Bob Croxford wrote:-
>Can you point to any photographers with websites who have created their own >digital look? That is images unique to digital which are not simply PS >manipulation or retouching. Hi Bob. That's my whole point. I shouldn't be able to point to photographers who have created their own 'digital' look. I should just be able to point to photographers who are creating great images in their own style ,irrespective of technique. Although being guilty of some ( okay ...at times gross ! ) digital overkill myself , I actually dislike a 'digital look'. Where I get antsy is when blanket statements are made about digital imagery that paint it with a 'sterile' brush. In the hands of an experienced smudger it does all that film does but with more finesse and more control. >Whereas I can think of many examples of graphic design changes caused by >digitally aided design I can't think of any changes in the way photographers >create. With greatest respect , I think that you will find that if you spend a few months with a good digital camera , you'll find all sorts of ways in which it can change the way photographers create. F'rinstance , we use a variation of William Curwen's amazing multi scan technique but at the capture stage (It's great shame that everybody hasn't had a chance to see William's great prints.Hard to find a words to describe them ."Great depth" is inadequate , and 'Luminous' is far too brash to address the subtlety of tone). We also soft proof lot as we shoot,which is a very powerful tool in colour critical commissions. We also have a great creative resource in the time saved in the polaroid/test/process/shoot/process cycle often necesary with film. I'm not going to list all of the other advantages 'cause a)the repetition of previous mails will bore the pants off of some and b) some techniques are 'commercially sensitive'. But what I can say is that we sell photography first and the advantages of digital second.And that the advantages of shooting digitally are reflected in the fee.No ....not a reduction but a premium.No point in making the investment otherwise. BTW isn't most digitally aided design only the product of Photoshop , Quark and Illustrator ? William Curwen wrote :- >The problem with digital is that as a 'revolution', it rose up out of >nowhere so fast that there has been precious little transference of skills >from one generation to the next. The world of education seems to think that >all it has to do is to sit students in front of computers, and marvellous >things will happen. Well, it isn't happening - is it? Too b****y right Will. >We have got the >commercial marketplace we deserve, and time WILL tell on this issue of >quality. Quality of thought, quality of action, and I do hope there is more >to our current professional life than the mere rattling of empty film-cans. As ever , you've got to the heart of the matter. There is no doubt that commissioned photography is going over to digital capture.And I've got to admit that in many cases this is because of a perceived cost saving (this is where we have to educate our clients). We can argue forever over the relative merits and disadvantages of digital,but what we all need to do is properly understand the new technology and its implications.Even if we still decide to remain with film. What we have at present is a surfeit of information floating around, but precious little knowledge. And as we all know, knowledge is power. >To me, there is no emotional difference between between film and digital, >except a lack of emotion in those who think they 'know' different. Nicely put. Regards.And respect. Bob Marchant. =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
