I am not aware of any artistic medium that is dead or in danger of dying.
Artists always seek more means of expression and there will always be those who embrace a new or an old medium.
New mediums of expression are born, old ones don't die.
There is always more choices for creation, not less.
"This -medium/style/whatever- is dead" is an invention of attention seeking-close minded critics/historians/artists, but they are always proven wrong.
Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
no digital additives and shit
... and those cameras will be linked into the Microsoft mainframe. Your wedding album will be emailed to you before the reception is over and the prints will be whirring out of your printer while you pack for the honeymoon. (all rights to those pics reserved by Microsoft, of course)
Plastic bags will cover the Earth all over before it happen. And who will pay fro it? Free. As I have learn whenever someone offer something for free in America, call 911 and Police ASAP.
You mean North America?
Originally Posted by Daniel_OB
Originally Posted by Andy K
Actually put a monitor on every table at the reception. People could order copies during the meal. They would get handed them when they leave the reception hall. If any good fights happen during the reception then sales could soar
actually, clients want images burned to disk ( if you shoot with a camera ) before
Originally Posted by Andy K
the set is broken down ... not even time to edit --- so you aren't that far off
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
To put what Daniel_OB said in a broader context ... the film industry was built on people taking really lousy snapshots. The snapshots provided the income to produce world class professional products for the professionals and serious amateurs. Now the electronic focal planes are used to produce some really crappy images, but the sales of these cameras and camera cell phones are financing the research and development of better electronic focal planes. Furthermore, when the digisnappers see the quality of their images they will run to people like Daniel_OB to get the job done right.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
... and Andy K, a single subliminal, particularly bad-looking, low-grade, free-at-no-charge frame of husband and wife will automatically be emailed to the happy couple every six months to remind them that in the likely event they should divorce, MicroApple will be there for them, for a price.
Originally Posted by Andy K
... and Nick, I think you are right, the basic still-image tool will soon be the ubiquitously-handy video camera - and then there will be no more Decisive Moments, just Decisive Editors, of which there are, as always, next to none.
So long live the tiny, sensual, serene, no-rush, touchy-feely, chemically-driven niche-world of film and film prints, the Analog world, where even if one doesn't edit well, at least one doesn't inundate.
If everyone is finished patting themselves on the back, I'll get back to work now.
Originally Posted by clay
I'm somewhat reminded of the "My Child is smarter than your child ... blah blah blah" bumper stickers.
much like life, words and their definitions evolve
I think a similar comparison could be made between cameras with Program modes, and cameras that only allow manually setting aperture and shutter. We might even add autofocus to that mix, since that makes it far too simple. So automation has sold many cameras, and many of them film cameras, especially P&S cameras. They work fine for 90% of the images people want, and often confuse people wanting to hit that 10% of images they think could have worked better . . . if only they could figure out how to work their camera beyond the automation and Program modes.
When I put my camera in flower mode, how come I don't get a flower in my shots? If I am taking a picture of a friend, but I had the camera in mountain mode, will the picture turn out? Seriously, it is amazing some of the questions I have heard, and I am not making these up.
I recall a similar uproar, perhaps even from Erwin, prior to the Leica M7 being released: electronic shutter control, but then you are stuck when the batteries die; aperture priority, but if you don't select the shutter speed yourself then your results will suffer; etc. Then when the M7 came out, many Leica enthusiasts suddenly proclaimed it better than holes in Swiss cheese. Of course, for the still vocal and disgruntled, Leica cranked out the MP a few years later; which is basically just a slightly reworked early M6 with higher price tag.
The idea that toil creates better photographers, or better images, is not new. Unfortunately neither is it entirely true. I do recall an interview with the creator of the Nikon F6, in which he stated that film photographers have a greater respect for the image. While some people took that wrong at the time he made that statement, what I got from that was that someone shooting film tended to think just a bit more prior to pushing that shutter button.
Oh, and I got a smile from Daniel's comment about not using flash. Seems I constantly get similar questions from many people, since I do quite a bit of night imaging. The last one was just the other day, when I had one of my 6x9 folder cameras, and Fuji 400X being shot at ISO 3200; a lady came up to me and asked what I was shooting, then asked if the pictures would turn out without flash, and last, after seeing the type of camera, asked if I could still get film for that . . . I suppose somehow all those questions made some sort of sense to her . . . well, maybe photography, as some of us know it, is indeed dead.
A G Studio