where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Nigel Farndale hates digital cameras and their users. He wrote an article in the "Telegraph" that basically says we who use digital cameras are mentally ill. He writes that instead of enjoying the moment as it happens, we grab the camera and snap "120" photos.
I kinda agree with what he says, but I'm very offended at the same time. It seems to me that he should have just enjoyed the view himself instead of worrying about how others are using their cameras.
(Thanks John)
Anyone who knows anything much about mental illness understands that, like physical illness, it is associated with pain, or its equivalent. How can anyone compare the creation of beauty or the simply recording of a moment in time as a disease? Probably doesn't like music either.
he can go where sun dont shine... ppl snap shot a lot and what ? at the end of the day its not his business
art ? well if you want your photography to be an art you can take it to that level... about 5 years ago I got my 1st digital camera and I developed my self to the level when I shoot and get paid for my work...
if I didnt have that snap and shot I would never go close to the film camera since its a lot more time consuming etc
new age - new rules
who ever cant adopt will be extinct
He needs a nice camera.
mentally or physically who cares, at least I don't - I love to take pictures, even if for some others it looks like I'm mentally ill. couple days ago, when I was in the park hunting "red rats" I was lying for couple minutes on the grass, and I've pretty much sensed what all people, that were passing me buy, were thinking about me.
I agree with what he says and I remember being one of that target group that he hates. I took pictures of everything and guess what I rarely looked at them again. I might as well have deleted them all. Do you really need to take pictures of everything?
I don't feel offended by this one bit but rather I think this is a good thing to ponder on the next photo trip.
Now, especially after getting the FM2, I've started giving the same thing a lot more thought. Also I've started to think more on the spot, whether it is really worth taking the shot or not. Anyone here who shoots on film, knows what I mean. You don't shoot rolls of scenery and then later decide if it was worth shooting or not, but instead you try making that decision yourself. My aim is to reach the same point with my digital camera: instead of going on a one-day photo trip, taking 300 photos and leaving 10-20 of them, just taking 20 shots and leaving the 5 good ones.
And one good quote to finish my post off: Don't worry about what people think of you, they are too busy worrying what you think of them.
I understand your point Monty, but it was the discouragingly high cost of film and processing that ground my shooting to a halt several years ago. I shot professionally for several years in my early adulthood and had the mantra "film-is-free". If you over-thought things and didn't shoot, you might miss opportunities, plus the fatal flaw was not having sufficient shots for the client's use. Throw-away shots from bracketing and experiments were part of the cost.
Now that I shoot on a D90, I use 8 Gig cards providing me with over 350 images at full resolution, plus I always carry a spare or two. Deleting is easy.
I always admired the view camera guys for their deliberation and ability to maximize each shot. But I liked 36 exposure rolls. Kind of like admiring the food at El Bulli or the French Laundry, but not wanting to cook that way yourself.
When film was cheap it really wasn't a problem for me to shoot off 4 or 5 rolls during one photo shoot. It's like Ted said you had to make sure you got the shot and it was the cost of doing business. Same with medium and large format. Not every shot is going to be the "one" but every shot cost you money so you'd better make it count.
Sports for example used up a lot of rolls! Think about how many shots all those sport shooters do trying to catch the precise moment. It was the same in the film days. You'd make contact sheets of all 20 rolls of film but only print 1 or 2 shots from the game! Digital just makes it more cost effective.
But shooting 120 frames of a single flower....well that's something different :^)
Unless it's a very nice flower? Maybe it was the brownies.
nau: "new age - new rules
who ever cant adopt will be extinct"
Exactly and perhaps the best remark made on this forum ever! Well said.
adamz: "mentally or physically who cares, at least I don't - I love to take pictures, even if for some others it looks like I'm mentally ill. couple days ago, when I was in the park hunting "red rats" I was lying for couple minutes on the grass, and I've pretty much sensed what all people, that were passing me buy, were thinking about me."
Glad you said this. It's a whole different stare you get when you're a wildlife shooter. This is especially true if you live in a city like San Diego where anyone who's a bit different really gets scrutinized. It's best to make sure there are too many other people around otherwise you look like one of those people neighborhood parents warn their children about.
If the use of digital cameras in mental illness then I need to be committed to an asylum for the photographically insane because now I sometimes carry two DSLR's with me.
"the best remark made....ever!"
