Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: mrleonard on March 31, 2008, 08:36:48 pm
-
I suppose one of my posts earlier added to all the 'controversy' over Micheal's rebuttal.....and I suppose even though he felt he had said all there was to say on the subject, he is compelled to prop up his point of view by some 'essay' by some guy....
Anyway, he say's " It might be a combination that costs forty dollars or forty-thousand but whatever it is, it can play an important role in the creation and look of a given photographers' work."
This gets closer to the heart of the matter...the whole point , and what always WAS the point....and all the 'controversy'...IS the classic argument "It's the photographer and not the Camera",yet a lot of you cant seem to grasp what that question,aphorism, whatever, is actually asking/saying.
What it IS asking/saying is..."Does a technical (or material..ie..more 'expensive) improvement correlate to an aesthetic /artistic improvement". The answer it infers is NO...and I also believe it is NO..at least as far as ART is concerned(as opposed to commercial work...sometimes called 'craft').
This DOES get argued to death..it's a shame there are not many interesting new points of view..or discussions about aesthetics,creative-process....sigh...
That's all I was hoping to achieve by : http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=23992 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23992)
That, and I thought Micheal's rebuttal was rude...even now ,I hope he isn't insulting me. I don't have sub-optimal reading skills, and it wasn't either of those two points why I disagreed with him.
-
I understood what the Rockwell article was about. The spirit of it, yes is so obvious it has escaped many. Yes the photographer is what counts, maybe its corny..but it is true.
Maybe Ken should have mentioned that, again, this is very simple..that you have limitations with certain cameras, yes quality of output varies etc etc. If that happened, this entire debate would not even be here.
I think MR took it as the camera is of no importance at all. And if you want, you could read it like that, but it didnt hit me like that I have to say.
So my now modified keep people happy version is
"the camera is of far less importance, than the photographer"
and I would struggle to find anything to attack that line with. Maybe KR took it as a given that people would know a holga isnt ideal for shooting a wedding indoors, or a pinhole is not your ist choice to do the olympic games with.
The issue, aside from the slightly iffy tone from MR on the newer editorial..I found the MR response too strong..and over emphasising the importance of gear, when he could have just added to the KR article, and if you like "corrected it" for nitpickers out there.
-
I think MR took it as the camera is of no importance at all. And if you want, you could read it like that, but it didnt hit me like that I have to say.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I disagree... as Michael says in the lead in to the new article "Rather, I was simply using his ill-named essay as a jumping off point for my own thoughts on the subject."
I don't think that anyone, anywhere, said that the photographer plays no role in the picture. We all know that being in the right place with the right light at the right time has something to do with it too, but we don't go around saying that photography is like real estate it's all about location location location.
Somehow it is acceptable to argue that it's all about skill and not about tools. I think that we can all agree that without skill you're snookered. But the old saw is still repeated as gospel. Camera ergonomics and characteristics are so closely scrutinized because we don't want them getting in the way and instead we want to make sure that they work with our perceptions. If the camera hinders my ability to take the picture the way that I see it, or if it is just not up to the job, then it is important. As the Brit's so wonderfully say "Horses for courses."
I can't believe the amount of traffic that this has generated. Is the photographer important? Of course. Is the gear important? YES!!!
Michael's article wasn't entitled "The photographer doesn't matter", it was entitled "Your camera does matter"
Ken's article was entitled "Your camera doesn't matter"
One of these titles is correct. It's Micheal's. (If you disagree, I'd be happy to trade you a point and shoot camera for your DSLR kit since apparently it doesn't matter.) If Ken's essay had been entitled "The photographer mattered" then most of this traffic wouldn't have been generated (and the world may possibly have been a better place).
I'm going to try really hard to never think about any of this stuff again.
-
One of these titles is correct. It's Micheal's. (If you disagree, I'd be happy to trade you a point and shoot camera for your DSLR kit since apparently it doesn't matter.) If Ken's essay had been entitled "The photographer mattered" then most of this traffic wouldn't have been generated (and the world may possibly have been a better place).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185949\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And who was the ist person to put an image up, taken with a "sellotaped camera", I was. And in this case, the camera was not a major factor in getting the shot that I wanted, no need to again state the obvious limitations of certain cameras, which mattered zero in that case
I think that said something a bit more than the super debate we get ourselves into on this one. I disagree, in respect that..and I will repeat it again..what is more important? Gear or person? It is of course the person, that is more important than the camera.
On that basis, and on that alone. Rockwell is in the right camp (albeit failing to mention a few obvious points), and Michael is..sadly in the techo gear camp, placing too much importance on the camera IMHO. Also, I will again point out the article which the owner of this site put up himself, saying he won the battle of being a good photographer using cheap stuff..that kinda kills the argument from my point of view.
-
If Ken's essay had been entitled "The photographer mattered" then most of this traffic wouldn't have been generated
Isn't it the goal of Ken to generate web traffic ? Would Ann Coulter be a best selling author without her outrageous statements ?
-
Isn't it the goal of Ken to generate web traffic ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185958\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course it is! The thing with Ken is, some people really take him too seriously, honestly I do not. Not to say he does not say some worthy things (and some iffy ones too), but its designed to provoke a response. He even says this himself...
The only shock was, this site owner fell for it! But then are we looking at this right? Both sites got a likely notable increase in web hits, and likely some benefit from that.
I really do not agree with everything on ken's site, but then I dont buy everything put up here either, you use your own judgement on things. If rockwell played to the crowd on this, then Michael provided it in the ist place! Silence is golden sometimes..
-
Of course it is! The thing with Ken is, some people really take him too seriously, honestly I do not. Not to say he does not say some worthy things (and some iffy ones too), but its designed to provoke a response. He even says this himself...
The only shock was, this site owner fell for it! But then are we looking at this right? Both sites got a likely notable increase in web hits, and likely some benefit from that.
I really do not agree with everything on ken's site, but then I dont buy everything put up here either, you use your own judgement on things. If rockwell played to the crowd on this, then Michael provided it in the ist place! Silence is golden sometimes..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185959\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What "fell for it"??? What nonsense....He speaks his mind...he says what he says...period. Why is it important to question one's 'intention' as it applies to expressing an opinion. This is a skewed view of communication...as if one's ideas and opinions are molded ,formed with only the view of getting more 'web hits'. Ken Rockwell states his opinion,so does MR, so do you and I...period.
-
What "fell for it"??? What nonsense....He speaks his mind...he says what he says...period. Why is it important to question one's 'intention' as it applies to expressing an opinion. This is a skewed view of communication...as if one's ideas and opinions are molded ,formed with only the view of getting more 'web hits'. Ken Rockwell states his opinion,so does MR, so do you and I...period.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am afraid I do not agree, no nonsense about it, you have few allies here, dont attack the one who is backing you up!
The style of KR is blunt and designed to draw attention, it is meant to be like that. How many people would visit a low key..ho hum, nicely said article website. There is way to present things, and KR decides to do that in a no nonsense way.
I assume his goal is to make some income from his site, he has no problems being upfront about it. If you copied Ken's site, but used a very mild form and choice of wording, you would get a lot less traffic.
-
The style of KR is blunt and designed to draw attention, it is meant to be like that. How many people would visit a low key..ho hum, nicely said article website. There is way to present things, and KR decides to do that in a no nonsense way.
I assume his goal is to make some income from his site, he has no problems being upfront about it. If you copied Ken's site, but used a very mild form and choice of wording, you would get a lot less traffic.
The obvious refutation to this is that Luminous Landscape gets more web traffic than Ken's site, most likely because much of what Rockwell writes is nonsense. Sensational nonsense, but still nonsense written more for sensation's sake than actually useful photography information. Michael's stuff is less sensational, but contains a higher ratio of useful information.
-
I am afraid I do not agree, no nonsense about it, you have few allies here, dont attack the one who is backing you up!
The style of KR is blunt and designed to draw attention, it is meant to be like that. How many people would visit a low key..ho hum, nicely said article website. There is way to present things, and KR decides to do that in a no nonsense way.
I assume his goal is to make some income from his site, he has no problems being upfront about it. If you copied Ken's site, but used a very mild form and choice of wording, you would get a lot less traffic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is meant to be like that? No one can know KR's 'intentions' but himself. The truth is though..he just speaks his mind. I don't think it is as convoluted as that he, A> thinks of a subject and writes an article...and then B> thinks of a more agressive wording and rewrites his article. I mean...he doesn't have an editor he answers to, he's solo. Maybe you're reading into his style of writing too much...
-
Each to their own so to speak, on any site the message can get lost in the noise for sure, but what is nonsense to one person makes perfect sense to someone else. How much is written by style or design is also up to interpretation. Each site has its pros and cons. If a site is of no value to you, then why bother visiting, and even more why would one care what someone else reads or thinks about something anyway....
-
"Does a technical (or material..ie..more 'expensive) improvement correlate to an aesthetic /artistic improvement". The answer it infers is NO...and I also believe it is NO..at least as far as ART is concerned(as opposed to commercial work...sometimes called 'craft').
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=185929\")
If you try to correlate 'more expensive' to 'aesthetic improvement' then you fall into the classic logic trap of trying to relate the objective to the subjective.
You seem to be taking the position that the gear does not affect the aesthetic value of a piece of work. How can this be? I would say that gear need not affect the aesthetic value, but equally well, it might. It's up to the artist to decide this. Saying the camera does not matter is as pointless as saying only the camera matters.
Gregory [a href=\"http://www.aperture.org/crewdson/]Crewdson[/url] is by all measures an artist, and secondarily a photographer. He uses a camera operator and DOP plus production and lighting crew to produce works that sell in the high art market for very large amounts.
Crewdson uses equipment of the absolute highest quality (and cost) to produce exquisite works of art. Tell him there is no correlation between equipment and art. For him the technical quality of his works contributes greatly to his creative vision.
-
If you try to correlate 'more expensive' to 'aesthetic improvement' then you fall into the classic logic trap of trying to relate the objective to the subjective.
You seem to be taking the position that the gear does not affect the aesthetic value of a piece of work. How can this be? I would say that gear need not affect the aesthetic value, but equally well, it might. It's up to the artist to decide this. Saying the camera does not matter is as pointless as saying only the camera matters.
Gregory Crewdson (http://www.aperture.org/crewdson/) is by all measures an artist, and secondarily a photographer. He uses a camera operator and DOP plus production and lighting crew to produce works that sell in the high art market for very large amounts.
Crewdson uses equipment of the absolute highest quality (and cost) to produce exquisite works of art. Tell him there is no correlation between equipment and art. For him the technical quality of his works contributes greatly to his creative vision.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well..lol..that's what Im saying..you CAN'T relate them. The answer to the question is obvious....though to most it seems obviously the wrong one because I don't think they read the question the same as I do...or you do (apparently, though you seem to think i'm advocating something i'm not)
I am saying the Field acts upon the Form and only then does the Form affect the Field. You brought up a good example of a photog (gregory).If he now 'improved' his art with a technically better lens say, it would not necessarily translate to a better image. Thats all i'm saying....it could be expensive gear, it could be cheap gtear..Im not refuting expensive equipment. Saying the camera does not matter is (to me) the better position to take...I dont think Gregory had to wait for a crew and high end equipment to express his vision...it is just an outgrowth of the particular creative path he takes.
-
I think the wrong premise people have is that a more expensive camera will produce better IQ. I would submit that a better camera, regardless of cost, will provide better IQ. Sometimes a lessor costing camera provides better IQ, and I think we all know more then a few instances of this.
But I speak of IQ here....And as to composition, what a better camera cannot do is make one compose better. Usually. And as to composition, every single 35mm camera made, every single DSLR ever made, regardless of make, of model, will never prevent one from composing a picture, so long as he has a lens with the required FOV, and aperture setting. But lenses aside, any and all cameras will not prevent one from composing their best work.
But, if one wants that composition to have the highest IQ, then well, the camera does in fact matter.
A resulting composition is the result of a conspiracy between the photographer and his kit. If the kit does not support the photographer's vision, then the resulting composition will suffer. Therefore, kit matters, and often it matters a great deal.
It's not becoming of a photographer to get "macho" on us with statements like "a great photographer can take any camera and produce a masterpiece". I don't believe this and never will.
-
Saying the camera does not matter is (to me) the better position to take...I dont think Gregory had to wait for a crew and high end equipment to express his vision...it is just an outgrowth of the particular creative path he takes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Taking the position that 'the camera does not matter' is simply too limited. It leaves you nowhere to go, whereas saying the 'camera does matter' is by no means the opposite and makes no comment on how much it matters: it matters to a certain degree depending only on the photographer using it.
I think people are failing to realise that there are three positions to take, not two.
1. The camera never matters.
2. The camera does matter to an unspecified degree.
3. The camera is the only thing that matters.
I'm sure most people would agree that 1 and 3 are too extreme and by my measure, wrong.
Can we agree that the camera can matter to both technical and aesthetic quality?
-
Can we agree that the camera can matter to both technical and aesthetic quality?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, we can never agree on both points. The only certain thing is that the camera matters with regard to technical quality.
Artistic qualities, almost by definition, transcend the tools used for their creation. If this were not the case, we could always judge artistic merit by its modernity.
The Empire State building would be a greater work of art than Angkor Wat, a Bartok piano concerto would be a greater work of art than a Mozart piano concerto, and Blue Poles would be a greater work of art than any cave painting at Lascaux or Altamira.
Sorry! On this point, Ken Rockwell is right.
-
No, we can never agree on both points. The only certain thing is that the camera matters with regard to technical quality.
Artistic qualities, almost by definition, transcend the tools used for their creation. If this were not the case, we could always judge artistic merit by its modernity.
The Empire State building would be a greater work of art than Angkor Wat, a Bartok piano concerto would be a greater work of art than a Mozart piano concerto, and Blue Poles would be a greater work of art than any cave painting at Lascaux or Altamira.
Sorry! On this point, Ken Rockwell is right.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=186320\")
Sorry but newer does not always equal better technical quality - Stradivarius anyone? The aesthetic qualities of a performance by a top concert violinist depend to some extent on the quality of the violin. The violin might not affect the quality of the written music but it certainly does that of the performance - equally an 'art'.
Since we do agree that the camera matters with regard to technical quality, I'm not sure why you insist that technical quality can have no relevance to aesthetic qualities.
Again [a href=\"http://www.aperture.org/crewdson/]Crewdson[/url] is a good example of technical quality being critical to (his) art. He could not do what he chooses to do with anything other than a large plate camera. I'm sure he could do lots of other good things with any camera, but the point is he chooses to use a particular piece of gear for a particular creative effect.
How then is the aesthetic quality of Crewdson's work not influenced by the equipment?
-
No, we can never agree on both points. The only certain thing is that the camera matters with regard to technical quality.
Artistic qualities, almost by definition, transcend the tools used for their creation. If this were not the case, we could always judge artistic merit by its modernity.
You can't really be that stupid. The technical side of photography is an integral foundation for artistic expression. Try capturing the majesty of an eagle in flight with an 8x10 view camera. If the artistic vision always transcends technical capabilities, then this should be easily doable. But the reality is that no matter how skilled the photographer, using that particular tool for that particular task is pretty much guaranteed to result in an unrecognizable blur. The technical aspects of the tool simply do not support the creative vision, regardless of the skill of the user. Every camera has strengths and limitations, and large part of effectively expressing your artistic intention is choosing an appropriate tool for the task.
The Empire State building would be a greater work of art than Angkor Wat, a Bartok piano concerto would be a greater work of art than a Mozart piano concerto, and Blue Poles would be a greater work of art than any cave painting at Lascaux or Altamira.
Sorry! On this point, Ken Rockwell is right.
You're engaging in a strawman argument here. Nobody is arguing that modernity always equates to superiority, either technical or artistic.
-
..."Does a technical ... improvement correlate to an aesthetic /artistic improvement". The answer it infers is NO...and I also believe it is NO..at least as far as ART is concerned...
If this is the question, then the answer cannot be "NO." The answer has to be "SOMETIMES." It has to be sometimes, because it's easy to imagine where a technical "improvement" - a choice of camera more or less expensive - will result in an aesthetic/artistic improvement. Example: The choice of a Holga photographer, looking for that style, using a Holga produces an improvement aesthetically and artistically over a Nikon D3 being used in attempt to reproduce that same Holga style.
-
No, we can never agree on both points. The only certain thing is that the camera matters with regard to technical quality.
Artistic qualities, almost by definition, transcend the tools used for their creation. If this were not the case, we could always judge artistic merit by its modernity.
The Empire State building would be a greater work of art than Angkor Wat, a Bartok piano concerto would be a greater work of art than a Mozart piano concerto, and Blue Poles would be a greater work of art than any cave painting at Lascaux or Altamira.
Sorry! On this point, Ken Rockwell is right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186320\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As noted by another, you're setting up a straw man argument. I'm somewhat sleep deprived, so I'll indulge in knocking some things down.
But some of Bartok's work is better than some of Mozart's. I agree that when you compare their best pieces, Mozart is superior, but it's not universally true.
Some times improvements in technology allow for a better expression of the artistic vision (which goes to the point that tools are important). Instead of comparing Angkor Wat with the Empire State Building, I'll compare it to the Taj Mahal, which in my mind vastly exceeds Angkor Wat in beauty and its ability to inspire awe. Refinements in tools and techniques allowed for an expression of an artistic vision that wasn't possible in the time of the construction of Angkor Wat.
-
"Artistic qualities, almost by definition, transcend the tools used for their creation."
Quite the opposite. Artistic creation, and the tools available, are intricately entwined, in a symbiotic relationship. Painting in part depended on the nature of the paints available, and modern art often uses new materials to explore the artists vision. For a long while representational art was highly valued, but then photography allowed anyone to create an image of a person, or a landscape, thus devaluing the representational form of painting. Is it a coincidence that as photography developed, so art became more abstract, in an attempt to find a different and distinct language?
Personally I do not like most music from Mozart, Bach and so on. I think it is because they wrote for instruments with limited sustain, and I find the music repetitive and tedious. Music from the mid 19th century onwards appeals to me, and I suspect it is in part due improvements in the instruments available, which allowed artists to expand their range.
-
You can't really be that stupid. The technical side of photography is an integral foundation for artistic expression. Try capturing the majesty of an eagle in flight with an 8x10 view camera.
You're right. I can't be that stupid and I'm not that stupid. You hit the nail on the head .
But surely you can't be so stupid as to believe that any intelligent artist would not attempt to choose the best tool and the right tool for the job, the tool that is currently available in whatever era, century or decade he/she happens to be living.
Just as you would not attempt to get a detailed shot of the moon delineating all the major craters, using a Holga camera, but would use the longest telephoto lens you have, a potter would not attempt to to mould his clay using either a Holga camera or a telephoto lens.
In other words, the nature of the subject matter determines the choice of tools that are used. The artistic merit of the result depends only on the talent of the artist.
-
Personally I do not like most music from Mozart, Bach and so on. I think it is because they wrote for instruments with limited sustain, and I find the music repetitive and tedious. Music from the mid 19th century onwards appeals to me, and I suspect it is in part due improvements in the instruments available, which allowed artists to expand their range.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That explains why you are in the "it does matter" camp. I would think that anyone who believes that the sophistication and modernity of the equipment and tools they use have a bearing on the artistic merit of the result, would naturally tend to believe, as sure as night follows day, that modern works of art are generally better than ancient works of art, that a Rodin sculpture is better than Michelangelo's David, for example and that the cave paintings as Lascaux and Altamira are all basically crap.
-
Sorry but newer does not always equal better technical quality - Stradivarius anyone? The aesthetic qualities of a performance by a top concert violinist depend to some extent on the quality of the violin. The violin might not affect the quality of the written music but it certainly does that of the performance - equally an 'art'.
Thanks Nick for providing an excellent example in support of my argument. In some ways the craft of violin making could be considered analogous to the craft of photography. Both require tools and technical expertise. However, Stradivarious violins did not get their fine reputation because Stradivarious was using more sophisticated tools than other violin makers of the day, and especially not because he was using more sophisticated tools than modern violin makers use, but because he had a fine ear, just as a good photographer has a fine eye.
In other words, he applied 'art' to his violin making. A Stradivarius violin is a work of art; a creation resulting from the techniques he used rather than the tools he used. As far as I know, scientists are still trying to find out precisely what his techique was.
Since we do agree that the camera matters with regard to technical quality, I'm not sure why you insist that technical quality can have no relevance to aesthetic qualities.
Because technical quality and artistic merit are two different things. Anyone, without any sense of artistic appreciation whatsoever (if such a person really exists) could take a photo of high technical quality simply by using the most expensive camera available and following a few simple rules to obtain accurate focus, correct exposure and a sharp image.
-
In other words, the nature of the subject matter determines the choice of tools that are used.
Exactly, because the tools DO matter. Otherwise there would be no reason to make a choice.
-
How about we settle for a draw?
Those who feel that their artistic vision is not limited by cheaper gear keep working with a Holga, and those who are interested in trying to tap into more advanced gear do so.
My view is that we are all somewhere on a learning curve that does inevitably take us towards a broader understanding or things.
- Those who feel that gear doesn't matter might reach a point further up where they feel limited by their current options,
- Those who feel that gear does matter might reach a point where their vision and style can do away with most of the equipment related aspects of photography.
What matters in the end is that life is made of cycles and that there is no universal truth. The key then is to understand that extreme statements do often not come accross well...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Exactly, because the tools DO matter. Otherwise there would be no reason to make a choice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186628\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
It's true that the catchy title of Ken's article is, "Your Camera Doesn't Matter", but you should know that you cannot judge a book by its cover.
In order to find out in what way, in what respect, with regard to what issues, your camera does not matter, it is necessary to read the article.
Having read Ken's article, it should be quite clear to anyone who has at least a modest grasp of English Comprehension that Ken is referring to the artistic result, not the choice of possible subject material.
It should be obvious to all and sundry that the range of subjects one can tackle with a Holga camera will be considerably smaller than the range of subjects that are possible with a modern DSLR and zoom lens, especially if the zoom lens has a good macro facility which can open up a whole world of close-up photography not possible with a Holga.
