Oh sure, you're righ. I'm in my senior year of film school at SFSU,
though, and have peers who do their work on Mini-DV instead of 16mm and
leave the exposure and focus on auto. I went out to a shoot a few weeks
ago that some of them were doing at a local nightclub called DNA and
the DP on the shoot (a lovely gentleman named Kun) didn't even want to
hear about it when I suggested I could take some meter readings for
him. He just let his XL1s do all that complicated nonsense. I see the
same kind of thing in the still photography classes.
You're right, though. I'm not saying Photoshop is to blame any more
than I'm saying Protools is responsible for people not learning the
basics of recording engineering. I just think there are a lot of people
in the world who'll learn as little as they need to know to get by and
by the nature of some of the new technologies that means never really
learning much of anything. At some level there seems to be a rationale
behind it where they'll argue that they're artists not technicians, but
a craft requires some level of technical accomplishment if you're going
to really take it anywhere. All just my opinion and straying father
from topic all the time. Sorry...
On Jul 22, 2004, at 7:14 PM, Michael Darling wrote:
> How is this different from using a full-auto point & shoot and a poorly
> maintained 1-hour mini lab run by a teenager that'd rather be out back
> smoking with their buds? What about the millions of consumers that
> didn't
> care how everything worked BEFORE digital started taking over? I don't
> see
> how Photoshop can be blamed for that. Tools like PS may have
> accelerated the
> acceptance of digital photography, and turned too many bad snapshots
> into
> psychedelic trash, but I don't see how its any worse than it was 15
> years
> ago. Except for the film dying thing... That sucks :(
>
> -mike
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|