Home » in English » Comments about our Editorial » The story of the frogs and the Titanic
|
| digital equipment costing too high now [message #661 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:20   |
|
03:36pm Apr 16, 2002
I agree basically with the whole editorial and i am very positive
about the networking which it is need to create our contemporary knowledge,we can see it as an other opportunity to grow up,to compare,to understand.It is very intresting also the change in learning and teaching that can be more autarkic so more real because it is an exchange of informations more that an imposed theory which normally they teach in the schools.Will be more freedom to learn and will be more effective learning because on the field.About the digital photography I think will be the future we are all sure about it but I think also that now still a lot of space for traditional photography because digital equipment cost a lot of money at moment.
For example I use Contax system and there isn't yet any 35mm digital camera may be the first one should be relised on June but the cost will be around £6000-$9000 only body.
regards
|
|
|
| The story of the frogs and the Titanic. [message #662 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:23 |
|
10:22pm Apr 16, 2002
I totally agree with the main intention of your interesting essay. I believe it is important to realize about the importance of be artistic by being open minded towards this century. I think the topic you are dealing with not only is perceived in the photographic field but also might be a perfect description of what is XXI Century about and how important is to be alert in the image era.
Intelligent analogies "the frogs and the Titanic" you selected to show the importance of the prelude of a new education process.
Congratulations
Regards,
oliver reyes
|
|
|
| Not ready to "go digital" [message #663 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:25 |
|
03:47am Apr 21, 2002
Pedro, you make a strong case for someone looking to start a career in photography. Digital is certainly "the future." But then I can imagine someone making a similar case to Cezanne a century ago: "Look, Paul, photography is the future. Give up those messy oil paints!" The point being, of course, that for those of us who love the craft of photography, and the pleasure of producing images in a darkroom, concern about which technology is "the future" is beside the point.
I think the best solution for people like me - at least for now - is to stick with film and to add a scanner to the home computer. It's not as "neat" a solution as digital photography, but it allows an old-fashioned photographer like me to continue to enjoy the craft of traditional photography, and to also produce digital images for e-mailing, etc.
Final point: the shutter lag in digital cameras makes it impossible to capture anything close to a "decisive moment," which, for me, is at the heart of the photographic experience. For architectural photographers this may be an irrelevant concern, but for people photographers, like me, it's critical. When they make a digital camera with a 12 millisecond shutter lag, like a Leica, I may be ready to "go digital." Til then, I think I'll let the water boil in the pot awhile longer.
Charles McLean
|
|
|
| isn't change the constant of life? [message #664 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:30 |
|
10:27am Apr 22, 2002
Pedro,
I appreciate your input about the future of photography. As professional photographer working with cutting edge technologies you have special place to make and share your observations. Ultimately, it is about the IDEA/ FEELING behind the image. The medium should enhance the content.
Change is exciting, it brings on new experiences and enriches our individual and collective awareness. In my experience life is best felt in a fluid state which the rapid changing technological revolution demands. After all, why stay the same when life has more to offer. Already professional photographers that have not assimilated the new photographic technologies have a disadventage in a competitive market. I think your essay is helpful and I am thankful to you for shearing your observations for the future.
Pablo
|
|
|
| An unprecedented, and yet quite unfinished transition. [message #665 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:33 |
|
12:09pm Apr 23, 2002
I cant really consider digital photography to be a replacement for film, both are in the end, concerned with providing a document of frozen time. Techniques such as exposure and composition are shared, as well as similarities of cameras between film and digital.
Digital can (and will) supplant film for immediate convenience and perhaps expedited training, and maybe? Cheaper logistical suppourt.
Rolls and rolls of film and silver polluting the environment vs. thousands of dollars of computer equipment and the associated pollution in creating them, and having them become obsolete every three years.
I still myself fear and quake a little at the prospect of digital archiving, the fragility of the medium, on either hard drive or compact disk. I worry about the future generations losing some of their history. Should a great cataclysm occur, and our modern industrial base be lost, then all of our digitally stored history becomes useless. Whereas surviving negatives and prints, and God forbid, plates- can be viewed and interpreted without much more than the naked eye.
