Not exactly, John, but pretty close.
Truth is, it ain't digital that I ranted against, it was just what seemed to me
the excessive amount of minutia that was being discussed that didn't seem to add
anything to the making of photographs. I feel exactly the same way when people
talk about film in such detail - the shape of the silver particles, heels and
toes, d-Max, and all that. Sure, I know that that knowledge can help some people
make better photographs, technically ... but so what. What good is a technically
perfect photograph that tells no story, that shares no interest, that fails to
incite or provoke, that gives no rise to thoughts and ideas, or that doesn't
share happiness, joy, pleasure, or any of the many emotions and hundred of
experiences we share.
And John, I do have in interest in digital photography ... have been impressed by
the quality that can be gotten from some Epson printers (2200 and 9600 are the
ones I've used). My interest is strong enough that I work with a printer in
Berkeley who has shown me a few things to improve the quality of my "digital
output" and helps me extract the best possible prints made by my little Sony or
scanned slides or negatives.
Sure, I can marvel about the quality of Salgado's work (and was told on this list
that such quality could not be achieved using 35mm film - by those who never saw
the photographs <LOL>), but it all means squat without the story the photographs
tell, without the effect they had on making changes in the world. And yet, some
of the greatest stories told in photos, some of the greatest and most renowned and
most important photographs, are technical disasters.
I've met some wonderful photographers. Sometimes when talking about what goes
into the making of a photo it becomes clear that they don't "know" about many of
the minute details that make up the film they use, or how a developer (or a pixel)
works. But they do know what exposure to use in a certain situation, and they do
know that if they use such and such a film, or this camera or that lens, they like
the results. They do know how to shoot to a climax. Talk to these guys and women
about social issues, the best way to interpret light, good shooting scenarios, and
even the choice of film (and to a lesser extent, the gear) they use, and you'll
have a good conversation. But ask about heels and toes and interpolation and
r-g-b and EXIFs and such, and more than likely their eyes will glaze over <LOL>.
The truth is that on this list, and other lists, there are a great number of
people for whom all this technical stuff is important. It's their job, it's part
of their life, it's something that gets their blood flowing. But as for me, and
for quite a few others out there, all those details get in the way of making a
photograph. I guess it's a left brain right brain kind of thing. I forget what
side of the brain I use when looking through the viewfinder - but then, I don't
care about that either. I just want to see what's on the paper, whether inkjet or
fiber-based silver. And if it ain't right, I don't need to know all the minutia
about what went into the software, or the optical formula of a given enlarging
lens, or any of that. I just need to know if more/less exposure would be better
(oversimplification, I know, but it really ain't much more complicated than that).
And, just to make it clear for those who do think I'm an equipment snob, here's
what I wrote to Bucky in a private email:
I shan't defend my POV, other than to say I'm about as far from an
equipment
snob as you can imagine. I own, and use, autofocus cameras. I own, and
use,
digital cameras (and have done so for years ... longer, I might guess,
than many
people on this list and perhaps you yourself). I've been scanning film
for
several years now ... so don't give me this snob bullshit, OK.
And, as I mentioned to John, publicly, I LIKE the istD, but I'm glad it's
not a
Leica. And I love my Leicas, but I'm happy that they're not an SLR. And
I love
my MX, but sometimes it sucks compared to the MZ-5n. You get the picture
...
So, agree or disagree with my rant, believe I'm a snob or an asshole or
incompetent or narrow minded or whatever. It makes little difference to me. It is
nice, however, that some discussion was generated, and that some beef stew recipes
were posted.
John scribed:
> Shel understands the nuts-and-bolts of how to wring the last possible
> iota out of the 'traditional' (or is that 'legacy'?) photographic process,
> probably better than almost everybody on this list. It's interesting to
> him, and so he excels at it.
>
> He's not interested in the digital manipulations, and so he hasn't
> invested the effort to understand the details of the process. And
> even if he did understand the technical complexities it wouldn't have
> the same emotional connection for him to the image-production process.
>
> If I were to read any subtext into Shel's "rant" (other than the sheer
> pleasure of playing Devil's advocate and deliberately overstating a case)
> it would be the angst of someone seeing his favourite pastime sidelined
> by the inexorable march of "progress".
