1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

POLL - Moving sensors

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Jun 13, 2009.

  1. alanS

    alanS Well-Known Member

    "Technically, maybe. Artistically, I suspect not"

    Well, I meant technically of course although I suppose that it could be argued that better presentation is more readily available to the masses with newer technology and if so that would encompass both the technical and arguably stray into the artistic also as with new technology it may be easier to produce an end result that better, more accurately, more consistently and arguably more easily displays your art. Maybe new art will develop using the new technology? Art that couldn't exist without it?

    Could the technical aspects of photography be compared to typing? Years ago people used typewriters and not everyone could produce a well presented end product but now in these modern times pretty much anyone can produce a well presented document free of tipex'd out mistakes and alignment problems.

    In photography these days almost anyone can take a reasonably well exposed shot and make a reasonable looking print. That has to help with the expression and display of their art too I think.

    Speaking for myself, my own photography has improved since I went digital, for several reasons.
     
  2. parisian

    parisian Well-Known Member

    Well Damien has a lot to answer for here :(
    Probably the 'wordiest' thread ever and the loss of a valued member, moderator and fount of knowledge.
    Something simpler next time Damien please.
     
  3. Paddysnapper

    Paddysnapper Well-Known Member

    My own thoughts entirely
     
  4. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Well, I suppose it already has ... Photoshop collages.

    But don't confuse high quality art with technical excellence. Just look at this....
    [​IMG]
    Brilliant artistically but technically there are many flaws - fixing any one of which would destroy most of the qualities of the image.

    You could in fact argue that, as well as having the vision to see the final image at the moment of exposure, the artistic impact of photography comes from the technical limitations of the medium.
     
  5. alanS

    alanS Well-Known Member

    You can't blame Damien. That's silly. This a perfectly reasonable and innocent thread and the only problem is that for some it went too far and to be fair, it was said clearly in the other thread that this thread is not the cause.

    Maybe people just need to take a breath, cool down and then get back to normal. Well...as normal as us lot can be...
     
  6. parisian

    parisian Well-Known Member

    My comment Alan, as so many I make on here, was with a huge amount of tongue in cheek. Now if anyone has a crowbar spare I will attempt to extract it :eek:
     
  7. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Just make sure you have a winkier smiley next time. ;)

    For those not party to the way Huw and I get on, those were terms of endearment, and he's promised to use part of the time he spends away from here thinking up new and exciting insults for me. ;)
     
  8. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Absolutely right. I sometimes marvel that people miss that - witness the comment piece in the current mag.


    That's an interesting way of putting it, and there's a lot in that.
     
  9. alanS

    alanS Well-Known Member

    :eek:

    Sorry, I should maybe have used a few :D :D
     
  10. alanS

    alanS Well-Known Member

    "new and exciting insults"

    Bench, you do know that there's a specialist market for that sort of thing... :eek: :D
     
  11. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    Of course it could be argued that Mr Latrigue had no artistic intentions when he took this. He was trying to do "sports photography" to sell to papers...was it published? It sat in an album until he was an old man, then an art critic saw it by accident, found the artistic value, and the rest is history.

    Graeme
     
  12. sey

    sey Well-Known Member

    This discussion is moving into a different sphere, that's good! Maybe it should be moved elsewhere, Nick?

    Firstly, photographic collage and montage did not happen because of Photoshop. They are techniques that have been around for decades, long before Photoshop was a gleam in Apple/MacIntosh's eye. My photographic inspiration, Sam Haskins, was doing it in-camera with multiple exposures and in the darkroom with sandwiching negs and slides 30 years before PS saw the light of day. Montage has been a printing process (as in books, magazines, posters) that is used for colour separations and layout and was done on film and processed in the darkroom. PS became the digital way of doing existing techniques.

    I think it would be reasonable to say that PS has basically taken the "wet work" out of both photography and graphic design. Designers no longer use paints, gauche etc.

