Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well said! Jim Eric Welch wrote: > 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 > - -- Jim - http://www.hemenway.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html