[LRflex] Re: Thanks
- From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@xxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:38:51 -0700
KEITH LONGMORE ASKED:
Subject: [LRflex] Thanks
>>I wonder if you'd agree with this view! was talking to a guy at work,
and the subject happened to touch photography. He'd bought a digital
camera - what sort I don't know - and told me how good it is. Then he
said 'I tried to photograph a sunset the other day, and it didn't come
out.' 'Didn't you use the night shot setting?' 'Oh no, I always leave
it on Auto.' And I thought to myself, well he's an engineer of the same
rank as me, yet he hasn't the curiosity to even investigate anything
except Auto? As engineers nowadays we have to do almost everything
using a computer; I'm convinced that computers shrink brains!!<<<<<<
Hi Keith,
I think that depends on how well the engineer or photographer knows how to
use the best parts of working with a computer.
I'm sure there are some who just click on the keys and let the computer give
them the answer without questioning. Then there's the person who says. "OK
looks good but I wonder what if?" Then they apply themselves and experience
with that of the computer and get a far better response when combining the
best of the computer and that their real time.
>>>> The other thing that I have seen is people submitting photographs for
the Amateur Photographer of the Year competition, and with a rather
awful photograph, they win a prize. The photo wouldn't get a second
look, except that it has been overwhelmingly modified in image-editing
software; so it begs the question (for me, anyway): is the prize for the
photograph, or for the ability to use image-editing software? I contend
that this devalues photography, both as a skill and as an art form. I
know that there has been controversy on this type of issue with AP
readers, but what do Flexers think?<<<
Well I don't know about "flexers" but one of the failings of PhotoShop and
like soft ware is... people have become complacent about the initial image
they expose and rely on "FIXING IT WITH PHOTOSHOP!" It happens in the pro
ranks daily.
Photo Shop can make a great photo better! But a piece of crap image will
never look like anything more than a piece of crap fiddled in PhotoShop. No
matter what the photoshop guy and visually challenged editor may think!
There has been an over all acceptance of mediocre photography since the
advent of digital photography and the use of PhotoShop by many agencies,
newspapers and stock photography outfits simply because "George the
PhotoShop Guru can fix anything!" :-(
Far more people these days have no idea what makes a good photographic
moment simply because digital cameras do all the work with nothing more than
"click!" And to the uninitiated it looks fine. In reality it's nothing more
than an exposure of diddly squat! Yeah the colour/exposure looks OK, it's in
focus and that's about it as far as a photograph goes.
The problem is, well part of it, the essence of photography doesn't change
because one uses a digital shoot it everything machine. The operator,
"please note I didn't say photographer" still requires some knowledge of
light, composition and the many other bits and moments we learn to make an
interesting photograph.
But hand a digital camera to a neophyte with a few words of on-off, look at
screen and if it looks good press click! They become instant photographers
without a clue of light! List people may have other opinions.
ted
Other related posts:
