On 3/25/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I'm not Cotty but I share his view, which I think you're missing Aaron. >From what I understand of Cory's original post, what happens at these events is that they set up several banks of still cameras in strategic around the court/field/venue, aimed at various points of potential interest?! (it doesn't matter a whit to me if they are 35mm Rollies', 4x5 view cameras or 1DsMkII's) An operator controls the shutter via remote, and when the action is in the right area they fire away without really knowing what is in frame! If this is the case, then the guy or gal operating the camera, IMO, is not so much a photographer as they are a "Camera Operating Technician". There is no "art" to it. It's a scatter gun approach, plain and simple. With so many cameras trained on a certain spot, your bound to get something useful. And no doubt it's financially motivated. It's got to be a hell of a lot cheaper to have one person operating 25 cameras, instead of 25 photographers with one each. IMO the photographer on the sidelines looking through the viewfinder, framing the shot & picking the right moment to fire the shutter shows a greater level of skill and creativity than the technician in the stands pressing a button. Dave -- "All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy." - Spike Milligan
