". This is a new feature to both, however in previous versions you could accomplish the same thing using curves; manipulating curves is one of those techniques that many have found difficult to master. Clarity simplifies this by replacing that manipulation with a slider. And, that is just one example.
Robert M. Teague---------------------------------------------
Website: www.visionlandscapes.com
Blog: visionlandscapes.spaces.live.com
"Fujifilm remains true to its heritage and to the acknowledged superior image quality delivered by professional photographic film products." -- Fuji Press Release
|
|
|
|
|
lion
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/7/2008 2:49:31 PM
Posts: 135,
Visits: 324
|
|
YoOu know better than I do in these cases, but IMO is not a matter of debunking because it then becomes an us vs them argument. My concern is the mindset required to create beautiful work and the perception prevailing with the public. In the past, no one, but no one would look at an AA and say, I can do that,(that was not a photographer, and then even most photographers knew they did not have the talent or expirience) or if we are talking about color, how about Cole Weston? An unsung hero of the color arena or if your predilection is toward more known photographers, how about Elliot Porter?....Not once did I go to a gallery that was showing Porter prints that I heard someone say, I can do that. Or how about a little known photographer John Charles Wood? I once saw a Ciba done by him that was out of this world.
The sad thing was that for all the "content is paramount" that those who practice digital would want us to swallow, those well known photographers did not require a huge print to make their work beautiful. The Wood's print I mention, was only a 5x7...yet it was gorgeous.
This is why I thought of doing only one print per negative, to differentiate myself from digital. Sadly, I am now aware economics do not allow me to do this for all the prints. If I am forced to sell prints from $40 to $70, then I need to sell as many copies of them as I can. It was very dissapointing to see that photographers are only willing to accept change in those areas where it makes it easier for them, not more profitable.
|
|
|
|
|
lion
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:14:24 AM
Posts: 136,
Visits: 208
|
|
|
|
| | |