I haven't read this thread, but it seems it's kinda interesting. New technology means new words, new language. It always did. Workflow is for a film shooter/developer about using machines to process at lot film and prints for customers.
Amatuer photographers didn't have a workflow until recently - 'cause they didn't really have an automated production tools. Introducing computers and digital sensors in every amatuer photographers home environment made it possible for amatuers to "batch convert" image files, batch-resize for printing etc. Workflow was accordingly introduced in our language. Rather than artists we have become accompaniment to our machines, computers, printers, scanners etc. Just like the craftsmen became workers when industry was young, many years ago. I can understand why some people form time to time wants to bail out. I guess we all can decide for our selves - afterall we're amatuers - we don't really need to make photographs in order to make a living. I see no reason why we shouldn't partisipate in only those parts of the image making process (the workflow) that we actually enjoy - and then leave the rest to a lab. If we shoot film or digital doesn't really matter. Film gear is currently cheap. Leaves us with enough money to buy film and let the lab do the rest. And perhaps do the really nice prints ourselves. Or we can buy expensive digital equipment - shoot away - and then organize our "workflow" in order to keep the the labs out of the way. We still have that choise. In ten years time we may not have that choise anymore.... Regards Jens In the digital worlkd it's about Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 27. marts 2006 22:06 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Bailing out. Bob W wrote: >>Perhaps some people feel, as I do, that the buzzwords >>surrounding digital are annoying. For example, I did a lot >>of darkroom work for many years. >>Never once did I use the term "workflow." I just went into >>the darkroom and made some prints. Until recently, until the >>advent of digital, people made photos, they didn't "capture >>images." > > > Hi Shel, > > you're not entirely innocent of language abuse yourself! In the olden days > nobody made photographs, they took them. Personally, one of my bugbears is > the idea of 'making' photographs. I think it sounds really pretentious. > > Ciao! <g> > > Bob > > You can blame St Ansel for that one. All of his writing is about making a photograph, not taking one. And I do think it's an essential difference in approach to photography. HCB took photographs. Ansel Adams made them. Both were artists. But one spent all of his effort on the initial capture (composition and the decisive moment), and the other spread his effort out throughout the process from composition to the final print. -Adam -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/293 - Release Date: 03/26/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/293 - Release Date: 03/26/2006
