But on the other hand, most of the pro-digital folks here are sounding like a bunch of artists I know, "I'm an artist, I don't care about all that technical stuff". Trial and error are less work than gaining a sound knowlege of the technology, and now you don't even have to pay for the waste. Great! A new generation of digital-artists.
To me a "photographer" is someone who is skilled in the craft of photography. It does not really matter whether he is doing digital photography, or chemical photography, but if he is not skilled in his craft he can hardly call himself a photographer. Picture taker? Maybe. Snapshooter? Yes.
I kind of like the observation we keep hearing that HCB did not do his own lab work. No one, that I know of, has asked the questions, did he know how, could he have done it if he chose to? I will bet the answer to them is yes. I mean, if you don't know how it's done, how can you direct the lab person?
--
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Technical data doesn't make a strong image.
Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
I totall agree Rob...
plus it records all the technical shooting data for review after the fact."
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
