Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,760   Posts: 1,670,801   Online: 708
      
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 86
  1. #21
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,026
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by SilverGlow View Post
    Picture quality has NOTHING to do with shooting film or digital....
    Sure it does. "Quality" is defined by the artist/photographer. It is a series of choices and actions that end up as a product.

    Each choice; medium, lens, paper, process, whatever, takes you down a certain path and builds certain qualities into the picture.

    The only way it doesn't matter is if the exact same end result is expected, i.e. a sharply focused 8x10 landscape on Kodak Royal Paper.

    Shoot HP5 at 3200 with a Holga and print it with an enlarger on an old distressed canvass tarp that has been coated with a hand made emulsion and regardless of the composition, you will have a distinctive product.

    Sure, this example is a bit extreme but it's not out of the realm of possibility and only there to make a point, as is the following statement.

    It is "closed minded, ignorant, religious, subjective, and xenophobic" to assume that it's "all about the composition", that's just your definition to which you are entitled.

    If that were true in the grand plan of the universe, there would never have been any need for anyone to shoot anything except Kodachrome and Tri-X.
    Last edited by markbarendt; 12-30-2010 at 03:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central NC
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    I agree to a point. I can't imagine coating my own class plates or mixing my own emulsions. I do think as technology advances, it takes away what makes us human.
    Arggghhh... Almost the very definition of what it is to be human is technological advance. It's what humans do. It's what humans have done throughout our entire history.

    By it's very definition as one of humanity's creations, technology can not take away what makes us human. Because technology is in part what makes us human.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    Digital cameras makes me shoot more carelessly.
    Oh please. Think about what you are saying. Inanimate objects are controlling you? Take responsibility for your own actions. If you shoot more carelessly, you personally are the only one to blame. It's not the camera -- it's you. And you know it.
    Bruce Watson
    AchromaticArts.com

  3. #23
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,312
    Images
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by chriscrawfordphoto View Post
    Photography itself is a very technology-dependent art, even with film. The camera draws the photograph, your hand does not. That's something a lot of people here have not come to terms with.
    The mind draws the photograph, not the technology. The camera is simply used to record it, if technically feasible. One must first see something of interest before the act of using a camera is even contemplated, let alone executed.

    My favorite part of photography is the time spent walking around without a camera. Time spent looking. Seeing. Thinking.

    Only after deciding if there is something I want to say, and what that something might be, and whether the camera can effectively be used say it, do I actually pick up (or set up) the camera itself. This process can take time, or it can happen in an intuitive instant. Or even in a cascade of instants.

    At that point the picture has, for all practical purposes, already been made. It then becomes just a (hopefully) skilled exercise in technology manipulation (the "path" referred to by 'markbarendt' above) to get it onto the film. And later onto the final print.

    The moment of discovery, however, occurred before the technology was ever a factor.

    Ken
    "When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."

    — Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    I do not find this to be true. I do think that if one piece of technology offers a technical advantage over another in certain circumstances, then it can help in that specific situation. For instance, not every camera has a built-in spot meter, or automatic film advance, which can help sometimes. However, this is a minor point. IMHO, it is all on the photographer, no matter what piece of equipment he or she is using. If you are shooting digital or an electronic camera a whole lot differently than you are shooting film, then I would look within yourself for the answer, instead of at the equipment. I find the many features on modern cameras to be more useless than distracting. I do prefer shooting with my older cameras, as they have everything I need, without much more, and it is all right where I think it ought to be. However, I don't think the quality of my pix has much to do with the presence or lack of features on the camera.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,066
    Images
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    The mind draws the photograph, not the technology. The camera is simply used to record it, if technically feasible.
    Well, not "simply." You have to know how it's done. It's a technical process, not magic. Yes, there's no art unless the photographer has some sort of vision, that doesn't come from the camera. But by choosing to use the camera to pass that vision on to others, then you engage the technology at some level, manipulate it. Choosing the camera means choosing a certain path, or from a set of available paths, to the result. The two aspects are not completely inseparable.
    "People get bumped off." -- Weegee

