On 4/5/2011 8:42 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> . . . Sometimes the lines get blurred. In this day and age, the
> majority of professionals are using their cameras as "point-and-shoots" that
> happen to take interchangeable lenses. Just because it's a DSLR that weighs
> and is as large as a Mini Cooper doesn't mean that the camera is used in
> anything but Program or Aperture-Priority Mode. Even the flash stuff is all
> automatic! I'm not passing judgement, because I use my DSLRs in the same
> manner. It's a "heat of the moment" thing where when that "P" mode seems the
> best choice.
On 4/7/2011 10:13 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Of course, this isn't an extreme of one way or the other. Modern
> wonderbricks can be used like old-style cameras, but that's not how
> the interface is optimized. The interface encourages a certain style
> of shooting, but doesn't force it. Old style cameras sometimes do
> force a certain style of shooting, but many can also be put into some
> form of "park your brains" mode. (That's what the "P" mode is
> called--"Park Your Brains").
>
> AG (P-mode) Schnozz
I agree with your first post more than the second. Of course, there are people
who just leave it in "P", but is that
"park your brains" or "Boy, I'm thankful that someone didn't make me learn all
that complicated photography stuff just
to take some decent pictures. They are SO much better with this new camera!"
The majority of people just aren't
interested and/or capable. Why shouldn't they be able to take decent snaps?
You've already said it for the pros, the ones using their brains choose "P"
when it's the best tool, something else when
called for.
On 4/5/2011 8:42 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> . . . But how a camera adapts to multiple styles and changing requirements is
> where the monolithic DSLRs still shine. They make lousy street-photography
> cameras, for example
Here, I must disagree. Just as I thought Mike J. on TOP was making assumptions,
I think there is a certain set of
assumptions about street photography that are too narrow. HC-B and others
adopted a new style of street photography both
made possible and significantly limited by the new equipment of the day (i.e.
Leica) at first.
They were originals. They tried out new things, in the face of strident
criticism, I might add. Since the limitations
have relaxed, other sorts of street photography have become possible. There
are, of course, as in so many fields, those
who define things by what they see behind them. What they don't see is that, if
HC-B and those who followed his lead had
been like these contemporary folks, their style of photography wouldn't ever
have come into existence.
Don't get me wrong. It's fine with me if people continue to emulate HC-B. I
just don't think they should be able to
define "street photography" so narrowly.
I've wandered the streets with a large DSLR and good sized zoom lens. I've made
a lot of images that way that are
clearly street photography under almost any sensible definition.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Brooklyn/People/All%20People/index.html>
It's a fine tool for that - if one uses its strengths, rather than trying to
use it like another sort of tool.
I just showed my book of street photos from Brooklyn to an old friend who's
been in the publishing business as writer
and editor for many years. He said straight out, brushing aside my demurrers,
that he thought it was commercially
publishable, and I should try to do so. Not a photo book editor, but an editor
of many books with lots of photos in them.
Feisty Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|