Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]And photography isn't market-driven? Sure, believe that if you will. Canon vs. Nikon. Leica vs. Contax. Hasselblad vs. Rollei, etc. You are right that a lot of terrible art comes from Photoshop. Same as the paint-by-numbers revolution - which is on-going! But what you're saying is simply nonsense. When they put matrix metering in cameras, people got much better photos technically, but they're still the boring photos of their spouse standing in front of the [insert landmark name here]. Boring photos come from boring photographers, not boring subjects. I remember Mike Johnstone (editor of Photo Techniques and former Lugger) one time complaining to me about photographers who were technically adept, but who shot such bad photos it made is job much harder. I'm a photo editor who spends a lot of time at the big Stock agencies looking for photos. Even the professionals shoot a lot of garbage, let alone amateurs. Some times it's almost impossible to find just the right photo - even at Getty where they have 88 million images!!! In fact, in my field that's a major problem - gemstones are not a real popular subject for the average photographers out there - an opportunity for me and some international travel in the next few years! :-) You obviously have never delved into Photoshop much. And that's okay. But it gives much more precise control in the quality of an image than anyone could possibly do with film - without a massive amount of wasted materials and time. Photoshop lets us get out and shoot faster. More shooting time, less lab time is a formula for improving photo quality in REAL terms - that is, practice makes you a better photographer. (In most cases anyway.) Photoshop is a tool, neither negative or positive. Like a developer or a filter. A very versatile photo tool for sure. But it will neither make you a better or worse photographer. But used right, it can make your work of higher quality. As for painting, I don't know any graphics professional who would consider Photoshop better than real painting. Though there are some who would consider Illustrator or a certain Corel product something worth considering. But they are different media than painting - just like painting wasn't supplanted by photography, neither will it be by digital arts. Only hacks would thing that. As for your socialist leanings - I'm certainly glad you're not the king of the world. People seem to always want to tax those things in which they are not interested. I think painters are paid too much. So any time someone paints a painting and makes more than $500, there should be a 50 percent tax. There, how's that for creating art for the masses? Eric Welch Carlsbad, CA http://www.jphotog.com “Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” H. L. Mencken On Feb 1, 2004, at 7:07 AM, sam wrote: > I don't believe anyone on the forum has delved into how much of the > digital revolution is market driven. From the local lad who has a bit > too much money in his pocket to the pro who buckles under to his > employer for faster production. All this talk about how fast and how > easy digital production is a sure sign that the talk is about > production, not art. Reminds me of the offers we received in art > school to make those awful paintings to be sold wholesale as living > room "art". - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html