The Photographer

[MrBern]

the latest

Voigtlander putting out a fine mix of modern & vintage film camera

http://www.voigtlander.com/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_fdih7jzkae.html

 

[Matt Deckard]

i said in the first post better photographers, yet now I see it becoming a influx of people thinking they are better photographers because they have the access to the craft, yet not the artistic sense in many cases. Anywho... just a thought.

 

[Steve]

i said in the first post better photographers, yet now I see it becoming a influx of people thinking they are better photographers because they have the access to the craft, yet not the artistic sense in many cases. Anywho... just a thought.

I agree with you there; although the blame also lies with sycophantic friends who say that everything is "freakin' awesome" when it's not.

I think that many photographers have gotten better through the digital medium, but just as many have gotten used to the AV/TV modes doing all the thinking for them.

 

[John in Covina]

i said in the first post better photographers, yet now I see it becoming a influx of people thinking they are better photographers because they have the access to the craft, yet not the artistic sense in many cases. Anywho... just a thought.

********************

Photography has a lot to be based on from the art world of drawing and painting. There are concepts for composition that are solid rules to rely on that simply help make a photo enjoyable and more "understandable" for the viewer. Occassionally snapshots can creaate a new view that is exciting as well as constructing the view for form and perspective. Rarely does photography reward someone with an untutored eye and no natural ability to see the picture as composition.

Even well versed photographers take tons of pictures to get "the one" that captures what they are going for so sometimes that special shot can elude the best.

 

[martinsantos]

An interesting discussion here.

My answer to Matt's question is NO, digital photography isn't helping people to get better photographs.

To take a photo isn't something automatic; 80% of the work is about composition, to choose the correct lighting, the find the correct moment to press the button. Another 15% goes about some other aspects, as to focus the important point, and to choose the aperture of lens (so giving the amplitude of focus on the result).

In other words, to get a really good photograph is important to THINK about you want as your result. I don't see this in the usual snapshooter. And the digital, as the photos are "free", we see the snapshooters taking lots and lots of photos - none really good. Something similar, of course, happened in he past with the "point-and-shoot" cameras; but some of them gave really stunning results. I just got some shots from 30s took with an Agfa Billy really impressive. But this was a camera, very simple, that could give to the photographer the opportunity to choose what he wants in the result.

The most irritating device in little digital cameras? The zoom lenses. Zoom lenses are not designed for sedentary photographers that are lazy about getting nearer of the object photographed; the different focal distances are about perspective control.

What do you think? Is modern day amateur photography and the ability to take a camera anywhere in your breast pocket making what used to be hard to get and hard to take photos into everyday anyone can do photos?