- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,833
- Format
- Hybrid
Well, not "simply." You have to know how it's done. It's a technical process, not magic. Yes, there's no art unless the photographer has some sort of vision, that doesn't come from the camera. But by choosing to use the camera to pass that vision on to others, then you engage the technology at some level, manipulate it. Choosing the camera means choosing a certain path, or from a set of available paths, to the result. The two aspects are not completely inseparable.
Arggghhh... Almost the very definition of what it is to be human is technological advance. It's what humans do. It's what humans have done throughout our entire history.
By it's very definition as one of humanity's creations, technology can not take away what makes us human. Because technology is in part what makes us human.
Oh please. Think about what you are saying. Inanimate objects are controlling you? Take responsibility for your own actions. If you shoot more carelessly, you personally are the only one to blame. It's not the camera -- it's you. And you know it.
... Auto-exposure equals auto-mediocrity.
I guess what I'm saying is that for me the technology is a means to the end, whereas the vision is the end in itself. And vision is technology-independent. I don't need the technology to see. I need the technology to attempt to express what I see.
Yes, of course, that's what it is for any artist. But the actual art isn't what's in you're head, it's what's on the paper. Just having ideas in your head doesn't make you an artist; making art makes you an artist. And the tools you choose to use are part and parcel with that.
But the tools (technology) do not dictate what's in your head. And that's where the creative event originates. Without that there is nothing to put to paper.
The OP was concerned with whether less technology resulted in better photographs. I am saying that greater or lesser levels of technology make no difference, unless you are allowing the technology to think for you.
Actually, technologies do dictate what is your head--literally. I cite you to "The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains," by Nicholas Carr, 2010
That film in your hand? There is an astounding amount of technology there, and a big part of the aim of that technology has been to take care of you. Film is far from "low tech". Film just isn't hardware intensive, and in a hardware intensive time (driven mostly by marketing) we tend to forget that there are other kinds of advanced technology that aren't based on a gadget.
If you set your exposure mode on "M", set your focus to "Manual", and use single-shot mode, how is your d***** camera different from your old mechanical SLR, aside from how the image is stored?
How did this turn into yet another film and digital thread?
The tools, so far as the animal's brains were concerned, had become part of their bodies. As the researchers who conducted the experiment with the pliers reported, the monkey's brains began to act 'as if the pliers were now the hand fingers.
When Nietzsche changed from writing long hand and started using a typewriter, his writing style changed.
I have shot with a 6x7 camera for the last 10 years. In LF, I use 4x5, 8x10 and other formats which share the same aspect ratio. When I shoot with cameras that have a different format, e.g. 35mm, 6x4.5 or 12x20, my photos are not nearly as strong. When I look through the viewfinder of a 35mm camera, I am sometimes surprised at how the framing in the viewfinder differs from my mental picture of the framing before I bring the camera to the eye. I suppose one way to put it is that I have internalized the 8x10 aspect ratio. When I am out looking to photograph, or I am setting up a still life in the studio, I "see" the photo in that aspect ratio in my head before ever raising the camera to my eye.
What is interesting about the book is the science of just what it means to "internalize" something. According to the author, relying on the latest science, we literally change the internal structure of our brains in response to the tools we use.
There is the proof, I'm related to a monkey.
Does that make you a monkey's uncle?
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?