Food for thought
Oct 9, 2016 01:09:02 #
Oct 9, 2016 01:26:36 #
JD750 wrote:
The camera is subservient to the photo it makes.
And how subservient (to the camera's decisions) is the finger that pushes the button?
Oct 9, 2016 01:44:27 #
rockdog wrote:
And how subservient (to the camera's decisions) is the finger that pushes the button?
Good question.
My answer is that if the camera is subservient, then it cannot make decisions. And indeed, the camera does not think. The nut behind the lens does the thinking.
Oct 9, 2016 03:19:50 #
JD750 wrote:
The nut behind the lens does the thinking.
Too much of this and the creativity is killed stone dead in the chase for technical excellence!
So shoot more think less maybe?
Oct 9, 2016 07:07:19 #
Billyspad wrote:
Too much of this and the creativity is killed stone dead in the chase for technical excellence!
So shoot more think less maybe?
So shoot more think less maybe?
So what is the point in carefully choosing shots if technical excellence has not been attained?
Oct 9, 2016 07:26:58 #
oldtigger wrote:
So what is the point in carefully choosing shots if technical excellence has not been attained?
Technical excellence is easy with a modern camera. Set a modern DSLR on auto everything and it will take a superb fota as will an iphone or similar.
What often shines through all that excellent use of the inbuilt electronic wizardry is a lack of feel or soul. A failure of technical correctness to move the emotions to make the brain go wow. Give me a snap that moves me any day over one that is cold and technically perfect.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-416064-1.html
The OP posted this which is not technically perfect by any means but jam packed with feeling and that very human thing, soul. So much more successful than many "perfect" snaps.
Oct 9, 2016 12:24:27 #
Thanks for starting this conversation, JD!
I have always valued creativity and emotion over technical perfection. More recently I've started to notice that if I take a series of shots of one subject, "work the scene," I often still prefer my first image the most. The right brain rules... except in cases where I get so into the moment, I forget my settings need to be changed
So I think there has to be a balance. If one's knowledge of exposure, depth of field, and shutter speed (as it relates to motion blur) are minimal, the result may detract from success regardless of how compelling the photographer's vision was. Shooting "auto everything" does not work in a lot of situations.
On the other hand, "sharp at 100%" is beyond my comprehension as a goal of photography as art. One of my favorite online articles of the past couple of years is called "What's important in a photograph and what isn't"
http://photographylife.com/whats-important-in-a-photograph-and-what-isnt
-
I have always valued creativity and emotion over technical perfection. More recently I've started to notice that if I take a series of shots of one subject, "work the scene," I often still prefer my first image the most. The right brain rules... except in cases where I get so into the moment, I forget my settings need to be changed
So I think there has to be a balance. If one's knowledge of exposure, depth of field, and shutter speed (as it relates to motion blur) are minimal, the result may detract from success regardless of how compelling the photographer's vision was. Shooting "auto everything" does not work in a lot of situations.
On the other hand, "sharp at 100%" is beyond my comprehension as a goal of photography as art. One of my favorite online articles of the past couple of years is called "What's important in a photograph and what isn't"
http://photographylife.com/whats-important-in-a-photograph-and-what-isnt
-
Oct 9, 2016 17:16:48 #
[quote=Billyspad]Technical excellence is easy with a modern camera. Set a modern DSLR on auto everything and it will take a superb fota as will an iphone or similar.
If only that was true....No more GAS. No more research or questioning. No more critiques or judgements. What a bland world we would live in!
The camera is a tool only. It is always going to be 'how you use it' that matters. How you see the world with or without the camera is what matters the most.
If only that was true....No more GAS. No more research or questioning. No more critiques or judgements. What a bland world we would live in!
The camera is a tool only. It is always going to be 'how you use it' that matters. How you see the world with or without the camera is what matters the most.
Oct 9, 2016 17:18:54 #
G Brown wrote:
...
The camera is a tool only. It is always going to be 'how you use it' that matters. How you see the world with or without the camera is what matters the most.
The camera is a tool only. It is always going to be 'how you use it' that matters. How you see the world with or without the camera is what matters the most.
There is truth here. Thank you for sharing! S-
Oct 10, 2016 01:05:37 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Thanks for starting this conversation, JD! br br ... (show quote)
Interesting I have had that happen as well when working a scene, the first is the one I like.
Yes a balance is required and choosing auto in every case is giving up a lot of creative freedom.
Oct 10, 2016 01:06:29 #
Oct 10, 2016 01:55:53 #
JD750 wrote:
The camera is subservient to the photo it makes.
I don't understand. What does this mean? How can a camera be subservient to anything, let alone a photograph?
Oct 10, 2016 08:34:01 #
JD750 wrote:
The camera is subservient to the photo it makes.
These days, I take photos at the school where I'm volunteering. I think one can learn composition. Capturing the right moment when the kids are interacting is luck and taking lots of images. For me, the defining feature of a really good photo, and one that I struggle with, is the element of light. I wish I understood the mechanics of the workings of a camera better in order to get "correct" lighting. As it is, I must post-process mostly for cropping and light. The camera, now, is my master; I am not its master. In looking at the photos here, I can "forgive" composition and sometimes out-out-focus. But light!!!! That's what makes, for me, a great photo!!!
Oct 10, 2016 16:33:13 #
I think it's the reverse that is true. The photo is subservient to the camera, as it is the camera that takes the photo. The photo is completely reliant of the camera's quality, settings, etc. The camera, by itself, is a paperweight. The camera in turn is subservient to the photographer operating it. The photographer, or the person operating the camera, is the determining factor as to how the photo will "turn out".
--Bob
--Bob
JD750 wrote:
The camera is subservient to the photo it makes.
Oct 11, 2016 00:06:25 #
rmalarz wrote:
I think it's the reverse that is true. The photo is subservient to the camera, as it is the camera that takes the photo. The photo is completely reliant of the camera's quality, settings, etc. The camera, by itself, is a paperweight. The camera in turn is subservient to the photographer operating it. The photographer, or the person operating the camera, is the determining factor as to how the photo will "turn out".
--Bob
--Bob
If you insist on using the word 'subservient', I think both of them are subservient to the photographer. He/she is the only one who can think.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.