I use digital daily, and I still use film, professionally, and just to screw around, dark rooming as a hobby. I'm young, sometimes I wonder if I'm to be one of the last wet darkroom affecionados- 40 years from now, an anachronistic old codger, who if all else fails, can grind out his own meniscus lenses, build a camera, and make sensitizer for plates and paper.
That feels real damn odd, that all of film and chemical photography should decline to the point that I'm sustaining it.
|
|
|
| Re: The story of the frogs and the Titanic [message #666 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:38 |
|
01:05am Apr 26, 2002
I can definitely see the advantages to digital as an Army photojournalist. My current duty station is in Kosovo and the cries ( as I see them) for snaps immediately after an operation here is unreal. I see these people as clients, the quicker I can email them the snaps I sweated to take, the happier I'll be in the long run.
Granted, I still take my Voightlanders and even my Nikon F4s on shoots but only because of the one disadvantage that digitial has--lack of power (especially in cold weather) means a large paperweight hanging around my neck.
The Army has given me the chance over the last three years to learn digital darkroom. I'm no expert at Photoshop but I know enough to get by. As a result of this immediacy my skills as a photojouralist have improved. I've included an example of my work to illustrate this. I took this photo a week ago. Five minutes after dumping it from my D1 I was tweaking this image on my computer.
|
|
|
| OF BOILED FROGS, TITANIC, WW II, etc. etc. etc. [message #667 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:42 |
|
09:15am Apr 26, 2002
As a working commercial photographer and an artist, I would like to comment on Mr. Meyer's last editorial, in relation with my first commercial experience with digital uptake.
True, I had resisted working with digital cameras, in spite of Pedro's efforts to convince me to the contrary, for many years. I had a strongly ingrained prejudice against digital imaging, as well as to fast food, plastic stuff, etc. etc. The reason? Quality, I said. Nonethless, when I had an opportunity recently to do a series of studio shots (the client specified 35 mm., meaning he had a small budget, and the work would probably not be printed at the city's top printer), so I gave it a go with a 3 magapixel digital camera. Studio lighting, everything else the same as if were being done on transparency film.
The work was of good quality. The advantages? Being able to set up a laptop and see the pictures as they were being done is certainly one of them, similar to our accustomed use of polaroids in the studio, but with more bells and whistles. Due to the success I had
with this job, I went on to use the digital in more important jobs. I believe that the sucess I have had with this has less to do with the digital camera, than it has with my ability to
present print-ready images, undamaged by scanning and tweaking by people who were not as sensitive as I am to the original object photographed.
The disadvantages? Having to spend hours sitting in front of the computer (my feet did not get cold but my back ached) doing boring and repetetive tasks tweaking the images for burning on CD's, as opposed to dropping off the rolls at the lab, and delivering work to client. I don't know about in the U.S., but in other countries we still have serious technical problems of "compatiblity"and calibration between monitors, which involve color shifts which must be dealt with. This used to be the problem of the graphic people. Now it is mine, all mine. Sure, I do a better job of it, because I know what I was photographing. I resent having to spend the time on it.
Another point I wish to make is that digital and film photography are not mutually exclusive: the market has not eliminated its need for black and white emulsion and transparencies yet. I am often asked to do digital and film photography for parts of a single project. On the other hand, film photography has benefitted for over a decade here in South America from pre-printing digital procedures, and certainly it is used in some way by all working photographers. There is nothing simpler than switching between digital and film cameras.
This is no argument for film techniques being eliminated from teaching institutions. (I have not yet seen that Drawing has been removed from Art School curriculi, even though there is not a single aspect of taking carbon to paper that cannot be done on a computer, except for the sound and feel of doing it. They can also probably add that, too.) The
course descriptions I have seen from several phtotography schools include many hours of both darkroom and digital technique. The reasons are many: steam engine technology will not help the designer of a bullet train. Darkroom technique, like drawing, allows a student to experience the tonal subtleties produced within the constraints imposed by emulsion; there is a sensual aspect to similar to the difference between shooting live ammo instead of blanks.
