Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] digital in low light
From: Eric Welch <eric@jphotog.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:15:58 -0800
References: <152.29b08df6.2d4d03bc@aol.com> <00cd01c3e84d$f159b5e0$388a8418@symkeehx5nw8g8> <401C561E.4020704@wanadoo.nl> <11931990-5464-11D8-89A9-0050E42E6E0B@shaw.ca> <1075607857.18186.47.camel@creo_pc3> <401D1620.5030606@osheaven.net>

And photography isn't market-driven? Sure, believe that if you will. 
Canon vs. Nikon. Leica vs. Contax. Hasselblad vs. Rollei, etc.

You are right that a lot of terrible art comes from Photoshop. Same as 
the paint-by-numbers revolution - which is on-going!

But what you're saying is simply nonsense. When they put matrix 
metering in cameras, people got much better photos technically, but 
they're still the boring photos of their spouse standing in front of 
the [insert landmark name here]. Boring photos come from boring 
photographers, not boring subjects.

I remember Mike Johnstone (editor of Photo Techniques and former 
Lugger) one time complaining to me about photographers who were 
technically adept, but who shot such bad photos it made is job much 
harder.

I'm a photo editor who spends a lot of time at the big Stock agencies 
looking for photos. Even the professionals shoot a lot of garbage, let 
alone amateurs. Some times it's almost impossible to find just the 
right photo - even at Getty where they have 88 million images!!! In 
fact, in my field that's a major problem - gemstones are not a real 
popular subject for the average photographers out there - an 
opportunity for me and some international travel in the next few years! 
:-)

You obviously have never delved into Photoshop much. And that's okay. 
But it gives much more precise control in the quality of an image than 
anyone could possibly do with film - without a massive amount of wasted 
materials and time. Photoshop lets us get out and shoot faster. More 
shooting time, less lab time is a formula for improving photo quality 
in REAL terms - that is, practice makes you a better photographer. (In 
most cases anyway.)

Photoshop is a tool, neither negative or positive. Like a developer or 
a filter. A very versatile photo tool for sure. But it will neither 
make you a better or worse photographer. But used right, it can make 
your work of higher quality. As for painting, I don't know any graphics 
professional who would consider Photoshop better than real painting. 
Though there are some who would consider Illustrator or a certain Corel 
product something worth considering. But they are different media than 
painting - just like painting wasn't supplanted by photography, neither 
will it be by digital arts. Only hacks would thing that.

As for your socialist leanings - I'm certainly glad you're not the king 
of the world. People seem to always want to tax those things in which 
they are not interested. I think painters are paid too much. So any 
time someone paints a painting and makes more than $500, there should 
be a 50 percent tax.

There, how's that for creating art for the masses?

Eric Welch
Carlsbad, CA
http://www.jphotog.com

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist 
the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” H. L. Mencken
On Feb 1, 2004, at 7:07 AM, sam wrote:

> I don't believe anyone on the forum has delved into how much of the 
> digital revolution is market driven. From the local lad who has a bit 
> too much money in his pocket to the pro who buckles under to his 
> employer for faster production. All this talk about how fast and how 
> easy digital production is a sure sign that the talk is about 
> production, not art. Reminds me of the offers we received in art 
> school to make those awful paintings to be sold wholesale as living 
> room "art".
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Jim Hemenway <Jim@hemenway.com> (Re: [Leica] digital in low light)
Reply from sam <sam@osheaven.net> (Re: [Leica] digital in low light)
In reply to: Message from Teresa299@aol.com (Re: [Leica] Fw: [Large Format] Beth Keiser Shoots B&W 4x5 ForCampaign Coverage)
Message from "animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl> ([Leica] digital in low light)
Message from Michiel Fokkema <michiel.fokkema@wanadoo.nl> (Re: [Leica] digital in low light)
Message from John Collier <jbcollier@shaw.ca> (Re: [Leica] digital in low light)
Message from Feli di Giorgio <feli@creocollective.com> (Re: [Leica] digital in low light)
Message from sam <sam@osheaven.net> (Re: [Leica] digital in low light)