Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 12/07/2013 00:11 (12/07/2013 12:11) |
Message-ID | <k1m4a9tg0j1q5ns92q1vrjrfd5nvjqnjcb@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Savageduck |
SavageduckThere is the problem that some attempting to take part in this discussion are attempting to use the word 'photographer' in a particular limited sense. Others are attempting to use the word in it's widest possible sense. We will never get anywhere in this discussion if we can't agree what it is we are talking about.
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.What has that got to do with the class of photographer using it? Some were good: some were bad, and many were in between. Some just pushed the button and accepted what came out the end. Some tried all kinds of tricks, even with Polaroid, in an attempt to make a better picture.
--nospam
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.