Why limit oneself?

I always thought the first three star wars movies (~1977) were better than the last three. One "problem" Lucas had with the first movies is he was limited by money and special effects technology (No computer graphics!).

In the later trilogy, he had no limits. Anything he could think of, he could put on screen, thanks to computer graphics and his bottomless pocketbook.

However it's generally acknowledged that the later trilogy is inferior to the first. One theory is that the limitations in the first trilogy forced him to substitute actual quality for special effects.
 
back alley said:
juan,
i understand and understood what your words mean...but they are like a lecture by a professor...what i am interested in is...what is your point?
why say what you say? i need a point.
Click to expand...

What makes you think I haven't been a professor?

Maybe if you had attended such lectures often you would consider all this a common thing...

The point is your photographs are the same no matter the media.

Another (sad) point, is that if you fear unreal limits can limit you, that will end up limiting you.

A third point is other people's photographs and joy don't care at all about what you consider a limit... It's just in your mind and in your shots.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
antiquark said:
I always thought the first three star wars movies (~1977) were better than the last three. One "problem" Lucas had with the first movies is he was limited by money and special effects technology (No computer graphics!).

In the later trilogy, he had no limits. Anything he could think of, he could put on screen, thanks to computer graphics and his bottomless pocketbook.

However it's generally acknowledged that the later trilogy is inferior to the first. One theory is that the limitations in the first trilogy forced him to substitute actual quality for special effects.
Click to expand...

so, limits ensure quality?
 
Of course I talk about you, but not just about you... Your, or mine, or anyone's shots are the same no matter the media used... The same no matter how many different ways of capture we use or avoid using...

This thread is about that: if media can limit us. No, media can't limit us. We're not more limited with one single media or lots of different media.

You won't make twice as good photographs as Cartier-Bresson if you use film and digital... Media has no relation to creation quality... And anyone avoiding a media, is not applying limits to his/her photography...

Cheers,

Juan
 
antiquark said:
No, I'm thinking along the lines of, "limit-free does not ensure quality."
Click to expand...

to limit or not to limit...one way or another, a hack is a hack!

quality cannot be taken for granted, no matter if shooting with the best or worst of gear or if limiting myself to one kit or allowing the use of a complete arsenal.

there seems to be some animosity (on the part of some on the forum) for those holding an opinion on either side of the issue.
 
Anyways, I myself use a "limitless" system (D90, 18-105 zoom) so I don't even practice what I preach.

But since when are preachers required to practice what they preach? It's a phenomenon that's as old as the hills, that people say one thing and do another. 🙂
 
I always thought the first three star wars movies (~1977) were better than the last three. One "problem" Lucas had with the first movies is he was limited by money and special effects technology (No computer graphics!).
Click to expand...

Some of the roots of graphics tech came from the first Star Wars, although graphics processing started earlier. (Dan Sandin, artist)

A good read here: Chicago's underground video...

Some of the special CRT-like effects for the first Star Wars were done at the University of Illinois, Chicago Circle campus, the Habitat. It was a hugely tedious project, but a first of sorts, and pursued with a passion. Other interesting computer graphics projects were being pursued there. It was all about limits - finding what one could do within them, and then breaking them. The names I recall from my scant experience are Larry Cuba and Dan Sandin.

wpeF.gif


Dan Sandin at the time (rendered by himself). He invented a rendering machine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks said:
For me, it's very simple:

Step One: Decide what sort of picture I want to take.

Step Two: Decide which combination of camera, lens and medium (film, digi, colour, mono), among those available to me, is most likely to give me the results I want.

Step Three: Take picture(s).

If the picture is (or pictures are) successful, great. If not, proceed to:

Step Four: Ask myself why not. Would I have got better pics with a different camera or lens? Usually the answer is 'no', because I'm the weak link here. If it's 'yes', then I know more for next time.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Basically, I'm with Roger on this one. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but:

1- I try to learn about the tools I have at hand. For example, I know I must become quicker at taking shots. It takes time and practice.
2- I make choices BEFORE going out. Simplifying helps me to focus. And I know technical limitations force me to adapt and (try to) be imaginative.
3- And I try to be as an honest critic as I can of the output. But unfortunately, I depends a lot on my mood... 😉

I try not to limit myself but, as a human being, I do have limitations. And I make choices. A vision, limitations and choices, for better or for worse, represent my photography. Not my camera nor the film or the sensor in it...

If I'm not happy with the result then it means that I must try harder. And try to step out of my comfort zone more often! I know what I should do, but I'm not brave enough. That's the difference between guys like me and true artists. Oh, well...

A medium is just that, a medium. A mean to an end.

I do miss my darkroom though. I was about to start experimenting Lith printing after seeing great stuff from Todd Hanz!
 
Sometimes it's just because you want to focus on one approach or one kind of camera for awhile. We all need to work within some kind of limits. No big deal. If you don't want to limit yourself, "don't." See how it works out for you. - Jim
 
Pherdinand said:
no serious artist limits himself at all.
Click to expand...

I believe this is false. No one ever develops in a vacuum. To paraphrase that Chinese master painter who claimed that an artist must "Know the tradition that lies behind and within him if he is ever to be creative." And by definition, we are thus limited within or by reacting to the work of predecessors. Time and place give us all limitations to work within, as no one can jump over even his own shadow.
 
There are limitations that you can't break but you try to. There are limitations that you can break but you choose not to. And there are people who break the limitations that were believed to be unbreakable.

Limitation is a part of the factors that define individuals from the rest. That's a tool to define one artist or his/her style in the mass.

I choose to keep some limitations while try to break some others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom