Rachel wrote:
fivedawgz wrote:
Rachel wrote:
fivedawgz wrote:
JKF159 wrote:
My view on this topic is not whether it has helped or hurt photography but whether it has helped you. Would you want to go back to film? The object of photography is the making of images. If you think that film would produce a better image then by all means use it. If you have become a better image producer by the use of digital then embrace it. If you like chalk or pencils then use that. You dont get paid for just knowing how a camera works, you get paid for the images that you produce. If you are not a pro then your payment is personal satisfaction. Learning photography is much easier with digital due to the instant feedback and lower cost. This is a fact. If a person does not spend the time to learn the craft it is not the fault of the equipment.
An auto everything digital camera is not and never will be a replacement for technical skill. Would you get into an airplane and try to fly it just because it had an autopilot? Sure, it will control the airplane in some situations without you knowing anything at all about flying, right up until you need to do some of that pilot stuff. The end result would not be pretty but atleast the people viewing your effort would be able to say "Dang, you should have seen the fire". I guess the reason that people try that with cameras is that the end result is less painful.
Art is not tied to photography. Opinions of art are varied and always will be. Most of the famous painters were not really famous until after they were dead. Photoshop can improve images but it really cant take a "crappy" shot and turn it into a great image. I've seen some unusual images that were considered art that I liked and some I didn't. I've seen some unusual images that were obviously photographic mistakes that someone tried to pass off as art.
I dont consider myself artistic at all but I know what I like when I see it. I'm content knowing that I will never be an Ansel Adams but I dont have to be to enjoy photography.
Does the digital camera have a negative impact on pro shooters making a living. Maybe. If you are good at weddings and charge $1500 then it is a problem when Joe Blow has a digital camera and advertises weddings for $200. If Joe Blows photos are not good then it will show. For the clients that cant afford $1500 then Joe Blow isnt taking business from you anyway. This is a marketing problem not a photo problem and it was a problem before digital.
My view on this topic is not whether it has helped... (
show quote)
I think you said that very well. And I agree. Regardless, what is "art" is rarely something decided in the lifetime of the artist. History judges.
quote=JKF159 My view on this topic is not whether... (
show quote)
Yes, so why die famously and rich, when you could just leave it all to you children. They worked hard for it. Let them enjoy it.
:?
quote=fivedawgz quote=JKF159 My view on this top... (
show quote)
Is it up to me? Because if it is, I would also like to be rich. I worked hard too. I didn't know I had that power!
quote=Rachel quote=fivedawgz quote=JKF159 My vi... (
show quote)
:lol: Yeah, like I m trying to say , work hard, make sure your children get to enjoy it......I'm sure they will appreciate us when were in the ground....and give us credit along with everyone else.
Why wait, when you could be famous after you die. :D
quote=fivedawgz quote=Rachel quote=fivedawgz q... (
show quote)
There really IS a great need for a sarcasm font!
Rachel wrote:
fivedawgz wrote:
JKF159 wrote:
My view on this topic is not whether it has helped or hurt photography but whether it has helped you. Would you want to go back to film? The object of photography is the making of images. If you think that film would produce a better image then by all means use it. If you have become a better image producer by the use of digital then embrace it. If you like chalk or pencils then use that. You dont get paid for just knowing how a camera works, you get paid for the images that you produce. If you are not a pro then your payment is personal satisfaction. Learning photography is much easier with digital due to the instant feedback and lower cost. This is a fact. If a person does not spend the time to learn the craft it is not the fault of the equipment.
An auto everything digital camera is not and never will be a replacement for technical skill. Would you get into an airplane and try to fly it just because it had an autopilot? Sure, it will control the airplane in some situations without you knowing anything at all about flying, right up until you need to do some of that pilot stuff. The end result would not be pretty but atleast the people viewing your effort would be able to say "Dang, you should have seen the fire". I guess the reason that people try that with cameras is that the end result is less painful.
Art is not tied to photography. Opinions of art are varied and always will be. Most of the famous painters were not really famous until after they were dead. Photoshop can improve images but it really cant take a "crappy" shot and turn it into a great image. I've seen some unusual images that were considered art that I liked and some I didn't. I've seen some unusual images that were obviously photographic mistakes that someone tried to pass off as art.
I dont consider myself artistic at all but I know what I like when I see it. I'm content knowing that I will never be an Ansel Adams but I dont have to be to enjoy photography.
