Wow ... I never thought for one moment that anyone could revert back to film after switching to digital. You may start a trend here and make it fashionable to shoot film. There is currently a resurgence in the popularity of vinyl records (both LP's and 45's) especially in Germany, UK, Japan, and here in USA.
Dustin Gent wrote:
interesting reading in this thread.
Starting tomorrow, I will no longer have a digital camera. I am going to embark in a 9-12 month adventure, shooting only film. It sounds crazy, and is expensive. I don't really shoot haphazardly, but I will need to be even more careful with my shots.
What I hope to gain from this experience is growth in my skills. TO be honest, I never look at my histogram - and I am embarrassed to say I don't know how to read it - so I won't miss that aspect. I also have been shooting with a 1Ds and an old manual focus lens (not even in Canon mount), so I won't have live view to yearn for, or all the other things (micro adjust or whatever it is called?).
My goal is to get shots as good (or better) as what I am getting now. Going to be interesting...
oh and before anyone jumps on me about the histogram deal, I think I have done well with exposures ...Show more →
KaaX wrote:
I don't think being a genius is about doing things effortlessly. I think it's mostly about knowing how and what to do (create/solve/write/paint/photograph/etc.) when rationality fails, when the usual rules do not exist, do not apply, or need to be broken.
In a way, genius is opposite to craftsman.
I don't think so. There is nothing about genius that replaces or opposes craftsmanship--a genius will more quickly grasp the application of craftsmanship. If we take Michelangelo, for instance, as a "genius" sculptor, that doesn't mean he didn't have to learn the techniques of how to flake marble without breaking it.
A genius must still learn the craft and in fact become an expert craftsman, but a genius will be able to apply the craft at a higher level of art, to achieve things that were perhaps thought impossible or even unimagined.
At page 10 in replies, it's probably all been said, but I'll add my 2 cents. On the job, there are definite advantages to having specific equipment. In terms of creating art, or creating a photograph that spurs an emotional response from a viewer, usually more features or greater technology isn't needed, unless there is a specific vision that requires a certain technological feature. This is a gear forum, so naturally the technology is discussed at length vs. creating emotional impact from an artistic sense.
There is always that extra little bit of talent that seperates Superstars from mere mortals. In the past I have played tennis with a frying pan to prove the point that gear does not matter. What does matter is the experience & expertise of one's opponent. So for me experience + talent will always triumph. I don't know if the OP is comparing photographers with similar or differing abilities.
bobbytan wrote:
Wow ... I never thought for one moment that anyone could revert back to film after switching to digital. You may start a trend here and make it fashionable to shoot film. There is currently a resurgence in the popularity of vinyl records (both LP's and 45's) especially in Germany, UK, Japan, and here in USA.
I shoot both digital and film. If your goal is the photo, the medium you choose to achieve this goal is irrelavent, at least it is for me. I enjoy both film and digital equally and get just as many "keepers" from each.
RDKirk wrote:
I don't think so. There is nothing about genius that replaces or opposes craftsmanship--a genius will more quickly grasp the application of craftsmanship. If we take Michelangelo, for instance, as a "genius" sculptor, that doesn't mean he didn't have to learn the techniques of how to flake marble without breaking it.
A genius must still learn the craft and in fact become an expert craftsman, but a genius will be able to apply the craft at a higher level of art, to achieve things that were perhaps thought impossible or even unimagined.
A genius often has a superb grasp of his or her field of knowledge or technical skill set...but the main difference is not that they have skills that are head and shoulders above other practitioners....it is the way they apply their skills in a way others don't.
Imagine photographic skills as a vocabulary.....some photographers just have a greater vocabulary and a better way with the 'language'........ two photographers might have the same vocabulary but one is just more fluent using it...and uses it in a more imaginative way. In fact I would go one step further and say that a photographer with a smaller vocabulary might still use that more limited vocabulary in a far more imaginative way than one who has a larger vocabulary but lacks the gift of using it fully.
