> John Hudson [mailto:13874@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> How does digital "...... promise ...... a new way of seeing."
> with emphasis on "seeing"? This to me is like opining that
> word processors in and of themselves improved one's literary
> and writing skills.
I daresay this is quite an apt analogy, if one also
includes "presentation" as being part of what one does with
a word-processor. Thus, you might consider the digital
camera to have the benefit for some of giving them a WYSIWYG
not previously immediately available (but which can also
get in the way for some people use to "coding" documents -
I miss that code-screen in 'WordPerfect' where I could see
just why my document wasn't formatting correctly...'Word'
which I am forced to use at work, with its WYSIWYG only, doesn't
give me that code-level feedback, as useful as many of
its "enhancements" are). WYSIWIG is definitely a benefit I'd
hate to do without in a word-processor, but, like manual
overrides, I like to have control and see what's happening
underneath too.
Thus, digital provided a new way of "seeing" the photographic
*results*, but not "seeing" the picture in the the mind's
eye in the first place (which is your point, yes?).
(...and now I'm segueing into territory that means a lot of
what I say is not directly as a response to John's email)
This new way may or may not be a benefit to some people. From
the point of view of someone growing (if slowly in my case)
as a photographer, this instant "seeing" of the feedback
means that while I am taking photos, I can correct
my errors. Testing DOF, focussing ability and exposure
by means of film-bracketting all of the above and then waiting
for the results aren't conducive (nor cheap) to me for
learning purposes. A Canon D60 with microdrive at the Gay Games
Touch Footy would have been a godsend for me. Would the
printed results have been as good...I don't know, but
I would anticipate that I'd have had more keepers in
these specific circumstances.
Personally, I'd love an EOS D60 (I won't get greedy and
say 1DS as I'm probably being greedy enough), as the
instant feedback, my constant immersion in PC's (work
and play) making me see them as a much more attractive
"development" tool than the darkroom, and the lesser
necessity to spend heaps on film and processing, nor
organise said processing or film purchase (my Gay
Games assignment cost me AUS$800 in film and processing,
which is a lot for me - don't mention the initial price of
digital...I'm getting to that <g>), plus the sudden
benefit of the magnifaction multiplier on my 100-300
zoom, well...let's just say I'm interested in digital,
IF IT WASN'T GOING TO COST ME SOMETHING LIKE AUS$5500 JUST
TO BUY THE D60 BODY! :-)
Most of these are arguably "conveniences", though it may
be argued that there are many other "conveniences" already
in 35mm photography, such as AF, auto-exposure, some
autowinders, manual focussing aids, or quick-load 35mm
film cameras, some "zoom lenses", built-in metering,
compact and lightsafe film handling, et cetera (I said
"arguably"...I accept that this may provoke disagreement).
It's just something I would like and would find
convenient and attuned to my mindset.
The point is that it is difficult to make an abitrary
global judgement on all digital cameras for all people and
all photography. People are as different in the way they
work and "see" photos (in black-and-white, with a wideangle
view, in abstract), as there are differences in quality,
setup and design of digital cameras, and as the photographers
are in their particular taste for photography. As Jim says,
digital is an imperfect beast (arguably more imperfect in some
significant areas than a lot else), but then most photographic
equipment could be considered an imperfect beast when it comes
to an individual photographer or an individual assignment (and
sometimes that purely comes down to the individual, subjective
aesthetics of working/creative style, which cannot be discounted,
and perhaps occupies a primary position)
They're just tools, and we need to recognise their imperfections
and perfections *for our own use* and use them accordingly
or within those imperfections and individual situations where
perhaps those imperfections cease to matter or become reduced
to insignificance. Does it matter if someone shot 500 photos
to get one startlingly beautiful one (whether digital or not)?
Aren't we here for the results? I worry sometimes that there
are some fervidly anti-digital folk (not here) who are the
same ones that use to tell us that you should "shoot lots of
film, because film is cheap" that are also criticising the results
from digital as being a mere "volume game". The same folk who
criticise the instantaneous-results/feedback wanted by this "modern
world" are the ones that told you to write down all your photo
information so you could learn from it later when you had your
film developed (and which many digital cameras record with
your shot). Of course, this is just the cynic in me equating
contradictory comments to the same person, but the point is
that some criticisms of digital (eg. manipulation, "volume-game",
instant-results) seem contradictory to those things we are often
taught to use in film (filters, b&w printing techniques, bracketting,
writing down notes/details for each photo taken).
In a perfect world, I'd have a digital camera, preferably D60 due
to my current equipment stock (though I look with interest to what
Olympus and Fuji are doing), *added to* my OM1, 35RC, OM40/PC and
Canon EOS 50E, and that's just looking at the 35mm/digital
equipment/bodies (for MF and LF... well, I don't think my skills
match the benefits to match it with interest as yet). I'd also have
shares in the battery business for any new technology ;-)
Of course, in Adam's case, there was a whole other range of
differences other than film-digital. He was going from an OM10
of a while ago, to the latest photographic technology in
equipment (and all those buttons and functions and AF :-) ). I'm
sure there were some major differences there too (both good
and bad in his eyes).
Cheers
Marc
Sydney, Oz
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|