Does the digital camera have a negative impact on pro shooters making a living. Maybe. If you are good at weddings and charge $1500 then it is a problem when Joe Blow has a digital camera and advertises weddings for $200. If Joe Blows photos are not good then it will show. For the clients that cant afford $1500 then Joe Blow isnt taking business from you anyway. This is a marketing problem not a photo problem and it was a problem before digital.
My view on this topic is not whether it has helped... (
show quote)
I think you said that very well. And I agree. Regardless, what is "art" is rarely something decided in the lifetime of the artist. History judges.
quote=JKF159 My view on this topic is not whether... (
show quote)
Yes, so why die famously and rich, when you could just leave it all to you children. They worked hard for it. Let them enjoy it.
:?
quote=fivedawgz quote=JKF159 My view on this top... (
show quote)
Is it up to me? Because if it is, I would also like to be rich. I worked hard too. I didn't know I had that power!
JKF159 wrote:
My view on this topic is not whether it has helped or hurt photography but whether it has helped you. Would you want to go back to film? The object of photography is the making of images. If you think that film would produce a better image then by all means use it. If you have become a better image producer by the use of digital then embrace it. If you like chalk or pencils then use that. You dont get paid for just knowing how a camera works, you get paid for the images that you produce. If you are not a pro then your payment is personal satisfaction. Learning photography is much easier with digital due to the instant feedback and lower cost. This is a fact. If a person does not spend the time to learn the craft it is not the fault of the equipment.
An auto everything digital camera is not and never will be a replacement for technical skill. Would you get into an airplane and try to fly it just because it had an autopilot? Sure, it will control the airplane in some situations without you knowing anything at all about flying, right up until you need to do some of that pilot stuff. The end result would not be pretty but atleast the people viewing your effort would be able to say "Dang, you should have seen the fire". I guess the reason that people try that with cameras is that the end result is less painful.
Art is not tied to photography. Opinions of art are varied and always will be. Most of the famous painters were not really famous until after they were dead. Photoshop can improve images but it really cant take a "crappy" shot and turn it into a great image. I've seen some unusual images that were considered art that I liked and some I didn't. I've seen some unusual images that were obviously photographic mistakes that someone tried to pass off as art.
I dont consider myself artistic at all but I know what I like when I see it. I'm content knowing that I will never be an Ansel Adams but I dont have to be to enjoy photography.
Does the digital camera have a negative impact on pro shooters making a living. Maybe. If you are good at weddings and charge $1500 then it is a problem when Joe Blow has a digital camera and advertises weddings for $200. If Joe Blows photos are not good then it will show. For the clients that cant afford $1500 then Joe Blow isnt taking business from you anyway. This is a marketing problem not a photo problem and it was a problem before digital.
My view on this topic is not whether it has helped... (
show quote)
I think you said that very well. And I agree. Regardless, what is "art" is rarely something decided in the lifetime of the artist. History judges.
leadstory wrote:
Art imitates Life. This is most obvious in the art of photography. And the fact we use digital photography more than film reflects our lives and culture and its incredibly speedy changes since the industrial revolution began. I'm glad I understand how to use a manual film SLR, my Dad taught me how to shoot on a rangefinder, and he even set up a darkroom with equipment purchased from the fleamarket. No Ansel Adams pics developed there, but it was still wonderful watching the picture emerge in the solution. I'm glad that we have digital nevertheless because it is the most democratic form of photography, allowing it to be used and enjoyed by most people. I still believe that whatever good pics we think we have we should print. Images trapped on a computer hard drive, a CD, a DVD or even a memory card will most likely soon be unreadable by newer technology.
lmarc said:
" To some degree you may be equating photography with digital technology. Photography is in the vision and soul of the photographer, not the box, lenses and bells and whistles of his machine."
I agree with lmarc, and add that art is in the eye of the beholder. One of my best friends is a visual artist whose work is non-traditional photography and its selling very well and has received good reviews. Art imitates Life.
Art imitates Life. This is most obvious in the art... (
show quote)
Sometimes, life imitates art. It's weird, but some artists create reality and the world follows. Artists lead ... that may be one of the signatures of artistry. If everybody thinks your work is just LOVELY, you are unlikely to be breaking new ground. I am NOT an artist. I take pretty pictures, sometimes VERY pretty. I do not break new ground. I do not see the world in a unique or different way. I probably never will. My pictures are well composed and usually technically good. But I do not lead ... I follow.
On the other hand, I have some real hope for my granddaughter. She never learned the rules and has no interest in them. She sees with her OWN eye ... and maybe, for her, there is a different road.
Real artists are not common and often go unrecognized in their own lifetimes. History judges.
gayellen wrote:
How many of the photographers who post on this forum do not use any type of photo editing to their "photos" crop, lighten, darken, or use any of the photo editing versions out there.. How many photographers are happy with their original "photo"? Then my question is are we photographers or are we editors? Did any of you that work in film process your own and was there a way to edit the original? Are did you have to retake or be happy with the "photo" you took?
We really DID have this discussion already.
Everybody has to edit to some degree. You can't even SEE the pictures until you download them and in some cases, turn them into a different format (RAW to TIF or JPG, e.g.).
After that, at the very least, you will probably crop the picture to a standard size.
Everyone has always had to do some post processing. When you had film, you had to develop it and print it or you didn't have a picture.
The issue is how much processing you do and this is NOT a gauge of how good a photographer you are or aren't. It is irrelevant.
Paw Paw Bill wrote:
My daughter wanted a compact camera, but not too expensive. However, she was concerned about it's ability to take good pictures. I told her that good pictures were in the photographer, not in the camera.
I bought a camera for slightly over $100 and took a few photos with it and presented the pics and camera to her.
These are some of those photos.....they were shot with little setup to present possibilities for her in quickly shooting something she saw.
Those are all close-ups. The lens will work differently at different lengths, light levels, and apertures. You might give it a test run on a variety of distances and lighting conditions.
It's all about the lens, really, regardless of other factors. Better glass is going to get better pictures whether it's a point and shoot or a DSLR. You cannot avoid lens quality as a factor.
I am doubtful that a very cheap camera will have a good lens. Composition is in the eye of the photographer, but sharpness etc. has to do with optics. I don't like throwing a monkey wrench in the works and I have used point and shoot cameras to take some remarkable pictures, but they were not the bottom end of the spectrum. At the low end, you do tend to get what you pay for.
There are some amazing P&S cameras out there -- superb cameras with remarkable lenses -- but they don't cost $100.
stapesgirl wrote:
How can I avoid eyeglass glare? I have tried having my child tilt his head down, to the side, etc. and seem to always have the problem. Any tricks?
I am not sure it is 100% avoidable if you are using the LCD screen. However, using an eye cup with a viewfinder really helps. Dirties up your eyeglasses but definitely cuts down on the glare!
tilde531 wrote:
This topic came up on a photo- thread and I felt it would be better housed here.
My hope is to get a dialogue going, which eventually helps me make up my OWN mind.
Below are the starter comment(s) for the original discussion as a "jumping off point".
Please consider adding your opinions/thoughts on the matter and help this amateur start thinking like a professional... IF that's possible! *smiles*
__________________________________
gizzy.whicker wrote:
"...The advent of the modern digital camera has fundamentally changed photography, for the better as far as I'm concerned."
__________________________________
I've been pondering this lately and I'm not sure it's for the better in the long-run. I'm one of those who consider photography an "art". The greatest photographers ever to snap a photo, really paid their dues and learned every aspect of their art-form (craft) from every angle.
The advent of digital photography and the lightening-fast advances in technology kinda saturates the market with photos done by folks like me... who hasn't paid her dues and gets "happy accidents" all the time.
I intend to learn everything I possibly can about photography, find my niche and pay my dues... to someday be financially successful and wildly in-demand (okay, maybe not WILDLY *wink* )... but my stuff will be in stiff competition with photos done by amateurs armed with the latest auto-equipment.
Who (or what) is really creating the beautiful works of art, then? The photographer or the camera?
Sorry for the tangent... maybe I'll move this to the Discussion Section, 'cause I'd really like to start the dialogue. Maybe it'll help me figure things out...
_______________________________
gizzy.whicker added:
"I like the way you think, and you're correct that most of us aren't learning the art-form of traditional photography. But rather than trying to learn manual technical data that's now handled so accurately by digital cameras, we now can concentrate more on learning good composition techniques, ponder various lighting situations, and in general have more fun looking through the lens instead of pondering fractional equations for ISO settings."
This topic came up on a photo- thread and I felt i... (
show quote)
Many of the great artists in the field have NOT been professionals, however. Sure there have been some, but typically, amateurs ... hobbyists, if you will ... have the time and interest in trying new and different things. Maybe because they don't have deadlines and clients to please. Maybe it's just a mind set.
