Photography vs. the camera
CatMarley wrote:
More time is spent with computer editing than actually holding a camera. Actually taking the picture was never the enjoyment aspect. The finished product - having it, looking at it, sharing it, showing it off, posting it, publishing it, - all much more enjoyable than taking it. That was over in a fraction of a second.
My favorite part is being out there, wind in my face in a wild place surrounded by Nature. Some of my exposures have been up to 8 hours so there was lots of time to have fun! New Years Eve 1989, 8 hour plus time exposure at night at Potato Bottom along the White Rim Trail Canyonlands NP. I was solo and had a little party for myself and ended up eating the worm. Woke up to find my camera next to me in the tent in the morning and I had shut down the camera and that made me happy!
I used large format 4x5"cameras for 25 years. Today I still use the same basic techniques. My only frustration with new cameras is that I can shot more images on a trip but I still end up with the same amount of good ones.
The original question was lost in the shuffle of pointless how one feels about the camera.
The camera and art go together. Just reverse your thoughts and think of digital as the first cameras. What the masters did then would still be called art, would it not? Manual or Auto it is up to you to use as you so desire. Art is up to what you wa nt it to be. True most people take snaps unless then put their skills to work. Then there is no end to what they can accomplish. Happy shooting.
Acountry330 wrote:
The camera and art go together. Just reverse your thoughts and think of digital as the first cameras. What the masters did then would still be called art, would it not? Manual or Auto it is up to you to use as you so desire. Art is up to what you wa nt it to be. True most people take snaps unless then put their skills to work. Then there is no end to what they can accomplish. Happy shooting.
Perhaps you should reverse your thoughts. A camera is a camera. No matter what mode you employ. It takes pictures nothing more.
Exactly why I posted this some years ago. Why I do photography.
--Bob
one shot wrote:
And that's why I love photography! If I only could, I would love to do pen and ink sketching.
The primitive drawing has more life than the static photograph ......keep drawing you'll get there yet ....
I always regard all the bells & whistles of modern digital cameras as suggestions for when I am in doubt. Scene selection, framing and composition are what is important.
Shooting with film is more fun now that it's a choice. But I appreciate people who shoot only digital. They save so much silver.
I have had several favorite Leica cameras over the years. My first digital Leica was a Digilux 2, which I still own, and may be my all-time favorite, because it is so easy to use. After that, I was impressed by the increased performance of newer digitals, although the owners manuals have become harder and harder for me to understand and employ easily. I have almost given up on making changes in the camera's settings, and take pictures based on my artistic desires, and adjust them on the computer in Adobe Camera Raw.
"Photography vs the camera"?? Is it possible to have photography without the camera?
I started years ago with film. Now I do not own any film cameras. my digital SLRs are not elegant like my Pentax MX, but I would not go back. With film, I learned the basics, metering for exposure, using the depth-of-field scale on the lens, manually setting the aperature, shutter speed, and film speed (then known as ASA). Now I use multi-segmented metering, aperature priority, or shutter priority. I can adjust my ISO as the situation calls for it without having to change to a different roll of film. I do not feel like I am any less creative, or artistic. Now I feel like I have more options to employ in the process of creating an image.
Respectfully disagree: The craft of photography may rise to art in the right hands.
Ariel wrote:
Photography has yet to reach the status of an art form,the recording of an event or place does not make it an art form. It just
tells us that at a certain place at a certain time a mechanical recording was made of said time or place. Composing what you see
into a presentable frame does not make it art . Art is not about taking snap shots no matter how fleetingly interesting are the snap shots.
One can to make a buck call anything an art form ,but art in the historical sense is concerned with other things besides recording an
event . One of the most famous of photographers returned to drawing and sketching ,noting" this is where it is ". To feel good
you may call photography whatever you like but at this writing it has a long way to go in becoming an art form .
Photography has yet to reach the status of an art ... (
show quote)
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.