Although I agree with some of the comments re digital (ie instant
gratification) I think it really has to be defined by what you want from
your photography.
I'm sure I'm over simplifying it (and I will probably get lots of flames !)
but as I see it there are 2 types of photography - taking "snapshots" to
capture the moment and taking "photographs". Taking "Photographs" is, to
me, an art form. Both the technical aspect of putting images onto film and
the artistic composition of the picture. Taking "snapshots" is, to me, not
an art form at all. The purpose here is to record a moment for future -
either to aid your own memories or to pass on your memories to others.
Of course, both can overlap a little - snapshots can be artistic if done
correctly (although this is often more luck !) but this is not, to me,
essential. "Photographs" as I would define them can also serve to trigger
memories but to me their primary function is the pleasure of a well composed
and implemented picture. A "photograph", to me, is more like a beautiful
painting, if done correctly (which I have yet to do !)
As someone who uses his OM-2n for what I would describe as "both types of
photography" I can see the advantage of a good digicam for "snapshots". On
recent occasions, where I wanted to take snapshots (albeit good quality
ones) I found my OM-2n with 28-80 and a Vivitar flash to be far too big and
heavy. And the constant worry of what to do with it when I wanted to go and
join the party and enjoy myself ... anyway, it almost led me to buy a P&S
type camera !
Now if a P&S-style digital camera could do decent images for those occasions
when all I want is "snapshots" I would be very tempted (as indeed I am,
having followed some of the discussions on here recently), but it would be a
cold day in hell before I give up my OM-2n for making "Photographs".
Just my ramblings. Not necessarily correct or anything, and I'm always open
to persuasion if anyone has any proof against my above comments !!
Jon
PS: Can anyone comment on the origins of the word "Photograph" ? By
definition, can we actually call a digital image captured on a CCD camera a
"photograph" ?
PPS: Despite my rant reading like that of a 60-yr old stuck in his ways
(sorry to anyone of or approaching that age - no offence meant !), I am
still only a (relative) youngster at 27 !
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Olympus
Sent: 05 January 2002 01:54
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Digital camera downfalls (Long)
Not fair Dave!! You are on an Olympus list. That means you are the
exception not the rule. You would probably be a Prosumer, not a consumer,
or dumbsumer..
Also.. "I can learn at a faster rate..." See the difference? You can
learn!! Most general populous cannot. Sorry if some of you think I'm
negative, but that's just the reality of the fact. People, the vast
majority of people are DUMB. They are not trying to make progress in their
life, they are just content with not regressing....
Albert
Somewhere, digital cameras have taken the "learning" out of most of
photography.
I wholeheartedly disagree! I can learn at a faster rate because I see
the results of my efforts sooner.
Dave Dougherty
|