JimH wrote:
You steal his quote, but I'm raised by wolves. Sheesh. Typical.
Anyone who makes me laugh wins. Stupid maybe, but true.
dragonariesphotography wrote:
thank you! no it wasn't hard at all
Most of this stuff is really easier than it sounds. It is hard to explain, but easy to do. Be fearless ... It will come out right. With some mistakes that deleting will easily cure!
Just Tami wrote:
Greg wrote:
Greg wrote:
Just Tami wrote:
PhotomomOf3 wrote:
My daughter has been taking photography in high school and she's graduating and planning on going to art school for photography. What camera should she get? No $1000 cameras. I'm looking for something she can add lenses to and grow with. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I don't know if this matters but she prefers film not digital. Are there duel cameras?
I think colleges at this point have moved primarily to digital. You are also required to have your own pc. I just finished a course at Molloy college (NY). She should check. Film like prior stated is expensive, dark room and chemicals needed. If your looking to grow and get lenses digital is growing.
quote=PhotomomOf3 My daughter has been taking pho... (
show quote)
Although some art/photography programs require film early on. You need to check with the program she is going to be attending and see what their prerequisites are. Likely she will need both, but not at the same time.
quote=Just Tami quote=PhotomomOf3 My daughter ha... (
show quote)
Also, if it's a true art photography class, I'm sure that at some point she will need film. While all of the above comments are to varying degrees true now, there are still much you can do with film that can't be emulated in digital. A friend of mine who does large format photography does a lot of bi and Tri-color gum bichromates. You just can't do that stuff digitally. Also, even the highest resolution sensors pale in comparison to film resolution. Now for general purpose photography, most of that is moot, but for art photographers, can be extremely important. There are advantages and disadvantages to both formats, it really just depends on what you are doing with your medium as to which is best.
quote=Greg quote=Just Tami quote=PhotomomOf3 My... (
show quote)
I don't know half of what your talking about in photo art world but digital does large format you just have to buy the right camera.
quote=Greg quote=Greg quote=Just Tami quote=Ph... (
show quote)
I'm sure the school will provide a list of what they require.
dragonariesphotography wrote:
here are some pics i took this afternoon using the 1.8 with the av setting at 1.8 also, it worked just the way that fivedawgz said it would :)
Bet it wasn't so hard, either, huh? Glad it worked out ... and that's a very cute kitty!
charlessmall18 wrote:
Madonna became famous, for among other things, as the high point on one of her tours, by having her male dancers pretend to lick her all while she pretended to pleasure herself. And then there is Kim Kardashian who is well known for her well-known-ness and absolutely nothing else. So the point that "you have to do something to become famous" has little force.
I am going to steal this quote: " Kim Kardashian ...is well known for her well-known-ness." It's too good not to pass around!
JimH wrote:
fivedawgz wrote:
Well, that's not how I heard it. But that's not the point, is it?
But that's
exactly the point, FD - untruths, distortions and unrealistic claims
detract from his true worth. After you die, would you want us all to say "Hey, she invented Air. Won 23 Oscars. Did Heart Transplants on the side. And walked fifteen miles to school, through six feet of snow, uphill both ways, for 15 years..."
No.
That's my point!Do not confuse my attempt to inject some honesty into the discussion with cynicism or rudeness. That is not my intent.
quote=fivedawgz Well, that's not how I heard it. ... (
show quote)
Do you not understand the concept of either good taste or civility? Were you raised by wolves?
If you want to argue the merits of the work of Steve Jobs, do it, but NOT ON THIS THREAD. This is dedicated to saying goodbye to the man. Nothing more, nothing less.
Do NOT hijack other people's threads. Start your OWN.
JimH wrote:
I'm not saying he shouldn't be remembered. I'm not saying he didn't do some cool stuff, or at least THOUGHT of cool stuff. But I'm a bit put off by the sudden beatification of the guy, with stories of how brave he was to fight cancer (like the other couple of hundred thousand of people just like him) or how visionary he was (just like the guy at Xerox PARC who INVENTED the computer mouse and windowing system, only to have it appropriated by both Apple and Microsoft), and so on.
I am merely looking for some truth to shine through. It seems that it's in short supply with everybody falling all over themselves to make the guy a saint.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be remembered. I'm not... (
show quote)
Please start a separate thread for that. This is not the right place.