From: illovich (illovich@home.com)
Date: 11/08/01-02:34:54 PM Z
on 11/2/01 12:14 PM, Richard Sullivan at richsul@earthlink.net wrote:
> As for digitally "composed" photography, for the most part GIGO, garbage in
> garbage out. Mind you this is not an absolute, just some generalities and
> observations here. I've recently seen a couple of "digital photography"
> shows here at Santa Fe local colleges. Abysmally poor compared to the
> "real" photography exhibits at the same schools at the same time.
This is a problem I've been having at Temple, where I take photography
classes and work (for the computer services dept!), but I don't blame the
supposed ease of the tools (like photoshop) or their speed vs. the darkroom,
but the often overlooked abysmal quality of digital cameras.
I know there are good cameras available, but college students never see
them. The least acceptable camera for what is called art photography
available is probably the Nikon Coolpix 9xx series, which is retailing for
about what, $800? And frankly, compared to a Canon Rebel G it's a horrible
camera when you're talking about creative control of exposure.
I think the problem is that since you just point and shoot, it's pretty much
all people do with them. I have tried very hard to do various projects with
digital cameras...I've abandoned the digital camera on almost every occasion
in favor of a film camera. Why? because when I get back to the computer,
half the pictures are out of focus, because the tiny screen doesn't give an
accurate approximation of focus.
I could belabor this point all day.
I am not saying that this one factor is the only cause of poorer quality
work, but I think that the GIGO factor of the actual hardware itself must
make teaching "photography" a bit more difficult.
Anyway, just wanted to chime in.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/10/01-11:12:21 AM Z CST