I won't shoot the messenger....but I will say, it forgoes the joy and expression for the amateur photographer that comes in capturing form in the world around, not just the end product so to so speak. It's an article aimed at people who use photography in media or in a corporate sense, but not about telling stories about the real world, and capturing moments that people can relate to.
One thing I have noticed though is over-processing leading to so many photos being overly vivid. Everything with saturated and intense RGB.
I grew up with the darkroom, and still feel guilty using on camera tricks, but they are just for fun. I've still never learnt any software because for me at least, I just don't enjoy sitting in front of a screen manipulating an image, even cropping is a chore and a bore. I'd rather live with the perfection of the imperfect!
I am trying to learn Blender and let me say one thing: it is not easy to use. It will certainly take a very long time and effort to master it to the point of producing anything close to the image the author of the article claims was so easy to make.
Having said that the question is what is photography really? What is the role of the photographer? Capturing a photo on film or a CCD, download it onto the computer, start your photoshop or equivalent and click a button can this be called photography? Must a photograph relate to or depict a real object, scene, situation, etc...? If this is the case can some of Man Ray's "photographs" be called photographs? Where does the photographer fit in the whole process? Is the photographer simply a button pusher? An extension of the camera? Or is the camera--film or otherwise--a tool which allows the photographer to capture what the photographer sees, feels or thinks?
Before talking about replacing the photographer we must define what the word photographer means.
I find the title of the article sensationalist--in a derogatory sense-- and alarmist just like the painter Paul Delaroche who declared painting dead when he first saw a daguerrotype in 1839. Painting is still alive and well despite the widespread use of cameras--every person with a mobile phone has a camera. I doubt very much that Blender or any other software will ever replace or even remotely compete with photographers. However, if we think of a photographer as some one who draws with light by capturing the light and shadows on film or a CCD why can't we think of the person who uses the mouse and software such as Blender as a painter--a digital painter--or even a sort of photographer?
One thing I have noticed though is over-processing leading to so many photos being overly vivid. Everything with saturated and intense RGB.
I grew up with the darkroom, and still feel guilty using on camera tricks, but they are just for fun. I've still never learnt any software because for me at least, I just don't enjoy sitting in front of a screen manipulating an image, even cropping is a chore and a bore. I'd rather live with the perfection of the imperfect!
Having said that the question is what is photography really? What is the role of the photographer? Capturing a photo on film or a CCD, download it onto the computer, start your photoshop or equivalent and click a button can this be called photography? Must a photograph relate to or depict a real object, scene, situation, etc...? If this is the case can some of Man Ray's "photographs" be called photographs? Where does the photographer fit in the whole process? Is the photographer simply a button pusher? An extension of the camera? Or is the camera--film or otherwise--a tool which allows the photographer to capture what the photographer sees, feels or thinks?
Before talking about replacing the photographer we must define what the word photographer means.
I find the title of the article sensationalist--in a derogatory sense-- and alarmist just like the painter Paul Delaroche who declared painting dead when he first saw a daguerrotype in 1839. Painting is still alive and well despite the widespread use of cameras--every person with a mobile phone has a camera. I doubt very much that Blender or any other software will ever replace or even remotely compete with photographers. However, if we think of a photographer as some one who draws with light by capturing the light and shadows on film or a CCD why can't we think of the person who uses the mouse and software such as Blender as a painter--a digital painter--or even a sort of photographer?
Sign-in to post a comment.