So in a sense the same analogy is applicable to gear.....if differing levels of gear are synonymous to differing levels of vocabulary.....learning to make the best use of what one has might well be more productive than seeking to extend the vocabulary on the assumption one then has a more creative use of ones vocabulary.....rather than merely just having more of it!
Dustin Gent wrote:
interesting reading in this thread.
Starting tomorrow, I will no longer have a digital camera. I am going to embark in a 9-12 month adventure, shooting only film. It sounds crazy, and is expensive. I don't really shoot haphazardly, but I will need to be even more careful with my shots.
What I hope to gain from this experience is growth in my skills. TO be honest, I never look at my histogram - and I am embarrassed to say I don't know how to read it - so I won't miss that aspect. I also have been shooting with a 1Ds and an old manual focus lens (not even in Canon mount), so I won't have live view to yearn for, or all the other things (micro adjust or whatever it is called?).
My goal is to get shots as good (or better) as what I am getting now. Going to be interesting...
oh and before anyone jumps on me about the histogram deal, I think I have done well with exposures ...Show more →
Film use (B+W) is on the increase in the UK...and the price of good film gear is likewise on the up. I dev my own B+W film which I then scan and work on digitally...it is quite a 'craft' orientated process but not that expensive...I can leave the house with a couple of 36 exp rolls of film and not get through one......but still have a productive trip. I can take the DSLR and will take many more images......but I still rank the film trips as being the more satisfying in terms of outcome and process. It makes one think.....hard.
jcolwell wrote:
Genius is as genius does. Boundaries and definitions are meaningless. After genius speaks, then we try to define it.
OK, then, genius was companion to craft. :-)
In some of the classes I teach (in music, not photography) we sometimes consider the qualities of the virtuouso. There are two primary components. One is an astonishing and superlative level of technical prowess, often the result of what seems like some extraordinary natural aptitude plus obsessive practice. The other is an expressive power that almost cannot be explained but which moves those who hear it.
There are parallels to photography, though the fit is not perfect. For example, there is much, much less emphasis on the mastery of highly technical skills in photography than in music. But geniuses/virtuosi exist in both.
I agree that genius is as genius does, and that we can try to understand it afterwards more than we can create or predict it in advance. I disagree with the idea that boundaries and definitions are meaningless.
RDKirk wrote:
I don't think so. There is nothing about genius that replaces or opposes craftsmanship--a genius will more quickly grasp the application of craftsmanship.
gdanmitchell wrote:
In a true artist, genius is companion to craftsman.
I don't think so -- and let me clarify what I meant.
A craftsman is one who's capable of producing a high-quality product. What he wants to make is usually well-defined, so the end goal is fixed -- his skills lie in knowing the characteristics of his materials, knowing how causal relationships work, and the ability to actually make the thing (as opposed to just knowing how to do it). There is usually little artistic creativity involved, though typically there's a lot of problem-solving. In other words, a craftsman knows well how the rules work and is able to use these rules to make excellent things.
A genius is a very different creature. His abilities lie not in following the rules well, but in breaking them. A genius may or may not have high technical skills -- that's not what defines him. "Just" a craftsman feels comfortable within his system of rules but would be lost without them. But a genius is precisely the one who can function when the old rules are gone, broken, or do not apply any more -- he opens new areas, draws new maps, and establishes new rules.
By the way, I don't consider virtuosos (people who have amazing, almost superhuman technical skill, typically in performance arts like music) to be geniuses. I consider them to be very very skilled craftsmen, but unless they break radically new ground, they are not geniuses. Same thing with "true artist" -- to be one requires passing a considerably lower threshold than to be a genius.
It's possible to be both a craftsman and a genius. But very few craftsmen are geniuses and not all geniuses are good craftsmen. Same thing with artists -- few artists are geniuses and not all geniuses are artists.
There is currently a resurgence in the popularity of vinyl records (both LP's and 45's) especially in Germany, UK, Japan, and here in USA.
