Igor, Have you seen the Instagram video on U-tube? They are all f-ing Michael Angelos creating a new visual literacy in the great unwashed peoples of earth.. Iphones for everyone! Clean cups too! Regards, Bob S.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Igor Roshchin <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think I saw this information mentioned elsewhere previously: > http://connect.dpreview.com/post/2355497650/photographer-50-weddings-one-day > > First, this guy is going to shoot 50 weddings in 1 day, > whatever that means... > But it cannot really mean a complete wedding coverage, does it? > Maybe just the 5-10-minute civil ceremony... or, conversely, just > a few shots of the couple and the family (analogous to "photo with > the Santa" at a shopping mall). > > Second, he is going to do with an iPhone. > > > While this publicity stunt might be a fun project, I feel some bit > discomfort about it. (Despite the humanitarian effort it supports.) > > Yes, those people photographed will be happy to get a photo if otherwise > they wouldn't have gotten any. > But there a wrong message here. > I am not a photo-equipment snob. And, yes, one can take great wedding > photos using the disposable camera left on the table. But... > ... (a) it is more challenging and (b) you cannot get an adequate > "full coverage" shoot with those. > > This story sets up a trap for equivocation and redifinition fallacy > (implicit here, but explicit in the potential folowups/conclusions) > by using "shooting 50 weddings" in a different sense from what is > commongly assumed. > > Once somebody sees this article, he/she can assume: it is OK to do > usual (i.e. full coverage and/or posed studio/location session ) > wedding photography with any equipment available since some famous > photographer does that. > > > Besides, the photographer himself (and/or the journalist?) commits several > fallacies in these quotations: > "According to Kuster, this DSLR photo doesn't reveal as much of the > subject's personality as the iPhone portrait (left). > Kuster believes that iPhone photography allows portrait subjects to let > their guard down becuase they are not looking at an intimidating DSLR." > > First, this assumes that if one DSLR photo doesn't do the job right, > DSLRs are not suitable. (Mind that he uses wide-angle lens in that > which provides a bit of a non-serious if not comic effect.) > Second, if this assumes that if one photo taken with iPhone is good, > automatically, all photos taken with an iPhone are better than those taken > with a DSLR. > Third, it assumes that there is nothing in between (P&S, range-finders, > ...) that can reduce initimidation (which may or may not be the > predominant factor), while providing more options than an iPhone can. > > > I wonder what other PDMLers think about this story. > > Igor > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
