brainiac Offline Dedicated FM Account Locked
|
I'm saying that a camera is much more like a photocopier than like a canvas and paint. It is a hi-fi, not a violin, nor even a blank sheet of musical score. The purpose of the photocopier and camera, by their design is to reproduce, and the best ones reproduce with great accuracy. The accuracy of their reproduction is their essence. A camera which routinely makes a footballer look like a pot of rabbit stew isn't really a camera. It could be an artistic tool, and it could be a lot of fun, but it wouldn't really be doing photography. I think that photographers too often fancy being the author, and lose sight of the fact that the real power of photography comes from the photographer as transducer or recorder. In its purest form the value of photography lies in what is portrayed rather than how. Photography stole that role from painting. As such I think it's important to remember that the camera is a reproduction tool because that is the main thing that differentiates it from production tools like rocks, chisels, and typewriters. Of course, the camera can be used as a production tool, but it is no different from scissors and coloured paper in that regard.
The reproduction tool is getting more and more accurate and available, and that is why we scrutinise every pixel, so that we can know precisely how well the tool works, and thus wield it more effectively. Bring on the 200% crops, as long as any comparisons take magnification into account.
|