Whoa! We've got some big shoes to fill now don't we.
I better hurry and go adopt a puppy before I go extinct :^)
true I think he meant adapt but we get the point lol
I know Gentoo :)
Like I said in another thread, learn to play with new technology or take your Atari and go home.
The guy has a point, but I wouldn't call it a mental illness. People don't value each shot as much as they used to, and in a way you can call it a bad thing. I sometimes am guilty of that, so yes, I do sympathize with him, but as an amateur photographer (if I am allowed to call myself that), you can't take a good photo with your camera holstered all day long.
Learning to shoot with film, I've had the chance to experience both worlds- before digital and afterwards. I love both worlds and I hope film never ceases to be produced. There are advantages to film that digital can't really reproduce, and vice versa.
I think he is more annoyed at the guys who don't know anything about photography- the type of person who would go take photos all day long instead of taking in his surroundings. I do that once in a while as well, unfortunately. I gotta change my habits!
gentoo - "...now I sometimes carry two DSLR's with me..." - Yup, I know the feeling
I wasn't looking at the issue from a professional's (one who shoots for a living) point of view but drew the parallel with that exact point which was mentioned in the article ... a guy shooting everything he sees.
Give a blind man a camera and let him fire away. I'm sure there will be a couple of good shots among the 1000 he takes. Who wants to raise their hand and say that they are that blind man on a nature trek?
Is that the visual equivalent of a million monkeys with typewriters producing a Shakespeane play?
Besides, sometimes it's wise to shoot everything and then edit. I'd like to see that blind guy doing the editing!
Actually guys there are some pretty damn good photographers around who happen to be blind.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1899017,00.html
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/blind-photographers/
click on the name of the photographer to "see" their photos
http://www.theblindphotographer.com/main.asp?thePage=Gallery&CL=ENG
But I do know what you mean monty11. :)
I no longer see the point of shooting everything that I see.
A lot of things that you "see" are so only because of tunnel vision while your camera sees it with all the clutter around it. At other times there is nothing in the picture worth taking.
I'm not against taking doubles or even ten shots of one thing if you are worried about camera shake, misfocussing or trying out different apertures or perspectives. But doesn't it feel a lot better if you take a only few good shots rather than find those few shots from a pile of snapshots?
I also don't think the article is meant at photographers who have some purpose and know what happens when they press the magic button but rather at the point-and-shooters who download their memory cards to flickr or other similar sites.
Am I making any sense here? :D
EDIT: Let's make that a blind man with no clue about photography then :D
monty: "I'm not against taking doubles or even ten shots of one thing if you are worried about camera shake, misfocussing or trying out different apertures or perspectives. But doesn't it feel a lot better if you take a only few good shots rather than find those few shots from a pile of snapshots?
I also don't think the article is meant at photographers who have some purpose and know what happens when they press the magic button but rather at the point-and-shooters who download their memory cards to flickr or other similar sites.
Am I making any sense here? :D"
You are making absolutely perfect sense. I agree with you entirely! I will add that one of the worse things to happen to photography was letting teenagers have cameras. The most god awful pictures I ever see are on myspace. I work with this age group in case you're wondering. When they "learn" how to destroy the art of photography at this age, they never get any better and there are lots of older adults now who take equally horrendous pictures! I probably should not have said teenagers now that I think about it as it's more widespread than that.
im not so sure I can agree with teenagers(or amateurs in general) getting cameras is a bad thing, gentoo.
I'm only 20 and the "myspace" style pictures I've often seen from friends are often reflections of the popular media and pop culture. Some people have skewed perceptions of what makes a good picture, but they didn't come up with it on their own.
Back when I was a young whipper snapper like you Gentoo there was none of this...this auto focus in cameras crap! My pictures were blurry as hell and I liked them! Hell My Kodak Brownie was just a damn box with a hole in it that cost me one dollar! You heard right! I said one dollar! I worked my butt off all summer to afford that camera! None of this buy it on credit for me Mommy and Daddy shh...shenanigans! Ahhh, those were the good ole days....Myspace!? Myspace? I'll show you my space you little....
Now Get off my Lawn!! And take your shutter happy friends with ya! :^)
;)
"im not so sure I can agree with teenagers(or amateurs in general) getting cameras is a bad thing, gentoo."
True, my statement was a generalization.
You must log in to post.
