Hi! Godfrey, it is always a pleasure to talk to you, though this time I think you could've used slightly less "bs". You meant "back space", didn't you? ;-)
Ok then, I am diving in. However before I do - next time you reply please keep this in mind - Ken, as far as I understand, is Japanese. Me is Russian (Jewish actually, but that's not the point). You're American. We all have very different perspective on great many things. It is important to remember that. > The art of photography is the same, and is separate from the > technology of capture or rendering. If you don't understand that, you > don't understand the art of photography. You're right. The *art* of photography is exactly like you say. The *process* of photography is in my opinion impossible to detach from the technology. > Utter nonsense. Hobbyists and people do who not understand > photography handle their cameras as gadgets and toys. Photographers > work to exploit whatever equipment and techniques that are at hand to > produce photographs. Oh really? How many times people on this least (albeit in humorous way) reported that they missed a shot because they either wrongly set their camera or some subsystem did not work? Notably AF is often mentioned here... Godfrey, what you're saying is correct, in rather ideal world or for photographer who is experienced with their gear and who takes special attention to not making mistakes. In real world, situation is less than ideal. Although of course it applies to both film and digital cameras as one. > > 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. > > more bs. Like I said - you mean "back space", don't you? Godfrey, let me ask you just one question, but please, really, do answer honestly. Can you live a month without your cell phone? Will you comfortable at *all* times? > > I further think that as technology advances we stop being in > > control, we become operators of complex machinery, instead of > > photographers, musicians, etc. > > If you don't think that a guitarist playing an acoustic guitar is not > an 'operator of complex machinery' all you are doing is playing a > game of semantics. In order to produce sounds of acoustic guitar one has to play one. It seems to me that this is minimal condition necessary to satisfy in order to get these sounds. Whereas camera with TTL, AF, MLU, USM, IS and what not has some technological overheads... Oh by the way - what is wrong and/or bad in playing a game of semantics... I am bound to play that game, because the semantics of English I use could be slightly different (not intentially) than what you use... > <sarcasm> > I bet the photofinishers of the world are just trembling with delight > watching the huge amount of new photofinishing work rolling in the door. > </sarcasm> We have William Robb to tell us about tremble of photofinishers... > >> 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. > > more bs. Godfrey, perhaps it is just that you think/feel/opinionate (spelling?) different... Why do you say "back space" again? > > 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. > > My average photo takes less than 5 minutes of Photoshop work to > produce and looks a heck of a lot better than what I see coming out > of the current minilabs. > > I guess I'm doing as much as possible with the camera, eh? Probably you do. Probably you don't. Godfrey, you're an accomplished photographer. Not everyone is like you. Some or better, many are worse. What would be your point please? > I don't know what you are saying, either of you. People like toys, > and gadgeteer camera buffs like camera toys. So what? These are not > photographers. So they buy whatever new toy a manufacturer makes that > delights them. That's their right and privilege. So they yak about > them to ridiculous extent too; although I find it noisome and often > ridiculous, that's their right and privilege as well. > > Photographers like cameras and the technology of photographic > production not for the things themselves but for the photographs > which express their art. What they buy is of concern inasmuch as it > advances their ability to do their art. > > Of course, some photographer are also camera buffs and enjoy the > technology itself too. Nothing wrong with that either. It is good that we agree... Photographers are people. And people are known to fall prey to martial art of marketing. Say, you're a landscape photographer. So you have your favorite tripod and a set of lenses. Now, say your favorite camera brands introduces IS. Here is the question - do you *really* need to buy a new camera and/or lenses in order to have IS? > The art of photography is in seeing and expressing what we see by > capturing and presenting it. The tools ... the technology of capture > and the methodology of rendering it for presentation ... is essential > to that art, although the art transcends those tools. The tools > themselves are mutable and transitory, the art is not. That's exactly right. > You can choose to accept this or you don't, but this is the basis of > photography as an art form. Otherwise, you are a recorder of scenes > in time ... a documentarian, a snap shooter ... or a camera buff. > There's nothing wrong with any of them, but as I said way way earlier > in this thread: > "If you can't see the art in digital photography, well, that's your > problem." I've no problem except your use of "back space" every now and then. There is as much art in digital photography as in anything else that allows a person to express their uniqueness in a way that is accessible to other persons. However given the fact that tools are just tools, I suppose we're not at argument here, right? -- Boris
