Re: Actual photograph

A number of years ago, I worked at a local television station. They decided at one point to buy a "chip" camera, (read "going digital".) The production department was gathered together to view the two finalists. One camera had very good fidelity, however, the image was pretty lifeless. The other's fidelity was not quite as good, but the picture was "prettier" and more painterly. It was if one had been designed strictly by a technician and the other had been sent to an artist for a final tweaking.

Maybe Photoshop 1000.5 will have a plug-in for the different brands of cameras. The bottom line is that photography is/was what first Kodak and Nikon, lately Epson, Samsung and Nikon, says it is, resistance is futile. (That is what I like about the term "post factory".)

Candace Spearman
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Jack Fulton
  To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
  Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:50 AM
  Subject: Re: Actual photograph

  I
  Joe's (& others) description/lament is sweet albeit romantic and perhaps Ludditic at
  its core but there is a lot to agree with.
  Yet, though film is disappearing, the digital camera is improving. Is not Nikon coming
  out w/something like 13, 14 or more mpxls ASAP? Yeup, four grand or more. Too much,
  but pro cameras were and still are up toward the stratosphere.
  Re materials and attitudes, when I introduced color to our curriculum in the 70's other
  classes did not wish to crit the work for they felt it wasn't photography. You'll remember
  Frank's dictum that "B/W is the COLOR of photography". Now color is darned near de
  rigeur.

  .
Received on Fri Mar 18 09:24:32 2005