Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] [OT] Shutterbug "discovery"

Subject: Re: [OM] [OT] Shutterbug "discovery"
From: Tris Schuler <tristanjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:49:55 -0800

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:04:16 -0800, Tris Schuler wrote:

>For myself, I doubt this is or ever could be photography, rather more like
>digital "image making."

I don't understand your distinction.

I consider "digital photography" to be a simple misnomer at base. The implication of the advent and acceptance of this new technological means of "photography" is that the time will come (as it threatens to eventually) when no work with film emulsions will be undertaken. and thus only forms of digital image-capturing devices and corresponding "photographic" software approaches to "darkroom" processing will remain as this other-age's "photographic" expression. At that juncture image quality may or may not be any better or worse than we find it today, but for sure photography, per se and as I've learned it, will have died.

To turn it around, photography will not have technically died as society will have simply redefined what photography is to mean: something along the lines of, "images captured on and/or through one kind or another of digital (as opposed to analog) media."

This corruption (as I see it) is already underway and somewhat pervasive. For instance, it exists in all of my work today--only part of my photographic workflow remains analog, the rest digital. In fact, this has led to an improvement in the apparent quality of my photographic end result, and I've no quarrel with that, but no matter how much I praise my SprintScan, no matter how much further Adobe might refine and enhance Photoshop, these tools take me away from photography in the strictest sense and into a branch of (for lack of more ready terminology) visual arts. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily. Hell, I even feel enabled to a large extent.

But that's me. I can understand the difference because I note it within an understandable context. A generation or two down the road, when there is virtually no one around who has experience of any kind with photographic expression of the analog kind, only the digital, then I say that the former area of the arts and sciences will not just have died but been forced into its hole, and not because of any inherent deficiency but rather for the sake of convenience and expediency as these qualities were then judged, and due to lack of regard and interest all around.

For illustration, a similar parallel could be drawn to painting. Imagine the death of, say, oils. From a certain date only "digital oils" would be made. No more brushes, no more smocks, only Paint Shop Pro. Or drawing. No more pencils, no more gum erasers, just some CAD title with years-ahead-styling and form.

This isn't a rant, just an expression of what I see.

If you _want_ a rant I could jam this list for a week (easily) with my feelings with regard to same. But I don't think you want a rant so I won't. <g>

Tris




< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz