Comments on: Some thoughts on Digital http://www.thechrisproject.com/photoblog/2008/03/26/some-thoughts-on-digital/ documenting photographic journeys and interests Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:58:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: chris http://www.thechrisproject.com/photoblog/2008/03/26/some-thoughts-on-digital/#comment-336 chris Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:51:34 +0000 http://www.thechrisproject.com/photoblog/2008/03/26/some-thoughts-on-digital/#comment-336 I'm not sure I agree with Erwitt's statement. Actually, I'm pretty sure that I don't! I've argued both sides before. And I've thought about Photoshop/darkroom before and I think the main difference is that PS makes so much possible so easily. There's very little penalty for trying something 3000 different ways. And in that abundance of choice lies the possibility of being and endless experimenter who never fully explores one style. An artist whose work doesn't build on its past but instead flits about laterally. Having these endless digital processing possibilities can lead to the same problem that being able to take thousands of photos without cost does: you increase your burden as an editor, as a decider of which path works best for you. But I don't believe that necessarily. :) The last photo up there is my own skin's ode to digital technology. So whose statement do you agree with now? I’m not sure I agree with Erwitt’s statement. Actually, I’m pretty sure that I don’t! I’ve argued both sides before. And I’ve thought about Photoshop/darkroom before and I think the main difference is that PS makes so much possible so easily. There’s very little penalty for trying something 3000 different ways. And in that abundance of choice lies the possibility of being and endless experimenter who never fully explores one style. An artist whose work doesn’t build on its past but instead flits about laterally. Having these endless digital processing possibilities can lead to the same problem that being able to take thousands of photos without cost does: you increase your burden as an editor, as a decider of which path works best for you.

But I don’t believe that necessarily. :) The last photo up there is my own skin’s ode to digital technology. So whose statement do you agree with now?

]]> By: Nataraj Hauser / eyeDance http://www.thechrisproject.com/photoblog/2008/03/26/some-thoughts-on-digital/#comment-330 Nataraj Hauser / eyeDance Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:22:13 +0000 http://www.thechrisproject.com/photoblog/2008/03/26/some-thoughts-on-digital/#comment-330 While I tend to agree with the sentiment about digital manipulation, I have some devil's advocate thoughts. First let me say that I am a fledgling photographer who is ONLY improving because I can shoot and shoot with my digital camera, allowing me to make all sorts of mistakes and see what the result is. I doubt I'll ever aspire to be a professional in the strict sense of the word (that is, earning my pay as a photographer). My approach as a student of photography is to maximize my ability with the camera, doing everything I can to get the shot right. I do not own, nor do I want to own Photoshop or the like. I do some minor tweaks (exposure, color, contrast, crop, straighten) with iPhoto, and not much of that. Which brings me to my devil's advocacy. How is Photoshop conceptually different from darkroom manipulation? Dodging, burning, and even paper selection (and so many more tweaks and gimmicks) are possible in the darkroom. Is someone like Ansel Adams less of a photographer because he finished crafting his images in the darkroom? My instinctive reaction is to agree with your, and Erwitt's sentiment, but admit I am conflicted as to WHY I agree with you. While I tend to agree with the sentiment about digital manipulation, I have some devil’s advocate thoughts. First let me say that I am a fledgling photographer who is ONLY improving because I can shoot and shoot with my digital camera, allowing me to make all sorts of mistakes and see what the result is. I doubt I’ll ever aspire to be a professional in the strict sense of the word (that is, earning my pay as a photographer). My approach as a student of photography is to maximize my ability with the camera, doing everything I can to get the shot right. I do not own, nor do I want to own Photoshop or the like. I do some minor tweaks (exposure, color, contrast, crop, straighten) with iPhoto, and not much of that. Which brings me to my devil’s advocacy.

How is Photoshop conceptually different from darkroom manipulation? Dodging, burning, and even paper selection (and so many more tweaks and gimmicks) are possible in the darkroom. Is someone like Ansel Adams less of a photographer because he finished crafting his images in the darkroom? My instinctive reaction is to agree with your, and Erwitt’s sentiment, but admit I am conflicted as to WHY I agree with you.

]]> By: bon bon http://www.thechrisproject.com/photoblog/2008/03/26/some-thoughts-on-digital/#comment-237 bon bon Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:39:05 +0000 http://www.thechrisproject.com/photoblog/2008/03/26/some-thoughts-on-digital/#comment-237 mr. erwitt's comments reminds me of a phrase i've heard fairly recently; it's not the arrow, it's the indian. you do a damn fine job of hitting your mark, chris. mr. erwitt’s comments reminds me of a phrase i’ve heard fairly recently; it’s not the arrow, it’s the indian.

you do a damn fine job of hitting your mark, chris.

]]>