Hey Donald,
I agree with your post, they said the same thing about 35mm film, when it
was first introduced. It was considered amateurish by the photojournalist,
back in the days. (sounds like rap, doesn't it?)
In the old days photo journalist used the Speed-Graphic camera, manufactured
by Graflex, a company in New York (where else? I always wondered why
Shutterbug had so many N.Y. camera dealers.).
Pure "photo enthusiasts" say the Speed Graphic was America's "first and last
great camera."
I have seen images of old that are so great, that it would be very difficult
to acheive the exact same results on 35mm film or digital. Impossible in my
opinion.
For those that think they came up with a new idea or ways to shooting great
photographs, guess what? it's probably already been done before, and many
times over.
We must remember the "art" or the "mastering" of photography, is capturing
the moment or story as it's happening. (you look at the photo and it tells
you something)
Then there is also the art of composition while framing a subject. You must
learn to shoot the way the camera sees the image.
Also, let's not forget the importance of having the right perspective,
lighting and camera angle. This is what truly sets photographs apart from
your basic average click shot.
They say the best photographs are the simplest in terms of composition,
which at times is easier said then done.
Whether it's 110mm, 126mm, 35mm, medium format, large format or digital, the
basic principles are the same.
I recently ran into a young photographer that shoots exclusively auto-focus.
He was intrigued by the fact I was still shooting manual focus.
He was surprised to hear me say that I tried auto-focus and that I didn't
really like it that well. What I thought was funny is he said that exact
opposite, he couldn't shoot manual focus.
So what's the irony in all of this? Is digital better than film? Is a blond
better than a brunette?
Who knows! I guess it's all a matter of what feels right for you......
Sam....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald MacDonald" <Donald.MacDonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:31 AM
Subject: [OM] RE: E-10
> CH replied:
>
> <snip>
> If you
> want to see more, you can check:
> <snip>
>
> Nah, not interested at all. Just pointing it out for you didge freaks ;-)
>
> Just that these guys (it is a forum for photojournalists) are the kind
that
> these tools are made for, IMHO.
>
> Three main reasons I'm not interested:
>
> 1) I'm broke. And even when I'm not broke, that amount of cash is
> unjustifiable. YMMV.
>
> 2) For me, taking photographs is a process, not an event. These tools are
a
> different process, it doesn't attract me. YMMV.
>
> 3) In the last resort they will prise my OM1n batteryless from my cold
> hands, because I can snap away without power. Never had a situation where
I
> couldn't shoot because of lack of electricity, and I don't intend to
start.
> Hey, two days at the Shelter Stone in February, I'm nearly dead, never
mind
> a battery!!!
>
> Maybe I'm not committed enough. I have a pretty full life. Learning
> PhotoShop isn't in my top 1,000 things to do right now. I like making
> photographs, but it's an adjunct to mountaineering, cycling, family life
and
> the wonder of existence. At the moment, I have lovely tools (OMs) that I
> like to play with. I'll be posting my web site soon, but the photographs
are
> just an illustration of my interests. I've scanned maybe 200 slides and
> about 50 negatives. Geez, it's hard work! Not one of them is anywhere near
> the original. I've learned that some of my best projecting slides just
won't
> scan well.
>
> But it's like mountain bikes. I can't get used to them, and I don't have
> one. We roughstuffers have used bikes in the mountains since there were
> bikes to use. By the time it gets rough enough to need fat tyres,
suspension
> and all that stuff, I'd be walking anyway. Better for the land.
>
> By the time I get through my current dark tunnel, I may not be a librarian
> any longer, but the philosophy of storage and retrieval is of deep
interest
> to me, and I think we are making big mistakes right now. I like to think
I'm
> change-driven and open to new ideas, have introduced ICT everywhere I've
> worked, but there are some areas of life we need to look at a bit more
> carefully before committing to a totally digital future.
>
> BTW, I took a look at the photos, CH. Great, and I bet you're having fun,
> right? ;-)
>
> Donald. (Blowing a gale in Larbert just now; bikes are indoors...)
>
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|