On 25/3/06, Aaron Reynolds, discombobulated, unleashed: >So, Cotty, why is it that only users of reflex cameras are artists?
I'm afraid I wouldn't know the answer to that, and nowhere have I said that was my opinion. I never mentioned 'art' in my previous posts in this thread. >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. You don't look through the lens of a sheet film camera? Strange, the one's I have used allow the photographer to compose and focus by viewing the frame on ground glass. Of course, exposing the frame is done by viewing the scene without looking through the lens. So what? I don't see many large format cameras at sports events these days. > >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. Aha, this is the first I have read of this. If it is not possible for a photographer to stand or sit in the location he wants to shoot from, then sure, pre-positioned remote control operation is very possible and desirable. I have done it myself with wireless remote control. It's not precise but it works. I understood the situation with the basketball example to be loads of cameras positioned in places where photographers could stand or sit. My misunderstanding. It doesn't change my opinion, which is that it's a 'heartless' method of obtaining pictures. >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. Understood. They have a lot of patience and skill at situating the cameras ready for the game, I'm sure. Our stills boys over here in the UK do it at football matches by positioning cameras on small tripods behind the goals. It can be very effective. > >>> 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? I'm implying nothing. I'll say it straight. There are zero countries more capitalistic than the United States. It's also a country very dear to my heart as I spent quite a few years growing up there. > > > >>> 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. No, I said it has no *heart*, not art . I did not mention art in any previous post in this thread. And for the record, it is not my argument that you need to be physically touching the camera and looking down the lens to make art. I am not contributing towards a thread on the merits of art in photography, so I won't give you any conditions that negate the art. Sorry old boy ;-) > >Frankly, I think you're full of crap. You may very well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment. >You're arguing "autofocus means >that it's not art" or "auto exposure means it's not art", I have not said anywhere in this thread in any of my previous postings anything about autofocus and/or art. So I am not arguing anything of the kind. > 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"? Nope. >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. It doesn't have 'heart' because it is a seemingly robotic solution to an admittedly enforced problem. There's less chance of a great shot with this setup than there would be if there was a photog looking down a lens. If this means having a remote control camera on a jib (crane arm) able to pan and tilt, with a live view through the lens and a photographer looking at the frame, able to pan and tilt, anticipating the right moment and exposing accordingly, then I would say that IMO the method has 'heart'. This is probably cost-prohibitive, and so the method used instead is the next best thing, and provides for some interesting and 'stellar' action shots. But then so does a camera mounted on the back of an orbiter as it blasts skywards, molten plumes spewing from the solid rocket boosters. > >If he did the same setup with 4x5 cameras, would you still insist it >wasn't art for the same reasons? I am not contributing towards a thread on the merits of art in photography. I can be very annoying when I keep repeating myself over and over. So - to sum up: I am not contributing towards a thread on the merits of art in photography. Best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
