What if they output to a 3D printer, are they sculptors?
Slightly tongue-in-cheek: Digital practitioners have an identity crisis. When they output to paper, they wish to be known as photographers. When they only output to computer monitor, they still are photographers. What if they output to a 3D printer, are they sculptors? Why not just be satisfied with being known as artists working in digital media?
The only people who are having difficulty with the language were probably the same people bitching about typewriters, when they all KNEW that writing in cursive was the ONLY way to write a letter.
And so blansky you mean if you take a picture and use some filter in Photoshop to make a picture look like a painting you are a painter? Art is like typing?..
But what you sidestep is the reality that changes in tooling brings changes in output, due in no small part to the reduction of built-in negative feedback loops. It's as much about human interface engineering as it is about creating literature. Or images.
Write it cursively, and it will almost certainly be shorter for painfully obvious reasons. In principle, cursive may be better suited to poetry. Write it on a typewriter, and you will get more but the self-editing will be tighter because it's a royal pain-in-the-ass to retype large sections. (Those who went to college before word processing know this all to well.)
Write it on a computer processor, and it will be perfectly spelled with perfect grammar. It will also have perfect fonts and perfect point sizes and perfect line spacing and perfect punctuation. And no white-out blobs. What it may also have is a far more plain vanilla style, unless one takes the time to override the silly dogs and the paperclips with bulging eyes.
rite on sfon and ur not so gr8 #thisstupid...
The user of any of these writing technologies is never a neutral participant in the overall transaction. Same goes for progressively more automated cameras (film or digital).
Ken
OK the user is not a neutral participant in his choices.
Why do you have a problem with that.
Because you believe his tech choices are "unnatural", and you think he's cheating in some way?
I am sorry but i don't like all this, we need to put some limit in convenience.
-Well i don't like any of this approach. What is hobby for you then.
-Why you think a hobbyist fisherman pay so much money for staff, lost many hours to wait near the sea, but is so happy when they take only a few small fish, while with few money can have more and easy..
-The core of art and the happiness that give is the way you walk, the travel, not the result. If the road is to easy then the travel lost they're interesting, that's why today photographers take so many pictures but few of them is good.
In my film, i use 120, i now that from 15 exposure the 7-8 is good to enlarge, in digital even if something is boring you try with Photoshop to make interesting and the result if fake most of the time.
I think our society lost all the mining of life, so you are happy if someone make a pill in the end, that if you take it you feel like all go well in your life but in reality you never go out of your house and personal computer?.
I am sorry but i don't like all this, we need to put some limit in convenience.
I don't have a problem with other people's choices. Never did.
Rather, my issue is with those who endlessly come on here and proclaim that the two technologies (separated as they are by ~170 years) are actually the exact same thing. And they are used in exactly the same way. And that they both produce exactly the same results. And that the processes and end products are indistinguishable between them.
It staggers the rational mind. I see myself removing a DSLR sensor and dunking it into D-76 (1+1). Not a pretty sight.
You know, Elon Musk made a statement the other day that goes to the heart of the fundamental difference between analog and digital photographic technologies. He said that people need to stop thinking of Teslas as cars and start thinking of them as highly sophisticated computers that have wheels.
There is wisdom in that point of view well beyond just electric automobiles.
Ken
But this is just your usual groundhog day rant. Same rant different day.
The thread is about an incredible photographer who has move some of his process to digital.
Why would you care?
I don't. As I stated much earlier, I think Mr. Butcher is more than qualified to select whatever tools he likes. My apologies, however, as my subsequent sequence of replies were originally in response to post #55, with additional detours afterward. Post #58 was an attempt to open a sub-discussion, but it went ignored. I wasn't surprised.
Ken
Thank you for pointing out that Tesla thing, Ken - a computer on wheels. One more reason not to buy it. Someone can hack in, and nobody
will be able to fix anything unless they're in the official gravy train. One of those "if you can afford to buy it in the first place, you can afford a thousand bucks every six months to keep it serviced". There's enough of that already. Headaches happen in the darkroom too; but at least the equipment can be kept going by anyone with basic shop skills for decades to come. But I, for one, really don't give a damn about what this or that person has chosen in terms of practical equipment at a certain point in their life. I choose what is right for me.
Slightly tongue-in-cheek: Digital practitioners have an identity crisis. When they output to paper, they wish to be known as photographers. When they only output to computer monitor, they still are photographers? What if they output to a 3D printer, are they sculptors? Why not just be satisfied with being known as artists working in digital media?
Because language doesn't change with the advances in technology really.
A few years ago, you wrote a letter or perhaps you typed a letter. The writing was the physical act of using your hand and a pen and paper of some sort. If you typed it you used a typewriter probably.
But today we still say you wrote an email or a letter and you actually used a computer. We don't say you computed it. Were mentally stuck with the original language because as a group we decided we all know what people meant.
Photography has it obvious origins, and as cameras progressed and/or changed we still say we photographed something, whether it was a Polaroid, or a darkroom process or even now a computer process. We changed tools but we all know what we mean when we say it.
The only people who are having difficulty with the language were probably the same people bitching about typewriters, when they all KNEW that writing in cursive was the ONLY way to write a letter.
Now as for selling to the public, I agree that specifying your tools and your methods are important, so things are not misrepresented.
I have said something like this for a long time, that both digital and "analog" (what a weird term if you think about it) would have benefitted from having distinct terminology.
I don't have a problem with other people's choices. Never did.
Rather, my issue is with those who endlessly come on here and proclaim that the two technologies (separated as they are by ~170 years) are actually the exact same thing. And they are used in exactly the same way. And that they both produce exactly the same results. And that the processes and end products are indistinguishable between them.
i have been here since 2003 and have never read anyone suggesting
they were the exact same thing. similar, maybe ( light sensitive, and light jet prints /optical prints done well might be hard
to tell apart even by so called luddite analog experts )
maybe i have missed it, can you please post these "endless proclaimations"?
my issue is with those who endlessly come on here and proclaim that the two technologies (separated as they are by ~170 years) are actually the exact same thing. And they are used in exactly the same way. And that they both produce exactly the same results. And that the processes and end products are indistinguishable between them.
"the two technologies (separated as they are by ~170 years) are actually the exact same thing"
I can't recall Ken saying anything about digital photography being worse, just that it is different on a fundamental level.
However I still think he's missing out on a lot of excellent movies.
I have said something like this for a long time, that both digital and "analog" (what a weird term if you think about it) would have benefitted from having distinct terminology. I wanted film to keep "photography" and digital to be "digital imaging" but that produced such heated responses one guy on LFPF might have punched me if he'd been here in person, ranting about how I should find (some famous recent war time photojournalist shooting digital) and tell him he wasn't a photographer. He (the ranter, not the war shooter) clearly didn't grasp my point that, in my view, he'd be something else but equally valuable. I didn't mean that either would be considered superior and, in fact, in the case of photo-journalists ("imaging journalists" perhaps?) in a war zone digital clearly has very substantial, perhaps overwhelming, advantages.
But it didn't go that way and much argument and noise that could have been avoided was not avoided.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?