Re: Analog shmanalog

[Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx>]

I believe the term capture the moment predates Digital by a pretty long time.    Its a bit OCD to be concerned about terms.   How many of you use the term BOKEH.  Which in japanese literally means Soft Mentally AS IN CRAZY.  The term used incorrectly in a pop photo article in 1998 but some dude who wanted to coin a term.   Every time my japanese wife sees this she giggles.  When you read a Camera doc that uses the work Bokeh in English thats not the word used in the Japanese text.   CAUSE ITS MEANS CRAZY.  

Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Trevor Cunningham <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Capture a...

 * moment
 * lighting bug
 * flag
 * fugitive
 * the neighbor's dog and remember your dreams.

I'm with Jan, I take/make pictures...although now, I do prefer to say I engage in a post-production workflow.

On 9/13/12 5:01 PM, Christopher Strevens wrote:

I think I called it image capture first. Sorry! Fine art is image capture really with a person as the capture device. The main difference is the fidelity of the image.

Sent from my Windows Phone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jan Faul
Sent: 13/09/2012 14:14
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Re: Analog shmanalog


I don’t believe that we 'analog people’ capture anything. I was raised as a maker and taker, and ‘capruing’ an image didn’t come along until political correctness came along.


Jan



On Sep 12, 2012, at 11:35 PM, YGelmanPhoto wrote:

All this says is that digital capture and analog capture may have different results, but I've never seen a comparison of the same scene between the two methods created by the same (expert) person. I'll bet such a comparison even then will not settle the question.

Most of the arguments are made by devout believers of one system or the other. . . after all, why should they change their opinion?

-yoram


On Sep 12, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Randy Little wrote:

while great images can be made on both there are very distinguishable visual difference between film and digital. Digital will always capture in a linear fashion and thus high lights and shadows will always have a different feel then a photo chemical process. While shadow quality might improve over the next decade. Hight lights in Digital will be an issue for a while. HDRI capture can get them but they for sure don't feel like film.

Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com <http://reel.rslittle.com/>
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/

[some deleted text]



        On Sep 12, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Herschel Mair wrote:

        analog shmanalog... a great image is a great image.

        Jan you have some great images and the process you chose to
        make them is interesting but secondary.

        Great pics are made by photographers not cameras. Nobody
        asks the restaurant manager what kind of stove the chef
        uses...

        If I find digital more inspiring than film, then who's to
        argue with that? And Vice versa. The process that the
        artist used is as interesting as it contributed to the art.

        Herschel Mair Photographer and Retoucher Santa Fe NM 505
        695 8450 <tel:505%20695%208450>

Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com
Camera Works - The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm
ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/
http://www.artiqueunderground.com/artist/69.