On Mar 25, 2006, at 3:22 AM, Cotty wrote:
Let me get this right, or I may be misunderstanding the situation.
There's lots (6? 8? ) of cameras aimed at strategic points of the
playing area, with remote controls to one or a couple of operators.
Therefore, the operators ( I call them that for want of a better word)
are not looking down the lens at the action. They watch the action with
their eyes, and using their skill and judgement, operate the suitable
camera one or two or more at a time to capture the action. Is this
right
or wrong?
That's right.
If right, then I stand by my remarks. This is 'operating multiple
cameras by remote control' and not photography as is accepted in the
general sense. It is pure commerce, and good luck to them. It's a nice
idea and a useful way of capturing the action while saving money by not
employing more human beings to operate those cameras by looking down
the
lenses (and therefore becoming photographers instead of just
operators).
So, Cotty, why is it that only users of reflex cameras are artists?
Because you don't look through the lens of any sheet film cameras, and
you do in fact stand away from them to make the exposure, using a
remote.
In addition, most if not all of the camera positions are in places
where a person could not stand -- mounted on the backboard, for
instance. I have no experience with the guys shooting March Madness,
but I know a number of people who have assisted on a regular basis for
the official NBA photo service when they do work in Toronto, and they
spent a lot of time climbing ladders in order to re-load cameras.
Enlighten us -- what is the precise length of cable release that turns
art into commerce?
You should know - I only live in the second most capitalistic country
in
the world!
I'm confused. Are you implying that there are two countries more
capitalistic than the United States?
The ability to visualize from multiple cameras is a real talent, and
the
work they produce is stellar.
Stellar it may be, but it has no heart. If I have to explain the last
bit, I fear we are not going to be able to reach a consensus.
Apparently, you need to be physically touching the camera and looking
through the lens to make art, that's your argument? If not, please put
into more precise wording what your objection is. Give me the
conditions that negate the art.
Frankly, I think you're full of crap. You're arguing "autofocus means
that it's not art" or "auto exposure means it's not art", except this
is even less mechanical intervention, because a real live human set the
exposure and focus manually on these cameras. Or are you arguing
"cropping means it's not art"? I don't get how it doesn't have heart
because the guy isn't running from one setup to the other holding only
one camera.
If he did the same setup with 4x5 cameras, would you still insist it
wasn't art for the same reasons?
-Aaron