There's a difference amongst the following statements,
(1) Your camera does not matter with regard to the possible choice of subject material.
(2) Your camera does not matter with regard to the technical quality of the image produced.
(3) Your camera does not matter with regard to the artisit merit of the final result.
Put as simply as I can, the title of Ken's article is "Your camera doesn't matter" and the content of the article is, "with regard to the artistic merit of the final result".
Talk about straw men! Your argument is the quintessential straw man. The biggest straw man ever.
-
Jonathan,
It's true that the catchy title of Ken's article is, "Your Camera Doesn't Matter", but you should know that you cannot judge a book by its cover.
In order to find out in what way, in what respect, with regard to what issues, your camera does not matter, it is necessary to read the article.
Bullshit. "The camera doesn't matter" is not merely the title, but is a mantra repeated ad nauseum throughout. Furthermore, the article is silent on the subject of when the camera might matter, and fails utterly to mention any situation where gear choice might negatively affect the final image either technically or artistically. 8x10 for shooting birds in flight, anyone?
It should be obvious to all and sundry that the range of subjects one can tackle with a Holga camera will be considerably smaller than the range of subjects that are possible with a modern DSLR and zoom lens, especially if the zoom lens has a good macro facility which can open up a whole world of close-up photography not possible with a Holga.
DUH! Which is exactly the problem with Rockwell's article. You just admitted the camera does matter to some extent. Rockwell never did so anywhere in his article, and made many strong, absolutist statements to the contrary. The actual words Rockwell wrote are logically indefensible.
Talk about straw men! Your argument is the quintessential straw man. The biggest straw man ever.
And yours is bullshit based on wishful thinking and a hyperactive imagination, and bears no resemblance to Rockwell's actual words.
-
In other words, he applied 'art' to his violin making.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL, come on Ray, you make it sound like there was some hocus-pocus involved!
Q: Did Stradivarius use tools to make his violin?
A: Yes
Q: Could he have done it with any old tools?
A: No.
QED
A Stradivarius violin is a work of art; a creation resulting from the techniques he used rather than the tools he used.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure, but can you say it was entirely the technique? I don't think so, and if not then the tools do matter to a certain degree.
-
LOL, come on Ray, you make it sound like there was some hocus-pocus involved!
Q: Did Stradivarius use tools to make his violin?
A: Yes
Q: Could he have done it with any old tools?
A: No.
QED
Sure, but can you say it was entirely the technique? I don't think so, and if not then the tools do matter to a certain degree.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nick,
The concept I'm trying to get across here is that Stradivarius violins would not be any better, in terms of their sublime tonal qualities, if you were able to time travel and hand him a complete set of modern violin-making tools.
Why not? Because those exceptional tonal qualities, in so far as they are exceptional, were not a product of the sophistication of the tools used. They are a result of the choice of ingredients in the wood preservative used, and that choice of wood preservative is also not a product of the tools used, although the point is taken that one needs some sort of tool to stir the ingredients just as one needs some sort of camera to take a picture.
The choice of ingredients that Stradivarius used for his wood preservative could be considered as analogous to the compositional elements of a photograph with enduring artistic merit.
-
Nick,
The concept I'm trying to get across here is that Stradivarius violins would not be any better, in terms of their sublime tonal qualities, if you were able to time travel and hand him a complete set of modern violin-making tools.
Why not? Because those exceptional tonal qualities, in so far as they are exceptional, were not a product of the sophistication of the tools used. They are a result of the choice of ingredients in the wood preservative used, and that choice of wood preservative is also not a product of the tools used, although the point is taken that one needs some sort of tool to stir the ingredients just as one needs some sort of camera to take a picture.
The choice of ingredients that Stradivarius used for his wood preservative could be considered as analogous to the compositional elements of a photograph with enduring artistic merit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do understand where you are coming from.
However, those violins are a product of many things, but can you be sure that old Straddy would not have been interested in tool developments? It's very likely that he chose the best available tools at the time, but I suspect that modern chisels would, at the very least, hold a better edge and that might well be useful to him. I'm not saying it's certain, but you have to entertain the possibility.
"They are a result of the choice of ingredients in the wood preservative used..."
In what way is anything involved in creating a work, that is not the pure ability of the craftsman, not a tool? The preservative is part of the process and no doubt a careful choice was made in picking it.
All these things, both material and mental, form parts of the creative process and you cannot isolate any one component and say it is irrelevant to the finished result.
"...and that choice of wood preservative is also not a product of the tools used..."
Here, you are right. The choice is not a product of a tool. But it is a choice from what's available. Given a new choice, it may affect the end result therefore the thing you are choosing can be said to affect the aesthetic value of the outcome.
"The choice of ingredients that Stradivarius used for his wood preservative could be considered as analogous to the compositional elements of a photograph with enduring artistic merit."
No, I can't agree. The choice of ingredients is analogous to the choice of film, lens, camera etc - hardware all. The sound of the violin is analogous to the composition of a photo.
Back atcha...
-
However, those violins are a product of many things, but can you be sure that old Straddy would not have been interested in tool developments? It's very likely that he chose the best available tools at the time, but I suspect that modern chisels would, at the very least, hold a better edge and that might well be useful to him. I'm not saying it's certain, but you have to entertain the possibility.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186686\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's irrelevant to the discussion whether Stradavarius would be using current tools. Perhaps he would. The question is, "Can modern tools make anyone the equal of Stradavarius?"
-
That explains why you are in the "it does matter" camp. I would think that anyone who believes that the sophistication and modernity of the equipment and tools they use have a bearing on the artistic merit of the result, would naturally tend to believe, as sure as night follows day, that modern works of art are generally better than ancient works of art, that a Rodin sculpture is better than Michelangelo's David, for example and that the cave paintings as Lascaux and Altamira are all basically crap.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186563\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You misrepresent what I wrote, but misinterpretation and putting words into other peoples mouths seems to be your forte. You also make absurd statements to try and ridicule my views. And you also seem to think in a very black and white manner. Life is not that simplistic.
I did not say that modern means better. I did say that modern means different, due to a wider range of tools, and that it can mean a wider range of expression. Hence the sophistication of modern art is far superior to that of cave art. Is is better from an aesthetic point of view? Well that is a subjective judgement best left to the observer. My view is that they are different, and that modern art is better than cave art. BU cave art has intrinsic value for various reasons, mainly cultural and historical rather than aesthetic. In the case of music, I happen not to like pre-1800 music as the style is not to my taste, so yes in that case I do think the art improved due to improved tools. I gave that example to illustrate how changes in the tools can change the nature of the art.
If you think that the tools never have a bearing on the artistic merit of a work, then you are misguided. Tools can have a bearing, though it all depends on the tools, the nature of the work and so on. A wider range of tools, and better tools can allow an artist to better express her vision. Do you really think Michelangelo could have sculpted David with a feather duster? Of course once the tool reaches a certain level further improvements are somewhat superfluous.
Life is not as simplistic as you and Ken would have us believe.
-
In what way is anything involved in creating a work, that is not the pure ability of the craftsman, not a tool? The preservative is part of the process and no doubt a careful choice was made in picking it.
All these things, both material and mental, form parts of the creative process and you cannot isolate any one component and say it is irrelevant to the finished result.
Yes, I can. And that's what science is all about and that's what extensive scientific research has discovered about the Stradivarius violins, that the distinctive quality of the sound they produce is not due to the selection the timber used, not due to the shape of the violin, not due to the tools used in making the violin, but is due to the chemical ingredients in the wood preservative.
The violin itself is obviously a product of tool use, but those distinctive tonal qualities of the Stradivarius is a product of the grey matter between the ears.
However, if you wish to argue that what we have between the two ears is also a tool, then I'll concede the argument. The tool matters if the human brain is considered to be a tool.
Okay?
But bear in mind that we are straying from Ken Rockwell's point. He was not making the point that tools in general do not matter (including the human brain), but that (specifically) the camera does not matter with regard to (specifically) artistic value.
-
I did not say that modern means better. I did say that modern means different, due to a wider range of tools, and that it can mean a wider range of expression. Hence the sophistication of modern art is far superior to that of cave art. Is is better from an aesthetic point of view? Well that is a subjective judgement best left to the observer.
Good! So you agree that art produced with a more sophisticated tool is superior, (with photography, read sharper, better dynamic range, lower noise etc) but not necessarily better from an esthetic point of view.
That's what Ken Rockwell also thinks, I believe. So do I. We can now all go home .
-
We can now all go home .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wouldn't count on that, if I were you.
-
How about we settle for a draw?
Those who feel that their artistic vision is not limited by cheaper gear keep working with a Holga, and those who are interested in trying to tap into more advanced gear do so.
My view is that we are all somewhere on a learning curve that does inevitably take us towards a broader understanding or things.
- Those who feel that gear doesn't matter might reach a point further up where they feel limited by their current options,
- Those who feel that gear does matter might reach a point where their vision and style can do away with most of the equipment related aspects of photography.
What matters in the end is that life is made of cycles and that there is no universal truth. The key then is to understand that extreme statements do often not come accross well...
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186630\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
The above are basically motherhood statements. Good sense, pacifying in intent, but ultimately ignored.
-
Kill me.
-
Kill me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With a new gun or an old rope? Or does it make any difference as long as it gets the job done?
-
With a new gun or an old rope? Or does it make any difference as long as it gets the job done?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186756\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Crushed under the weight of my own liver.
-
Good! So you agree that art produced with a more sophisticated tool is superior, (with photography, read sharper, better dynamic range, lower noise etc) but not necessarily better from an esthetic point of view.
That's what Ken Rockwell also thinks, I believe. So do I. We can now all go home .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You have serious problems with reading comprehension. Yet again you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I did not say that "art produced with a more sophisticated tool is superior". And you also reinterpret what Ken says according to your prejudices.
From the look of things you and I agree.
The problem is that the opinion you ascribe to Ken is not one that he expressed. Unless you can get quotes from him, without you inserting words to change the meaning. I and others HAVE quoted from Ken to justify our points. You haven't because you can't. You have to surmise what he might have been thinking when he wrote his article. But following your approach you could change the meaning in any way you wanted.
-
With a new gun or an old rope? Or does it make any difference as long as it gets the job done?
Then there's electricity, log chippers, cliffs, moving vehicles, concrete shoes, blunt objects, poison, hungry carnivores, chain saws, power tools, knives, fire, trash compactors, drowning, flesh-eating bacteria, starvation, dehydration, disembowelment, decapitation, falling pianos, meteor strikes, explosions, asphyxiation, exotic infectious diseases...there's a plethora of possibilities.
-
You have serious problems with reading comprehension. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186761\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry! You are wrong. I have no problem at all, whether it's reading philosophy, a recent novel or my electricity bill. My English Comprehension is fine, than you.
-
meteor strikes
Now there's a good one. Provided it was a big one. It would be nice to go out with a few billion of my fellow humans. But then I'm a people person.
-
And yours is bullshit based on wishful thinking and a hyperactive imagination, and bears no resemblance to Rockwell's actual words.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186640\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's your problem, Jonathan: You see, as far as Ray is concerned, "Your words [i.e., KR's words] don't matter!" He applies this principle quite consistently to KR's essay and thus keeps coming up with what he imagines KR must have meant rather than what KR actually said.
Somewhere else in one of these threads Ray wrote (and I paraphrase, as it isn't worth looking for the actual quote --- because, after all, "your actual words don't matter") something to the effect that "Only a complete imbecile believes that 'the camera never matters at all'", and since Ray is making the assumption that KR is not a "complete imbecile", Ray concludes that what KR means by "Your camera does not matter" is that "Your camera sometimes matters."
So it all goes back to Humpty-Dumpty reasoning again.
I must admit that I haven't seen any evidence to support the assumption that I am claiming that Ray is making.
-
Yes, I can. And that's what science is all about and that's what extensive scientific research has discovered about the Stradivarius violins, that the distinctive quality of the sound they produce is not due to the selection the timber used, not due to the shape of the violin, not due to the tools used in making the violin, but is due to the chemical ingredients in the wood preservative.
Which is a TECHNICAL issue, not an artistic one, analogous to a particular composition of glass in a lens that reduces chromatic aberrations, the formulation of a film stock or the color filter array in a digital sensor which results in a more pleasing color response. You've disproved not only your own statements, but those of Rockwell as well. Quit now before you make yourself look any more foolish.
-
There's your problem, Jonathan: You see, as far as Ray is concerned, "Your words [i.e., KR's words] don't matter!" He applies this principle quite consistently to KR's essay and thus keeps coming up with what he imagines KR must have meant rather than what KR actually said.
Somewhere else in one of these threads Ray wrote (and I paraphrase, as it isn't worth looking for the actual quote --- because, after all, "your actual words don't matter") something to the effect that "Only a complete imbecile believes that 'the camera never matters at all'", and since Ray is making the assumption that KR is not a "complete imbecile", Ray concludes that what KR means by "Your camera does not matter" is that "Your camera sometimes matters."
So it all goes back to Humpty-Dumpty reasoning again.
I must admit that I haven't seen any evidence to support the assumption that I am claiming that Ray is making.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The problem here, Eric, is that I am constrained in expressing what I really think and feel because I'm a guest on someone elses forum.
I don't want to irritate Michael too much. He has the power to ban me.
-
and since Ray is making the assumption that KR is not a "complete imbecile", Ray concludes that what KR means by "Your camera does not matter" is that "Your camera sometimes matters."
So it all goes back to Humpty-Dumpty reasoning again.
An assumption with precious little evidence to support it. And it appears Ray is doing his best to tar himself with Rockwell's feathers (to mix metaphors a bit). You can send a kid to college, but you can't make him think (logically).
-
The problem here, Eric, is that I am constrained in expressing what I really think and feel because I'm a guest on someone elses forum.
All you need to do is back up your assertions about what you claim Rockwell meant with things he actually said instead of reinterpreted paraphrases, and quit trying to defend your position with arguments that disprove your point. Or failing that, admit your error. You'd look a lot less foolish and a lot more reasonable.
-
Now there's a good one. Provided it was a big one. It would be nice to go out with a few billion of my fellow humans. But then I'm a people person.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When the dust settled, all that would be left alive would be the roaches, the scorpions, and this thread. lol
-
Which is a TECHNICAL issue, not an artistic one, analogous to a particular composition of glass in a lens that reduces chromatic aberrations, the formulation of a film stock or the color filter array in a digital sensor which results in a more pleasing color response. You've disproved not only your own statements, but those of Rockwell as well. Quit now before you make yourself look any more foolish.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186776\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Depends on how much confidence you have in the scientific method to arrive at the truth. I have great confidence in the scientific method. I admire Freud and Jung and Einstein, particularly Jung. The powerful and emotive effect of any work of art cannot be pinned to any trivial quality of image sharpness.
However, to some extent I'm arguing against myself here, because I'm about to kick up a fuss because Canon have not calibrated my EF-S 17-55mm lens as I requested them to. It still doesn't autofocus properly. That means I'm going to have to test the lens thoroughly, compare it using both my 20D and 40D on the same target and send them a CD of the RAW images.
This is very tedious and very annoying. It's a case of ''deja vue' for me, because I went through the same process when I bought a Canon 400/5.6 prime a few years ago. I really hate this stuffing around. A lens which doesn't autofocus correctly at f2.8 is useless to me.
-
Depends on how much confidence you have in the scientific method to arrive at the truth. I have great confidence in the scientific method. I admire Freud and Jung and Einstein, particularly Jung. The powerful and emotive effect of any work of art cannot be pinned to any trivial quality of image sharpness.
You're avoiding the issue; arguing against a strawman again.
First of all, while image sharpness is certainly not the only measure of artistic excellence, it is an important aspect of the artistic expression of many photographers. Ansel Adams' works could not have been accomplished with a Holga or a Lensbaby. Image sharpness is a critical aspect of his artistic expression. Not to the exclusion of subject or composition or tonality, but certainly significant. This is true not only of Adams, but many other photographers as well. Sharpness is certainly not the only thing that makes an image successful artistically, but that does not mean sharpness is artistically irrelevant.
And what about the formulation of a film stock and its effect on the film's color rendition? Or the effects of the formulation of a Bayer color filter array and the sensor chip underneath it on its color characteristics? Those are undeniably cases of "technical stuff" directly impacting the artistic aspects of an image. And they're no different than the effect of the chemical formulation of the wood preservative on the tone of a Stradivarius.
You also have not yet provided a single example of Ken Rockwell in his own words admitting that the choice of camera ever has any effect whatsoever on the final image, or offering any indication that "the camera doesn't matter" is not a universal absolute. Just because you assume he isn't an idiot does mean that he is not.
-
Sorry! You are wrong. I have no problem at all, whether it's reading philosophy, a recent novel or my electricity bill. My English Comprehension is fine, than you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If your reading comprehension is so good, why do you repeatedly ascribe to me opinions that I do not hold? Or are you knowingly twisting what I say?
-
I have great confidence in the scientific method. I admire Freud and Jung and Einstein, particularly Jung.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Neither Freud nor Jung followed the scientific method. Freud in particular published goodness knows how many theories with precious little in the way of supporting evidence. Einstein though was one of he greatest scientists who has ever lived.
-
You also have not yet provided a single example of Ken Rockwell in his own words admitting that the choice of camera ever has any effect whatsoever on the final image, or offering any indication that "the camera doesn't matter" is not a universal absolute. Just because you assume he isn't an idiot does mean that he is not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186804\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Go to his site. It's a shrine of technobabble and equipment worshiping. We think he's daft because he quite obviously is a full-blown techno-weenie and gearhead who says crap like this.
Either he's got a personality disorder and there are two of him, or he's just blowing more B.S. our way.
Now, I find his technical reviews and insights to be about the same as most other similar sites, and there's nothing wrong with it, but it would be like going to slashdot and expecting them to do an expose' on ballet. He's clearly not a hard-core artistic type so much as the technical geek type. Two different worlds, and while both are fine approaches to photography, most realize that they are best off staying out of the other's territory, especially when you know your site is frequented by new people.
Leave the artistic evaluations to the real artists.
-
Go to his site. It's a shrine of technobabble and equipment worshiping.
True, but not one word of it is in the article being discussed. And the dichotomy is rather odd; something that detracts from any critical effort to take him seriously.
-
the distinctive quality of the sound they produce is not due to the selection the timber used, not due to the shape of the violin, not due to the tools used in making the violin, but is due to the chemical ingredients in the wood preservative.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There, you have said it quite clearly. A specific tool (maybe analogous to film chemicals) is contributing greatly to the end result.
I rest my case.
-
Bernard,
The above are basically motherhood statements. Good sense, pacifying in intent, but ultimately ignored.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186716\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How can you not see that I hold the universal truth?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The problem here, Eric, is that I am constrained in expressing what I really think and feel because I'm a guest on someone elses forum.
I don't want to irritate Michael too much. He has the power to ban me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186778\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I truly hope he won't ban you. It's too much fun arguing with you.
-
However, to some extent I'm arguing against myself here, because I'm about to kick up a fuss because Canon have not calibrated my EF-S 17-55mm lens as I requested them to. It still doesn't autofocus properly. That means I'm going to have to test the lens thoroughly, compare it using both my 20D and 40D on the same target and send them a CD of the RAW images.
This is very tedious and very annoying. It's a case of ''deja vue' for me, because I went through the same process when I bought a Canon 400/5.6 prime a few years ago. I really hate this stuffing around. A lens which doesn't autofocus correctly at f2.8 is useless to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But Ray! Your lens doesn't matter!
-
"art produced with a more sophisticated tool is superior"
This is a statement which CAN be true.
One of my favorite images is a landscape taken on a Yorkshire road in poor light, and without a tripod. I needed ISO 800 to be able to have the shutter speed to handhold. I used a Canon 20D.
A camera without the relatively low noise of a Canon 20D at ISO 800 would not have produced a useful file. My previous camera, a Fuji P&S, had only ISO 100.
Without the sophisticated tool I had in my hand, there would have been *no art* produced that day at that time at that location.
The camera matters.
-
But Ray! Your lens doesn't matter!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now, Eric, Ken did not make the point that it doesn't matter if your equipment is not working properly. I've always conceded the point that the equipment does matter with regard to the possible range of subjects one can address, and I've always agreed that it's plain common sense to try to use the best tool you have for a particular job, whatever the job, photographic or not.
I bought the EF-S 17-55/2.8 for a specific purpose, night photography without flash. This lens is as sharp at f2.8 as a Canon 50mm prime. If I focus on someone's eye and the result is a fuzzy eye but a sharp nose, then the lens is not fullfilling the purpose for which I bought it.
However, I can still take artful photographs with this lens, but not on subjects where I want a sharp eye and a fuzzy nose using autofous. The lens would be quite all right for landscapes at f8 to f13, but I already have other lenses that serve this purpose quite well.
If Canon can't get the lens to autofocus properly, then buying it was largely a waste of money. It still has some uses though, when I have time to manually focus, but for hand-held shots, trying to manually focus a 10x magnified image on the Live View screen of the 40D is a pretty hopeless exercise.
-
There, you have said it quite clearly. A specific tool (maybe analogous to film chemicals) is contributing greatly to the end result.
I rest my case.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nick,
That's sort of cheating, isn't it? I don't think Ken made the point that tools in general don't matter.
If you wish to broaden the definition of 'tool' to include film type, the painter's blank canvas, the wood preservative that Stradivarius used, the spices used by a chef in preparing a meal, and most important of all, your own brain, then tools always have a bearing on the artistic result. We are tool using creatures.
But not necessarily every tool used will have a bearing on the artistic result in accordance with its sophistication. Some tools will be more relevant than others. In the case of Stradivarious, he had a tool which we don't have (at least not until recently) and that was the secret ingredient of the wood preservative.
There are many secret recipes for food preparations that are fiercely guarded by their owners. If you wish to describe a recipe as a tool, that's fine. Ken's point is that the sophistication of the stirring pot is not crucial to the taste of the food.
-
Are you kidding me?
-
I don't think Ken made the point that tools in general don't matter.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. To quote from Ken's article:
"Cameras are just another artist's tool."
"it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools."
"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."
"Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography."
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference."
"...one day when someone comes up to you asking for advice you have an epiphany where you realize that it's never been the equipment at all."
"... the car, camera, running shoes or whatever have little to nothing to do with your performance..."
"Better gear will not make you any better photos..."
"Don't blame anything lacking in your photos on your equipment."
"The advantage of modern equipment is convenience, NOT image quality."
"Likewise, no one who looks at your pictures can tell or cares about what camera you used. It just doesn't matter."
I could go on (Ken certainly did), but I think I've proved my point. Ken's entire article is dedicated to defending the proposition that "tools in general don't matter".
If you wish to broaden the definition of 'tool' to include film type, the painter's blank canvas, the wood preservative that Stradivarius used, the spices used by a chef in preparing a meal, and most important of all, your own brain, then tools always have a bearing on the artistic result. We are tool using creatures.
Agreed. Ken is clearly denying that there is any possibility that tool choice impacts the artistic merit of the result, which is exactly the reason Ken Rockwell is being castigated for his idiocy. By defending his stupidity, you are making yourself look stupid, especially when it is so obvious you are unable or unwilling to comprehend or admit what Ken is actually saying. There is no reason to give him any benefit of the doubt; what he wrote is inexcusably stupid. There are times when the choice of tool is critical to capturing one's artistic vision, and the wrong choice will negatively affect both the technical and artistic attributes of an image. While the choice between a Nikon D3 and a Canon 1Ds-III may not make a significant difference in many shooting situations, the choice between a 1Ds-III and a pinhole camera will make a huge difference in most situations.
-
Nick,
That's sort of cheating, isn't it? I don't think Ken made the point that tools in general don't matter. I don't need to broaden the term, tools can be anything.
If you wish to broaden the definition of 'tool' to include film type, the painter's blank canvas, the wood preservative that Stradivarius used, the spices used by a chef in preparing a meal, and most important of all, your own brain, then tools always have a bearing on the artistic result. We are tool using creatures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not really cheating, , Ken clearly did make that point and you have defended that position.
My position is this:
1. Anything that is used to create a work (of art) affects the end result to some degree - therefore tools absolutely do matter.
2 The only circumstance where tools are irrelevant is from the viewers perspective. Aesthetic appreciation of a work is entirely independent of the tools used to create the work. No one else but the artist cares what brushes were used, no one else but me really cares what camera I used.
Thus only the viewer can say correctly that "tools do not matter (to me)", but the artist cannot truthfully say the same.
Quick example. By sheer coincidence there's an article in the weekend newspaper about artists who have rejected modern tools. Google "Trent Parke", he uses B+W film to realise his creative vision and won't use digital - his choice. Better yet is a writer who still uses a typewriter (!) to write books.
Obviously they care very much about the tools of their trade, but me? I don't care whether a book was written on a PDA or a typewriter.
-
I could go on (Ken certainly did), but I think I've proved my point. Ken's entire article is dedicated to defending the proposition that "tools in general don't matter".
Agreed. Ken is clearly denying that there is any possibility that tool choice impacts the artistic merit of the result, which is exactly the reason Ken Rockwell is being castigated for his idiocy. By defending his stupidity, you are making yourself look stupid, especially when it is so obvious you are unable or unwilling to comprehend or admit what Ken is actually saying. There is no reason to give him any benefit of the doubt; what he wrote is inexcusably stupid. There are times when the choice of tool is critical to capturing one's artistic vision, and the wrong choice will negatively affect both the technical and artistic attributes of an image. While the choice between a Nikon D3 and a Canon 1Ds-III may not make a significant difference in many shooting situations, the choice between a 1Ds-III and a pinhole camera will make a huge difference in most situations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187170\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
You've missed the entire thrust of Ken's article. You are the one who is lacking in English comprehension. You are behaving as though you've never read a novel in your entire life.
I repeat, Ken's article is not a technical article. It's an opinion written in common, non-technical language that tries to be entertaining and thought provoking. It's a reaction against the obsessive concern that many of us have, including me, about pixel quality, noise and general equipment performance.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
-
The only circumstance where tools are irrelevant is from the viewers perspective. Aesthetic appreciation of a work is entirely independent of the tools used to create the work. No one else but the artist cares what brushes were used, no one else but me really cares what camera I used.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But that is simply not true, Nick. Many people who are interested in Photography (and aren't there millions of people who own a camera?) want to know the details of the equipment used, especially when they really happen to like a particular shot.
Those who know very little about photography, upon discovering that your camera costs as much as a small car (or in the case of a DB, as much as a big car), might take the attitude, "Oh! It's no wonder that photo is so nice."
When this happens, don't you feel a bit diminished by the implication that your beautiful photos are simply the product of expensive gear and that anyone could have taken such shots if they'd had the gear?
It's such an attitude that Ken is railing against in his article. I can't understand why anyone would draw the conclusion that Ken's point is that tools in general have no relevance whatsoever.
When our Prime Minister wrote his "Sorry" speech, he used a fountain pen (or maybe ball-point pen). He was just using the tool that he felt most comfortable with, when expressing his emotions. But he certainly needed some sort of writing tool.
-
You've missed the entire thrust of Ken's article. You are the one who is lacking in English comprehension. You are behaving as though you've never read a novel in your entire life.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't realized that KR's piece was a novel. I can agree that it is pure fiction, just not very good fiction.
-
Jonathan,
You've missed the entire thrust of Ken's article. You are the one who is lacking in English comprehension. You are behaving as though you've never read a novel in your entire life.
I repeat, Ken's article is not a technical article. It's an opinion written in common, non-technical language that tries to be entertaining and thought provoking. It's a reaction against the obsessive concern that many of us have, including me, about pixel quality, noise and general equipment performance.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Whether the article is intended to be technical, opinion, or pure entertainment is irrelevant--none of that changes the plain and obvious meaning of his endless repetition of "the camera doesn't matter" throughout. Your assumptions and explanations are bullshit, and have no basis in any portion of the text of the article. Either cite some quotes from Rockwell's article that disprove my point, or shut the hell up. You seem to possess some degree of intelligence, what's so hard to understand about the meaning of these quotes?
"Cameras are just another artist's tool."
"it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools."
"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."
"Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography."
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference."
"...one day when someone comes up to you asking for advice you have an epiphany where you realize that it's never been the equipment at all."
"... the car, camera, running shoes or whatever have little to nothing to do with your performance..."
"Better gear will not make you any better photos..."
"Don't blame anything lacking in your photos on your equipment."
"The advantage of modern equipment is convenience, NOT image quality."
"Likewise, no one who looks at your pictures can tell or cares about what camera you used. It just doesn't matter."
Show me one citation from the article where Rockwell admits any possibility that choice of photographic tools can materially affect the outcome. Until you do, I'm not going to alter my position. And I will continue to heap ridicule on your willful ignorance of the obvious.
-
But that is simply not true, Nick. Many people who are interested in Photography (and aren't there millions of people who own a camera?) want to know the details of the equipment used, especially when they really happen to like a particular shot.
Those who know very little about photography, upon discovering that your camera costs as much as a small car (or in the case of a DB, as much as a big car), might take the attitude, "Oh! It's no wonder that photo is so nice."
When this happens, don't you feel a bit diminished by the implication that your beautiful photos are simply the product of expensive gear and that anyone could have taken such shots if they'd had the gear?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Uh, not really. I am secure in my skills and know that I am more important than my gear. I am also honest enough to admit that my gear is also a contributor to the quality of my work.
Look up Alain Briot's writing on this exact subject.
Besides, what you have said above is surely contradicting your earlier posts about the camera not mattering. I was kinda agreeing with you with respect to aesthetic appreciation - the above quote now seems to say that cameras do not matter to the photographer but do to the viewer. ?
It's such an attitude that Ken is railing against in his article. I can't understand why anyone would draw the conclusion that Ken's point is that tools in general have no relevance whatsoever.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
See Jonathan's extensive quotes - Ken is quite explicit with respect to camera tools.
When our Prime Minister wrote his "Sorry" speech, he used a fountain pen (or maybe ball-point pen). He was just using the tool that he felt most comfortable with, when expressing his emotions. But he certainly needed some sort of writing tool.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Did Rudd write the speech? Even if he did the tool is irrelevant in this case - however, who wrote it is. Tools do not always matter, I have never said otherwise, but your position appears to be that they never matter, which is an entirely different thing.
-
Those who know very little about photography, upon discovering that your camera costs as much as a small car (or in the case of a DB, as much as a big car), might take the attitude, "Oh! It's no wonder that photo is so nice."
When this happens, don't you feel a bit diminished by the implication that your beautiful photos are simply the product of expensive gear and that anyone could have taken such shots if they'd had the gear?
There is not much you can do when faced with ignorance.
An educated friend considers that photography is not art or even a craft. He thinks you just point the camera and press the shutter and hey presto. And any fool can do that.
The problem is when people express opinions on something they don't know much about, but think they do. Oh, that brings us nicely back to Ken.
No doubt Ray has taken up smoking on the grounds that the "Smoking kills" stickers on the cigarette packs really mean "Smoking extends your life".
-
See Jonathan's extensive quotes - Ken is quite explicit with respect to camera tools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It really depends on how one chooses to interpret vague words, like "quality", "better", "improve", "matter". You can't go to the dictionary and look them up because you'll totally miss the point the article, as has been clearly demonstrated. Rockwell isn't that precise of a writer.
-
It really depends on how one chooses to interpret vague words, like "quality", "better", "improve", "matter". You can't go to the dictionary and look them up because you'll totally miss the point the article, as has been clearly demonstrated. Rockwell isn't that precise of a writer.
You are smoking the same Kool-Aid as Ray. The words you mention are not vague; Rockwell is actually quite clear regarding what he means by these words in his article. He is quite adamant that the choice of camera has no impact on either the artistic or technical qualities of the image, and makes no mention whatever of any situation where this might not be the case. If you believe otherwise, you are basing that belief on wishful thinking and unjustified assumptions, and not on anything actually written in the article. Show me one citation from the article where Rockwell give any indication that the camera has a material effect on either the artistic or technical aspects of an image under any circumstance.
-
You are smoking the same Kool-Aid as Ray. The words you mention are not vague; Rockwell is actually quite clear regarding what he means by these words in his article. He is quite adamant that the choice of camera has no impact on either the artistic or technical qualities of the image, and makes no mention whatever of any situation where this might not be the case. If you believe otherwise, you are basing that belief on wishful thinking and unjustified assumptions, and not on anything actually written in the article. Show me one citation from the article where Rockwell give any indication that the camera has a material effect on either the artistic or technical aspects of an image under any circumstance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Those ARE vague words. And, no, Rockwell doesn't explain what he means by those terms. He gives absolutely no explanation what he means by "quality", "better", or "improve. Nowhere does he say anything similar to, "When I say 'quality', I'm talking about the sharpness of the image" or "When I say 'improve', I'm talking about the abilty of the image to communicate the emotion of the shot to it's viewer." He doesn't really say what he means. That's the whole problem.
-
Well you can read the KR article however you want. But Quality to me, has nothing at all to do with "image quality", as in all the areas that this involves.
And the usual tedious tests that we see on this subject.
Yes people use a holga for I would think that look ;-) aka fall off, flare etc etc. Do we really need to say this, its a bit obvious really.
-
Those ARE vague words. And, no, Rockwell doesn't explain what he means by those terms. He gives absolutely no explanation what he means by "quality", "better", or "improve. Nowhere does he say anything similar to, "When I say 'quality', I'm talking about the sharpness of the image" or "When I say 'improve', I'm talking about the abilty of the image to communicate the emotion of the shot to it's viewer." He doesn't really say what he means. That's the whole problem.
The "problem" lies entirely within your limited ability (or perhaps willingness) to comprehend plain English. Here are some quotes of Rockwell explaining exactly what he means by "quality", "better", and "improve".
Why is it that with over 60 years of improvements in cameras, lens sharpness and film grain, resolution and dynamic range that no one has been able to equal what Ansel Adams did back in the 1940s?
A camera catches your imagination. No imagination, no photo - just crap. The word "image" comes from the word "imagination." It doesn't come come from "lens sharpness" or "noise levels.
Ansel made fantastically sharp images seventy years ago without wasting time worrying about how sharp his lenses were.
It’s nothing but a matter of seeing, thinking, and interest. That’s what makes a good photograph.
Don't blame anything lacking in your photos on your equipment. If you doubt this, go to a good photo museum or photo history book and see the splendid technical quality people got 50 or 100 years ago. The advantage of modern equipment is convenience, NOT image quality.
These statements (and many others like them in the article) make it quite clear that Rockwell believes that the technical qualities of cameras and lenses and equipment (dynamic range, sharpness, and noise levels are specifically mentioned) have no bearing at all on the artistic merits of an image or its ability to capture the viewer's imagination; the only relevant factor is the skill and imagination of the photographer. Rockwell's problem is not that he is vague, it is that he is wrong.
The fact that the camera and equipment is not as important as the photographer does not mean that camera and equipment is irrelevant. As has been pointed out, there are many situations where the right type of equipment is absolutely necessary to capture images that have any images at all.
The same principle applies to noise and sharpness. While sharpness and the absence of noise do not automatically make an artistically excellent image, and there are times where a certain amount of noise and blur can be aesthetically pleasing, there are limits to how much noise/grain and blur can be present before the artistic intent of the photographer becomes completely obscured. An image blurred or obscured with noise to the extent that there is no discernible subject or composition is meaningless, and has little no artistic merit at all, except perhaps as an abstract image.
(http://visual-vacations.com/images/2008/2008-01-11_0021c.jpg)
So we see that sharpness and noise do have some bearing on the artistic merits of an image. They are not the primary characteristics of artistic excellence; one still needs a subject and composition. But noise and blur must not be so great as to obscure the subject and composition, or the artistic impact of the image will be lessened.
If Rockwell had said "the camera matters less than the photographer" or "the camera doesn't matter in many shooting situations" nobody would be arguing with him. But he decided to make these statements unconditional absolutes, and that's where he errs.
-
It's quite amusing to see the weasel words and tortuous reasoning needed to make sense of Ken's article.
Words such as "better", "improve" and "image quality" are not in the least bit vague. Or do you really think the statement "Eating lots of fruit and veg will improve your health" is vague, and does not carry much meaning? Come off it. Everyone understands what it means, just as they understand the meaning of "Don't blame anything lacking in your photos on your equipment."
In fact let's take another look at that example:
"Don't blame anything lacking in your photos on your equipment."
That sounds pretty unequivocable to me. Nothing vague there. All rather clear in fact.
We should not blame a lack of sharpness on the equipment. Lenses do not affect image sharpness. Or bokeh. Or contrast. The tripod also has no affect whatsoever on image sharpness. And mirror lock up is no use at all. Hell, why use a tripod. In fact why have more than one lens? Or maybe, just maybe, Ken is talking a pile of soft and steamy poop.
Ah, but you say, it depends what we mean by 'anything'. Ha ha ha.
Ken's supporters need to go back to their remedial reading class and work harder.
-
And I will continue to heap ridicule on your willful ignorance of the obvious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am the one that started these....seemingly never ending ...threads as a rebuttal to MR's rebuttal. I will have little else to say on the matter , as it seems it will just not get through to most....
-
[attachment=5976:attachment]quote=Jonathan Wienke,Apr 5 2008, 08:02 PM]
And I will continue to heap ridicule on your willful ignorance of the obvious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
I am the one that started these....seemingly never ending ...threads as a rebuttal to MR's rebuttal. I will have little else to say on the matter , as it seems it will just not get through to most....Anyway, the conversation is boring.
I'll sum up my P.O.V.
LVB00448alt.jpg > I started shooting withg a Olympus XA4...Nice little camera with some degree of control. The camera didn't matter much to me...[attachment=5973:attachment]
LVB04204BW.jpg> They made a great little 'half-frame' camera in the 60's by Canon, and branede under the Bell and Howell name. Saved some money as I shot 72 on a roll of 36 (this was 4 years ago btw). Lots of grain...that didn't matter.[attachment=5974:attachment]
LVB00099alt.jpg >I moved 'up' to a German Rollie 35 small camera. Full manual control and super sharp Zeiss lens....as if that mattered at all.[attachment=5975:attachment]
LVB00296.jpg > I dabbled with a 'rangefinder' for a bit. The cheapest Voigtlander body (cant remember model) to accomodate a 12mm ultrawide lens. A super lens...I was shooting B&W slide film (AGFA Scala). The camera didn't matter though...
_MG_3396BW.jpg > I made the jump to digital with the Canon 20d, and I had that Tamron 28-70mm lens...you know..the one touted for it's sharpness. Was a bit of dosh for me....but I suppose I was saving on film costs. I was hooked on digital. The camera still didn't matter....hmmm[attachment=5977:attachment]
LVB05982alt2.jpg > I bought A Lumix LX1 P&S digital..Lovely small camera with a Zeiss lens and shoots RAW. I have since moved up to the LX2. Always have a camera on me..ike this time I was on a motorbike...The LX1 (or LX2) didn't matter at all....[attachment=5978:attachment]
LVB02498.jpg> I now shoot with a Canon 5d and 'L' lenses. Top gear ! A bit heavy and expensive.....but,well...the camera, definately, always, and still does NOT matter !
The tool I hold in my hand...the image I shoot....the art I process. Hopefully alive at inception...or will just be stilllborn/dead at output of the process. I had a look at pics and links by members that supported the view that the camera matters. They were mostly mediocre, unoriginal and..well...stillborn. I suppose that they WISH for the day that they CAN buy something that will make their art better (zzzzz...keep dreaming).
(ART)Photography is an inner perception..not an optical set of tools...If you are shooting x-rays,murder scenes,and catalogs...o.k...you win, the camera matters.
For the rest...well....if it was Jazz we we're talking about, I would say.."It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing."
-
I am the one that started these....seemingly never ending ...threads as a rebuttal to MR's rebuttal. I will have little else to say on the matter , as it seems it will just not get through to most....Anyway, the conversation is boring.
I'll sum up my P.O.V.
I had a look at pics and links by members that supported the view that the camera matters. They were mostly mediocre, unoriginal and..well...stillborn. I suppose that they WISH for the day that they CAN buy something that will make their art better (zzzzz...keep dreaming).
You appear to have comprehension problems as well. I've stated numerous times that there are many situations where the choice between 2 cameras makes very little difference. You've supplied some examples of that. Great. There are other situations where the camera matters quite a bit. Try shooting concerts in available darkness with a Kodak DC-4800, or eagles in flight with your Voigtlander with the 12mm lens. Or ski jumping with an 8x10 view camera. Here's another example of a situation where the camera mattered:
(http://visual-vacations.com/images/2006-12-02_0081.jpg)
I shot this image handheld at ISO 1600. I was visiting a Weinnachtmarkt (Christmas Market) at Burg Lichtenburg, a castle near Kusel, Germany. It was well after dark, and I was walking around photographing things by the light of the floodlights that lit portions of the grounds. There was a full moon, and it was partly cloudy. It was sufficiently dark that even at ISO 1600 and the lens wide open at f/2.8, I could only get a 1/15 shutter speed. When I saw the girl standing looking at the moon, I decided to try to get some images. She was only there for a few seconds; there was no time to try to set up a tripod. And even with the lens wide open and the highest available ISO setting, the shutter speed was barely hand-holdable. But because the camera had a fast lens and high ISO capability, and autofocus that works well even in such dim lighting, I was able to take advantage of the opportunity and shoot a few frames before she left. If I had used a typical digicam, it would have still been hunting for focus when the girl turned to leave, and with the ISO limitations of most such cameras, the image would probably have been either significantly obscured by noise out of focus, or unacceptably motion blurred. Even a lesser DSLR would have made getting the shot significantly more difficult.
Better gear isn't going to improve the artistic vision of a photographer, but better gear will allow a photographer to achieve his or her artistic vision without imposing its limitations on the process to as great of a degree. Better gear can also significantly increase the odds of getting a shot that is only available for a moment or two and cannot be repeated (there are lots of these at a wedding, for example). When you have a paying client's expectations riding on capturing such shots consistently, and the prospect of getting repeat business from that client as well, the true issues of this debate snap into focus. An amateur shooting for fun can afford to spend extra time setting up a tripod because his camera can't manage a fast enough shutter speed to shot handheld, and if he misses a shot, it's not that big of a deal. An amateur doesn't have to worry about the client wanting to make a poster out of the shot, and wanting enough resolution and low enough noise so that the texture of the clothing on the model or in the surface of the product isn't obscured. Professionals can't afford the luxury of wasting unnecessary time during a shoot, especially when models, hairstylists, makeup artists, etc. are involved. And better gear can mean spending far less time post-processing after the shoot dealing with chromatic aberrations, color correction, noise reduction, and other technical shortcomings of the camera and lens. Better gear can make the difference between meeting the client's expectations or a deadline, or not. Better gear can make the difference between getting repeat business or not. Better gear can make the difference between paying bills or not. And if that doesn't matter, then what does?
-
And if that doesn't matter, then what does?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187539\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well..as I've said...ART. Everything else done with a camera is uninteresting. I am also a professional and pay my bills with a camera. Better gear definately does NOT gaurantee any better a chance of taking a good photo at a wedding,or one that is even worthy of making poster size....the details don't matter. I only bother with pro gear because clients then feel more secure..ie..that they are paying for the best. The techinical limitations of a camera are ,in fact,not a creative limitation...the opposite is true. The better art is usually one that pushes out on it's frame....that is exploding out of it's context. That photo of yours is just o.k...I dont see what the camera has to do with it. You're hung up on the trees and cant see the forest, y'dig?
-
I only bother with pro gear because clients then feel more secure..ie..that they are paying for the best.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good for you. Just why do you think your clients are so insecure?
-
We'll just have to agree to disagree, Jonathan. Ken's article was a piece of rhetoric and was meant to be understood as that. It was not a set of military instructions from a commanding officer subject to interpretation by a group of soldiers sitting around discussing the real intent of the orders just issued.
I understand you come from a military background. If that's true, it does at least partially explain your insistence on a literal interpretation of everything.
It's clear to me that the equipment you have available will affect the type of subjects you are able to address and the manner in which they will be addressed. If you haven't got a camera, you can't take a photo. If you haven't got a telephoto lens, you can't shoot craters on the moon. If you haven't got a macro lens, you can't get sharp images of a grasshopper's eyeball and if you haven't got an ISO 1600 setting and a wide aperture lens, you can't get sharp hand-held shots in the moonlight of a castle turret where every stone is clearly delineated. All that's true. What makes you think Ken, or anyone with even a cursory knowledge of photography, does not understand that?
By the way, when are you going to get your MFDB equipment? Have you decided whether the DB will be a leaf or a Phase?
-
Good for you. Just why do you think your clients are so insecure?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187546\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Western consumer culture gone awry would be my guess. Perhaps they are also under the (false) impression that there's a better chance of taking a better photo with better gear.
Anyway..I never asked them, so you tell me.
-
Ray,
Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't realized that KR's piece was a novel. I can agree that it is pure fiction, just not very good fiction.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good enough to generate a fair amount of discussion though, eh!, what?
-
Anyway..I never asked them, so you tell me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187548\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So maybe they are not insecure and you are imagining it.
How about going to your next job with a phone camera - your clients may or may not be secure, but will they be satisfied?
-
Did Rudd write the speech? Even if he did the tool is irrelevant in this case - however, who wrote it is. Tools do not always matter, I have never said otherwise, but your position appears to be that they never matter, which is an entirely different thing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Kevin Rudd has actually said that he wrote that speech himself in longhand, with pen and paper, because that approach facilitated his flow of thoughts on such an important matter dear to his heart.
Most people appeared to have been emotionally moved by the speech. You could consider it to be analogous to a photo with artistic merit or emotional impact, taken with a Holga or Brownie Box camera.
The tool matters in the sense that you have to have a tool of some sorts that has been designed for the task in hand. I don't think Rudd's speech would have been improved if he'd tried to write it by dipping his finger in the ink.
-
So maybe they are not insecure and you are imagining it.
How about going to your next job with a phone camera - your clients may or may not be secure, but will they be satisfied?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187554\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL...The camera doesnt matter ...I could take an interesting photo with any camera. They are not paying for that though...an artists taking art photos at their wedding. They want their wedding documented...and as I said....that's when the camera matters: for muder scenes,x-rays, wildlife pics of australia...etc.etc.
-
LOL...The camera doesnt matter ...I could take an interesting photo with any camera. They are not paying for that though...an artists taking art photos at their wedding.
"Interesting" to you may not have any resemblance to what the client finds interesting. Care to share some of your "interesting" cell phone camera shots?
They want their wedding documented...and as I said....that's when the camera matters: for muder scenes,x-rays, wildlife pics of australia...etc.etc.
So you agree with me that the camera does matter, some of the time. Unlike you, I use my DSLRs to capture wedding images that have a reasonably high degree of technical merit and are artistically pleasing as well. Unless you think these are mere documentation:
(http://visual-vacations.com/ProfessionalServices/Weddings/2004-12-09-0433.jpg)
(http://visual-vacations.com/ProfessionalServices/Weddings/187U2811.jpg)
You seem to be under the sadly mistaken impression (as is Ken Rockwell) that technical excellence is an impediment to artistic excellence, and that those who make an effort to master technical excellence know less of artistic merit for doing so. This is a false dichotomy.
-
The tool matters in the sense that you have to have a tool of some sorts that has been designed for the task in hand. I don't think Rudd's speech would have been improved if he'd tried to write it by dipping his finger in the ink.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187557\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No argument there.
Like I said repeatedly, no-one is pushing the concept that tools always matter. What I am saying is that tools can matter, and I'm firmly against this spurious notion that tools never matter.
Your example is flawed though - it's not the ink on the page that's being 'appreciated' is it? It's the meaning of the words. If you want to appreciate the craft of writing, I am sure the monks of medieval times chose with great care their quills for illuminated manuscripts!
-
LOL...The camera doesnt matter ...I could take an interesting photo with any camera. They are not paying for that though...an artists taking art photos at their wedding. They want their wedding documented...and as I said....that's when the camera matters: for muder scenes,x-rays, wildlife pics of australia...etc.etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187558\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Any idiot can take 'interesting' images with any old camera - at least they can call them interesting. Whether anyone else agrees is another matter!
Chimps chuck paint around and some call it 'art'. OK, fine, whatever.
BTW you have crossed a line and dissed other poster's images - so now post your own. As they say "put up or shut up".
-
You seem to be under the sadly mistaken impression (as is Ken Rockwell) that technical excellence is an impediment to artistic excellence, and that those who make an effort to master technical excellence know less of artistic merit for doing so. This is a false dichotomy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187565\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ya know what..you just don't get it and you never will..it's as simple as that.I am not under any sad impression of anything.Mastering a tool technically is of interest to people that are interested in technical qualities...sure.I'm not one of those....I am not even sure you know what that means! I mean...a quality of noise in an image can be a very desireable texture. How would that relate to this idea of technical excellence?
I do think those photos are dull, yes,if that's what you were asking. You're hung up on silly words...does the camera "matter"..et al. You don't seem to grok what it means...what I've been talking about in these posts. Well, let me rephrase that..I am sure you understand what I am saying, I just don't think you subscribe to that position...as is your right.
-
BTW you have crossed a line and dissed other poster's images - so now post your own. As they say "put up or shut up".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Crossed a line..lol. I stated my point of view. Go ahead and 'diss' my images all you want. I dont care. Maybe you should be reading the posts,as anyone can see I DID post approx 5 of my images a few posts ago.
-
Any idiot can take 'interesting' images with any old camera - at least they can call them interesting. Whether anyone else agrees is another matter!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So what you're saying is that artistic merit is measured by consensus? Whew! Now I can sleep well knowing Jon Bon Jovi is a greater artist than David Bowie, and that Joni Mitchell can never hope to be as great an artist as Zamfir or Poison.
-
Crossed a line..lol. I stated my point of view. Go ahead and 'diss' my images all you want. I dont care. Maybe you should be reading the posts,as anyone can see I DID post approx 5 of my images a few posts ago.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, I missed them.
-
So what you're saying is that artistic merit is measured by consensus? Whew! Now I can sleep well knowing Jon Bon Jovi is a greater artist than David Bowie, and that Joni Mitchell can never hope to be as great an artist as Zamfir or Poison.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Artistic merit depends on more than someone saying 'this is art'. How do you measure it?
-
Artistic merit depends on more than someone saying 'this is art'. How do you measure it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187574\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't measure it...I don't need to. Do you?Art is art. Do you measure the smell of coffee to discern what it is? Or do you just drink it knowing that since it smells of coffee ,it therefore is.
There is no measurement...or if there is ,say a scientific one...it doesn't interest me. The same way that I don't measure the quality of a day in it's technical characteristics.
"Say honey, how was your day? " " Oh well, you know, it started with 19 degrees celsius , 670 lumens of light with low barometric pressure..."
Maybe the universe is not composed of matter at all...it's composed of stories.
-
I don't measure it...I don't need to. Do you?Art is art. Do you measure the smell of coffee to discern what it is? Or do you just drink it knowing that since it smells of coffee ,it therefore is.
There is no measurement...or if there is ,say a scientific one...it doesn't interest me. The same way that I don't measure the quality of a day in it's technical characteristics.
"Say honey, how was your day? " " Oh well, you know, it started with 19 degrees celsius , 670 lumens of light with low barometric pressure..."
Maybe the universe is not composed of matter at all...it's composed of stories.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187577\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sigh... I was merely using your term...
"So what you're saying is that artistic merit is measured by consensus?"
-
We should also not lose sight of the fact that any work of art is, almost by definition, like a piece of rhetoric, just like Ken's article. It's meant to be persuasive, and inevitably contains exaggerations for dramatic effect.
Jonathan's castle turret is a good example. The precarious position of the solitary figure, seemingly tottering on the brink of eternal darkness, is a dramatic effect which Jonathan has deliberately created, although it's not clear if he manipulated the image in Photoshop to that effect in order just to remove obtrusive noise.
Maybe if he'd been using a D3 at ISO 6400 which just might have produced marginally less noise in those dark shadows, he would have left some detail in the lower part of the image which might have reduced that dramatic effect of the precarious position of that lone figure lower right.
The debate as to whether photography is an art or a craft is relevant here. If one is merely trying to portray the scene in front of the camera with the greatest accuracy possible with regard to color, hue, detail, sharpness and shade, just as the eye, flitting from one part of the scene to the other, sees it, then I think perhaps we are dealing with a craft rather than an art.
-
We should also not lose sight of the fact that any work of art is, almost by definition, like a piece of rhetoric, just like Ken's article. It's meant to be persuasive, and inevitably contains exaggerations for dramatic effect.
Jonathan's castle turret is a good example. The precarious position of the solitary figure, seemingly tottering on the brink of eternal darkness, is a dramatic effect which Jonathan has deliberately created, although it's not clear if he manipulated the image in Photoshop to that effect in order just to remove obtrusive noise.
Maybe if he'd been using a D3 at ISO 6400 which just might have produced marginally less noise in those dark shadows, he would have left some detail in the lower part of the image which might have reduced that dramatic effect of the precarious position of that lone figure lower right.
The debate as to whether photography is an art or a craft is relevant here. If one is merely trying to portray the scene in front of the camera with the greatest accuracy possible with regard to color, hue, detail, sharpness and shade, just as the eye, flitting from one part of the scene to the other, sees it, then I think perhaps we are dealing with a craft rather than an art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a can o'worms you're opening here Ray...
But I'll bite.
Most photography is craft, some is indeed art, but there are many who claim art 'status' with no genuine provenance. Merely saying you are an artist does not wash.
I don't think Jonathan claims art status for his image (maybe he does) but I do rather like the gothic mood. It's an effective image.
-
Ray, are you by any chance a post-modernist?
-
... Joni Mitchell can never hope to be as great an artist as Zamfir or Poison.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey, hey, HEY!!...Don't be dissin' Zamfir!
-
... there are many who claim art 'status' with no genuine provenance. Merely saying you are an artist does not wash.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187613\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe it does wash. If a person is trying to create art, then they ARE an artist. But that doesn't automatically mean that they are a good artist because it's possible to be an artist, but still be a really bad artist. lol
-
Jonathan's castle turret is a good example. The precarious position of the solitary figure, seemingly tottering on the brink of eternal darkness, is a dramatic effect which Jonathan has deliberately created, although it's not clear if he manipulated the image in Photoshop to that effect in order just to remove obtrusive noise.
Maybe if he'd been using a D3 at ISO 6400 which just might have produced marginally less noise in those dark shadows, he would have left some detail in the lower part of the image which might have reduced that dramatic effect of the precarious position of that lone figure lower right.
Having never shot a D3, I hesitate to comment on how the capture may have been different if it had been made with a D3 instead of a 1D-Mark II. But if it did capture more shadow detail, it wouldn't have affected the final image in the manner you propose. The original capture has significant detail in the shadows, which I deliberately pulled down to accentuate the sense of the castle tower "floating" over a void. It's a creative choice I made in post; it isn't really something I considered while shooting, but an idea that I had when I was working the image after the fact.
I'm not sure that using a D3 vs the 1D-II would have significantly altered the final image either technically or artistically; both have the sensitivity to capture a reasonably sharp and low-noise image at handholdable shutter speeds, and sufficiently good autofocus to ensure that the image is in focus, and minimal shutter lag. But the majority of digicams I've used would have struggled in that situation; either they would have taken too long to focus and missed the decisive moment, there would have been too much motion blur from excessive camera shake, or the image would have been noisy enough that it would have obscured significant detail. There's also the issue of holding detail in the moon; the DR of 1D-II was barely sufficient for the task, and a digicam would have had a harder time capturing the aurora around the moon with smooth gradations.
Great images are made, not simply captured. But having a technically high quality capture to start with makes it easier to make something great out of it.
-
Mastering a tool technically is of interest to people that are interested in technical qualities...sure.I'm not one of those....I am not even sure you know what that means! I mean...a quality of noise in an image can be a very desireable texture. How would that relate to this idea of technical excellence?
There are times when a certain amount of noise or other artificial texture added to an image either by the recording medium or by tools in Photoshop can be a creative enhancement. I do it myself on occasion; I even posted a thread in the Digital Image Processing forum describing a simple technique for doing so in conjunction with upsizing to prevent pixelization and other obvious "digital" artifacts when upsizing an image. But that does not mean that noise or film grain or any other artificial texture is alway a desirable artistic effect, any more than HDR, selective color, toned B&W, partial desaturation, hypersaturation, local contrast enhancement, soft focus, shallow DoF, sharpening, film noir lighting, motion blur, or any other creative effect is appropriate for every image. All of these things have a place in a photographic artist's toolbox, but insisting that any one of them is always desirable in every image is simple-minded.
If you're creating an image that can be creatively enhanced by artificial texture and a low degree of sharpness, by all means break out your Voigtlander or a Holga or whatever and have at it. But if the subject already has interesting texture and detail, obliterating it with artificial texture is not always the wisest or most artistically creative choice. I prefer to make such decisions on a case-by-case basis based on the creative intent of the image, rather than blindly accept what I'm given by a technically inferior piece of equipment and tout that piece of equipment's technical shortcomings as a panacea for artistic superiority.
-
Well..as I've said...ART. Everything else done with a camera is uninteresting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is a very arrogant position to take, namely to assume that only one viewpoint is valid.
-
Ya know what..you just don't get it and you never will..it's as simple as that.I am not under any sad impression of anything.Mastering a tool technically is of interest to people that are interested in technical qualities...sure.I'm not one of those....I am not even sure you know what that means! I mean...a quality of noise in an image can be a very desireable texture. How would that relate to this idea of technical excellence?
I do think those photos are dull, yes,if that's what you were asking. You're hung up on silly words...does the camera "matter"..et al. You don't seem to grok what it means...what I've been talking about in these posts. Well, let me rephrase that..I am sure you understand what I am saying, I just don't think you subscribe to that position...as is your right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187569\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can see from the way that you write that you are not exactly good at expressing yourself. I guess Ken appeals to people like you, who have trouble with basic basic languages skills. That was rather a flow of consciousness ramble wasn't it. What does "grok" mean?
"I am sure you understand what I am saying"
No, not really.
Your problem is that you take one narrow viewpoint on photography, and assume that everyone takes the same stance. How about taking a less arrogant approach. How about conceding that some people here might just know a few things that you don't. I would not for one minute pretend to know anything about wedding photography. Or sports photography. I see beauty in nature, not in some pretentious artistic statement made with a crappy throwaway camera. Others are free to use such cameras, and good for them, I wish them luck. For me photographers such as John Shaw have real talent.
Here is the sort of thing I like:
-
What does "grok" mean?
"I am sure you understand what I am saying"
No, not really.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can be succinct if need be...sorry if things are over your head. You speak of arrogance yet you and others keep harping on about peoples ignorance.Iam just mirroring that a bit is all. Btw "grok" is from Heinlen's "Stranger in a Strange Land", it basically means "understanding"...I should have just said "y'dig?"
In any event...I was ALWAYS talking about ART ( I did start these posts remember). For your field of interest in photography, and by the photo you use to illustrate this...OF COURSE THE CAMERA..ahem...MATTERS (if that's even the right word). But that is documenting something technical...it's not art. It CAN be art...but it clearly (in your case) isn't !
In Crime,Scenes,X-Rays, Australian Wildlife (lol..having a laugh ;-) and now add Macro Buggery the camera matters....because it needs to be designed so that anyone can do it (which anyone can).
I would concede that there may be some people that know some things that I don't.You don't know me at all. I have no problem being wrong...I do it alll the time. I'll let you know when I've heard something I don't know..k?
-
In any event...I was ALWAYS talking about ART ( I did start these posts remember). For your field of interest in photography, and by the photo you use to illustrate this...OF COURSE THE CAMERA..ahem...MATTERS (if that's even the right word). But that is documenting something technical...it's not art. It CAN be art...but it clearly (in your case) isn't !
Who the hell died and made you the Judge Who Decides What Is Art And What Isn't? Insect macro photography is art; so fashion and wildlife and landscapes and even crime scene photos. And what makes you think that insect macros or wildlife photography is something so simple and straightforward that "anyone can do it"? You are truly an arrogant fool, and are hereby added to my Ignore List.
-
I have no problem being wrong...I do it alll the time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL - that's for sure
Look, you may be right and have some deep insights into photography and art that we all miss - or you may simply be an arrogant PITA.
Either way you have missed one rather large point.
Go back and re-read your first post on this forum. You launched into a pompous monologue with no attempt you introduce yourself or justify your opinions. I'm sure most people thought 'just who the hell are you?'. You have some interesting ideas, I would be happy to continue a genuine debate and I have actually read and considered your points. Unfortunately your aggressive tone, dismissive comments and general arrogance have got everyone's back up. I didn't see one single post in support of anything you have said - not that you will care.
The point you miss is that the function of this forum is to discuss and exchange ideas, not to insult and disparage. On the DPReview forums you would be labelled a troll, but we don't use such terms here being so awfully polite. Feel free to head on over to DP Review where you will feel more at home.
-
Who the hell died and made you the Judge Who Decides What Is Art And What Isn't? Insect macro photography is art; so fashion and wildlife and landscapes and even crime scene photos. And what makes you think that insect macros or wildlife photography is something so simple and straightforward that "anyone can do it"? You are truly an arrogant fool, and are hereby added to my Ignore List.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Relax Colonel Klink..it's only my opinion. I never said it was simple...just that anyone can learn to do it. I dont decide what is art...but if you can't recognise that art exists independant of ones tastes or opinions...then I'm sorry it is you who are the fool...and a bore... and a hack (so there! nyah nyah nan nan nyah) and I wished you started ignoring me a long time ago.
-
LOL - that's for sure
Look, you may be right and have some deep insights into photography and art that we all miss - or you may simply be an arrogant PITA.
Either way you have missed one rather large point.
Go back and re-read your first post on this forum. You launched into a pompous monologue with no attempt you introduce yourself or justify your opinions. I'm sure most people thought 'just who the hell are you?'. You have some interesting ideas, I would be happy to continue a genuine debate and I have actually read and considered your points. Unfortunately your aggressive tone, dismissive comments and general arrogance have got everyone's back up. I didn't see one single post in support of anything you have said - not that you will care.
The point you miss is that the function of this forum is to discuss and exchange ideas, not to insult and disparage. On the DPReview forums you would be labelled a troll, but we don't use such terms here being so awfully polite. Feel free to head on over to DP Review where you will feel more at home.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187721\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well listen...I didn't set the tone here. It was MR in his rebuttal! This is not my style at all...Im sure a lot of people wondered 'just who the hell I am... I didn't post here before.In all honesty I usually find that internet 'forums' ,discussions, tend to cater to the lowest common denominator for expressing ideas.The fresh and new ideas are out in the real world.
Sure..I'll admit...I'm shit disturbing a bit. DPreview..OMG..isn't that a site even MORE interested in technical specifications and details...lol. I don't insult and disparage...I just bite back is all.
-
Well listen...I didn't set the tone here. It was MR in his rebuttal! This is not my style at all...Im sure a lot of people wondered 'just who the hell I am... I didn't post here before.In all honesty I usually find that internet 'forums' ,discussions, tend to cater to the lowest common denominator for expressing ideas.The fresh and new ideas are out in the real world.
Sure..I'll admit...I'm shit disturbing a bit. DPreview..OMG..isn't that a site even MORE interested in technical specifications and details...lol. I don't insult and disparage...I just bite back is all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
These forums have a tone of their own - what MR says and how he says it are his prerogative. Whilst there can be fierce debates here, it usually stays civilised.
Be yourself, you don't need to let MR's tone influence your own.
-
What a waste of bandwidth this whole discussion is, and the absurdly prickly controversy it's generated. For heaven's sake, in music, painting and photography, the instrumentality and the technique shapes the art. How could it not? Even words have meanings nuanced by typography.
This isn't even debatable. And it's an entirely different discussion from the one about whether an obsession with technique corrodes the soul of the artist. That depends on who they are.
If you give someone a good camera will he instantly become a good photographer? No. End of debate.
Can a good photographer produce good work with a bad camera? Yes: but it might be harder. End of debate.
Will the same photographer make more attractive images with a better camera? All else being equal: probably. End of debate.
Is there a purely subjective element in our choice of equipment that is a complex mixture of sentimental, ergonomic and aesthetic factors? Yes. End of debate.
-
What a waste of bandwidth this whole discussion is, and the absurdly prickly controversy it's generated. For heaven's sake, in music, painting and photography, the instrumentality and the technique shapes the art. How could it not? Even words have meanings nuanced by typography.
This isn't even debatable. And it's an entirely different discussion from the one about whether an obsession with technique corrodes the soul of the artist. That depends on who they are.
If you give someone a good camera will he instantly become a good photographer? No. End of debate.
Can a good photographer produce good work with a bad camera? Yes: but it might be harder. End of debate.
Will the same photographer make more attractive images with a better camera? All else being equal: probably. End of debate.
Is there a purely subjective element in our choice of equipment that is a complex mixture of sentimental, ergonomic and aesthetic factors? Yes. End of debate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well...those weren't the questions...but apparently you had to add to the waste of bandwidth with your point of view. Thank you.
-
Is there a purely subjective element in our choice of equipment that is a complex mixture of sentimental, ergonomic and aesthetic factors? Yes. End of debate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, that's where the debate begins, and has already begun. Sentimental, ergonomic and esthetic? You could add delusion to the list of subjective factors, a major factor which Ken tried to address in his article, that technically sophisticated gear will help you produce better works of art.
-
The original capture has significant detail in the shadows, which I deliberately pulled down to accentuate the sense of the castle tower "floating" over a void. It's a creative choice I made in post; it isn't really something I considered while shooting, but an idea that I had when I was working the image after the fact.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nevertheless, it's an example of the sort of thing that can happen when technical qualities are allocated greater priority than artistic qualities.
