Whoa, John ... There are many aspects to photography, not just the technical aspect of digital software and sensors, and film and shutter speeds and all that. What's the point of all of that if a photograph doesn't result. So, discussing the result of all the technical aspects of cameras and software seems just as valid as anything else discussed on this forum, which has included a wide variety of subjects having nothing whatsoever to do with photography. Somehow, in my little pea-sized dinosaur brain, discussing a photograph has a lot to do with photography.
There is, IMO, much to learn from discussions such as this. While knowing how to make an exposure and capture a scene (which is really what all the technical stuff is about when you get right down to it) is important for some people, the essence of photography is the photograph. And what makes a photograph is far more than pixels and bits of silver and flash synch speeds, and hyper-mode, and all that. What makes a photograph is the human element, the person operating the camera. Understanding a photographers motivation, what moves him or her to see a photograph that someone else doesn't see, and to capture that moment for all to see, and perhaps learn from, is the heart of photography. It's unimportant whether someone thinks the photograph should have been taken, whether it was right or wrong to show it here, or if you or someone else believe it is demeaning or beautiful. The discussion opened people's eyes and hearts and minds to some small degree, giving some the motivation to expand their creative horizons, to perhaps try something different. Others will dismiss the whole thing as nonsense, and continue what they've been doing for years, for better or for worse. IMO, that's for worse - it's creative stagnation. I get lambasted because of a preference for older cameras (regardless of the fact that I use digital equipment), and am called to task for not moving forward with the times. For those who dismiss this discussion, and similar ones which I hope will ensue, as having no place on this list, I suggest that they are choosing not to move forward creatively or artistically, or perhaps are afraid to confront that which is within them. The technical orientation of this list, the drive to define so much of what photography is by quantifying the equipment used, should at times be offset by what it means to be a photographer, and what makes a photograph successful or not, and what motivates a photographer to choose a subject. This is what photography is when you get past pixels and shutter speeds and f-stops. And what does talking about technical minutia do to change people, to change their attitudes and ideas and they way they go through life? I'm sure "most people" will go home with their opinions and prejudices unchanged, but perhaps not all. Seems like Marnie might try something different. And I know that I've learned a few things about myself from this discussion. And there have been a few other who, through private email, have expressed a new motivation and energy. So, there you have it. shel John Francis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Dario Bonazza 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > : Despite some folks here look disturbed by excessive talk on > > >digital stuff, it seems that discussions like this one (as old as > > >photography and impossible to bring any conclusion) caught PDML more than > > >anything else. Have you noticed than any other discussion has almost > > >dried out since this posting? > > > > >Interesting, isn't it? > > > > Yes, it is - for a change. > > I'd disagree with that, too. > > I suspect that the number of people who will learn much from this > latest discussion is rather less than the number who could learn from > a discussion of bits and bytes. > > It's a nice soapbox for people to sound off, but at the end of the day > most people will go home with their opinions and prejudices unchanged. > > This too, will pass, and we'll gravitate back to the regular topics. > > Should we even be discussing this shot? Was it taken with Pentax equipment?