    I can't think offhand of one PS technique that was not performed by photographers and/or designers before the advent of the Apple/Mac which was the first true graphics programmed computer and so quickly became the graphic industry standard. Photoshop was developed as the GRAPHICS programme for the first Mac. What I do know is that most photographers seem to spend their time emulating existing traditional techniques in PS. I don't feel that there is a true exploration into developing/exploring specific new techniques with/by/from/because of the new technology. Even many of the tools of PS are mimics of the originals. What has changed is the way of doing things.

    Hmmm, this thread has moved completely away from moving sensors, I think I'll carry on in the TRADITIONAL CAPTURE room
     
  13. alanS

    alanS Well-Known Member

    "But don't confuse high quality art with technical excellence."

    I don't, but of course there is also art in pure technical excellence.

    I think that art in the sense that we're talking about art here needs a certain amount of technical skill, art done badly surely stands a chance of failing or at least of losing an amount of impact or appeal. As a bit of an artist myself I do dislike seeing shoddy art as the technical clumsiness or crudeness for me distracts from the appeal.

    I suppose the same can be said for photography in that a certain amount of technical ability may be required. It's not much good spotting a wonderful photo opportunity if you shoot it using completely inappropriate settings and grossly over or under expose it. If that view is followed it then surely helps some with their art if the technology helps with the technical aspects of the creative process. For example I use manual and aperture priority modes and in both I rely on some form of technical automation but I still think that I have an input. Someone else may never use anything other than Programme or full Auto mode and so worry even less about the technicalities than I do but their framing, composition and eye still capture the essence of the shot. It's still art even if technology does a part of the job, perhaps even all of the technical aspects of the capture process.

    Automation of the process to a greater or lesser degree doesn't mean that the art is removed from the process or the end result as the art is in the originator and the observer.
     
  14. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Ummm, no, but whe're getting to the stage where the processing in the camera could turn a static street shot with a parked car into a "Lartigue racer" - just twist the mode dial to the appropriate setting - is that art? If so, who is the artist - the person who points the camera or the person who wrote the software?

    IMHO true art depends on there being no "intelligent" technology interfering between the artist and the subject. A camera with mechanical controls, or electronic controls actuated by simple levers, is an artistic tool like a paintbrush. A camera which takes technical decisions for the user - be it selecting the combination of shutter speed & aperture, focusing on points the camera thinks should be focused on (face detection), or whatever - is more like a computer - the art is deskilled, making it less valuable, even though it may be superior as a record keeping tool.

    Here we come back to the orginal question - what about cameras with moving sensors? When these are manually controlled in the manner of a view camera, there is a clear benefit in terms of artistic freedom - being able to do something which "ordinary" digicams haven't been able to do until now. Do I personally want to be able to use those freedoms? Well, no, if I did I'd be a view camera user. Do I want the capability on a digital camera? No; for me, less is more, I want simpler modes of operation not ever more complex ones; I have neither the time nor the interest to master a camera past the basics of lens selection, shutter speed, aperture, ISO setting & focus.
     
  15. alanS

    alanS Well-Known Member

    "the processing in the camera..."

    Until the camera can go out, lock the door behind it, find the scene, take the shot and come home I think that there'll still be room for self expression. For me some of the technology is enjoyable and a part of the process, for others it might just be a means to an end.
     
  16. snowqueen

    snowqueen Well-Known Member



    There isnt a dribble mode .... but beleive me i am! :)

    if you ever get bored with the R8 ( as if! im dreaming!) ha ha ;)
     
  17. Cuthbert

    Cuthbert Well-Known Member

    Meet Lewis, the robot wedding photographer
     
  18. snowqueen

    snowqueen Well-Known Member


    :) your not to far from from me ..... if you ever wanted to meet up half way ....you can have a play for the day ......

    the MF cameras!! you lot have filthy minds!!

    what camera are you using at the moment? :)
     
  19. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Hmm... I wonder if I should check up on that. But as the main centre is in Switzerland I suspect that that may have been taken care of. Certainly my son (whose company it now is) has a compulsory nuclear bunker in his basement.

    Roger
     

Share This Page