There's no doubt that the D3 with the same exposure would have provided more detail, sharper detail and better detail in those shadows and that some photographers, if not you, would have consequently made a decision in post processing, with such an image, to bring out the shadow detail and thus lose the dramatic effect which you have created by exaggertaing those dark shadows in the same way than Ken exaggerated his concept of "The Camera Doesn't Matter".
I rest my case.
-
Nevertheless, it's an example of the sort of thing that can happen when technical qualities are allocated greater priority than artistic qualities.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan is not saying he allocated priority to technical qualities over artistic ones - he is saying he has used a technical characteristic to support his chosen creative outcome.
Nothing to disagree with here, surely?
"exaggertaing those dark shadows in the same way than Ken exaggerated his concept of "The Camera Doesn't Matter"."
That's a stretch, I see not so much 'exaggeration' as simply flaky writing and naive opinion. It's just too poor an article to warrant the sort of laboured interpretation you claim it needs.
Andrew Rodney has a delightful expression - "Polishing a turd"'.
-
Nevertheless, it's an example of the sort of thing that can happen when technical qualities are allocated greater priority than artistic qualities.
There's no doubt that the D3 with the same exposure would have provided more detail, sharper detail and better detail in those shadows and that some photographers, if not you, would have consequently made a decision in post processing, with such an image, to bring out the shadow detail and thus lose the dramatic effect
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And whose to say the that those other photographers didn't have a different artistic vision to Jonathen. Who are you to say what IS and ISN'T art? And this really is the crux of this argument. Art is like postmodernism. There are, apparantly, no objective truths. It's all in the interpretation. Macro photography is just as much art as is any piece of pompuos rubbish you "artists" could come up with. Clearly ones equipment helps one to portray meaning in ones images. How much equipment means to one "artist" has no bearing on how much it means to another artist.
-
That's a stretch, I see not so much 'exaggeration' as simply flaky writing and naive opinion. It's just too poor an article to warrant the sort of laboured interpretation you claim it needs.
Andrew Rodney has a delightful expression - "Polishing a turd"'.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I cannot speak for you lot, but I dont take everything I read on KR's site that seriously, not to say there is not some useful info on there. It aint gospel shall we say. Same for this site.
Good and bad on both.
Easy to pull apart either site on tecnical issues. Michael's digital v 35mm tests tell us that a 6mp APS sensor beats 35mm no worries. Back on planet earth, my little trip out with a 6mp APS and 35mm loaded up with cheapo negative film..and the film camera blew the pants off the digital. Latitude was vastly superior on the film, contrast and colour seperation also much better. But you never see the other side of the coin, just the tedious "res tests", avoiding the areas that matter in the real world (like having a choice of slide or negative)
Bias is where you find it..not for me to spark off the film v digital debate yet again, but there is as much poor information here (and some very good stuff) as Rockwell's site. I am happy to admit the pros and cons of film and digital, Michael on the other hand is not, nor would it seem able to fix his DOF article which also contains inaccurate information too. So let's not suggest this is the holy bible of photographic information any more than KR's site is..
-
Easy to pull apart either site on tecnical issues. Michael's digital v 35mm tests tell us that a 6mp APS sensor beats 35mm no worries. Back on planet earth, my little trip out with a 6mp APS and 35mm loaded up with cheapo negative film..and the film camera blew the pants off the digital. Latitude was vastly superior on the film, contrast and colour seperation also much better. But you never see the other side of the coin, just the tedious "res tests", avoiding the areas that matter in the real world (like having a choice of slide or negative)
I thought Jay Turberville debunked that.
-
I thought Jay Turberville debunked that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lol, well I took the shots, I put them up..and I see what is going on. Latitude way better on negative film. Jay hates film more than Michael does probably. I just like using both digital and film, difference is I am prepared to admit that film has some use still, and shock horror can "sometimes" produce better results. Also happy to embrace the joys and advantages of digital, and the pros and cons too.
And I think even the most die hard digi fan would admit that a tiny sensor compact dies a terrible death DR wise against negative film. Didnt stop Jay trying to argue that one..still each to his own as they say. I have a tiny sensor compact too, I just am honest and know the pros and cons of it..latitude aint its strong point.
This harks back to the "makes life easier" gear comments, and that is what its about, nothing else really. Some work better in certain situations that others. This is not the same as "is this a good shot"..
-
There's no doubt that the D3 with the same exposure would have provided more detail, sharper detail and better detail in those shadows and that some photographers, if not you, would have consequently made a decision in post processing, with such an image, to bring out the shadow detail and thus lose the dramatic effect which you have created by exaggertaing those dark shadows in the same way than Ken exaggerated his concept of "The Camera Doesn't Matter".
I rest my case.
Ummm...congratulations, you've just proved that no two photographers will process a given RAW exactly the same way, and some will do so more competently than others. If I had a D3 RAW of the exact same scene and moment, I would very probably processed it in a similar manner to pull down the shadows and create the "floating" effect. But if the D3 has superior DR/noise performance than the 1D-II, then I may have been able keep more detail in the moon and the tower brickwork. I doubt that would detract from the artistic merit of the image...
-
How much equipment means to one "artist" has no bearing on how much it means to another artist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes.
Imposing 'anti-tool' snobbery on others is simply arrogant and unnecessary. If cameras mean nothing to you, great, I can certainly respect that. But I would ask for the reverse too - respect those who are honest enough to admit to using cameras as an essential part of their 'art'. Both points of view are equally valid.
-
I cannot speak for you lot, but I dont take everything I read on KR's site that seriously, not to say there is not some useful info on there. It aint gospel shall we say. Same for this site.
Good and bad on both.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe true, certainly I have found value in some of KR's lens comparisons. However, I would have to say that there is generally much more useful and, dare I say it, correct stuff in LL.
Those who are long-time members will know of plenty of forum members on LL who are very well respected photographers. KR's is simply a blog by one person. LL is much more than that with numerous well informed contributors other than MR.
-
Nice!!
"Firstly, let me say that though it will make gear-heads wince, I don't know what camera was used to shoot this, nor what lens, nor do I care. I'm guessing it's film, because of the grain, but none of these factors has anything to do with anything. The image stands on its own for its content, not anything associated with the tools used to create it"
http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/balmoral.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/balmoral.shtml)
Gasp, some people are getting what its all about!
-
Imposing 'anti-tool' snobbery on others is simply arrogant and unnecessary. If cameras mean nothing to you, great, I can certainly respect that. But I would ask for the reverse too - respect those who are honest enough to admit to using cameras as an essential part of their 'art'. Both points of view are equally valid.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you have misinterpreted what I was saying. I am actually on YOUR side.
Did you miss this bit Clearly ones equipment helps one to portray meaning in ones images? My point was that art is subjective. There is no objective measure of art. So Ray making judgments about what is and isn't art, to suit his argument, is a false tactic. Sorted?
-
Nice!!
"Firstly, let me say that though it will make gear-heads wince, I don't know what camera was used to shoot this, nor what lens, nor do I care. I'm guessing it's film, because of the grain, but none of these factors has anything to do with anything. The image stands on its own for its content, not anything associated with the tools used to create it"
http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/balmoral.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/balmoral.shtml)
Gasp, some people are getting what its all about!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Has anyone (MR or anyone else) ever said that the viewer cares what tools were used?
I know David Oliver, and I know what cameras he uses. None of those factors take away from my enjoyment of his image, neither does what he thinks about cameras.
What he thinks about cameras, and their importance, is his personal opinion and is only valid to him and his photography. MR doesn't care what he used, I don't either, but David might.
-
I think you have misinterpreted what I was saying. I am actually on YOUR side.
Did you miss this bit Clearly ones equipment helps one to portray meaning in ones images? My point was that art is subjective. There is no objective measure of art. So Ray making judgments about what is and isn't art, to suit his argument, is a false tactic. Sorted?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And I was agreeing with you. My comment was a follow up, reinforcing what you said, after clearly saying "Yes".
-
What he thinks about cameras, and their importance, is his personal opinion and is only valid to him and his photography. MR doesn't care what he used, I don't either, but David might.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lets seperate what counts. KR was talking about IMHO getting great shots, and that alone. He was not talking about in my view, image quality, or pros and cons of certain equipment. Ok it was a tad OTT...but take it as that, I did.
Anything else defies logic. A bit like saying, "if I brush my teeth with a chainsaw..will I hurt myself" its just a tad obvious on that one! lol
We dont need to be told by MR that a holga isnt ideal for fine art landscapes, I am sure pinhole photographers are more than aware of the limitations they face too. I am not going to argue that tech talk and stuff has a place, sure does. But its got a far less important place than getting the actual photo.
-
And I was agreeing with you. My comment was a follow up, reinforcing what you said, after clearly saying "Yes".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, your references to "you" had me thinking you were meaning me.
-
I am not going to argue that tech talk and stuff has a place, sure does. But its got a far less important place than getting the actual photo.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187809\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed.
The amount of importance necessarily varies from one person to the next, from zero to 99%. But it's their choice and no-one has the right to second-guess them.
-
Jonathan is not saying he allocated priority to technical qualities over artistic ones - he is saying he has used a technical characteristic to support his chosen creative outcome.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nor am I saying that. You missed my point, Nick. I'm saying that Jonathan has deliberately misrepresented those shadows for the sake of artistic effect. He's already admitted there was a fair amount of detail there. He's destroyed that detail in order to create a more persuasive impact. As regards a totally faithful representation of the scene, the image fails because those shadows are unnaturally black, just as Ken's article fails as a verbally accurate description of the precise role that camera equipment plays in the making of a photograph.
Jonathan has deliberately and knowingly distorted reality to impart greater impact to his image, in a similar way to the rhetorical method that Ken has adopted in his article.
-
Ummm...congratulations, you've just proved that no two photographers will process a given RAW exactly the same way, and some will do so more competently than others. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187788\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, I haven't done anything of the sort. The word 'competently' with regard to artistic expression is a very subjective matter.
Here I am confining myself to the bare, objective facts. By your own admission, you have deliberately and presumably competently destroyed shadow detail in that image for the sake of artistic impact.
Whether that makes the image successful as a work of art is a subjective opinion. That you have deliberately exaggerated the blackness of the shadows is a plain matter of fact. You did it for a reason, just as Ken has exaggeration a few of his statements for dramatic effect. I see essentially no difference except Ken's mode of expression here is in the form of writing and yours, with the castle turret example, is in the form of a photographic image.
-
I see essentially no difference except Ken's mode of expression here is in the form of writing and yours, with the castle turret example, is in the form of a photographic image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187822\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Words have objective meanings, something which images don't. Images need to be interpreted far more than words do. Yet another poor argument....
-
Jonathan has deliberately and knowingly distorted reality to impart greater impact to his image, in a similar way to the rhetorical method that Ken has adopted in his article.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, yes, I missed your point.
Exaggeration and distortion for creative effect is often appropriate for an image which makes no claim to be objectively 'accurate'. But it's inappropriate for an article claiming some insight into photography by an author who tries to claim some authority on the subject.
If someone has a point of view, I'd rather they try to persuade me around to their way of thinking with logic and example rather than by exaggeration and distortion.
-
Words have objective meanings, something which images don't. Images need to be interpreted far more than words do. Yet another poor argument....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Never heard such nonsense. Words have objective meanings but images don't? Where are you coming from? The first words that were created, in ancient China, were pictures or pictographs which gradually evolved to ideographs, losing much of their original pictorial representation.
Ever heard of the expression, 'A picture is worth a thousand words'. Dear me!
-
Never heard such nonsense. Words have objective meanings but images don't? Where are you coming from? The first words that were created, in ancient China, were pictures or pictographs which gradually evolved to ideographs, losing much of their original pictorial representation.
Ever heard of the expression, 'A picture is worth a thousand words'. Dear me!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
symbology is different from imagery. Alas, another poor argument. Perhaps you can show me an image which isn't open to subjective interpretation?
-
Never heard such nonsense. Words have objective meanings but images don't? Where are you coming from? The first words that were created, in ancient China, were pictures or pictographs which gradually evolved to ideographs, losing much of their original pictorial representation.
Ever heard of the expression, 'A picture is worth a thousand words'. Dear me!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dear Me indeed, I was just thinking you were finally seeing reason! LOL. Silly me.
You are keen to 'interpret' KRs article but cannot understand Bernie's post?
Of course words have a generally firmer objective meaning than images - he did not say images have no objective meaning and words have only that.
Both have meaning, words however are intended to have specific meanings - that's why we have so many.
-
And whose to say the that those other photographers didn't have a different artistic vision to Jonathen. Who are you to say what IS and ISN'T art? And this really is the crux of this argument. Art is like postmodernism. There are, apparantly, no objective truths. It's all in the interpretation. Macro photography is just as much art as is any piece of pompuos rubbish you "artists" could come up with. Clearly ones equipment helps one to portray meaning in ones images. How much equipment means to one "artist" has no bearing on how much it means to another artist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can't see that that's particularly relevant to the discussion. Whose opinion carries more weight with regard to what is and what isn't art, is another matter entirely. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
As far as I can see, the artistic merit and worth of a work of art has little relevance to the sophistication of the tools used, otherwise we would have a general progression of artistic worth from ancient history to the modern day, with 30,000 year old cave paintings being regarded as total crap and Michael's P45 images (or other photographer's P45 images) at the top of the heap being regarded as the pinnacle of artistic achievement.
If you disagree, then I can only presume that, as regards art, you think that the more modern the art is, the better it is. You're entitled to that opinion.
-
If you disagree, then I can only presume that, as regards art, you think that the more modern the art is, the better it is. You're entitled to that opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The point is that it doesn't really matter what I (or you) think (in terms of what is and isn't art). What matters is who is viewing the art, and their interpretation of it. Different viewers will have different interpretations.
I think you might be right about drifting off topic, but to be honest, I can't remember what it is that we are arguing about.
-
The original capture has significant detail in the shadows, which I deliberately pulled down to accentuate the sense of the castle tower "floating" over a void.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A pile of heavy stones floating!!?? What were you thinking of? You know that heavy stones don't float.
Ah! Artistic license... just like Ken's verbal rendition of a subject titled, "The Camera Dosen't Matter".
-
A pile of heavy stones floating!!?? What were you thinking of? You know that heavy stones don't float.
Ah! Artistic license... just like Ken's verbal rendition of a subject titled, "The Camera Dosen't Matter".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187854\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This would have to be a severe case of 'lastworditis'
-
I think you might be right about drifting off topic, but to be honest, I can't remember what it is that we are arguing about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187841\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We're discussing whether or not the sophistication of the tool used significantly contributes to the artistic merit, worth, ultimate price, whatever, of the intentional work of art.
The intransitive verb, 'to matter' means to be important. The opposite, 'to not matter', therefore means to not be important. It doesn't necessarily mean to have no relevance whatsoever.
If Ken has conveyed the idea that the camera has no relevance whatsoever to the photographic result, then he has simply got carried away with his own rhetoric, perhaps a bit like Jonathan with his floating stones.
-
This would have to be a severe case of 'lastworditis'
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187859\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You mean my point might finally have got home?
-
We're discussing whether or not the sophistication of the tool used significantly contributes to the artistic merit, worth, ultimate price, whatever, of the intentional work of art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now that I am home and have got a grip on myself, it's all coming back to me. See, earlier I was at work, and had to maintain the pretense that I was actually working, so couldn't give this discussion the attention it deserves
Anyway, i see the OP said this:
What it IS asking/saying is..."Does a technical (or material..ie..more 'expensive) improvement correlate to an aesthetic /artistic improvement".
Aesthetic/Artistic.... either, or both? I would say that aesthetics while also open to a fair amount of subjectivity is possibly more concrete than art. Most people give a little "wow" at an impressive sunset, or mountain vista, or whatever. Rarely would you find someone looking at a colourful sunset say "ho-hum, not beautiful". It may not be the best sunset a person has ever seen, but most people would acknowledge the inherent beauty in a bright colourful sunset. Now, photographed as a piece of art, well that might be a different story.
So what I am saying is if we are talking about "art" alone, then this is a different species than aesthetic, or documentary, or scientific imagery. And infact, I so strongly believe that a good chunk of the art industry is a total wank, that I would almost agree that to produce some of the shite that passes for art, technical excellence of equipment probably often doesn't really matter.
-
And infact, I so strongly believe that a good chunk of the art industry is a total wank, that I would almost agree that to produce some of the shite that passes for art, technical excellence of equipment probably often doesn't really matter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL, I've been wanting to say this but wasn't brave enough! Good on you.
-
And infact, I so strongly believe that a good chunk of the art industry is a total wank, that I would almost agree that to produce some of the shite that passes for art, technical excellence of equipment probably often doesn't really matter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In reply to that, Bernie West, I'm going to quote your own previous rhetorical question in this thread.
Who are you to say what IS and ISN'T art?
-
In reply to that, Bernie West, I'm going to quote your own previous rhetorical question in this thread.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dammit!
-
In reply to that, Bernie West, I'm going to quote your own previous rhetorical question in this thread.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok, i think i've found an out on this one Whilst I am obviously opinionated about what is art, in this case I am accepting that certain shite when displayed in a gallery say, is considered art by someone, perhaps even by someone in the "know". In that case, I am starting from the premise that something IS art, and I personally find it shite. Either way, what many people might consider art could be often be produced with any old equipment, but more pertinently, with very little technical skill.
How was that for a backtrack?
-
LOL, I've been wanting to say this but wasn't brave enough! Good on you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187869\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
us Aussies sometimes just have to tell it like it is
Having said that, I do respect everyones right to determine what is art to them, and what it does for them.
-
Relax Colonel Klink..it's only my opinion. I never said it was simple...just that anyone can learn to do it. I dont decide what is art...but if you can't recognise that art exists independant of ones tastes or opinions...then I'm sorry it is you who are the fool...and a bore... and a hack (so there! nyah nyah nan nan nyah) and I wished you started ignoring me a long time ago.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're a hard person to ignore. But it is worth making the effort.
And I don't think Colonel Clink is an appropriate term to use. Jonathan clearly has far more balls than you will ever have. I might not agree with the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, but I do admire those with the guts to contribute to sorting it out. Unlike a loud mouth such as yourself.
-
Andrew Rodney has a delightful expression - "Polishing a turd"'.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Words have objective meanings, something which images don't. Images need to be interpreted far more than words do. Yet another poor argument....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quite the opposite. I photograph fungi in order to show people what each species looks like. A picture can convey the texture of a cap, or a stem, far more eloquently and accurately than words.
Of course there are also concepts and ideas that can be conveyed better with words.
-
We're discussing whether or not the sophistication of the tool used significantly contributes to the artistic merit, worth, ultimate price, whatever, of the intentional work of art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well actually no we're not. Art does not really enter into it. The thread title says it all. I do not consider my photography to be art, rather it is a craft, and the merit does depend in part on the tools used. Of course some photography is art, though precious little in my opinion, and I cannot pretend to speak about such photography, as I have no relevant experience.
The intransitive verb, 'to matter' means to be important. The opposite, 'to not matter', therefore means to not be important. It doesn't necessarily mean to have no relevance whatsoever.
If Ken has conveyed the idea that the camera has no relevance whatsoever to the photographic result, then he has simply got carried away with his own rhetoric, perhaps a bit like Jonathan with his floating stones.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Carried away? The entire content and thrust of Ken's article is that the camera makes no difference whatsoever to the quality of the image. He has made statements to that effect throughout his article.
-
In Crime,Scenes,X-Rays, Australian Wildlife (lol..having a laugh ;-) and now add Macro Buggery the camera matters....because it needs to be designed so that anyone can do it (which anyone can).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just goes to show that you are do not have a clue what you are talking about. Whether or not you like the picture I posted (that assessment is subjective) it did require considerable skill acquired over many years, and could not have been taken without specialist equipment. You really need to learn not to make sweeping statements about something of which you clearly have little or no experience and/or knowledge. Perhaps you need to learn to be more open minded and less opinionated.
-
Quite the opposite. I photograph fungi in order to show people what each species looks like. A picture can convey the texture of a cap, or a stem, far more eloquently and accurately than words.
Of course there are also concepts and ideas that can be conveyed better with words.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, but people may not know what your image is until you explain it to them with words.
-
So what I am saying is if we are talking about "art" alone, then this is a different species than aesthetic, or documentary, or scientific imagery. And infact, I so strongly believe that a good chunk of the art industry is a total wank, that I would almost agree that to produce some of the shite that passes for art, technical excellence of equipment probably often doesn't really matter.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=187867\")
This is the greatest work of art in the history of mankind ...
[a href=\"http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/05/excremental-value.html]http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/...ntal-value.html[/url]
I can't afford one or I would proudly own one.
-
Yes, but people may not know what your image is until you explain it to them with words.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The clue was in the second sentence that you quoted:
"Of course there are also concepts and ideas that can be conveyed better with words."
A name is one such concept.
-
Nor am I saying that. You missed my point, Nick. I'm saying that Jonathan has deliberately misrepresented those shadows for the sake of artistic effect. He's already admitted there was a fair amount of detail there. He's destroyed that detail in order to create a more persuasive impact. As regards a totally faithful representation of the scene, the image fails because those shadows are unnaturally black, just as Ken's article fails as a verbally accurate description of the precise role that camera equipment plays in the making of a photograph.
Jonathan has deliberately and knowingly distorted reality to impart greater impact to his image, in a similar way to the rhetorical method that Ken has adopted in his article.
I'll cheerfully admit that I manipulated the image of the castle tower for artistic effect. Obviously stone towers floating over a black void is not commonly encountered in what passes for "reality" in this universe. It is commonly accepted that photography for art's sake (as opposed to editorial photos or crime scene documentation) can be subjected to all sorts of such manipulations, up to and including the compositing of multiple unrelated images.
Where your argument fails is the context of Rockwell's writings. They are not in the context of a science fiction novel (although they should be), they are in the context of a web site that purports to be a serious, credible, and authoritative source of information about things photographic. Reading "The Camera Doesn't Matter" is sort of like going to a therapist because you are having difficulties dealing with a friend, and the therapist tells you that the best way to solve the problem is to go to your friend's house, impale his puppies on a large metal spike, burn his house down, and roast his puppies on the spike over the flames of his burning house. The context of being told this by a professional in the course of a counseling session is going to lead you to believe the therapist is serious, even though the advice is totally ridiculous. In contrast, if you saw that same person on stage saying the same thing while playing the character of a mentally deranged person, would you believe that he really believes what he is saying is good advice? Of course not.
