Hi!
Let me chime in.
Next time it won't be allowed - you're all too wise ;-).
Nevertheless, to the most amateur enthusiasts, they do not take up
the chemical process part as a hobby. This is an individual choice.
I totally agree.
2. Fast forward to digital era, I have a feeling that what people talking
about here as "art" is mostly the post-processing work flow, particularly
the PS manipulation. I am not sure if this is truly the "art' part...
Digital enthusiasts shoot raw like machine gun (well, not quite but you know
what I mean) without much regard to the ambient light etc (AWB) , as they
(we) determined that those could (and should) be processed later on
computer. There lies some grief by film enthusiasts (or traditionalist, I
should say). Craft of taking good photos are now transferred to the
mechanical post-processing in what is called the work flow. Now people call
it the "art". Perhaps, but I have to wonder how much creativity is included
in that (in general terms). PS allows real creative manipulation of the
photo but how many people are doing it, using the real capability of the PS?
Most are just scratching the surface of the software.
Again, you're right. I think that it is general tendency of modern homo
sapiens to put more and more trust into technology. Take this for
example - "The Art of Computer Programming"... Actually it is a craft.
I further think that as technology advances we stop being in control, we
become operators of complex machinery, instead of photographers,
musicians, etc.
3. ... In Japan (not that Japan is any special, but simply because I
watch more posts in Japan), this trend (coming back to film) is also
a big tide. I cannot quantify it but there seem to be more and more
of those people and even the resurgence of film is being talked about
in some quarters (Fuji are officially forecasting this and it may not
be just a commercial wishful thinking). People who desire this are
almost without exception the most experienced group of people.
There is indeed the joy of using your tool to "create" good photos being
taken away by the digital process, and perhaps that's what the experienced
people are feeling.
It would take great amount of self-discipline to:
1. Do as much as possible with the camera.
2. Do only raw processing and then spend no more than 5 min per photo in
PS which would be roughly equal to whatever averaging the mini-lab does.
4. And then, there is an aspect of "pride of ownership" of fine photographic
instruments or tools (you could call it a gadget factor :-). Today's
digicams, particularly DSLRs are like computers in early '90s. You know
that the moment you purchased a model, it is going to become obsolete in a
very short time, even 6 months, so the manufacturers keep pumping out
expensive toys using cheap materials, whereas the film cameras are matured
technology and once you bought a decent one (and at some $500 to $1,000), it
will last almost a lifetime. Unlike digicams, all film cameras produce the
same decent images in the hand of the experienced as much depends on which
film is used.
Ken, gadget factor is very destructive. Take *istD. To average amateur
enthusiast it is absolutely sufficient for all their needs. It gives you
A4 prints natively and with minimal ressing up you can have A3. It is
99% of what is necessary re prints.
Now, look how much PDML mental power was absorbed in discussing the
would-be *istD successor. It may have more pixes, USM, IS, what not.
Will it make *average amateur enthusiast* a better *photographer*.
Profoundly *no*! It will not. It will make the manual so many pages
thicker. It will ruin so many photos because certain mode was forgotten
to be turned on or of. It will make so many photos because of the same
modes. Notice - none of the above has to do with photography - but with
operation of a tool, a machine.
My brother just enabled himself with Optio S60 (you obviously realize
why he chose Pentax). He's extremely good with computers. He read the
manual - he couldn't get it :-(. Yes - he is not a photographer - he
merely want to go around and click around. Yet he wants to know what
kind of gadget he has - he got lost in the manual. I'll rescue him, but
the trend is evident.
Like I said - you seem to know all to much :-).
Boris
I can go on and on like this and know I have not even touched more critical
points (which I usually remember AFTER posting :-).
I just thought that, after the original post of this thread, suddenly people
all became self-acclaimed artists of some kind (I respect many are),
promoting as if the post processing is the sophisticated art. I believe
there is an increasing group of appreciating the old craft, and make a
pause.
I am not saying that those people suddenly are dropping the digital
photography. They are not. But some people are increasingly beginning to
pick up more film photography as they used to. They know the advantage of
both digital and film photography (I know it cots more if we keep shuttering
away like we do with digicams). We'll see.
Duck and hide!
Ken
