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.
in the world of commercial photography, they don't even want a photographer
nowadays ... they have someone shoot video, then
the technician (McTech ?) stares at the monitor and
cherry-pick still images from the - stream - ...
Some newspapers here in the States have started doing this -- giving their staff "photographers" HD video camaras from which the "photo editor" picks the frame they want.
... 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)
Most of what I know about Erwin Puts comes from his "Leica Lens Compendium", which does a great job of communicating the finer points of optics in a highly readable style. Comparing the book with writings such as the one on his website, I would have to say that the book has benefited heavily from the efforts of the publisher's editors, whereas the article cited by the OP is barely coherent, has no logical structure, makes sweeping statements without citing any evidence or other corroboration and is in general what we writing professionals call a "sticky mess".
Puts has apparently no knowledge of professional photography or the history of the medium. No sooner had the wet collodion negative/positive process been invented than people like Henry Peach Robinson (in the 1850s) were manipulating the medium to the limit of the facilities available to them - the art of retouching also developed by leaps and bounds, and by the time the Aerograph machine came in use around 1920, there was very litttle which retouchers and graphic designers could not do to change a straight photograph out of all recognition. As a professional photographer, I know of nothing which Photoshop can do which wasn't done 80 years ago - digital imaging and Photoshop just make it easier, quicker and less demanding in terms of skills. Puts seems not to know this, which gives his views zero credibility as far as I am concerned.
What exactly has Putz done in his life that he garners such attention on the internet? He is an absolutely awful photographer from the images I have seen of his, and I don't think he really understands much about photography from the writings of his I have read. I have pretty much dismissed him as someone on a soapbox that shouts really loud but doesn't have anything relevant to say.
What about those minimalist types (like me), labeled "rat race drop-outs" in th 80's? Using anything but a totally mechanical camera, without batteries, would be go against our ideology.
My exposure meter uses batteries (I'm not totally afflicted) and even played with a digicam for a while before I realized my true nature. I shoot only B&W film now, a simple joy - although, I like all the technical aspects of this medium also, and the total control of such - that leans toward "simplify, simplify" and life is good!
"Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." Stephen J. Gould