Keira Knightley on Film Photog. vs Digital Photog.

+1 As I've previously said everyone has his say except for the subject. In the analogue time you sometimes had such shots were a few guys/gals very critiquing the Polaroids but now in the digital era you get Input from People several thousand km away. This takes the photographer away from the important thing the subject.
 
daveleo said:
@ Harry Lime

Your comments just above are shocking and educational.
It must be a brutal environment.
Click to expand...

Agreed! I had an inkling of what it might be like but didn't realize the extent to which the new technology has changed things. Thank you for the info, Harry.
 
What Harry Lime said is interesting and frightening in the same time. Technology changed the world, the way people work (and think, maybe). Once more I'm happy to be a pure amateur!
robert
 
Obviously there are varying degrees going on of what I have described and how out of control things can get depends on the talent being photographed, how much pull the photographer has and how they try to run ther studio. But there is little doubt that the classic studio session we may all imagine is little more than a romantic memory.

I'm pretty certain that Keira's shoot was relatively sane and straightforward, simply because of the stature of the photographer involved . I can't image that he would run his studio like that, but I think that is the exception rather than the norm.
 
In ancient times with the Nikon F3 Polaroid back (As well as other cameras) you had to pass around crappy Polaroid prints for unqualified people for comments and criticism.

Not much has changed.
 
Doesn't seem to me that digital capture is the primary issue. It's that the managers of such public people today use social media to a much greater and more accelerated way. The hungry beast must be fed all the time, which requires more staff and handlers, and faster throughput for content. Digital delivers it, but it's more effect than cause.

Social media, unless it's cast off by trendmakers, will drive this instant gratification of content - it's unavoidable. Don't blame the camera or the photographer.
 
I don't think Harry_Lime's saying it's social media's fault. The technology has changed. Now staff KNOW they can watch a studio shoot in real time and insist upon it, or write it into contract. Can't put the genie back into the bottle.
 
There is an old saying "Too many grandmothers-unhealthy child". Not surprised that fashion and ad photography is so...boring. I haven't seen an ad that would make me buy for years...
 
David_Manning said:
I don't think Harry_Lime's saying it's social media's fault. The technology has changed. Now staff KNOW they can watch a studio shoot in real time and insist upon it, or write it into contract. Can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Click to expand...

Which is the same situation decades ago when Polaroids were handed around during this sort of photo shoot. Perhaps the most significant difference is the proof images are available in high-resolution and almost instantly. This means the staff can be fussier.
 
willie_901 said:
Which is the same situation decades ago when Polaroids were handed around during this sort of photo shoot. Perhaps the most significant difference is the proof images are available in high-resolution and almost instantly. This means the staff can be fussier.
Click to expand...

Polaroids are pretty harmless in comparison to reviewing and pixel peeping the actual 'negative' on large monitor. Polaroids were a tiny, course sketch that vaguely resembled the final image. Today a lot of these cameras are tethered and you see a constant stream of images flickering across one or more screens. A lot of people WISH they only had to deal with discussing a Polaroid. I don't think this is a valid comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom