I think Bob's remark about snappers is fair - I see it all the time. It appears that they don't care about skill because increasing the number of shots improves the odds of getting something by chance. On the other hand, a large part of creativity is play. I shoot a lot of frames because it costs nothing to try every impulse. Also I miss more shots with a digital camera due to the infernal shutter lag. Regarding Jeff's point about accelerated change to photography, I don’t think camera photography (as opposed to PS illustration)as an art medium changes much no matter what technical revolutions come along. PS illustration is just another kind of collage or painting - two media that were thoroughly changed by photography at the start. It is culture that changes. My work will evolve technially perhaps but the real change will be because of accelerated changes I believe we are seeing in the world not tools. Looking at it from another angle - having active and redundant photographic devices pointed at every square foot of the planet WILL cause a radical change in the way we live - how could it not? I like to think of it as a world where lies can be readily held up to scrutiny rather than a loss of privacy because information is immediately accessible to anyone who desires it. It gives individuals much more power over those who attempt to influence them. Recent events seem to have borne this out. Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Simultaneously combining the novel with the familiar > From: "Bob Talbot" <BobTalbot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, September 08, 2004 6:38 pm > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > I think it's important, regardless of how one > > feels about what is happening, to at least understand that it is > changing > > photography. > Jeff, > > indeed, it's not just changing the methods / technology of photography > I think possible too it's changing (changed?) the whole nature of the > beast. > > OK, my glib remark about "snappers taking 10000 ill focussed images at > arms length" might sound derogatory - but it's also not far from the > truth. The medium of photography currently being experienced by many > is of immediacy / spontenaity: the act of doing it is far more > important than the results. By the time you had got your film > developed in even a 1h outlet - the digital offerings are already > passe. > > Will this have knock on effects? > Will it have any impact on the perception of more traditional artistic > forms (digital or film)? > Maybe. > > > > > > >but the quantum leap in ubiquity of cameras (especially with cell > > phones but also with tiny digital cameras) and the ubiquity of > images > > (ongoing in society, but now accelerated by the internet), needs to > be > > noted and discussed. > Indeed: it's not digital vs film: it's digital. > What has changed: what will be in 5-y? > It's really not the technology that matters but the speed/immediacy > that technology brings. > Comparing resolution, longevity etc ... maybe there are arguments in > favour of a film but they are on a now disused playing field. > > > > > > > There are certainly a lot of trivial discussions to be found on the > web > > about film/digital. > Almost as many as Nikon vs Canon ;o) > > > > > Even if the arguments do seem to > > circle around at times, it's about the real issues that are > confronting > > most people who are photographing. > And they are real issues and they are endlessly changing. > > > Bob > > PS: Jeff ... I know you have gone digital now but my best memories of > your work (as shown in the gallery) are largely in the past. I hope > that learning digital has not diverted your creativity ...