My challenge to you is the same as it has been from the beginning of this discussion. Show proof from Rockwell's own words that he is not serious, that he is just exaggerating for effect, and that he doesn't really believe what he wrote. Justify your assertions and assumptions with some actual concrete evidence. Do us all a favor and end this silliness! Do it for the puppies! Or the kittens...
(http://visual-vacations.com/images/2008/God-kills-kitten.jpg)
Just for the record, this image is an example of hyperbole...
-
With the exception of a few ..Ray, and Bernie West come to mind (there are a few others). No one is actually discussing my OP,using it as more a spring board for there POV on Ken's article. Perhaps, like MR, Ken just gets your back up (as Im sure I do as well) but, my point is not germane at all...I was re-stating, or giving a re-contextualisation of the basic argument as I see it, and THIS was what was offered for discussion.Of the 9 pages..it would've only have been 2 if it had stayed on topic. Look at this and my other threads OP, it's not really discussing what most think it is.
I have to say...this thread has been entertaining. I DO apologise for the personal barbs and insults...just being feisty in the face of adversity (and rudeness). I am new to this forum...and I will have a few technically concerned posts in the future .I'm sure they won't generate the most replies like these...lol.
Ya gotta admit...it beats discussing the subtle bokeh of a lens, or the best way to remove chromatic abberations...
-
Now that I am home and have got a grip on myself, it's all coming back to me.
Aesthetic/Artistic.... either, or both? I would say that aesthetics while also open to a fair amount of subjectivity is possibly more concrete than art. Most people give a little "wow" at an impressive sunset, or mountain vista, or whatever. Rarely would you find someone looking at a colourful sunset say "ho-hum, not beautiful". It may not be the best sunset a person has ever seen, but most people would acknowledge the inherent beauty in a bright colourful sunset. Now, photographed as a piece of art, well that might be a different story.
So what I am saying is if we are talking about "art" alone, then this is a different species than aesthetic, or documentary, or scientific imagery. And infact, I so strongly believe that a good chunk of the art industry is a total wank, that I would almost agree that to produce some of the shite that passes for art, technical excellence of equipment probably often doesn't really matter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good point. I should have elaborated a bit more..aesthetics/artistic. I see them as very interelated, especially in the modern world. We very quickly are exposed to new advances in technical/aesthetic improvements of sound and image via newer technology.As these improvements are quickly dispersed they simply suppplant the existant norm, and become the current de facto standard. Not necessarily 'better' per se as unless you are A/B ing them, there is no way to judge. (for ex. I prefer most of the original mixes of the beatles over these new 5.1 remixes....there is too much separation and I think it sounds better when the tracks/instruments are more merged into each other).I meant aesthetics as they relate to the artistic process for the creation of an original artwork.
I do think the best measure of sound and image are the ears and eyes....and a lot of technically 'improved' technologies,i'm sorry, do not look or sound any better at all to me...the opposite actually.
A lot of art..like a fine wine or aged whisky requires not only a discerning sense, but also an orientation. I don't think one can necessarily expect to understand the work of art's meaning just by looking at it. There can be subtle levels of reference and background material that the viewer may not be familiar with. Despite the appearance of some of these artworks, most contemporary art gets vetted by a system of peer review and other cultural systems (except the occasional 'art prank' that gets through). To say that 'some of the shit that passes for art' also implies that this whole system (and the educated,learned individuals involved)is full of shit. Of course,sometimes, things pop up which are not really art at all, and done in the name of art..or some guy just said it was art. But as on the whole....even the tecnically inferior and (sometimes literally)pieces of shit are indeed art. And no...your five year old daughter could NOT paint that modern abstract..lol.
-
Where your argument fails is the context of Rockwell's writings.
It doesn't fail for me, Jonathan. I have no trouble understanding the general thrust of Ken's article. I also understood very well another article written by Ken in a similar vein, something about there being no need to use a tripod with modern digital cameras.
I came across a long debate on this article on dpreview that was similar to this thread, where some posters were taking Ken so very, very literally and posting examples of their own images that clearly could not have been taken without the use of a tripod, in order to demonstrate that there were exceptions to Ken's claim and that there actually still are situations where a tripod is essential, even with high ISO, low noise DSLRs, or wide aperture, big DoF, P&S cameras.
Let's put it this way. If Ken's article was part of an English Comprehension exam at High School and one of the key questions being asked in the exam paper was, "To what aspect of the photographic process is the author referring in the title, "The Camera Doesn't Matter",
(1) The technical aspects of the photograph such as image resolution and image magnification.
(2) The artistic interest and merit of the photograph.
(3) The general interest of the photograph.
(4) None of the above.
I would have to allocate zero marks to anyone answering (1).
-
Well actually no we're not. Art does not really enter into it. The thread title says it all. I do not consider my photography to be art, rather it is a craft, and the merit does depend in part on the tools used. Of course some photography is art, though precious little in my opinion, and I cannot pretend to speak about such photography, as I have no relevant experience.
Carried away? The entire content and thrust of Ken's article is that the camera makes no difference whatsoever to the quality of the image. He has made statements to that effect throughout his article.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187903\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm sympathetic to objections to Ken's articles based on an understanding that Photography is not an art. From the viewpoint that Photography can never be more than a craft, Ken's article is baffling.
All my arguments in support of this article from Ken are based on a presumption that Photography can be and is an art. Ken's article cannot be understood from the premise that Photography is no more than a craft.
The entire content and thrust of Ken's article is that the camera makes no difference whatsoever to the quality of the image.
That's not quite true. Here is a quote from the article acknowledging that the equipment makes at least some difference. The bold italics are mine.
Just about any camera, regardless of how good or bad it is, can be used to create outstanding photographs for magazine covers, winning photo contests and hanging in art galleries. The quality of a lens or camera has almost nothing to do with the quality of images it can be used to produce.
"Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth..." Ansel Adams, June 3, 1937,
For decades I thought "if I only had that new lens" that all my photo wants would be satisfied. Nope. I still want that "one more lens," and I've been shooting for over 30 years. There is always one more lens. Get over it.
Now that America seems to be heading for recession, it might be a good idea if some of you were to curtail your lens lust . (Sorry! Was that a bit under the belt.)
-
Ray i'm baffled to know what makes your interpretation of Ken's article more right than the opposing point of view, particularly when the opposing point of view requires basically no re-interpretation of his words? Why is your interpretation more accurate than one which takes the words at their face value, a fact which is the default position of all educational writing unless otherwise stated. You really are running a baffling argument. If we accept that Ken didn't infact express himself literally, then we have to accept that anyone's interpretation of his writings is a good as anyone elses. And if that is the case then you can't possibly win your argument, and therefore shouldn't have been arguing it in the first place.
-
All my arguments in support of this article from Ken are based on a presumption that Photography can be and is an art. Ken's article cannot be understood from the premise that Photography is no more than a craft.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188119\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly, and, since the rest of the articles are about lenses and technical stuff, it is not unreasonable to assume that craft is the context within which the article is written.
Given that the article is explicitly aimed at photographers rather than High School English students, the term 'quality' was, by your reasoning, evidently the wrong word to use. ZATAOMM aside, 'quality' commonly means things like tonal range, sharpness, etc, as opposed to the more nebulous and artyfarty meanings of the word.
It's a poor example of writing and communication if the article can only be understood if taken out of the context of the rest of the site.
-
With the exception of a few ..Ray, and Bernie West come to mind (there are a few others). No one is actually discussing my OP,using it as more a spring board for there POV on Ken's article. Perhaps, like MR, Ken just gets your back up (as Im sure I do as well) but, my point is not germane at all...I was re-stating, or giving a re-contextualisation of the basic argument as I see it, and THIS was what was offered for discussion.Of the 9 pages..it would've only have been 2 if it had stayed on topic. Look at this and my other threads OP, it's not really discussing what most think it is.
I have to say...this thread has been entertaining. I DO apologise for the personal barbs and insults...just being feisty in the face of adversity (and rudeness). I am new to this forum...and I will have a few technically concerned posts in the future .I'm sure they won't generate the most replies like these...lol.
Ya gotta admit...it beats discussing the subtle bokeh of a lens, or the best way to remove chromatic abberations...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187993\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are right, this has got away from your OP, there is another thread that seems to have died and been resurrected here.
You said in your OP:
"What it IS asking/saying is..."Does a technical (or material..ie..more 'expensive) improvement correlate to an aesthetic /artistic improvement". The answer it infers is NO...and I also believe it is NO..at least as far as ART is concerned(as opposed to commercial work...sometimes called 'craft')."
I'd mostly agree with your statement, as far as pure art is concerned, but I'm not entirely convinced you can eliminate the possibility that technical quality can never, ever have any bearing on aesthetic quality.
Does a technical (or material..ie..more 'expensive) improvement always correlate to an aesthetic /artistic improvement. No.
Is it possible that a technical (or material..ie..more 'expensive) improvement might correlate to an aesthetic /artistic improvement. Yes.
However, the underlying argument in this thread is not so much this, but why some people have chosen to defend a flawed article rather than meaningfully discuss the concept it allegedly tries to explain.
The article should be dismissed, the concept itself is quite interesting.
"Ya gotta admit...it beats discussing the subtle bokeh of a lens, or the best way to remove chromatic abberations..."
Sure does...
-
I'm sympathetic to objections to Ken's articles based on an understanding that Photography is not an art. From the viewpoint that Photography can never be more than a craft, Ken's article is baffling.
All my arguments in support of this article from Ken are based on a presumption that Photography can be and is an art. Ken's article cannot be understood from the premise that Photography is no more than a craft.
Where you and Ken are both wrong then, is that photography is always both Art and Craft. You can't create a photograph without a camera, the skill to operate it, and the skill to do something with the RAW or negative after the exposure. There is no such thing as photography that is "only Art" because you always have to have some equipment and technical skill or you have no photograph, in the same way that you cannot have a painting without the canvas, paints, brushes, and the technique used to apply the paint to the canvas. There is a symbiosis between Art and Craft that cannot be dismissed; Craft is always the foundation on which the Art is built, and if there is no Craft, then there can be no Art. There is a huge body of photography that is lacking in both Art and Craft, and a similarly large body that has a degree of Craft but little in the way of Art (the proverbial "sharp image of a fuzzy concept"). Then you have the work of masters such as Ansel Adams, which has a high degree of both Art and Craft.
Please note that I am not defining images with "a high degree of Craft" as noise-free, perfectly sharp, and having perfectly true-to-life color. Craft is knowing what tools and techniques to use to realize one's artistic vision as fully as possible, with the fewest possible deviations from the original intent; choosing the appropriate tools and the appropriate techniques to capture and create the Art. If the artistic intent requires a significant degree of blurring and noise/grain to achieve the intended effect, then choosing a Holga as the tool that most efficiently realizes this intent is good Craft. Conversely, if the intended end result is a large, detailed image free of blur, aberrations, and artificial textures (AKA noise/grain) so that the texture and detail of the subject can engage the viewer, then choosing a Holga would be bad Craft. Similarly, choosing an 8x10 view camera to photograph birds in flight or X Games action would also be bad Craft.
You've compared camera and lens to an artist's brush as a metaphor to demonstrate that camera doesn't matter, but that analogy actually argues against you. Choosing the wrong camera is just like using a wide-tipped brush for detailing the eyelashes of the subject. Sure, you can do that, but the effect you'll get will be much different than if you use a fine-tipped brush to paint in the fine details. And you can use a fine-tipped brush to fill in large areas of background, but using a wide brush will get the job done a lot faster. The brush matters, and so does the camera.
That's not quite true. Here is a quote from the article acknowledging that the equipment makes at least some difference.
"Just about any camera, regardless of how good or bad it is, can be used to create outstanding photographs for magazine covers, winning photo contests and hanging in art galleries. The quality of a lens or camera has almost nothing to do with the quality of images it can be used to produce."
Great. You have one one quote from the article that, if interpreted a certain way, leaves a small crack of wiggle room that the equipment might make some unspecified small difference. But it gets lost in the din of Rockwell's numerous other unconditional, absolutist pronouncements to the contrary. It's perhaps enough to excuse Rockwell from the charge that he enthusiastically believes that the camera never matters under any circumstance, but not enough to excuse him from the charge of being a bad writer who fails to adequately explore the limitations of the "camera doesn't matter" concept and discuss some situations where the camera does matter, or at least might matter, to avoid leading the inexperienced astray. And the portion is small enough that it is easily missed, in which case the reader will be left with the wrong impression unless he has enough experience to properly filter the bovine excrement that permeates much of the rest of the article.
Rockwell and others have cited numerous examples of photographic Art that was created with tools that are less than the best in the areas of resolution and noise. But no one has offered any real insight or analysis into this question:
Does the image succeed as Art because of or in spite of the technical imperfections of the tools used to create it?
Yes, some artistically acclaimed images have been captured with cell phones and Holgas and pinhole cameras and other similar types of gear. But that does not prove that the images could not have been better artistically if they were shot with a DSLR or MFDB. It's equally possible that the images manage to struggle through their technical baggage and engage the viewer anyway, or that they are simply pretentious crap whose primary claim to merit is the novelty of the tool used to capture them. But regardless of the answer to the question, the choice of tool matters. If the answer is "because of", then the tool mattered because it was the most straightforward option to create the particular "look" desired. If the answer is "in spite of", then choosing a more capable tool would have probably made it easier for the photographer to achieve his desired artistic result. In either case, the choice of tool has some effect on the final image, either desirable or undesirable, or some combination of both. You cannot separate Craft and Art; Craft is always the foundation for Art.
-
Ray i'm baffled to know what makes your interpretation of Ken's article more right than the opposing point of view, particularly when the opposing point of view requires basically no re-interpretation of his words? Why is your interpretation more accurate than one which takes the words at their face value, a fact which is the default position of all educational writing unless otherwise stated. You really are running a baffling argument. If we accept that Ken didn't infact express himself literally, then we have to accept that anyone's interpretation of his writings is a good as anyone elses. And if that is the case then you can't possibly win your argument, and therefore shouldn't have been arguing it in the first place.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188121\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Okay, I'll try and explain as briefly and as simply as I can. There's science and there is art (or the arts). Science and technology are divided into many distinct but overlapping disciplines, each with its own precisely defined vocabulary of technical terms which are often chosen from the dead languages of ancient Greece and Rome so that they can retain their ascribed meaning and be resistant to the inevitable evolutionary (and abusive) change in meaning, over time, that words are subject to when they are frequently used in every day life for common purposes, by the newspapers, TV, novels, and everyone who speaks the language.
It's absolutely essential to have precisely defined terms that have as few different shades of meaning as possible, when doing science.
The opposite seems to apply when doing anything which is not science, technology or craft. The more varied the shades of meaning of words, the richer the language is considered to be. A poem consisting of less than a hundred words can generate countless millions of words of commentary and interpretation and reinterpretation from one generation to the next. The same applies to religious texts which have this same quality of always needing interpretation and reinterpretation.
Science is predominantly a left brain activity. Art and religion is predominantly a right brain activity. There is, of course, considerable interaction and overlapping between these two halves, which varies from one individual to another. But the fact that two different areas of the brain have been identified as having largely different roles in understanding these broadly different cultures, Science and Art, seems very profound to me.
When trying to understand a technical piece of writing, it may be necessary to learn the vocabulary first. That's the key.
When trying to understand a non-technical piece of writing, an essay, an editorial in a newspaper, a regular piece by any columnist, a novel, poem etc, it helps to determine the intent behind the writing. One has to try and get under the author's skin; work out from the context what he/she's really trying to say; what's the message, general thrust.
To take an extreme example, viewing a sitcom on TV as a serious drama would result in a serious misinterpretation of the program. You'd very quickly draw the conclusion that what you were watching was a load of boring tripe, and switch channels. This is why sitcoms have very obvious clues that the program is a comedy. Canned laughter. I find it annoying but have to accept that without it, some folks might just not realise that what they are watching is supposed to be a comedy.
Now, I'm not saying that Ken's piece is intended to be a comedy. But it is intended to be entertaining and controversial. It's definitely not a technical piece and those who take his words at face value will obviously misunderstand his intent.
He is using the art of rhetoric to convey a message as persuasively as he can, that there's a 'disconnect' between the general and artistic worth of a photographic image and the sophistication of the camera equipment which was used in producing it. That's all.
-
He is using the art of rhetoric to convey a message as persuasively as he can, that there's a 'disconnect' between the general and artistic worth of a photographic image and the sophistication of the camera equipment which was used in producing it. That's all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not as generous as you Ray, you give KR too much credit. I reckon there is no 'art of rhetoric' there at all, it's simply a poorly argued and written rant.
-
Where you and Ken are both wrong then, is that photography is always both Art and Craft. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a very left-brained comment, Jonathan. Do you mean that the average snapshot is 99.9% craft and 0.1% art, the 99.9% craft being the camera?.
Some experts believe that photography is not art. This is opinion. It's not a matter of right or wrong and the word 'art' has a very,very long definition in the Oxford English dictionary.
-
This is the greatest work of art in the history of mankind ...
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/...ntal-value.html (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/05/excremental-value.html)
I can't afford one or I would proudly own one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187926\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
By the way, I had no idea my description of art being sometimes "shite" could actually have a literal interpretation as well! I am crapping in a can as we speak!
ps. for the yanks, by "can" i meant a small recepticle, not the bathroom/toilet it means in your part of the world
-
That's a very left-brained comment, Jonathan. Do you mean that the average snapshot is 99.9% craft and 0.1% art, the 99.9% craft being the camera?.
Some experts believe that photography is not art. This is opinion. It's not a matter of right or wrong and the word 'art' has a very,very long definition in the Oxford English dictionary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188141\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think Jonathan is right. You can't seperate visual art from craft. How do you create art without materials and skill (I use that term advisedly)?
-
I'm sympathetic to objections to Ken's articles based on an understanding that Photography is not an art. From the viewpoint that Photography can never be more than a craft, Ken's article is baffling.
All my arguments in support of this article from Ken are based on a presumption that Photography can be and is an art. Ken's article cannot be understood from the premise that Photography is no more than a craft.
That's not quite true. Here is a quote from the article acknowledging that the equipment makes at least some difference. The bold italics are mine.
Now that America seems to be heading for recession, it might be a good idea if some of you were to curtail your lens lust . (Sorry! Was that a bit under the belt.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188119\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Your stance does not make sense.
Many of us here interpret Ken according to his words, using quotes to prove our assertions. This is not a literal interpretation as you disingenuously claim, but rather an interpretation based on the evidence. We base our understanding of his views on his writing.
You interpret Ken according to what you THINK he meant, rather than what he wrote. The only way you can get his writing to say what you assert it means is by inserting your words. In other words, you need to change the text in order to force your interpretation onto the writing. What you are doing is not interpretation, it is re-writing.
As someone else has said, I think you have concluded that Ken is not stupid, and since the he article is full of stupid assertions, you have decided to re-interpret it to make sense. But the only way you can do that is by chopping and changing the content.
Why don't you just admit that it is the literary equivalent of tinned crap instead of having to use weasel words? It is quite simply a badly written rambling pile of nonsense.
-
I think Jonathan is right. You can't seperate visual art from craft. How do you create art without materials and skill (I use that term advisedly)?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Most things in life are 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. I am sure that was the case with Michaelangelo. In fact in the past artists often used assistants, and the 'artist' would do little more than finish off the work.
-
I think Jonathan is right. You can't seperate visual art from craft. How do you create art without materials and skill (I use that term advisedly)?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What nonsense! If you can't separate visual art from craft, then all photographs have equal merit. Even Jonathan seems to give some weight to Ansel Adams' statement, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept".
The sharpness of an image is part of the craft, and the concept is part of the art.
-
What nonsense! If you can't separate visual art from craft, then all photographs have equal merit.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188153\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you think you are arguing with lightweights? Your arguing skills are highschool at best. Between the percentages of 0 and 100 there is plenty of room to seperate photographs of different artistic merit.
-
You interpret Ken according to what you THINK he meant, rather than what he wrote. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do indeed. It's a trick I have of keeping my sanity. When it comes to art, or shall we say anything non-scientific or non-technical, it can be disastrous to interpret words literally, especially where religion is concerned and even with my ex-wife.
The world's in a heck of a mess through people interpreting common words literally. You have to get some background information on the person making the common-word statements and look at the article or opinion in a general context.
-
Between the percentages of 0 and 100 there is plenty of room to seperate photographs of different artistic merit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188154\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course there is. Your comment was about separating craft and artistic merit. You wrote that they can't be separated. If that's the case then a sharp image with a fuzzy concept has equal merit to a fuzzy image with a sharp concept.
Ken's point is that almost any camera can be used to take an 'at least reasonably sharp' image of a sharp concept. The concept matters far more than the incrementally greater sharpness one might get from more sophisticated equipment. That's not difficult to understand, is it?
-
The sharpness of an image is part of the craft, and the concept is part of the art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188153\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
and without either part there is no final product.
-
Of course there is. Your comment was about separating craft and artistic merit. You wrote that they can't be separated. If that's the case then a sharp image with a fuzzy concept has equal merit to a fuzzy image with a sharp concept.
Ken's point is that almost any camera can be used to take an 'at least reasonably sharp' image of a sharp concept. The concept matters far more than the incrementally greater sharpness one might get from more sophisticated equipment. That's not difficult to understand, is it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188156\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Look at Nick Rains work. Do you think it would benefit from a bit of lens softness?
-
I do indeed. It's a trick I have of keeping my sanity. When it comes to art, or shall we say anything non-scientific or non-technical, it can be disastrous to interpret words literally, especially where religion is concerned and even with my ex-wife.
The world's in a heck of a mess through people interpreting common words literally. You have to get some background information on the person making the common-word statements and look at the article or opinion in a general context.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188155\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What nonsense. Ken was not talking about art. He was talking about photography (which may indeed contain an element of art).
