On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:04:16 -0800, Tris Schuler wrote:
>For myself, I doubt this is or ever could be photography, rather more like
>digital "image making."
I don't understand your distinction.
I consider "digital photography" to be a simple misnomer at base. The
implication of the advent and acceptance of this new technological means of
"photography" is that the time will come (as it threatens to eventually)
when no work with film emulsions will be undertaken. and thus only forms of
digital image-capturing devices and corresponding "photographic" software
approaches to "darkroom" processing will remain as this other-age's
"photographic" expression. At that juncture image quality may or may not be
any better or worse than we find it today, but for sure photography, per se
and as I've learned it, will have died.
To turn it around, photography will not have technically died as society
will have simply redefined what photography is to mean: something along the
lines of, "images captured on and/or through one kind or another of digital
(as opposed to analog) media."
This corruption (as I see it) is already underway and somewhat pervasive.
For instance, it exists in all of my work today--only part of my
photographic workflow remains analog, the rest digital. In fact, this has
led to an improvement in the apparent quality of my photographic end
result, and I've no quarrel with that, but no matter how much I praise my
SprintScan, no matter how much further Adobe might refine and enhance
Photoshop, these tools take me away from photography in the strictest sense
and into a branch of (for lack of more ready terminology) visual arts.
Nothing wrong with that, necessarily. Hell, I even feel enabled to a large
extent.
But that's me. I can understand the difference because I note it within an
understandable context. A generation or two down the road, when there is
virtually no one around who has experience of any kind with photographic
expression of the analog kind, only the digital, then I say that the
former area of the arts and sciences will not just have died but been
forced into its hole, and not because of any inherent deficiency but rather
for the sake of convenience and expediency as these qualities were then
judged, and due to lack of regard and interest all around.
For illustration, a similar parallel could be drawn to painting. Imagine
the death of, say, oils. From a certain date only "digital oils" would be
made. No more brushes, no more smocks, only Paint Shop Pro. Or drawing. No
more pencils, no more gum erasers, just some CAD title with
years-ahead-styling and form.
This isn't a rant, just an expression of what I see.
If you _want_ a rant I could jam this list for a week (easily) with my
feelings with regard to same. But I don't think you want a rant so I won't. <g>
Tris
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|