The Coming Revolution: article by David duChemin

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jono

 

I remember the days when no one asked what gear you shot with. Some asked what film but not that many and only when you shot something really exceptional/unusual.

 

It would be nice to get back to the quality of the image and not get hung up on gear, lenses, sensors, resolution etc etc.

 

I am not an active club member these days - no time - but did a solid stint in 2002/2003. I had some moderate successes in competitions and I never recall anyone asking a single thing about my gear, just ' how did you achieve that lighting', an argument over whether a winning image was 'too' underexposed or not oh and another 'winner' admitting he had sandwiched two slides together. All less than 6 years ago.

 

HI - I actually agreed with the spirit of the article, but I'm sorry it seems you've misunderstood it - I think the 'how did you achieve that lighting' etc. is simply a different version of the same thing (HOW).

 

The (good) point was about stopping talking about how and starting talking about why.

[mustafasoleiman]

OOO! I'd better get my knitting out and book a good seat by the basket.

 

I think you might make a killing making knitted software for the few of us left out in the cold... Please make one for me and one for my M8.

[Printmaker]

The article/blog/post makes a few good points. We have reached a point where megapixils are sufficient. In fact several reviewers are now complaining about the transfer times and memory required by the 24 mp cameras. And the Canon Nikon war was always ridiculous - even back in the film days. So there is nothing really new here.

 

Thirty or forty years ago, amateurs argued about 35 mm vs 2 1/4 while pros used both. As someone who made color seps in the day, I pressured art directors for bigger film because it was easier to mount and spin in later days or took less time to expose on the direct screen enlarger/copy camera in the early days. And I never used less than 4x5 for art repro. So I guess I'm guilty of promoting that old prejudice. (Even today, I wince when an artist brings in a capture from a 12 or 24 mp Nikon/Canon/Sony and I'm expected to print an absolutely faithful to the original 30x40 canvas. The point being that I work in a specialized field with unique resolution and dynamic range requirements.)

 

As for the amateur vs pro arguments, they are old hat as well. The same words have been spoken and written countless times. The only difference is that there is the new category of "art photographer". A lot of Leica photographers fall into this category. They don't shoot corn flake boxes or weddings but rather see their work in galleries - brick and mortar or cyber. I think this is great. Being a professional photographer is, to say the least, not as glamorous as it once was. The compensation frankly sucks, at least for 90% of working photographers. But, here on my little rock in the middle of the Pacific, more than a few photographers support themselves through gallery sales. At the very least the gallery checks pay for new gear and a night out every now and then. Long live art photographers and art photography collectors!

 

The only thing this article left me with is the impression that the techno geek is slowly fading from photography. That's not revolutionary, its evolutionary.

 

Tom