What you are doing is fundamentally changing the meaning. Why should anyone believe your re-writing of the article in preference to the article itself? One thing I was taught when I worked in research was to go back to the original sources, not works derived from them. If someone has such poor writing skills that their work is nonsense unless re-written, then they should go to writing classes or give up. I suggest you do the same with your reading comprehension which is poor.
-
What nonsense. Ken was not talking about art. He was talking about photography (which may indeed contain an element of art).
What you are doing is fundamentally changing the meaning. Why should anyone believe your re-writing of the article in preference to the article itself? One thing I was taught when I worked in research was to go back to the original sources, not works derived from them. If someone has such poor writing skills that their work is nonsense unless re-written, then they should go to writing classes or give up. I suggest you do the same with your reading comprehension which is poor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'll stick with my comprehension skills which find meaning where yours don't, thankyou. To be able to comprehend where others can't, is an asset in my opinon.
Ken's article has meaning for me. If it has no meaning for you, then you are the worse off, in my view.
-
and without either part there is no final product.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course. Why do you people keep stating the obvious? Anyone who, after reading Ken's article, got the impression they could take a photograph without using a camera of some sort, should not ever contemplate getting into photography. The article was not addressed to complete morons, but to those somewhat misguided people to try to compensate for their lack of artistic talent by buying ever more sophisticated cameras, each one just marginally better than the previous camera or lens.
-
When trying to understand a technical piece of writing, it may be necessary to learn the vocabulary first. That's the key.
When trying to understand a non-technical piece of writing, an essay, an editorial in a newspaper, a regular piece by any columnist, a novel, poem etc, it helps to determine the intent behind the writing. One has to try and get under the author's skin; work out from the context what he/she's really trying to say; what's the message, general thrust.
The vocabulary used is obvious, written by a photographer to other photographers. The same is true of the message, general thrust, what he's really trying to say. It's quite obvious, as it is repeated over and over and over again. The camera doesn't matter.
If you can't separate visual art from craft, then all photographs have equal merit.
That is a really retarded thing to say; and is a gross misreading of what I posted. Just because all photographs have some degree of both Art and Craft does NOT mean than all photos are equal. Think of it this way:
Merit = Art * Craft
A typical snapshot has little merit because the values of Art and Craft are both low. A typical cat-subject lens test photo has a fairly high Craft value, but a low Art value. A thoughtfully composed landscape image that is excessively blurred because the focus ring on the lens was accidentally bumped just prior to exposure has a high Art value and a low Craft value. But in all cases the ultimate Merit of the image is low because one or both of the components is lacking. Then we have an Ansel Adams masterpiece, where Art and Craft are both present in large amounts, and the resulting level of Merit is quite high as well. Now do not forget that I do not define a high level of Craft exclusively as low noise, sharply focused, and accurate color, but rather as skillfully using whatever techniques help bring about the intended artistic effect. Whether that means adding some grain or other artificial texture, altering the color balance creatively, shallow DoF (think Mark Tucker here), unusual tonal adjustments (like my castle tower shot), or any other possible image adjustment, as long as it enhances the intended artistic effect, then it counts as good Craft.
When it comes to art, or shall we say anything non-scientific or non-technical, it can be disastrous to interpret words literally, especially where religion is concerned and even with my ex-wife.
The world's in a heck of a mess through people interpreting common words literally. You have to get some background information on the person making the common-word statements and look at the article or opinion in a general context.
On the contrary, it can be said with much greater validity that the world is in trouble because many people fail to interpret plain language with its obvious literal meaning, and thereby redefine fellatio as something other than "sexual relations" and reinterpret passages of the Koran and other holy books to something other than their obvious literal intent, thereby justifying the murder of children, beheadings, setting bombs in public places, etc. Politicians, solicitors (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23475509-details/article.do?ito=newsnow&), and terrorists all excel at this. Are you sure you wish to put yourself in the same category?
(http://visual-vacations.com/images/2008/God-kills-kitten.jpg)
-
Look at Nick Rains work. Do you think it would benefit from a bit of lens softness?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nick's images are very impressive. I wish I had taken some of those shots he has on his web site, but why do you ask if they would be improved by a bit of lens softness? Did Ken convey the meaning that soft lenses actually improve your work? I missed that comment. Can you quote the relevant sentence or paragraph?
Soft lenses are sometimes preferred for portraiture, aren't they?
Image sharpness seems to me to be relevant to the print size you intend making and the placement of that print in relation to the viewer. If you have an impressive image with a sharp concept that you think is spoiled because the lens was not as sharp as you would have liked, then it might be advisable to make only small prints, A4 or A3 in size.
If you prefer to view large prints from a distance, as I do, then it might be advisable to place it carefully in such a way that makes it difficult for the viewer, who may judge the quality of a photograph mainly by its sharpness, to approach it up close. That might be considered as part of the art of picture placement.
-
Ken's article has meaning for me. If it has no meaning for you, then you are the worse off, in my view.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Who is saying it has no meaning? On the contrary, most of us agree on it's meaning. It is you who seems to be all alone on this one. If that is an asset, then good luck to you.
-
Nick's images are very impressive. I wish I had taken some of those shots he has on his web site, but why do you ask if they would be improved by a bit of lens softness? Did Ken convey the meaning that soft lenses actually improve your work? I missed that comment. Can you quote the relevant sentence or paragraph?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188178\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I quote you:
Ken's point is that almost any camera can be used to take an 'at least reasonably sharp' image of a sharp concept. The concept matters far more than the incrementally greater sharpness one might get from more sophisticated equipment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188156\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I put it to you that Nicks images wouldn't have the same impact and, in my opinion, the same artistic merit, if they weren't captured with such sharp details and on such high saturation film. I don't think a point and shoot loaded with portrait film would quite suffice for the brilliance of Nicks work.
-
On the contrary, most of us agree on it's meaning. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That the camera literally does not matter at all, in any respect whatsoever, to the taking of a photo, actually has meaning for you? You find meaning in such interpretations? Wow! And you think I'm the one who has been smoking pot .
-
That the camera literally does not matter at all, in any respect whatsoever, to the taking of a photo, actually has meaning for you? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eh? Did you misspell there? To the vast majority of us the camera literally DOES matter. You're the one who has been arguing that it doesn't matter. Perhaps you HAVE been smoking pot!?!
-
I quote you:
I put it to you that Nicks images wouldn't have the same impact and, in my opinion, the same artistic merit, if they weren't captured with such sharp details and on such high saturation film. I don't think a point and shoot loaded with portrait film would quite suffice for the brilliance of Nicks work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188181\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's impossible to judge how sharp Nick's images are from the small jpegs on his web site, so how can I answer you. Color and saturation can be created to taste in Photoshop or scanning software such as SilverFast. As I've already tried to explain, a large print from 35mm film, say 33"x22" can look impressive from a suitable distance. If you view such prints from the distance you would read a book, then they might not appear as sharp as you would like, but then such large prints cannot be fully appreciated from such a close distance, if they have a concept.
I notice the largest print size that Nick offers seem to be around 32" wide.
-
That the camera literally does not matter at all, in any respect whatsoever, to the taking of a photo, actually has meaning for you? You find meaning in such interpretations?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok, sorry, I see what you were saying here. The meaning to be found is that the camera matters very little. By my understanding Ken is given to hyperbole upon occasions. Now before you jump in and say "Ha! Now who is interpreting?", myself and others are interpreting only very slightly, and our interpretation varies only very slightly from his literal words. Your interpretation, however, bares no resemblance to what he actually said. So, apparantly I am backtracking again , and am claiming that our interpretation is better than yours. Well at least our interpretation is backed up by evidence.
-
Color and saturation can be created to taste in Photoshop or scanning software such as SilverFast. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188189\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nick states he does no post processing further to development.
So are you saying you could replicate Nicks work (and lets say we assume that it IS tack sharp for the print size and suitable distance) out-of-camera with a point and shoot and some expired portrait film?
-
That is a really retarded thing to say; and is a gross misreading of what I posted. Just because all photographs have some degree of both Art and Craft does NOT mean than all photos are equal. Think of it this way:
Merit = Art * Craft
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188177\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
Please try to tell us something that everyone doesn't already know. We all know that photography involves combinations of technique, choice of subject matter, choice of equipment, treatment of subject matter, degrees of artistic judgement as well as sometimes sheer luck and so on.
There's no need to keep repeating the obvious, that you need a camera to take a photograph and that any camera is not necessarily a suitable tool for all tasks.
We understand that. We're not as retarded as you think
-
Your interpretation, however, bares no resemblance to what he actually said. So, apparantly I am backtracking again , and am claiming that our interpretation is better than yours. Well at least our interpretation is backed up by evidence.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188190\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If Ray's interpretation is wrong, then what do you think Adams, Evans, Haas, and Feininger were trying to communicate in the quotes attributed to them?
-
If Ray's interpretation is wrong, then what do you think Adams, Evans, Haas, and Feininger were trying to communicate in the quotes attributed to them?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you're confused. Although I am glad that Ray has got someone else in here on his side.
-
Nick states he does no post processing further to development.
So are you saying you could replicate Nicks work (and lets say we assume that it IS tack sharp for the print size and suitable distance) out-of-camera with a point and shoot and some expired portrait film?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188192\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I take it you mean, if I was there at the time, in front of the same scene that Nick shot, in possession of Nick's 'artistic eye' and concept for the photo, could I reproduce the shot he took, using a P&S?
Probably. But I don't like to boast and I would not choose to do things the hard way. When the scene is static, as in a landscape, resolution can be increased by using a longer focal length and stitching a number of images, and any DR limitation of the camera can be overcome by bracketing exposures.
I've always admitted that there are certain subjects that need specialised equipment such as macro shots, telephoto shots, fast action in low light. Again, that's obvious.
-
I think you're confused. Although I am glad that Ray has got someone else in here on his side.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So what were they saying? Why were those quotes in the article?
-
You're the one who has been arguing that it doesn't matter. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188185\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No. I'm the one who has been finding meaning in such a statement, by using a bit of nous, and the meaning is not that the camera literally has no relevance whatsoever to the taking of a photograph. I don't find that reading or interpretation at all meaningful, but some people obviously do.
-
Jonathan,
Please try to tell us something that everyone doesn't already know. We all know that photography involves combinations of technique, choice of subject matter, choice of equipment, treatment of subject matter, degrees of artistic judgement as well as sometimes sheer luck and so on.
There's no need to keep repeating the obvious, that you need a camera to take a photograph and that any camera is not necessarily a suitable tool for all tasks.
We understand that. We're not as retarded as you think
You obviously are, as you continue to argue in defense of Ken Rockwell, whose "camera doesn't matter" article argues forcefully against what you just said, and strongly advocates the notion that the only relevant factors in photography are the creativity and skill of the photographer.
No. I'm the one who has been finding meaning in such a statement, by using a bit of nous, and the meaning is not that the camera literally has no relevance whatsoever to the taking of a photograph. I don't find that reading or interpretation at all meaningful, but some people obviously do.
The problem is that to derive your interpretation from what Rockwell wrote, you have to engage in a process that completely discards what the words actually say, and replace the obvious common-sense meaning of the words with what you want them to mean. This is the same illogical process that Bill Clinton used to claim that he didn't lie when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", and that lawyers use on a daily basis to pervert justice to their own advantage (as in the case of the man who stabbed his wife to death, got out after less than 2 years in prison, and then proceeded to collect nearly a million pounds inheritance from his dead wife's estate (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23475509-details/article.do?ito=newsnow&)). It's also used by cult leaders to justify the forced marriage of multiple underage girls to middle-aged men (FLDS (http://www.sltrib.com/Faith/ci_8839610)), persuade their followers to drink poisoned Kool-Aid (Jim Jones (http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm)), or induce them to commit murder (Charles Manson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson)). It's also used by every terrorist organization in the world from white supremacists to Muslim extremists to justify their acts of mass murder, torture, rape, and other atrocities based on their fallacious interpretation of their favorite holy book. If you think it is acceptable to ignore what words say they mean and interpret them however you like, simply because you want to interpret them that way, there is no limit to what you can justify.
If Ray's interpretation is wrong, then what do you think Adams, Evans, Haas, and Feininger were trying to communicate in the quotes attributed to them?
The Adams quote certainly does NOT support Rockwell's premise. Stating that the photographer's brain is the most important aspect of photography is quite different than stating that it is the only significant aspect of photography. I haven't bothered to check, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of the other quotes were similarly taken out of context or otherwise misused. But regardless of whether the quotes are used appropriately or not, Rockwell's point is still dubious at best, regardless of what celebrity endorsements he may claim supports it.
(http://visual-vacations.com/images/2008/God-kills-kitten.jpg)
-
The obvious, but non-literal interpretation of my previous post is "my farts smell like flowers".
-
The Adams quote certainly does NOT support Rockwell's premise. Stating that the photographer's brain is the most important aspect of photography is quite different than stating that it is the only significant aspect of photography.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Whether the quotes support the article or not depends upon what you believe Rockwell's premise to be. For your interpretation, the quotes have to be taken out of context, used incorrectly, or Adams and the others just don't know what the heck they're talking about. But for Ray's interpretation, the quotes seem to fit.
-
You obviously are, as you continue to argue in defense of Ken Rockwell, whose "camera doesn't matter" article argues forcefully against what you just said, and strongly advocates the notion that the only relevant factors in photography are the creativity and skill of the photographer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's called rhetoric. That was immediately apparent to me, retarded or not.
Many of the problems in the world can be attributed to people failing to realise that something that is said rhetorically, as a persuasive argument, is not meant literally.
You should try to learn the distinction between deliberate lying in order to avoid prosecution or impeachment, as in the case of Bill Clinton, and a persuasive argument to get people to follow a certain practice which, in the case of Ken's article, is to pay less attention to your equipment and more to your artistic vision.
-
I'll stick with my comprehension skills which find meaning where yours don't, thankyou. To be able to comprehend where others can't, is an asset in my opinon.
Ken's article has meaning for me. If it has no meaning for you, then you are the worse off, in my view.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It does have meaning for me. The one encapsulated by the words that he wrote, not a combination of Ken's words, and someone else's.
If you are too thick to understand basic English, that is your problem. However I suspect you would be one of the people enthusing about a profound artistic statement encapsulated so cleverly in such a small confine, when the object under discussion is no more than canned excrement. Sometimes canned excrement is canned excrement. Ken's article is the online equivalent.
-
Whether the quotes support the article or not depends upon what you believe Rockwell's premise to be. For your interpretation, the quotes have to be taken out of context, used incorrectly, or Adams and the others just don't know what the heck they're talking about. But for Ray's interpretation, the quotes seem to fit.
Except for the Adams quote, which is clearly being used out of context, as cited they support the literal meaning of Rockwell's words; that the camera doesn't matter at all. That's not what you and Ray are arguing.
Many of the problems in the world can be attributed to people failing to realise that something that is said rhetorically, as a persuasive argument, is not meant literally.
You still need to demonstrate a logical basis for interpreting something as hyperbole; something more concrete than "I don't think that's what Rockwell meant, so I'm going to assume he meant something else." You have yet to do so.
(http://visual-vacations.com/images/2008/God-kills-kitten.jpg)
-
It's called rhetoric. That was immediately apparent to me, retarded or not.
Many of the problems in the world can be attributed to people failing to realise that something that is said rhetorically, as a persuasive argument, is not meant literally.
You should try to learn the distinction between deliberate lying in order to avoid prosecution or impeachment, as in the case of Bill Clinton, and a persuasive argument to get people to follow a certain practice which, in the case of Ken's article, is to pay less attention to your equipment and more to your artistic vision.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188219\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is not rhetoric. Nor is it hyperbole. It is nonsense.
-
You still need to demonstrate a logical basis for interpreting something as hyperbole; something more concrete than "I don't think that's what Rockwell meant, so I'm going to assume he meant something else." You have yet to do so.
(http://visual-vacations.com/images/2008/God-kills-kitten.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray has provided absolutely no evidence for his point of view other than "That's what I want it to mean, and I'll stamp my foot and shout until you agree."
-
It still goes on...what a laugh.
-
You all(mostly) seem to frame this argument,that it has to do with KR's article. You go on about how we are not reading the words..and /or just taking whatever meaning we want from it,rather than logically understanding what he wrote. I dont know why it has to keep being mentioned...it is not KR's article per se that I am discussing in my OP's.I realise another thread died and got resurrected here...but I find that discussion pretty useless and uninteresting. Most of you seem to support a self-serving idea of what is being discussed. Jonathan and others keep bringing up a lot of evidence to support their argument...unfortunatley I don't think they understand the argument. They create the conundrum and then follow a logical course of action to correct it,thus seemingly absolving them of being wrong. Sort of like the U.S.'s actions in Iraq.
-
You all(mostly) seem to frame this argument,that it has to do with KR's article. You go on about how we are not reading the words..and /or just taking whatever meaning we want from it,rather than logically understanding what he wrote. I dont know why it has to keep being mentioned...it is not KR's article per se that I am discussing in my OP's.I realise another thread died and got resurrected here...but I find that discussion pretty useless and uninteresting. Most of you seem to support a self-serving idea of what is being discussed. Jonathan and others keep bringing up a lot of evidence to support their argument...unfortunatley I don't think they understand the argument. They create the conundrum and then follow a logical course of action to correct it,thus seemingly absolving them of being wrong. Sort of like the U.S.'s actions in Iraq.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I didn't see too much to disagree with in your initial post, though I would quibble with a few statements, but clearly the stimulus for your post was Ken's article, and the conversation had swerved into that territory. The nature of threads is that they usually move away from the original post.
" I don't think they understand the argument"
I agree with much that is said by you, Ray, and others, but I disagree with anyone who says it bears any relation to Ken's beliefs as expressed in his article.
-
If you are too thick to understand basic English, that is your problem. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It would indeed be my problem, and a problem for a few others also. Fortunately, I was able to understand every point you and Jonathan have made in a nanosecond. There's nothing either of you have said that is not obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80. However, I can sometimes find additional meaning beyond the bare-bones meaning of each individual word when I read a text, and I find I'm the richer for it.
Do I have to explain what I mean by richer? I'll give you a hint. I do not necessarily mean I have more money because I can find meaning in a text beyond the basic meaning of each word.
-
Ray has provided absolutely no evidence for his point of view other than "That's what I want it to mean, and I'll stamp my foot and shout until you agree."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I haven't got the time, Jonathan. There are some things you'll just have to find out for yourself. I've spent far too much time in this thread already.
By the way, kittens are not appreciated by wild life conservationists in Australia. A certain percentage of them always seem to escape into the bush and become feral causing great devastation to the indigenous wild life population, especially in times of drought when most creatures congregate around the few remaining waterholes, struggling to survive. A feral cat amongst such a population causes havoc.
Probably more creatures have been made extinct in Australia by grownup kittens than by any climate change resulting from man-made greenhouse gases.
-
I take it you mean, if I was there at the time, in front of the same scene that Nick shot, in possession of Nick's 'artistic eye' and concept for the photo, could I reproduce the shot he took, using a P&S?
Probably. But I don't like to boast [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Really?
Well, I've heard it all. I hope Nick comes back to put your ego back in it's box. It's time for me to depart and do some work for a change. Ciao.
-
However, I can sometimes find additional meaning beyond the bare-bones meaning of each individual word when I read a text, and I find I'm the richer for it.
Do I have to explain what I mean by richer? I'll give you a hint. I do not necessarily mean I have more money because I can find meaning in a text beyond the basic meaning of each word.
The problem is that in most cases, such "richer" additional meanings exist only in your mind, and have nothing to do with what the writer either meant or implied. What you are describing is the exact same process of "interpretation" cult leaders use to "discover" new meaning in various holy books and other writings to justify their bizarre teachings. It's how Charles Manson interpreted the lyrics of "Helter Skelter" to justify why his followers should go out and kill people. It's how Jim Jones persuaded his followers and to kill themselves at Jonestown. It's how the Spanish Inquisitors and other nominally Catholic individuals used the Bible to justify torturing and murdering those who disagreed with their religious doctrines. It's how both sides in the Troubles in Ireland justified their acts of murder, and how Islamic extremists use their "interpretation" of the Koran to justify 9/11 and their many other acts of mass murder, suicide bombings, torture, rape, kidnapping, etc. And it's how the FLDS cultists in Texas use the teachings of the Mormon Church justify the practice of forcing multiple underage girls to "marry" middle-aged men and have sex with them.
This discussion has gone far past the point of pointlessness and well into the realm of the absurd. I'm tired of attempting to debate rationally with those who refuse to recognize the basic principles of logic and rational thinking. When you defend the use of a process of interpretation that is based more on what you want something to mean than what the text plainly says it means, and think you can find a "richer" meaning that can completely contradict the obvious meaning of the actual text, you are not ascending to a higher intellectual plane; you are opening yourself to any foolishness and idiocy that can be wrapped in a sufficiently attractive-sounding package of words. I wish you well, but am done wasting my time arguing with you, and am adding you to my ignore list.
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2008/God-kills-kitten.jpg)
-
The problem is that in most cases, such "richer" additional meanings exist only in your mind, and have nothing to do with what the writer either meant or implied. What you are describing is the exact same process of "interpretation" cult leaders use to "discover" new meaning in various holy books and other writings to justify their bizarre teachings. It's how Charles Manson interpreted the lyrics of "Helter Skelter" to justify why his followers should go out and kill people. It's how Jim Jones persuaded his followers and to kill themselves at Jonestown. It's how the Spanish Inquisitors and other nominally Catholic individuals used the Bible to justify torturing and murdering those who disagreed with their religious doctrines. It's how both sides in the Troubles in Ireland justified their acts of murder, and how Islamic extremists use their "interpretation" of the Koran to justify 9/11 and their many other acts of mass murder, suicide bombings, torture, rape, kidnapping, etc. And it's how the FLDS cultists in Texas use the teachings of the Mormon Church justify the practice of forcing multiple underage girls to "marry" middle-aged men and have sex with them.