The major producers of color film today are actually making film that mimics the qualities of digital color (Kodak's VS series, for example). This only goes to show that yes, there is a difference. And I believe we will always have a choice, unless the rampant consumerism of our globalized world makes it economically impossible to excercise that choice.
|
|
|
| OF BOILED FROGS, TITANIC, WW II Part 2 [message #668 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:44 |
|
09:18am Apr 26, 2002
I would also point out to Pedro that the stunning photograph on his cover this month could not have been done with conventional film: the color has characteristic information of a digital image. However, the exquisitely managed panning which gives the picture its magic has nothing to do with the kind of camera he was using. In this case, "it ain't the sword, Gaston, it's the Musketeer. . ."
Judy de Bustamante
|
|
|
| A tale of frogs and the Titanic [message #669 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:51 |
|
08:54pm May 3, 2002
Once upon a time there lived throughout the world frogs and great water transport ships such as the Titanic. Frogs reproduced like many species needing a male and female genders. The Titanic was titled the unsinkable ship. The frogs living in modern environments polluted by modern chemicals slowly began losing there gender importance as they evolved and became able to self reproduce. The Titanic being unsinkable cruised the ocean with complete confidence until it came upon danger and sank because of it's arrogance and unmanageable size. The frogs evolved yes! To what? that we will see. The Titanic is now a relic\icon of the Chemical Age.
|
|
|
| The Musketeer is using a PISTOL [message #670 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:56 |
|
11:57am May 8, 2002
I don't think that is an application of panning technique. The change from the sharp to the blurred area is way too artificial. That is either a digital superposition of 2 pictures (one sharp and one panning) or a digital work over regular picture.
|
|
| |
| About an alleged grandmother [message #672 is a reply to message #671 ] |
Mon, 25 April 2005 12:09 |
 Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
09:13pm May 9, 2002
Chris,
Of course this lady could be your grandmother or for that matter that of anyone one else. She probably is someone's grandmother, to be sure. But so? what does that have to do with anything, is what I don't quite get. You consider her bizarre, which of course she seems to be to our critical eyes.
But then think that she is in a public space, such a shopping mall, showing off her wig for all the world to see and admire. That seems to be her pleasure. Now if you did not want to have her appear ( considering she is your grandma) in one of my pictures, then possibly you would not want her to be sitting like that in the Mall, to begin with.
But let us take the matter further, why does this lady look so outrageous to many of us? I think it is because, she is probably the only one who has not realized that her appearance makes her look like she has not come to terms with her own age.
But then the question immediately comes up, why would she not have the right to appear how ever she damn pleased. Who are we to judge what is fitting for her or not. So the arguments could continue, back and forth, and in the end, all one can say is that I have a right to express my sentiments about her looks, as much as she has a right to put on what ever makes her happy.
Now mind you, I have not placed her out of context, or have I altered her "looks" through any devious alteration of mine, that might have distorted her appearance. So in the end it's all in the eye of the beholder how we choose to see her. How she looks in the image, is solely of her own making.
To me, this image was very fitting to the arguments of how we do not see the day to day changes in one's life. The metaphor of course being that she is someone who does not want to look at her own age. [ I think that would be a fair conclusion to make for her case.] just as there are others who do not want to see the technological changes going on.
Now with regard to you remark about my sermon, it is strange that you would perceive it as a "sermon". It does not feel like that to me at all. I wonder how others perceive it, I don't think I can contribute to that very much.
Pedro
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| sermons and editorials [message #673 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Mon, 25 April 2005 14:31 |
|
10:01am May 10, 2002
Pedro,
What is a priest’s homily, or a preacher’s sermon, but an editorial on life, religion and where they intersect? However, I don’t think that the subject in question (changes in technology in the arts and journalism) raises issues of spirituality, so I suspect that “editorial” is still more appropriate than “sermon”.
