At 02:24 PM 11/13/2008, Ag wrote:
>Nathan, I understand what you are saying, but the premise of my thesis is
>the presence of other measurables and immeasurables other than "image
>quality". . . <snip>
I still go back to an interview with Nubar Alexanian. He said photography
is about, photography, the photographer, and the subject. I have pondered
this often.
From this perspective, the camera is an integral part of the process. That
means it makes a difference what the camera used is. It will have an effect
on the end result that is not measurable by bits, resolution, etc. Instead the
image taken will have a certain presence, created not just by the subject
but by the photographer and the process.
I know for a fact when I pull out my 5D with a big lens attached, the
subject changes. Even my grand daughter knows. I'm very sensitive
to that. How people react to the photographer and their presence
gets reflected in the result, even if the subject is a sunset.
I'm pretty much a digital convert. The stress relief of traveling without
film through the airport is immeasurable. Babying film during travel
to warm climates is no longer a problem. I can even travel without
a laptop, as with todays 8-16GB flash cards, I never have to off load
images.
But what I think Ken is alluding to is that there is an intangible quality
that is not just the film itself, but the effect it has on the image making
process. I've always felt a certain "unconscious" element in my photography.
The actual capturing, by releasing the shutter, the viewfinder image
goes blank, and then the world is restored. There was an unconscious
moment, which is only revealed by later viewing the image. I've even
noticed that my finger presses the button without my conscious intervention.
What is revealed is often very interesting. Most often not something
to publish, but certainly reveals interesting stuff. Most of my photography
remains unpublished for this very reason. You catch sides of people,
expressions, .. that, well, the people would rather you didn't catch.
Unfortunately, if you are in the business of making money with
photography, this aspect does not help much.
Lest you think I'm totally crazy, which is probably true, I am an engineer
and have debugged many a problem. I find people and their logical thinking
is often very superstitious. I know, more often than not, the world reveals
itself more often than the case where I know what the world is about.
I believe some artistic people have a level of sensitivity that tunes them
into the moment in a way that allows things to be revealed, and for
that to happen may take just the right camera or the right medium, or
the right moment. Some photographers have this artistic sense and
others, like me, struggle, as I'm more likely to come from a place where
I think I know, hence the world does not reveal as much to me as it
would to the artist.
Film has a certain magic. I don't think there is a way to quantify it.
Only the artist can reveal it.
WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|