Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
shutterflower said:
There is no key difference. They are both no photographers. Within your personal system of assumption and conclusio at least. Fascinating ! 🙂
bertram
The Modern Camera and the Dilution of Effort.
- Thread starter Andy K
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 108
- Views 6K
There is no key difference. They are both no photographers. Within your personal system of assumption and conclusio at least. Fascinating ! 🙂
bertram
sf
Veteran
Bertram2 said:
well, yes, I did contradict myself. I don't think snapshots can be called photography - but I think that the line between snapshots and what HCB did is very fine, or at least divided by a very fuzzy gray area.
The loss of craft, or at least the illusion of this loss, is I think more a result of changing statistics than any actual loss. It's a relative drop in numbers, but only beside the enormous growth of the digicam-snapshot market.
modern technology DOES make it easier to forget some of the craftiness of the art - since some cameras do automatically what was once a process - and Photoshop makes quick and easy what was once a science and an art - but do we define the art by its process? Or is it the final product?
Technology ALLOWS us to forsake the craft in the art - it doesn't force it.
Last edited:
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
When I saw that it was the little bird inside
the Polarock camera doing all the work,
I knew Fred and Barney's interest in photography
would last but one 30 minute Flintstones episode...
"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-
the Polarock camera doing all the work,
I knew Fred and Barney's interest in photography
would last but one 30 minute Flintstones episode...
"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
shutterflower said:
It's all a matter of terms and their definition. Before one starts a discussion one should be sure both mean the same.
We once had an argument already here about snapshots "beeing photography" or not.
I said yes , other said no and first after we had compared our definitions we noticed that in principle we were quite close to each other.
There are several understandings of "snapshots", and of "photography" too. So starting a discussion with two variables what else could be the result than a verbal massacre ?
O.K., let's go out and snap "IT" and let's think about the naming later, when it turns out we were successful in making "IT" visible.
About your sister and HCB I stilll can't say anything tho, haven't seen her photos, maybe she has the same ingenious eye as he had ? 😉
bertram
sf
Veteran
Bertram2 said:
that's really where it's found - the difference - in the eye.
Now, everyone's a "photographer" because the digicam is accessible to the multitudes - and it makes the process also accessible. This means a dilution of the talent pool, really.
If you have the eye, you have the eye, regardless of what tools you use.
I'd bet HCB would be just as or even more brilliant with his timing if he'd had something super quick and quiet like the Hexar AF or Contax T3. Or the RD-1.
Last edited:
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
Pherdinand said:
Press your monitor's degauss button while looking at Photo #317-4 and see if you get a headache.
R.J
sf
Veteran
I'll admit his collection is watered down with less than amazing material. . .but he has some really nice ones in there, too.
check this out :
http://wilson.dynu.net/photo.asp?Photo_ID=7101
check this out :
http://wilson.dynu.net/photo.asp?Photo_ID=7101
amateriat
We're all light!
Yes. 'Twas always thus. 🙂shutterflower said:
Depends. He'd allegedly been seen with a high-end p/s camera very, very late in his active career, probably just before hanging up his Leicas for good (mostly). But all the whiz-bang SLR technology that was rushing forth in the 1970s and 80s he was content with blissfully ignoring. I'm certain HCB was cognizant of digital, but by that time he'd pretty much lost interest in photography...sort of like Jeff Beck forswearing the guitar, or Jeff Koons giving up sculpture (well, actually, I kind of wish Koons would give it up...). He knew what worked for him, stuck with it, got to know it until it "disappeared" within his hands. (This is the sort of thing that gets me thinking about how Leicas – and its cousins via Minolta, Konica, CV et al – tend to be fetishised for too many of the wrong reasons.)
- Barrett
Last edited:
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
It's permissible for people to speak of things which they cannot themselves do, so long as they do not call themselves master performers. Food and music are excellent examples, and common ones. And tennis. A fine craftsman may be entirely unable to explain the principles behind his work. At the same time, someone who thinks of something in the abstract may be lousy or mediocre at practising that something.
Shake, Sparrow. While "deliberate" and "automatic" are different, logically, if one has done something often enough while thinking about it, a time comes when doing it needs little or no conscious thought. In my own work, for example, there are few pictures whose verticals or horizontals are off. By itself this does not make my work good, but it does show that that particular discipline was so "automatic" that I could focus, frame and fire in 5 or 10 seconds, re-setting the exposure if that had to be done and the camera had a meter, and stepping back or forwards and maybe bending my knees to get lower.
There are so many kinds of photography -- differentiated by subject, by equipment, by environment, and so on -- that there cannot be one rule for all. In photography and in everything else, though, thought is a resource, a raw material: the more you put in, the better the result.
Shake, Sparrow. While "deliberate" and "automatic" are different, logically, if one has done something often enough while thinking about it, a time comes when doing it needs little or no conscious thought. In my own work, for example, there are few pictures whose verticals or horizontals are off. By itself this does not make my work good, but it does show that that particular discipline was so "automatic" that I could focus, frame and fire in 5 or 10 seconds, re-setting the exposure if that had to be done and the camera had a meter, and stepping back or forwards and maybe bending my knees to get lower.
There are so many kinds of photography -- differentiated by subject, by equipment, by environment, and so on -- that there cannot be one rule for all. In photography and in everything else, though, thought is a resource, a raw material: the more you put in, the better the result.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
RJBender said:
Well, a bit too basic indeed for such kind of art lessons. 😀
Nonetheless I find we now should not bomb this man's words and photos down to ashes with our scornful laughter, too easily one gets over the limit where the criticism ends and he personal attack begins.
Bruce Wilson came in here and handled the criticism like a gentleman, the best he could do because this way we were reminded that there is still a human beeing behind these words and photos which deserves that we respect his personal dignity.
That shall not mean that I found this remark concerning the "detractors" adaequate at all, rather silly and offensive.
Silly because Bruce Wilsons lessons and photos are extremely criticizable, and presenting his work publicly he has to expect that it gets criticised publicly.
And as it turns out he has no real prob with it.
Regards,
bertram
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Payasam
Meanings were being twisted by others earlier in the thread; I was trying to preserve the meaning of the word without being a pedant. Clearly you can by conditioning yourself deliberately learn an automatic response to circumstances.
Meanings were being twisted by others earlier in the thread; I was trying to preserve the meaning of the word without being a pedant. Clearly you can by conditioning yourself deliberately learn an automatic response to circumstances.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
amateriat said:
Oh, c'mon Koons is fun . . .
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
Bertram2 said:
You are correct, Bertram, but that one sentence was particularly funny, IMO. 😛
I think it's unusual that Mr. Wilson frequently checks his website's traffic statistics report for referring pages and joins RFF to respond to this minor amount of criticism.
R.J.
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
Andrew Sowerby said:Oh, c'mon Koons is fun . . .
Ask Art Rogers if the lawsuit was fun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons
R.J.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
Yes, I've read that case. It's a good read for those who are interested in the limits of the Americian "fair use" doctrine.
Last edited:
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
RJBender said:
Hm, more likely is he was informed. Strange that somebody found that
necessary ?? Pomposity. 🙄 Well, some like that, they are born as "informer", to use a polite word. :angel:
bertram
R
RML
Guest
Bertram2 said:
Why an informer? I regularly check the stats for my blogs too, and often find places that I otherwise would not have found, searched for or checked out.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Pavlov taught me a neat tail wag too, Sparrow: but humans have this thing about practice, perfection and stuff.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
PeterL said:
Peter ,
I read your contribution with honest interest, but I think you packed a bit too much meaning on my general question. It is a question only, and not a law-like philosophical statement, a question based on my personal observation only.
Discussing this question like a philosphical statement you must necessarily end up with the question if HCBs photos have less quality than those of AA.
Philosophically I am still anchored in the framework of Historic Materialism and so my question points mainly on the law of acceleration, which is a true inherent law of our system of producing and consuming.
It changes our life style too tho, also our perception and our standards. The economical beeing forms the consciousness, it controls the creatin of awareness.
Yes, I agree, of course this economically driven acceleration of our life always means both, gain and loss.
So acceleration itself is not "bad" per se, that wasn't implied either with my question. It just pointed on the loss, which is , so to say, the price we pay for the positive effects of acceleration alias progress.
What do we gain, what do we pay for it, that is the question asked more precisely. A question worth some thoughts IMHO.
Read my signature: This Sartre quote points eycactly on that question ! 😉
Regards,
Bertram
PeterL
--
Hi Bertram,
I know I read too much into what you wrote, it was on purpose. I appreciate that it was simply a question, but I found a few assumptions in there that I had thoughts about.
I don't think so. If I would treat your question as a philosophical statement and point out that you evaluate acceleration of photography, and then continue to show that I don't agree with that statement from my point of view, then that evaluation is irrelevant to me. Which it is. So, treating the question as a philosophical statement doesn't imply deciding who of the two masters is better.
But of course, this is a bit theoretical and hypothetical. Below, I agree with you that my claim that you identify acceleration with badness, is exaggerated.
I agree completely. Consumption driven production will always raise specs and accelerate production cycles to stay ahead of the competition. Also, since the specifications, i.e. the capabilities, of cameras are always raised, one of them must be the speed at which one can take photographs. Exactly what we've seen with the expansion of the P&S market. Lower barriers to entry are also good for the producers, so speed of photography is desirable for them in that way, too.
I may have twisted your words a bit, true. You point out the loss. I wanted to add the more positive side to the discussion, too, to keep things in balance. Not referring to your contributions, which I highly value, I see many people around me look only at the bad sides. I want to point to the positive sides.
I think one major advantage is availability. My mother was always wary of my father's SLR. It was overwhelming. She won a disposable camera once and her pictures were very interesting. She's seen tens of thousands over the years, but her take was much more social than my father's. A fast (just click) way of photography was a big help for her.
What we amateurs gain is that we can focus on other things than technicalities. My SLR is always on AE mode: I compose (DOF is part of it) and let the machine do what it can do better than me. If it's a matter of getting a needle between two dots, any machine can do it better and faster than I can. I don't use autofocus because I consider that too important for my composition. But if others don't, there's much more choice now. If you want slow, you can have it, but if you want quick or you need it, it's there too.
In other words, it's choice, as your signature points out 🙂
Peter.
Bertram2 said:
I know I read too much into what you wrote, it was on purpose. I appreciate that it was simply a question, but I found a few assumptions in there that I had thoughts about.
Bertram2 said:
I don't think so. If I would treat your question as a philosophical statement and point out that you evaluate acceleration of photography, and then continue to show that I don't agree with that statement from my point of view, then that evaluation is irrelevant to me. Which it is. So, treating the question as a philosophical statement doesn't imply deciding who of the two masters is better.
But of course, this is a bit theoretical and hypothetical. Below, I agree with you that my claim that you identify acceleration with badness, is exaggerated.
Bertram2 said:
I agree completely. Consumption driven production will always raise specs and accelerate production cycles to stay ahead of the competition. Also, since the specifications, i.e. the capabilities, of cameras are always raised, one of them must be the speed at which one can take photographs. Exactly what we've seen with the expansion of the P&S market. Lower barriers to entry are also good for the producers, so speed of photography is desirable for them in that way, too.
Bertram2 said:
I may have twisted your words a bit, true. You point out the loss. I wanted to add the more positive side to the discussion, too, to keep things in balance. Not referring to your contributions, which I highly value, I see many people around me look only at the bad sides. I want to point to the positive sides.
Bertram2 said:
I think one major advantage is availability. My mother was always wary of my father's SLR. It was overwhelming. She won a disposable camera once and her pictures were very interesting. She's seen tens of thousands over the years, but her take was much more social than my father's. A fast (just click) way of photography was a big help for her.
What we amateurs gain is that we can focus on other things than technicalities. My SLR is always on AE mode: I compose (DOF is part of it) and let the machine do what it can do better than me. If it's a matter of getting a needle between two dots, any machine can do it better and faster than I can. I don't use autofocus because I consider that too important for my composition. But if others don't, there's much more choice now. If you want slow, you can have it, but if you want quick or you need it, it's there too.
In other words, it's choice, as your signature points out 🙂
Peter.
Similar threads
