Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,969   Posts: 1,558,542   Online: 1036
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Was New Zealand, now Hong Kong
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    372
    Images
    2
    The most important part of any camera (and the resulting photograph) usually sits about 2-4 inches behind the viewfinder, or groundglass, or whatever.

    The best photographer I know is a local guy who uses an old Speed Graphic which is held together by tape and luck. One day I will do work as good as his with my more modern gear.
    David Boyce

    When bankers get together for dinner, they discuss art. When artists get together for dinner, they discuss money. Oscar Wilde Blog fp4.blogspot.com

  2. #12
    BWGirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,050
    Images
    18
    I agree with Cheryl... It's not about the camera. You can take 20 people to a spot and tell each one to take at least one shot of say...a bridge. You will end up with 'snapshots' and 'photographic art'.

    It's as David says... "The most important part of any camera (and the resulting photograph) usually sits about 2-4 inches behind the viewfinder, or groundglass, or whatever. "

    Jeanette

  3. #13
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    It ain't the iron in the hand, it's the steel in the photographer.

    snapshots, even if they're taken with high-end equipment bought by an uncle joe, are an entirely different animal than photographs taken by an amateur or pro shooter.

    Personally, I wish all the snapshots out there or images taken by 'uncommitted photogs' (I'd hate to say amateur, because I'm using that to mean someone who does it for the love of it) were with a Pentax K1000 or an old Canon with an FD lens. With hour processing, and about half the hour labs being able to deliver moderately decent CDs, I fail to see any good reason for the family digicam. I feel like I ought to keep a trunkload of low-end film SLRs and every time I see someone hold their digicam LCD viewfinder a foot from their face and stand there mashing the shutter release for ten seconds, blowing to hell any remote chance of getting the [size=-1]decisive moment, I should just trade them the SLR and a bucket of film for their digicam paperweight. I've ranted about this before, though. The pendulum is swinging back toward film, so I'm not worried about it.

    At best, snapshots are a useful memory jog in the family album and a way to cultivate an interest in actual photography. At worst, though, most of the photographs taken with all these new toys will be viewed for a few seconds on the camera back, stuck on a CD and never seen again, living a lifespan even shorter than your average web page.

    Not that I think I'm the equiv, but I'm no more intimidated by the profusion of cameras and snapshotting than a three or four star chef would be by tv dinners.

    -KwM-
    [/size]

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    I think most of the fallout has already happened with the advent of autofocus 35mm slrs with good ttl flash. this occured years ago and color processing got better around the same time. this was the death knell for the APS system. people produce much better snapshot/family/vacation pictures than ever before.
    the real impact is going to be the coupling of the world wide web (distribution) with cell phone pictures (product). It's going to be interesting in a spontaneous glut kind of way... Maybe photojournalists should be more worried?

  5. #15
    dr bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Annapolis, Md
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    871
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
    ... Maybe photojournalists should be more worried?
    Maybe. I just returned from my nephew's wedding where 9 out of 10 had some form of gigital "camera". I have been flooded with "results" by email. One stated, "A historic photo...." When I ask for a print, I got, "What for?"

    Sort of says it all, doesn't it? However at the local art gallery, upon seeing some really good photographic art (some digital based) the almost universal statement is. "Why can't I make photographs like these?" I try to encourage them to take a class, but the general idea seems to be, "What for? I get all I need from 'the web'." et c.

    Professionals don't have anything to worry about except where's the film?
    I love the smell of fixer in the morning. It smells like...creativity!
    Truly, dr bob.

  6. #16
    dr bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Annapolis, Md
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    871
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by livemoa
    The most important part of any camera (and the resulting photograph) usually sits about 2-4 inches behind the viewfinder, or groundglass, or whatever.

    The best photographer I know is a local guy who uses an old Speed Graphic which is held together by tape and luck. One day I will do work as good as his with my more modern gear.
    Sounds like some of my students when they come to my "darkroom"/laundry room for the first time. " This is where you make the prize-winning prints?" Vis a vis: Omega DII (not "2") - trays on bench - the usual sink. No camera using a battery - Works for me.
    I love the smell of fixer in the morning. It smells like...creativity!
    Truly, dr bob.

  7. #17
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    The obvious challenge, as ever: make your ideas better.

    BTW, the most culturally-influential photos of the past several months were almost all made with cheap digi's.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/ma...23PRISONS.html

    Publishers see the writing on the wall -- hence the incredibly egregious contracts being issued these days by pubs like the New York Times.

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  8. #18
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    The Iraq prison photos have no more to do with photojournalism than security camera still frames. I don't hear anyone seriously claiming that they do, either. One thing I do mourn, however, is that so many PJs think that mashing the shutter down and getting 8 images a second on your Canon 1D amounts to anything more than snapshots. I wish more PJs had enough confidence in their technology (film, digital, whatever) to take the picture in their brain, then let the mechanical part just happen. I'm ashamed for the masses of photogs who spend half their time staring at the LCD preview on the back of their cameras. Maybe photographers should take their que from pilots and get an instrument rating before they go flying in a storm.

    One of the most instructional things I've experienced is the rare occasion when a good film PJ publishes their contact sheet.

    On the hopeful side, I heard that the PJ program at the University of North Texas (here in Denton) just re-instituted film in their program. Apparently it was all digital for a while and students weren't getting those fundamentals.

    -KwM-

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Düsseldorf, Germany
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,021
    Images
    1
    It is no guarantee that using a 4x5 or 5x7 or 8x10 or 11x14 or 12x20 will result in fine photographic prints. I have seen these cameras put to use no better than a digital phone camera. A snapshot is a snapshot whatever the format or medium. Vision is in the heart of the person and not the equipment.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,566
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    8
    a snapshot is a snapshot whether they are taken on film or on a digital camera.

    as cheryl said: <snip> It's NOT about the camera. It's about the person behind it

    some of the best photographers got their start by taking the early 1900s version of a snapshot

    http://www.robertkleingallery.com/gallery/album11

    all this stuff doesn't bother me at all, since most people that have digital cameras ( or even hi-tech film point/shoot cameras ) don't even know how to do much more than frame the image, and depress the shutter.

    "use the fill flash"
    "what's a fill flash"

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin