I believe Ansel would embrace digital with the same attitude that he embraced
any new technology available to him: with both enthusiasm AND reserve. For
example, he was generous in his praise of Polaroid Type 55 as a creative
medium, but he did not hesitate to point out its limitations and its very
specific niche. He was careful to describe the limitations of smaller formats,
while not excluding their utility in the creative process. E.g, smaller
formats could open the world to more candid photography, to spontaneity. All
new technologies depend on users (in this case, artists) pushing the
envelope... saying, "I like the concept, but it's not good enough, go back and
make it better." My first turn-off to digital cameras was shutter lag. That
has been solved for a large number, if not the majority, of digicams today.
There are other challenges which may take more or less time to solve. I think
it stupid that a digital camera cannot be modular so that its sensor cannot be
upgraded. It's like saying "Sorry, this SLR can only take K64 made today. If
we develop an improved K64, you'll have to buy a new body. And the lenses you
have now may be obsolete." That is NOT progress. The beauty of film
photography was that as film progressed, the hardware was equal realizing the
improvement in the film. To throw away that paradigm is a disservice to the
art. That is not to say that digital is all bunk, but to say "I like the
concept, but it's not good enough, go back and make it better."
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 12/15/2003 at 2:31 PM Ross Orr wrote:
>Lama-Jim wrote:
>>It was very kind of the interviewer to ask the Nikon representative
>>which MODEL of digital camera Ansel would have selected this
>>year. Sheesh! [...]
>>> What Would Ansel Do?
>>http://www.fortune.com/fortune/ontech/0,15704,560361,00.html
>
>Coincidentally, I've just been reading some biographies etc., about
>Ansel & other f/64 people, without coming across any reference yet to
>him working with a Nikon. In smaller formats, Contax, Contaflex,
>Leica R-4, yes. . . but most of all Hasselblad--his preferred axe in
>later years when dragging around view-camera gear became too much.
>
>It does sound like Ansel was a bit of a gadget freak--he seems to
>have *tried* every conceivable camera and lens at least once,
>including getting some freebies from manufacturers. He had a long
>relationship with Edwin Land as a beta-tester for Polaroid materials.
>
>But I just happened onto this quote, on pg. 59 of Ansel's "Examples:
>The Making of 40 Photographs":
>
> "I give full credit to the excellent scientists and technicians in
>the photographic industry. [....] However very few photographic
>manufacturing technicians comprehend photography as an art form, or
>understand the kind of equipment the creative person requires. The
>standards are improving in some areas, however: in my opinion, modern
>lenses approach the highest possible levels of perfection, and
>today's negative and printing materials are superior to anything I
>have known and used in the past. I am sure the next step will be the
>electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it."
>
>[published 1983; he died in April '84.]
>
>
>Apologies for the lack of OM content,
>
> --Ross
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~
>42.2855 North
>83.7497 West
>
>< 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 >
< 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 >
|