Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
From | PeterN |
Date | 12/06/2013 20:25 (12/06/2013 14:25) |
Message-ID | <l7t8ab02q9r@news6.newsguy.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Savageduck |
SavageduckAgreed. Also, most of us phere are interested in improving our photography, and work diligently at it. As I said earlier, I do not include picture takers.
On 2013-12-06 15:58:41 +0000, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>said:PeterNSavageduck
On 12/6/2013 7:31 AM, Savageduck wrote:SavageduckPeterN
On 2013-12-06 08:18:06 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> said:Eric StevensSavageduck
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 20:55:46 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:SavageduckEric Stevens
On 2013-12-06 04:26:42 +0000, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net> said:PeterNSavageduck
On 12/5/2013 10:58 PM, nospam wrote:nospamPeterN
In article <l7rhm701ngv@news6.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:PeterNnospam
Is it your claim that in the film days, a good photo artist did not have to understand the how and why of film. He did not have to understand masking with film, the effect of various chemicals, and light sources on things such as contrast, and grain?
my claim is that in film days, knowing how and being proficient in darkroom work was not required.
Not require for what. Snapshots and i've been there images, you are right. Is it your claim that a film photographer could produce art without a thorough understanding of what he was doing?
I thought we were talking photography, not art. Photo journalists and documentarians do not consider themselves artists, they are photographers. ...and then there are the snapshot shooters who can on occasion be accidental artists, or documentarians.
Just as long as it is clear: you are confining yourself to that class of photography.
Why? We are talking about photography as a particular tool to make a visual record of any event, object or person. esoteric aspects of art are subjective and irrelevant in the face of the plodding technical steps of capturing light on some medium and putting into the hands of the viewer. The operator of that light capturing machine has little need for knowledge of the intermediate steps when there is somebody who can deal with that. The quality of those results was also irrelevant, witness the millions of awful snapshots and Kodachromes. ...and it seems there are quite a few folks who are nostalgic for photographic incompetence, I give you Instagram.
There is a reason Polaroid was right for its time & successful. There were a bunch of folks who did not want to deal with the intermediary steps or chemistry.
then perhaps we can conclude that there is no one size fits all. Picture taking has many facets, which is why cameras don't cost a heck of a lot more than they do. I recall marveling at a digital darkroom, used to process advertising images. IIRC the owner paid in excess of 100k, and the machine took up a room that was about 10x12. There was barely enough room for the operator. I reproduced and manipulated color slides.
Don't get me wrong, I am as much an advocate of the darkroom wet and/or digital as much as any of us geeky types, but we are not the mainstream. Most photographers today are shooting with phones and their photographs will never be printed, never entered in a competition, but will be briefly displayed on a phone in a transmitted message.
Personally I will continue to involve myself with the intricacies of my digital darkroom, because it is in my nature to do so, but we are not typical in that. In this NG we might be, but compare with the masses of snapshot shooters we are the oddballs.
-- PeterNnospam
some photographers did do their own darkroom work, but as i said, it wasn't required. many pro photographers worked with a pro lab who took care of the details.