![]() Like all other crafts, it takes time and effort to get better at it, and in photograpy, there is always more to learn. If thats you, who wishes to keep believing that browsing and discussing, blaming gear, 'the times' and what not are what's keeping you back, then I'm here to tell you, there is no easy way, no shorcuts, or just 'raw talent' (in pressing a button one time, really?). You can keep making excuses like you don't want to, it's not your style, the algorhythmmmm is messing with you, but in the end, you just lack the skill or the perseverance or simply the patience to wait for the right light conditions were that one shot is the best. On the other hand, if you're a good photographer, it shouldn't be a problem for you get in the 'popular' page of 500px,just because you want to or as a challenge to yourself. Can be art as well, it's a subjective thing, so I dunno. You can of course be artsy and think you don't need all this 'knowledge' and make very alternative stuff randomly and by chance. Doing everything good in that process, or at least decent, takes time and effort to learn. You can clearly distinguish between a snapshot and someone that has experience (exposure triangle, composition,takes time to do post). I like people making photograps, but photography is more than just that one button press. Trouble is, when your vision has spent too long in your pocket, sometimes you reach for it and it’s not there any more." The answer to the question ‘What have you got to say?’ drifts towards ‘What do you want me to say?’ There’s reward in being generic, keeping one’s vision in one’s pocket. There’s less currency in having a viewpoint. Self-worth diminishes, because nobody really likes being a eunuch, even a well-paid one. A culture of fear and sycophancy develops. ![]() By abdicating those responsibilities to the guy who’s paying, you’re undergoing a sort of self-inflicted castration. Like Magi, the ‘creatives’ brought creativity photographers, vision. Because the previous dialectic was that you engaged people who brought something to the party you couldn’t provide yourself. Now it was the photographer asking the art director asking the client. The photographer’s role as sorcerer and custodian of the vision was diminished: The question ‘have we got it?’ became redundant. A process that involved trusting strips of cellulose in a mysterious dark box was replaced by instant, impeccable rendering, in situ on vast monitors. Before the pixel, craft was still an elemental component of the narrative. 4074875 What do you think?ĭigital changed the landscape. It's not horrible, I like it in most shots, it's really just that it's a tad too strong for me when you've got some very spots/zones, like the building at night and from under the bridge, I take about the same kind of photos so it's good to see it in action how I would use it If both were digital or film, I probably wouldn't be able to tell unless a film stock were specified. If I had to make my best guess, photo1 looks more "filmic," but that's really just how the grain is rendered. The main difficulty is film simulation with color grain in a video format, which is still extremely difficult to render accurately frame by frame and shot by shot, and is a process that has to be planned around during the entire production process. As long as in film simulation you get the basic properties of film right (correlation between exposure and grain level, halation of highlights, texture proportionate to image quality) it's not really going to be discernable enough for b&w unless someone is familiar with the particular system. How soft/sharp it is, how densely it's rendered, and how distinct the pattern is all lies in the image capture and post processing. To be fair, much of the rendition of grain lies up to the way the film is digitalized.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |