Ignoring a hugely significant change of medium and how it affects the approach of the photographer and their methodology is naive. The fact that the majority of it no longer uses an analog process and cost per shot has fallen to the floor has greatly affected the way modern photography is approached by both the photographer and the viewers.
Significant paradigm shift - not just another film format change.
Result: an absolute wall of noise against a definitely fading signal.
I didn't say ignore, I said stay away from the bad stuff. I agree with the wall of noise/fading signal analog to a point. But, there is plenty of good work online - including some sites I had never visited before this thread began - and frankly, how would we have been able to enjoy any of it had it not been posted online?
IMHO cost per shot has nothing to do with good images. If that were the case, the rapid shooting Garry Winogrand would have made a lot more money than the famously deliberate Ansel Adams (or any other photographer for that matter.) He didn't. Anyone worried about cost per shot needs to switch to digital immediately. Anyone
concerned about making the best images they can should work in the medium they prefer, because the public doesn't care whether it was shot on film or digital. It's the images they like that the public will appreciate and maybe even buy.
Paulfish 4570 wrote victoriapio: i was born in victoria, lo, these many years ago ...
Victoria Texas? If so, hello to you. The city is changing and growing these days. There's a very active photography group in town, alas, I think I'm the only rangefinder user in it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