Pedro, you may be something of an evangelist for digital imaging, but I don’t feel I am being preached to in your editorials. Preachers seldom ask the congregation for their opinion.
Regards,
Peter Calvin
http://www.petercalvin.com
|
|
| |
| Embracing The All [message #675 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Mon, 25 April 2005 15:23 |
|
01:03pm May 31, 2002
Thanks for your perspective on digital vs. traditional photography. I for one am planted squarly on the fence on this one. There are advantages and disadvantages to both in my work. So, I am using both digital and traditional. I do mostly travel photography and nature scenics. The digital is quick, down and dirty to get it off over an e-mail easily. If I am going for the complete quality statement, I continually reach for the 35mm slide format for color saturation, quality and clarity. The two are merging at some vector down the road into one format that MIGHT fit all. For now, I am embracing them both and enjoying the evolutionary ride.
Happy Shooting,
Jack Cardoza
|
|
| |
| The eye is everything [message #677 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Tue, 26 April 2005 13:58 |
|
03:36pm Jun 13, 2002
The camera is only the direct connection to the eye and the heart in good photography. Why worry about the technology, what is important is between your ears.
|
|
|
| let's take away canvas, brushes and paint from the painter [message #678 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Tue, 26 April 2005 14:01 |
|
10:53pm Jun 15, 2002
Neo-liberal art? The market will solve all the issues at hand? Be left in the dust of technological advance or grab the bull by the balls and hang on for dear life? What we are being presented with here is a false dichotomy. The question of wether to use digital or traditional methods to produce a fine print is completely besides the point.
Yes, digital photography is a very valuable tool in today's COMMERCIAL world of photography. It is fast. It is convenient. It is very flexible for many applications. But its only applications are for media purposes, for magazine,television, for computer screens.
But what of fine art? I have seen many of the best examples of digital photographs. None of them can hold a candle to the depth and range of a well made traditional print.
And what about breaking the trust of the viewer? When you look at a digital print, well, you know it is digital. And everything about the print is then put into question. Is this situation real? Or was it simply created to seem that way? Mr. Schneider is correct about one thing for sure: Digital photography really is cheap.
If being "competitive" (read "greedy") is the only point to photography then he makes a very valid point. But if the creation of truly beautiful print is the goal, traditional photography has yet to be surpassed.
|
|
|
| A tale of frogs and the Titanic [message #679 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Tue, 26 April 2005 14:02 |
Massingham, Peter
Messages: 3
Registered: April 2005 |
Junior Member |
|
|
09:06am Jun 19, 2002 PST (#19 of 28)
Half truths!
Essays and comments relating to the influences of digital technologies on photography tend, on the whole, to be infuriatingly incomplete. I am in no way adverse to change, but feel dismayed by a misguided emphasis on the role of technical innovation in the teaching and practice of photography.
I have taught photography at various levels of Further and Higher education and can say that a majority of art and media students today work quite happily and competently with digital technology if given the right kind of instruction. However (and in this context I suspect that Pedro Meyer plays devils advocate) being technically competent and familiar with new, (and old) technologies should not be equated with intelligent or sympathetic practice. This is equally true of the fine arts as of the commercial arena. And the dawning of the digital age of photography does not, and need not, mean the instantaneous death of analogue practice. The two offer very different qualities.
What we don't need, but are indulging in, is a re-run of the debates that occurred at the end of the 19th Century concerning the validity, advantages, or disadvantages of one technological system over another. While this produced interesting discussions on natural vision, authenticity, art, craft etc, etc (the list is considerable and not without value) it had little affect on commercial and corporate ambitions of profit and dominance. Now, as then, the new (digital) technologies will replace many aspects of an older system (analogue) that is commercially or critically no longer sustainable. This will bring both positive and negative changes depending on how we choose to use them. Not much change there then!
What we really need, is a deeper, broader debate on the role of digital technology in education and by extension society. Unfortunately, education for some is seen as nothing more than a service to the ambitions of industry and commerce, and challenges to this system or to the inevitability of technological change, are too readily perceived as the worst form of Luddism.
