Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: If you had been told in 2001.....  (Read 23719 times)
JJP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #40 on: May 13, 2006, 08:28:09 PM »
ReplyReply

sorry folks,
It was not my intention to hyjack this thread, just to make a point the best of the best of the best of piano's (for example) is nothing but firewood when in the wrong hands.
Secondly, all this talk about gear reinforces the fact imo that digital photography can only co-exist with lust for more bigger better gear.  If the primary objective of digital photography was creativity, composition, and all those qualities that make prints totally tantalizingly unike,  then there wouldn't be such a thing as gear talk.  Of course, I'm more guilty of "equipment lust" than anyone else.
jj
Logged

JJ
sgwrx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #41 on: May 13, 2006, 10:18:51 PM »
ReplyReply

i have to say that one of the advantages to growing older (though i'm only 35 but when anyone can say - i remember 20 years ago - to me that's old) is how all the stuff you wanted as a kid is now available!

4 years ago i thought "whatever happened to those long sit-down bicycles i liked when i was 10?" then i thought "gee, i wonder if the internet has anything" bammo, recumbant bikes galore!

4 years ago i never thought i would EVER own an inkjet because they sucked. i'd save up for a kodak dye-sub.  bammo! i own an R2400.

though i have some experience as a lad in b&w photography and i've played around from time to time with an old nikon F camera, i was so excited when digital cameras started coming out like the kodak dc260.  it's absolutely amazing what the "new" industrial age (is there a term for it yet?) has done and brought.  while there are many shortcomings and "we wish"'s i feel like there's never been a better time to be alive.
Logged
sgwrx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #42 on: May 13, 2006, 10:21:41 PM »
ReplyReply

good rant con't...

one thing i think that has contributed to my positive attitude is that i've "been out of the loop" for a while. the printer thing for example. i just gave up on printers and never kept up with technology.  now, i'm totally surprised and happy!  kind of a self-induced time warp thing
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8847


« Reply #43 on: May 13, 2006, 11:37:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It was not my intention to hyjack this thread, just to make a point the best of the best of the best of piano's (for example) is nothing but firewood when in the wrong hands.


That's not quite true, JJ. A piano can be a fine piece of furniture, as much prized for its external beauty as its beauty of tone. It can also be a symbol of the musical aspirations of the owner as well as a status symbol.

However, the analogy breaks down at some point, as most analogies do. There's little chance (in fact, really no chance whatsoever) that the inexperienced beginner on a piano could knock out a beautifully executed rendition of a Beethoven sonata. But there is a chance that an inexperienced person behind a camera could take an award-winning photo as a result of being in the right place at the right time, because the lighting just happened to be perfect and because the camera was able to capture the dynamic range of the scene, either in one of it's automatic modes or because a manual setting the camera was on just happened to be appropriate for the scene.

The camera lays the groundwork for the picture. It is in fact the most extraordinary picture-making tool ever invented and it keeps on getting better and better. It's no wonder we are fascinated with the hardware. All the operator has to do is point the thing in the right direction and press a button at the right moment. What could be easier?

Even when things go wrong and the flash doesn't fire, as in the shot below, the picture might still be worth looking at. If this shot had been from a film camera, I would have automatically junked it. However, the automatic settings in ACR gave it a full +4 stops of EC and I decided I liked the result. I like the ethereal glow and tapestry effect. The noise floor of the Canon DSLR has at last served a purpose   . (The shot's of an ancient temple in Ayuddhya, taken from a riverboat at night - during a spare moment between the Green Curry Chicken and the serving of the coffee).

[attachment=563:attachment]
Logged
Digiteyesed
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2006, 02:01:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
#Entire darkrooms would be sold on ebay for a pittance as chemical printing becomes 'passe'

To date, I have accumulated a total of nine functioning darkrooms by paying only for shipping. The previous owners were grateful to have their gear rescued from a landfill. You don't even need to pay for darkroom gear at this point.
Logged

Neutral Hills Stills
A visual journey through this unique area of East Central Alberta, Canada.
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 14, 2006, 03:41:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On nuclear waste, one of you technies answer me this: why not build a railgun on one of our old nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and fire ceramic-dipped steel/nuclear-waste phone-poles into the sun every few minutes?

I know, I know, Green Peace would complain that we're polluting the sun. But other than that?
Other than that, it requires something more precise than a railgun on an aircraft carrier to hit the Sun and avoid the waste following a slingshot trajectory, just creating that much more dangerous, high-speed waste in space.

From what I recall, it is actually far easier to hit Jupiter or Saturn than to hit the Sun;
properly safe waste disposal (into the Sun or another large body) requires active adjustment of the trajectory.

I think the exact answer can be found by application of the principles of orbital mechanics, but I haven't done math on anywhere near this level in ten years.
Logged

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 14, 2006, 03:42:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BTW, I hope you are all looking forward to the day you can buy a Blu-Ray recorder with a 50GB storage capacity (and potential 200GB capacity) on a disk the size of a current DVD disk. You might need it to record future Canon 22mp images, not to mention re-recording all your previously archived material on CD and DVD, which I'm sure you are terribly worried about   .
Yep, I'm worried, especially about the lifetime of BR or HD-DVD. Not that it's going to bother me anytime soon.
Logged

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 14, 2006, 03:47:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Secondly, all this talk about gear reinforces the fact imo that digital photography can only co-exist with lust for more bigger better gear.  If the primary objective of digital photography was creativity, composition, and all those qualities that make prints totally tantalizingly unike,  then there wouldn't be such a thing as gear talk.  Of course, I'm more guilty of "equipment lust" than anyone else.
I disagree.

It is also a matter of practicality. For someone who's grown up with computers, digital photography and the technicalities of it are of course interesting in themselves. But improvements along these lines are also interesting as tools of the trade for photographers. Photographers had "gear talk" before the advent of digital photography, too.

Find me an artist or craftsman who isn't interested in the tools of their trade at all ...

I don't see how photography should be different in this regard from woodcrafts, weaving or surgery.

Technology matters.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8847


« Reply #48 on: May 14, 2006, 10:53:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Find me an artist or craftsman who isn't interested in the tools of their trade at all ...

I don't see how photography should be different in this regard from woodcrafts, weaving or surgery.

Technology matters.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65391\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I tend to agree, Jani. How could I not, since I spend so much time on this forum discussing the technical properties of equipment. However, there needs to be a balance. I get the impression that sometimes people take such pride in their ownership of a piece of equipment, it becomes almost like their 'baby' that can do no wrong. They take an emotional stance, like supporting a particular football team.

From my point of view, the whole purpose of discussing photographic equipment is to learn what the equipment is capable of doing, what its limitations are and how such limitations are being addressed (and, indeed, whether or not they even can be addressed) in a future product as technology progresses. I need to know at what aperture a particular lens is sharpest because I'm interested in resolution; what the usable ISO range is because I prefer not to have noisy images (generally) and a whole host of factors too numerous to mention.

It would be a very unusual artist who would choose photography as his/her medium of expression and not be interested in such matters. I'm trying to imagine a situation where such an attitude could resilt in success. I suppose if money were no object and I could afford to buy the best of everything, I might get away with a total lack of interest in such matters, apart from basic instructions on how to operate the camera.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad