Should we as photographers be insulted somehow?

[rich815]

.


Steve Jobs film will be a 'painting,' not a photograph

See here:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...hotograph.html

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I try not to be offended as I get older. Especially as a photographer. Being pissed or offended takes energy which is a waste of time. Painting really isn't a photography. Wasn't the group f/64 railing against photographers trying to be like painters?

[blansky]

No he's right.

He means that a biography is not a true representation of the person but a crafted mish-mash of facts and myths and representations by other people's memories.

It's like a painter laying down strokes of information to form a likeness of the subject.

All biographies are myths.

[Toffle]

No, I don't think it's worth your effort to be upset over this. If you'd like, you can take satisfaction that unless the film is very good, it is unlikely to eclipse the definitive Steve Jobs portrait, which was shot by Albert Watson on 4x5 film.

[rich815]

No, I don't think it's worth your effort to be upset over this. If you'd like, you can take satisfaction that unless the film is very good, it is unlikely to eclipse the definitive Steve Jobs portrait, which was shot by Albert Watson on 4x5 film.

Exactly! I'm not offended but he seems to be saying that a photograph cannot do justice somehow and that a painting would as if it's "better" or a that photograph lacks what a painting can achieve. And I would not agree with that sentiment.

[Colin Corneau]

I read the article twice and still can't figure out why you or anyone else would even bring up the word "offended"....

[rich815]

I read the article twice and still can't figure out why you or anyone else would even bring up the word "offended"....

Then your answer is no, we should not be offended. I see the tone, however subtle or mild, and as I mentioned above, as if posturing it as a painting is better because a photograph just cannot do it justice or is not as good.

What exactly do you think he meant buy "Anytime you watch a movie based on a true story, "you have to think of it as a painting not a photograph," Sorkin said."? Why cannot a movie based on a true story be accurately portrayed or thought of as a photograph?

Maybe "offended" is too strong a word, but somehow I feel it's saying paintings are better than photographs.

[blansky]

Then your answer is no, we should not be offended. I see the tone, however subtle or mild, and as I mentioned above, as if posturing it as a painting is better because a photograph just cannot do it justice or is not as good.

What exactly do you think he meant buy "Anytime you watch a movie based on a true story, "you have to think of it as a painting not a photograph," Sorkin said."? Why cannot a movie based on a true story be accurately portrayed or thought of as a photograph?

Maybe "offended" is too strong a word, but somehow I feel it's saying paintings are better than photographs.

I don't read anything in there that infers one is better than the other.

A painting is a made up representation of a person.

A photograph is much more a definitive likeness.

Most biographies are not books about the facts of a person's life, although there are definitely facts in there. They are more about why he did this and what was he thinking at such and such a time, and pseudo amateur psychologist/authors sort through his life and say shit like, "well because his mother did this to him when he was 3.... then when he was 30 he did that..." and other such stuff.

"his early bed wetting was the reason he later invaded Russia...."

"he had a mommy complex, so in later years he dressed like her while doing the ironing..."

"he became secretary of state because he had a thing for his dads secretary when he was 9...."

" the screen of the iPhone, iPad, and iPod is black because he suffered through bouts of depression"...

That stuff sounds like a painting, not a photograph.

[MattKing]

When most people think of a photograph, they don't think of it as something that consists of something built up of many layers of subtle nuance. They think of it as just "taking a shot".

When those people think of a painting, they are more likely to envision it that way.

Many of us here know that a good photograph can indeed be something complex, nuanced and multi-layered. And quite a few here know that painting can be simplistic.

I'm never offended when someone says something that shows they think of photography as a simplistic medium, although I am a bit surprised Sorkin didn't say "snapshot" rather than "photograph".

[blansky]

I'm never offended when someone says something that shows they think of photography as a simplistic medium, although I am a bit surprised Sorkin didn't say "snapshot" rather than "photograph".

I think we are lucky that whenever we say something, it isn't quoted worldwide as who and what we are, and what we think.

Of course he was talking to the media which lie all the time, where we here on APUG can say shit, and because it's the internet we know it's going to be true.

He may have actually been thinking of snapshot when he said it but that sounds like more of a commercial than a full length movie/book.