In the context of photographic education, the issue of digital photography replacing analogue photography should not be reduced to simplistic arguments of commercial imperatives. The mediums history is built upon so much more than this, and we should not lose sight of this fact in the face of commercial and technological onslaughts. Colleges and schools often have insufficient time and resources to keep pace with the advances in technology, and training staff becomes yet another burden on an already stretched resource. My experience, in the UK at least, has been that staff are often self taught out of a sense of responsibility to their students, but also born of an enthusiasm for a skill that will enhance their own practice. It is true that there are a few who turn a blind eye to things digital, or anything new, out of self interest, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
As individuals, we should consider where and how we slot into the world of 'digital communication'; a system that seems so pervasive and offers little time for critical reflection? I wonder, should we feel quite so positive about our children teaching or acquiring computer skills through games that still reflect outdated notions of masculinity: themes of dominance, violence and destruction? The issues of morality and responsibility, the state versus the individual etc, are not new, but the fact of a technology having such a global reach is.
As to the question of whether digital photography should be taught in schools and colleges, this should be answered in the affirmative. However, this of little use if it is not accompanied by a much broader and critical insight to the context of the medium under discussion.
It will therefore, be a considerable relief when the topic of digital versus analogue photography finally slips into history; and our attention is returned once more to the fund
|
|
|
|
About Pete's cocerns [message #680 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Tue, 26 April 2005 16:41 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
11:30pm Jun 28, 2002
Unfortunately Pete Massingham seems to miss the point, amidst a very passionate observation relative to the debates at hand.
When he tells us we should return to "the fundamental issue of the image itself", he somehow implies, if I understand him correctly, that this was not the case.
I would like to point out, that it is precisely because the digital age is transforming the "image itself", that the discussions around all these transformations are so pertinent, and not to be dismissed as he apparently would suggest.
For what ever it is worth, digital photography is not a matter of either commercial or art fields, that would really be turning the clocks back. It is about grasping in which way, your, our, cherished "analog way" is altered forever. It would be more productive to discuss how and in which manner this is transforming the image, it's production, it's content, it's direction, and so on, in directions that are new and previously unexplored.
This is really getting at the content of the image, Evading such discussion does not help us very much. I value your concerns and would venture to say that you are not alone in such critcismcriticism.ould invite you and your like minded colleagues to consider that the discussion of technology is not about the technology per se, but about how in and of itself it transforms the content, much as all technological changes have, through out history, altered the arts themselves.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Thanks, Mr. Meyer [message #681 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Tue, 26 April 2005 16:43 |
LeBlanc, Maurice
Messages: 9
Registered: April 2005 |
Junior Member |
|
|
03:24am Aug 15, 2002
I have to agree that change is difficult. Here I am with my home darkroom, and the prospect of having to sell my cherished Bogen enlargers, and my Rolleiflex, my Linfoff.Gosh, it is difficult. I do hope I am wrong and that film will be available for a long time to come, but just in case, I do have a digital camera. Photography has been a hobby for many years. Have a good day, Mr. Meyer, and thanks for your most interesting columnds - Maurice LeBlanc
|
|
| | | |
| you said a mouthful [message #685 is a reply to message #99 ] |
Tue, 26 April 2005 16:50 |
|
01:48pm Aug 29, 2002
this is no doubt what is going to happen and is well on the
way right now.
I just came across your article while reading the w.p.
as a former still photographer in the film industry
and retired many years ago.I saw electronics coming
to newsreel and at that time they said I didnt what I talking about.people just take a good look around you!
great article loved it.
|
|
| |
| Re: digital equipment costing too high now [message #1845 is a reply to message #661 ] |
Wed, 14 February 2007 06:02 |
|
|
ciao piero se leggi questo messaggio contattami al più presto. saluti massimo zampetti
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 21 20:26:19 EST 2009
|
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
The story of the frogs and the Titanic