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2008/God-kills-kitten.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You mean like how you read into my OP to say something else completely irrelevant?The startingpoint of this argument was what KR alludes to...not necesarrily what he said verbatim...THIS IS ELEMENTARY!!! But I suppose it is easier for you to just keep going on about whatever it is you're going on about. Your "interpretation" of what I said.Oh...you should've added the US invasion of IRAQ on your list too. ipso facto.
-
I notice the largest print size that Nick offers seem to be around 32" wide.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=188189\")
Actually the largest size I do is 96"x48". The biggest I have done is 175x60.
[a href=\"http://www.nickrains.com/article4.html]http://www.nickrains.com/article4.html[/url]
I'll happily print up to 30" , maybe 40", with a single Canon 5D image but past that it's either stitch or shoot 6x12 film as I do.
"I take it you mean, if I was there at the time, in front of the same scene that Nick shot, in possession of Nick's 'artistic eye' and concept for the photo, could I reproduce the shot he took, using a P&S?
Probably. But I don't like to boast"
Sure you could 'reproduce the shot', you'd just be very limited on what sizes of prints you could make.
Tell you what, hop on up the the Kimberley and join me on my workshop next week. Just bring your P+S, no need for anything different. I'm quite sure you will be able to get lots of images that satisfy you - it's a hard place not to get great shots.
I teach people how to get the sort of images I shoot, regardless of their gear. If they are happy with the results then so am I. I also teach the limitations of gear - ie it's probably best not to make a 175" print off a P+S if you want to match what I do. However, if that's what you choose to do for your own aesthetic reasons then it's not for me to say otherwise.
-
Sure you could 'reproduce the shot', you'd just be very limited on what sizes of prints you could make.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188319\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nick,
The first photo I ever sold, that is, got paid for rather than publishing for free, was taken with 35mm film. It was a scene of the Brisbane City centre from Mt Coot-tha. The print was 8ft wide and very detailed; at least as detailed, and I would guess, far more detailed than any single shot taken with an 8x10" field camera.
The lens used was a cheap Tamron zoom. The panorama consisted of 13 vertical images stitched in a row. I sold it to the Brisbane City Council after showing it to Jim Soorley who was then Lord Mayor.
It was printed on the Epson 1200, on Epson roll photopaper and I sure am embarrassed that the print is probably already considerably faded. (Sorry! to whoever has it now.)
I teach people how to get the sort of images I shoot, regardless of their gear.
That's what I imagined.
it's probably best not to make a 175" print off a P+S if you want to match what I do.
I agree entirely. Why make things unnecessarily complicated and difficult. But Bernie West threw down a challenge. I continue to be amazed at the ease with which Autopano Pro automatically stitches images, usually flawlessly, including the merging of bracketed shots to HDR in the same process.
Tell you what, hop on up the the Kimberley and join me on my workshop next week. Just bring your P+S, no need for anything different. I'm quite sure you will be able to get lots of images that satisfy you - it's a hard place not to get great shots.
Thanks for the offer, but I'm tied up with visiting relatives as present. You know I would never just bring a P&S on such a trip .
-
The problem is that in most cases, such "richer" additional meanings exist only in your mind, and have nothing to do with what the writer either meant or implied. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Okay! Fair enough! You are more adept at writing nonsense than I am. All meaning exists only in the mind, just as the sensation and experience of color exists only in the mind. Do you think there's meaning out there that grows on trees just waiting to be plucked??
If anyone reads anything and draws an inference, makes an interpretation, right or wrong, what on earth causes you to think that has nothing to do with what the writer meant or implied?
Have you had private conversations with Ken Rockwell who has told you that my interpretation of his article has nothing to do with what he meant or implied?
-
Have you had private conversations with Ken Rockwell who has told you that my interpretation of his article has nothing to do with what he meant or implied?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL...Remember Annie Hall when Woody overheard a discussion in the movie theatre line...they were discussing Marshall McLuhan ....Woody interjected that they didn't know what the hell they were talking about, and then produced Marshall McLuhan in the flesh to back him up.
BTW....With what Nick is saying about print sizing is a bit misleading...and the whole pixel count thing is mostly unimportant (thats right..it doesnt matter). Ive blown up a half-frame slide scan to 40" by 60" and it looks 'effin brilliant. The larger you print the further back the viewer stands. I wonder what the certain ration is to that... size vs. viewing distance. It is entirely relative to it's surroundings and has nothing to do with resolution per se. Unless...like when MR came into my gallery and looked at one of my prints from 6 inches, that sort of detail is somehow of importance to you.
-
BTW....With what Nick is saying about print sizing is a bit misleading...and the whole pixel count thing is mostly unimportant (thats right..it doesnt matter). Ive blown up a half-frame slide scan to 40" by 60" and it looks 'effin brilliant. The larger you print the further back the viewer stands. I wonder what the certain ration is to that... size vs. viewing distance. It is entirely relative to it's surroundings and has nothing to do with resolution per se. Unless...like when MR came into my gallery and looked at one of my prints from 6 inches, that sort of detail is somehow of importance to you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I too have blown up 35mm slides to ridiculous sizes and they too have looked great. Some subjects look fine with grain etc, no argument there.
BUT, what I do is produce prints of that size that you can stick your nose up against and still look sharp. It's what I choose to do and it suits the sorts of images I shoot and sell.
My comments were always in the context of what I do, which I though I made clear in my post, and are therefore not misleading at all.
Since you say you have a gallery you will surely realise that you can spot a photographer a mile off because they always look closely at prints - can you say you never do this?
-
Since you say you have a gallery you will surely realise that you can spot a photographer a mile off because they always look closely at prints - can you say you never do this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I invariably do that. If I visited your gallery, I'd definitely do that.
What I would not do is, being undecided as to whether I liked a photograph or not, walk up to it close, inspect the detail and sharpness and then declare I liked it on the grounds it was sharp and taken with good equipment.
Rather, liking an image, I would approach close, inspect the detail and declare, "Great photo, and it's sharp too".
-
Rather, liking an image, I would approach close, inspect the detail and declare, "Great photo, and it's sharp too".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And that's the way is should be.
However, if the image is unsharp on close inspection then whether it still works for you or not is your choice.
Generally I find traditional landscape images a let down if I approach and find it's merely an over-enlarged 35mm shot. I reckon that if one is going to go to all the trouble to get to wild places then you should take the biggest camera you can manage. You can always make it less sharp for creative effect, but the opposite is problematic to say the least!
(Quick edit, before anyone flames me on this) ...except Galen Rowells work which relies greatly on the spontaneity of 35mm for its power. Every 'rule' has it's exceptions!
-
Okay! Fair enough! You are more adept at writing nonsense than I am. All meaning exists only in the mind, just as the sensation and experience of color exists only in the mind. Do you think there's meaning out there that grows on trees just waiting to be plucked??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Pretentious nonsense.
If anyone reads anything and draws an inference, makes an interpretation, right or wrong, what on earth causes you to think that has nothing to do with what the writer meant or implied?
What makes you think that your 'interpreation' has anything to do with it?
You remind me of religious nutters who see meaning where there is none, and use that to justify their extreme actions. No amount of evidence and argument will dissuade them from their chosen path because they believe. That is how you are. Belief transcends evidence.
Have you had private conversations with Ken Rockwell who has told you that my interpretation of his article has nothing to do with what he meant or implied?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have you?
A good technical writer can convey meaning in their writing without the need to contact them to find out whether or not they meant something totally different.
But then again, what Ken wants is publicity and sloppy writing gets that.
-
Pretentious nonsense.
What makes you think that your 'interpreation' has anything to do with it?
You remind me of religious nutters who see meaning where there is none, and use that to justify their extreme actions. No amount of evidence and argument will dissuade them from their chosen path because they believe.
Ken Rockwell's defenders are exactly the sort of people who drank the Kool-Aid at Jonestown and the spiked vodka at Rancho Santa Fe (Heaven's Gate (http://www.rickross.com/reference/heavensgate/gate40.html)); they believed in something because they wanted to believe in it, and not because any of them had any objective or logically defensible evidence to support their beliefs. Once you go beyond the limits of logic and evidence and begin basing your belief system solely on what you want to believe or what you choose to believe something means, there's no limit to the silliness, stupidity, and outright evil that you can get involved in. Hopefully, we won't see any of them on the news sometime in the future chanting in a commune with shaved heads and awaiting the return of the mother ship or some other such nonsense.
A good technical writer can convey meaning in their writing without the need to contact them to find out whether or not they meant something totally different.
The ultimate goal of any writing is to communicate something from the writer to the reader with the smallest degree of adulteration possible, regardless of what that something is. It doesn't really matter if the writer is explaining the best way to accomplish a particular task in Photoshop or Excel, describing what the daily life of a soldier in Iraq is like, or narrating fictional events taking place in an imaginary location.
-
Ken Rockwell's defenders are exactly the sort of people who drank the Kool-Aid at Jonestown and the spiked vodka at Rancho Santa Fe [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seriously..you're having a laugh ,right?
BTW..They were murdered at Jonestown....it was NOT a mass ,willing,suicide.That just came to mind...though I'm sure there are many more factual errors in your posts...
-
You remind me of religious nutters who see meaning where there is none, and use that to justify their extreme actions.
Ken Rockwell's defenders are exactly the sort of people who drank the Kool-Aid at Jonestown and the spiked vodka at Rancho Santa Fe
They were murdered at Jonestown....it was NOT a mass, willing, suicide.
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
- Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
-
Seriously..you're having a laugh ,right?
BTW..They were murdered at Jonestown....it was NOT a mass ,willing,suicide.That just came to mind...though I'm sure there are many more factual errors in your posts...
I'm absolutely serious. Most committed suicide at Jonestown because they believed, and those who did not were murdered by those who believed. But everyone's death there was the result of someone's belief in Jim Jones' teachings, belief not based on logic or evidence, but on their collective willingness to interpret passages of the Bible based on what Jim Jones said they meant instead of their plain literal commonly understood meaning.
The methodology that Ray is using to interpret Ken Rockwell's writings is the same as that which the cultists used to interpret the Bible.
-
Hopefully, we won't see any of them on the news sometime in the future chanting in a commune with shaved heads and awaiting the return of the mother ship or some other such nonsense.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think there is a chance we might see some later this year. Have you guys heard of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)? It's going to be the worlds biggest, baddest, and fastest particle accelerator by a factor of 4 or something like that, and it is due to be switched on in I think October this year. Basically it is going to smash particles together with enough energy that they hope to be able to see the quatum particles that make up protons, electrons etc. But there is all sorts of doomsday theories being thought up, ranging from Chernobyl style meltdown, wormholes, blackholes, and ultimately the end of the whole earth (or was that the universe? I can't remember). One cool thing that some people reckon might happen is that from that point forward in time, time travel back to that point might be possible. So if you all of a sudden you start seeing people in tight silver suits around October, then you'll know what's going on.
Sorry for that interuption, now back to your normal programming....
-
I'm absolutely serious. Most committed suicide at Jonestown because they believed, and those who did not were murdered by those who believed. But everyone's death there was the result of someone's belief in Jim Jones' teachings, belief not based on logic or evidence, but on their collective willingness to interpret passages of the Bible based on what Jim Jones said they meant instead of their plain literal commonly understood meaning.
The methodology that Ray is using to interpret Ken Rockwell's writings is the same as that which the cultists used to interpret the Bible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Get a grip Colonel Klink...Ray and I happen to comprehend that KR's article is alluding to a classic argument and THAT is what was being discussed. Your self-deluded interpretation of the literal meaning of that article is about as off base as the idea of WMD's in IRAQ...y'dig?
-
Ray and I happen to comprehend that KR's article is alluding to a classic argument and THAT is what was being discussed.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
By whose reckoning, other than you two boobs??
-
By whose reckoning, other than you two boobs??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188563\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
By MY reckoning..that IS the POSTING ya daft fool ! Go discuss you're anti KR rant where it's relevant.
-
Get a grip Colonel Klink...Ray and I happen to comprehend that KR's article is alluding to a classic argument and THAT is what was being discussed. Your self-deluded interpretation of the literal meaning of that article is about as off base as the idea of WMD's in IRAQ...y'dig?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Arguing about cameras mattering or not is interesting.
Arguing about who does or doesn't understand KRs article is not.
His poor attempt to write a monologue about something he clearly does not 'grok' is not something worth getting all excited about. You all give him too much credibility when he should just be ignored.
-
When it becomes clear that the people you are arguing with have bunkered down as though they are fighting a war and are not receptive to ideas, there is really no point in continuing the discussion.
I've got better things to do.
-
When it becomes clear that the people you are arguing with have bunkered down as though they are fighting a war and are not receptive to ideas, there is really no point in continuing the discussion.
I've got better things to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Awwww.....c'mon buddy buddy, don't y'have at least one lunatic fringe idea or comment to add before this (hopefully) finally gets buried once and for all. You can do it...How about you speak in tongues or somesuch. I'm counting on you Ray!
-
Awwww.....c'mon buddy buddy, don't y'have at least one lunatic fringe idea or comment to add before this (hopefully) finally gets buried once and for all. You can do it...How about you speak in tongues or somesuch. I'm counting on you Ray!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I thought he tried that.
-
When it becomes clear that the people you are arguing with have bunkered down as though they are fighting a war and are not receptive to ideas, there is really no point in continuing the discussion.
I've got better things to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am receptive to facts, not unsupported ideas, and make believe. You have yet to present one single supporting fact for your viewpoint. Unedited quotes will do.
-
I am receptive to facts, not unsupported ideas, and make believe. You have yet to present one single supporting fact for your viewpoint. Unedited quotes will do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188640\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've already told you. Facts are the province of science. I don't consider that Ken's article is either scientific or technical, or is meant to be. It's a polemic on the excessive concern that many of us have, including myself, with the technical aspects of our camera equipment. He has a valid point and he's made it.
If you are unable to understand it, then too bad!
-
Is this KR thing still being argued about? Wow!
KR's ramblings are mostly cr@p boys. His ramblings are indefensible, and for one to defend KR says more about one then about KR. And what this says is not very nice, nor pretty, and may well be indicative of character or mental issues.
As to enlargements, anyone that thinks one can get "frikin" great results when enlarging HUGE and from a low pixel image, or even a half frame of film is one that has profoundly low, low quality standards.
And it is exceeding foolish to assume that as prints get bigger, viewers will view further away. One only needs to go to any number of fine photographic art museums anywhere to find a huge print that has profound clarity when viewed INCHES away, and it is this type of enlargement clarity that really seduces the viewer, pulls him in, and is a glorious experience. And this is ONLY possible with a very large negative, or large number of pixels, and/or large sensor.
So for enlargements, the size of the sensor, the number of pixels, or in the case of film, the size of the negative matters. In other words, the camera does in fact matter, and to suggest otherwise is to not understand photography, nor the tools used to practice photography.
This issue is black and white, so why it is debated is most peculiar, to be sure.
Now as to creating a composition (not image quality), then yes, the kit matters little, if at all.
-
Is this KR thing still being argued about? Wow!
KR's ramblings are mostly cr@p boys. His ramblings are indefensible, and for one to defend KR says more about one then about KR. And what this says is not very nice, nor pretty, and may well be indicative of character or mental issues.
As to enlargements, anyone that thinks one can get "frikin" great results when enlarging HUGE and from a low pixel image, or even a half frame of film is one that has profoundly low, low quality standards.
And it is exceeding foolish to assume that as prints get bigger, viewers will view further away. One only needs to go to any number of fine photographic art museums anywhere to find a huge print that has profound clarity when viewed INCHES away, and it is this type of enlargement clarity that really seduces the viewer, pulls him in, and is a glorious experience. And this is ONLY possible with a very large negative, or large number of pixels, and/or large sensor.
So for enlargements, the size of the sensor, the number of pixels, or in the case of film, the size of the negative matters. In other words, the camera does in fact matter, and to suggest otherwise is to not understand photography, nor the tools used to practice photography.
This issue is black and white, so why it is debated is most peculiar, to be sure.
Now as to creating a composition (not image quality), then yes, the kit matters little, if at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[attachment=6056:attachment]Well..this image from a half frame film camera I blew up 5 feet by 4 feet..and it doeslook great. The grain is very nice.Unlike you, I am open-minded is all...and I DO have very high quality standards.I am not saying that a low pixel high grain image will ALWAYS make a great emlargement...never said that. As to viewing a photo up close,the opposite also holds true.When viewed up close the inage is fuzzy /grain/texture and is given clarity from a more distant viewpoint...this is also very seductive.
If you read my OP, you'd see I wasn't actually addressing what KR's writing per se...but to the classic argument that they allude to.
Finally..it is mostly being constantly debated becaue of stubborn,narrowminded individuals such as yourself that see things in such absolute terms...and in such tired,uninteresting,uninspired,and unoriginal viewpoints.
BTW Ken Rockwell's writings are (largely) verbatim copies of German National Socialist propaganda tracts from the 1930's. "The Camera Does Not Matter" is in fact originally entitled the Final Solution. There are also studies that show being exposed to KR's website causes the growth of a leathery tail, higher suicide rates and are currently being outlawed in many countries.[attachment=6057:attachment]
-
[attachment=6056:attachment]Well..this image from a half frame film camera I blew up 5 feet by 4 feet..and it doeslook great. The grain is very nice.Unlike you, I am open-minded is all...and I DO have very high quality standards.I am not saying that a low pixel high grain image will ALWAYS make a great emlargement...never said that. As to viewing a photo up close,the opposite also holds true.When viewed up close the inage is fuzzy /grain/texture and is given clarity from a more distant viewpoint...this is also very seductive.
If you read my OP, you'd see I wasn't actually addressing what KR's writing per se...but to the classic argument that they allude to.
Finally..it is mostly being constantly debated becaue of stubborn,narrowminded individuals such as yourself that see things in such absolute terms...and in such tired,uninteresting,uninspired,and unoriginal viewpoints.
BTW Ken Rockwell's writings are (largely) verbatim copies of German National Socialist propaganda tracts from the 1930's. "The Camera Does Not Matter" is in fact originally entitled the Final Solution. There are also studies that show being exposed to KR's website causes the growth of a leathery tail, higher suicide rates and are currently being outlawed in many countries.[attachment=6057:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good post! Well said! I fully agree; although I think you are taking a bit of a risk with the irony of the last paragraph. It wouldn't surprise me if a couple of posters in this thread were to get back to you and ask for the evidence that Ken's title, The Camera Doesn't Matter, was originally the Final Solution.
-
It wouldn't surprise me if a couple of posters in this thread were to get back to you and ask for the evidence that Ken's title, The Camera Doesn't Matter, was originally the Final Solution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, Ray, Ray.... You've just shot yourself in the foot old friend. Substitute "the Final Solution" for "Ray's Interpretation" and you can see the ridiculousness(?) of your argument. If you disregard "evidence", then any kooky interpretation is just as valid as any other kooky interpretation.
-
Ray, Ray, Ray.... You've just shot yourself in the foot old friend. Substitute "the Final Solution" for "Ray's Interpretation" and you can see the ridiculousness(?) of your argument. If you disregard "evidence", then any kooky interpretation is just as valid as any other kooky interpretation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188836\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you categorise an interpretation as kooky, then of course any kooky interpretation is just as valid as any other kooky interpretaion. That's a true statement, as far as it goes. What is there to disagree with there?
However, I don't consider Ken's article to be kooky. It's polemic and rhetorical. I don't consider my interpretation that his article is polemical and rhetorical to be kooky either.
Mrleonard's comment about Ken's title originally being entitled The Final Solution is also not kooky. It's a piece of irony.
But you do have a point, that there must be some evidence to support a serious statement which purports to be factual. I happen to have formed a reasonable assessment, from reading some of Ken's equipment tests, in particular his comparisons of the 5D, D3 and D300, that all the points raised by posters objecting to the implications flowing from any literal interpretation of Ken's article, are very clearly understood by Ken and (I would guess) all reasonably intelligent readers.
He's simple trying to be provocative, promote a discussion and a bit of thought on the issue of the excessive concern that many of us have about equipment performance. And it looks as though he has succeed in that intent, with a bit of help from Michael of course. We should not forget Michael's role in this .
-
Good post! Well said! I fully agree; although I think you are taking a bit of a risk with the irony of the last paragraph. It wouldn't surprise me if a couple of posters in this thread were to get back to you and ask for the evidence that Ken's title, The Camera Doesn't Matter, was originally the Final Solution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You really are a fool.
-
BTW Ken Rockwell's writings are (largely) verbatim copies of German National Socialist propaganda tracts from the 1930's. "The Camera Does Not Matter" is in fact originally entitled the Final Solution. There are also studies that show being exposed to KR's website causes the growth of a leathery tail, higher suicide rates and are currently being outlawed in many countries.[attachment=6057:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are a nincompoop.
-
You are a nincompoop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Slough,
To the extent I bother to engage in any discussion with people like you, I agree completely that I could be considered a fool. You are definitely on my 'ignore' list.
-
Slough,
To the extent I bother to engage in any discussion with people like you, I agree completely that I could be considered a fool. You are definitely on my 'ignore' list.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How nice. But you are a fool who needs to go back to remedial reading classes. You are clearly unable to understand basic English.
-
It appears this particular topic has resulted in a deviation from the usual civil discourse in this forum/site.
-
It appears this particular topic has resulted in a deviation from the usual civil discourse in this forum/site.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well...one could only hope a topic could get 'unusual' or interesting...but yes, it certainly dissolved into childish namecalling. I DO think MR's tone in his rebuttal(s) added to the 'nasty' noise level of this argument. In Ken's 'essay' I don't remember him using any patronising names for his detractors.
-
It for sure matters. It matters a lot.
Look around and you will see for yourself.
Anna
-
I think R. Wiggins summed it up best when he said "My cat's breath smells like cat food."
-
Well...one could only hope a topic could get 'unusual' or interesting...but yes, it certainly dissolved into childish namecalling. I DO think MR's tone in his rebuttal(s) added to the 'nasty' noise level of this argument. In Ken's 'essay' I don't remember him using any patronising names for his detractors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
He does. He has been very rude about people who post to internet forums. His 'writing' is full of patronising descriptions of people who do things in ways that do not appeal to him.