|
Hmm, I lived in Japan for two years and
am hardly an expert on the language but the word "baka" was used
for crazy or foolish. "Bokeh" wasn't in common use as a photo
term then but it is defined as "blur" or "haze" now. That could
be "soft" I guess. I would imagine your wife as a native speaker
understands it better. Would that be a slang term?
Don
Sorry for the short digression.
On 9/13/12 12:51 PM, Randy Little wrote:
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
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.
|