  6. #26
    jnanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    18,097
    Blog Entries
    14
    Images
    71
    if using a manual more hands on camera helps you
    be more in the place you want to be, more power to you !

    it doesn't matter to me what medium i use. i find shooting the D-thing is
    not easy, like perfectly exposed slides ... i guess it does what it is supposed to do.
    personally, i also like using a box camera, i find it to be more fun than anything else.
    isn't that what making images is supposed to be ?

    we had a D-thing that had a bad lcd screen a while back, and it was a lot of fun to use
    because you pointed and shot and you had no idea what the lens was looking at, or if
    anything worked until the thing was stuck in the commuter and "developed"

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,260
    Images
    118
    I have a similar reasoning with digital vs. analog, my Kodachrome project I wanted it to look as analog as possible so I used my Nikkormat FTN for the project.
    5x7 Eastman-Kodak kit, under the knife for a bit
    4x5 Graphic View / Schneider 180 / Ektar 127
    RB67 Pro S / 50 4.5 / 90 3.8 / 180 4.5 / WLF / prism finder / polaback
    Random 35mm stuff

  8. #28
    dehk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    W Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Less distraction. And less is more.
    - Derek
    [ Insert meaningless camera listing here ]

  9. #29
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,312
    Images
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Moopheus View Post
    Well, not "simply." You have to know how it's done. It's a technical process, not magic. Yes, there's no art unless the photographer has some sort of vision, that doesn't come from the camera. But by choosing to use the camera to pass that vision on to others, then you engage the technology at some level, manipulate it. Choosing the camera means choosing a certain path, or from a set of available paths, to the result. The two aspects are not completely inseparable.
    I guess what I'm saying is that for me the technology is a means to the end, whereas the vision is the end in itself. And vision is technology-independent. I don't need the technology to see. I need the technology to attempt to express what I see.

    I agree with you that the choice of using camera technology in itself imposes constraints. By choosing to go out walking with a camera instead of, say, a set of watercolors or oils, I become limited by that choice in how I can communicate my vision. But only in how I can express it. Not in what I can see.

    There is a 1979 book by William Crawford called "The Keepers of Light" in which he opens with a discussion of what he calls "Photographic Syntax." He defines this to be how photographic expression has of necessity followed photographic technology. One can only record what the technology of the time allows to be recorded.

    For example, in the era of 30+ second exposures the expression incorrectly rendered was one of a far less populated planet. That technology limitation, certainly known by a photographer of that era, did not, however, limit his vision of a crowded city street. It limited only his ability to express that vision.

    When I am out walking I do not confine myself solely to visions that I know can be recorded with camera equipment. Ask my wife how many times I utter the phrase, "Look at that! Isn't that great?" Her response is always that I should take a picture.

    Sometimes the technology allows for that. Sometimes it doesn't. Either way, my excitement regarding what I am looking at is unaffected. And in my mind the photograph has already been drawn.

    Ken
    Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 12-30-2010 at 05:51 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    "When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."

    — Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932

  10. #30
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,531
    Images
    6

    Technology affect how I shoot

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Watson View Post
    Arggghhh... Almost the very definition of what it is to be human is technological advance. It's what humans do. It's what humans have done throughout our entire history.

    By it's very definition as one of humanity's creations, technology can not take away what makes us human. Because technology is in part what makes us human.



    Oh please. Think about what you are saying. Inanimate objects are controlling you? Take responsibility for your own actions. If you shoot more carelessly, you personally are the only one to blame. It's not the camera -- it's you. And you know it.
    Technology does affect how I shoot. Sure it's an inanimate object, but it does to a degree influence how I shoot. But it is part of the creative process. I pick and choose the tools that I shoot with depending on my subject matter and desired outcome. If it's a quickie job I'll probably pick a DSLR or shoot with my phone. If it's the shoot requires me to be more contemplative I'll probably shoot with film.

    Yes humans have always wanted to advance technology. But with every advancement, there can be less thought during the artistic process. It's not all bad since it democratizes the creation art. Technology has also enabled corporations through mass media to shape the tastes of popular culture. It all comes down to how we choose to consume and produce media and art. The bottom line is that I use technology but I don't allow technology to use me.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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