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
_____________________________
