That's true, to a point. I think digital photography is best, or most happily,
undertaken by people with tendencies toward split personalities. There's a need
for an eye, an ability to see the patterns, the compositions, the
possibilities, and to recognize the much maligned decisive moment. But in order
to bring all of that to a satisfactory image, the artist must surrender some of
most of his sensibilities to the technician, the theoretical and optical
physicist. In the wet darkroom, the artist gave way to the chemist and the
optical specialist, but that's changed with photoshop and digital printing.
You can have a complete mastery of the theory, and the application of
photoshop, but your images can be horrid. Or, conversely, you can have the eye
of a Leonardo and the technical ability of a bag of hammers, and be forever
frustrated by your inability to put your vision onto a print.
It's a damned unforgiving world. <g>
--Bob
On Aug 31, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Siddiq Siddiqui-Ali wrote:
> Because digital photography is all about the capture, evaluation, and
> manipulation of bits! It’s more about knowing photoshop and the theory behind
> what it’s doing under hood than anything else, no?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|