Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Latest OM Family Portrait - Olympus Living History Farm

Subject: Re: [OM] Latest OM Family Portrait - Olympus Living History Farm
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:44:49 -0700
On 9/5/2011 3:55 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> You might try using digital whole-heartedly, not as a replacement for film, 
>> but as a different set of tools in its own right. Oils aren't acrylics, 
>> aren't watercolors, and so on.
> Well, maybe you misinterpret it a little bit. It's not that I don't use
> digital whole-heartedly,

Or perhaps you overstated, "I begrudgingly use digital. But I'm using film on 
the inside even when I'm shooting digital."

Or do I misunderstand, and "begrudgingly" is almost the same as 
"whole-heartedly ", and not the opposite?

> but I'm bi-format. I happen to really really enjoy
> shooting B&W, for example. No matter how hard I've tried or what software
> tools are out there, I'm not satisfied in the results for the way I shoot. I
> find it intruiging that those who have "arrived" at a perfect digital B&W
> configuration/workflow change to a better configuration/workflow six months
> later. Evidently, the perfect configuration/workflow wasn't quite so perfect
> after all. Each week I seem to read somebody saying "now I have a decent
> TriX setup..."

Is that really different than the darkroom days? I seem to recall many, many 
comments and, in the old days, articles and 
letters, about endless experiments and changes in film, paper, lens, filters, 
chemistry, etc. Of course, the people most 
engaged in change may also be those most likely to write/post/talk about it. 
But I'll bet that is the same today, with 
the many, probably majority, who find a digital process and stick to it for a 
long time being largely silent.

I'd also suggest that the pace of change in capabilities in the digital 
darkroom since its inception has been greater 
than than in the wet darkroom in the couple of decades before digital. IF 
capabilities are changing rapidly, folks are 
going to try new tools more often.

> Anyway, I digress. I happen to like both film and digital and can be pretty
> adept at either. I just happen to enjoy using one over the other. My wife's
> Prius is a better car in a ton of ways, but I'd much rather drive a Mazda
> Miata.

All very fine, and that wouldn't have drawn a response from me as did "I 
begrudgingly use digital. But I'm using film on 
the inside even when I'm shooting digital.", which seems to be to be very 
different.

On 9/5/2011 6:05 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> ... Moose dressed me down about essentially committing myself to a technology 
> and effectively becoming expert at it. 
> His premise had to do specifically with digital cameras. 

Hey, now you are misinterpreting what I say! :-)    I only spoke about the 
implications of doing something begrudgingly 
vs. whole-heartedly. No judgement stated nor implied about what one is choosing 
to do, nor about technical expertise, 
only about the attitude with which one approaches it.

There have always been artists and craftspeople who choose unpopular, even 
previously unknown, sometimes wildly 
inappropriate seeming, media and processes, apply them with more enthusiasm 
than expertise, and create great stuff.

Moose
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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