RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.85 #20 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Well, that's just your personal point of view, nothing more, nothing less. For me, the end result is by no means the only thing that matters. The process is at least as important to me. At least. Not for you, though. Basically, in a few years, the AI prompt operator will also explain to you that only the result counts and that photography techniques are useless. And you'll probably agree with him. By the way, regarding your comparison: I find it inaccurate, but if you consider the document to be produced as a work of art, then I would answer that I value it far more highly if it was skillfully created by hand with a calligraphy pen and ink than the identical-looking printout of a file created on a PC....Show more →
In the "old days" the term art was synonymous with skill ... the etymology of the term. Along the way, some folks (society, not us per se) adopted the term art to be devoid of retention regarding the skill involved.
That said, the term skill can be applied in a variety of manner, regarding skilled at what? Skilled at developing film, skilled at dodging / burning, skilled at printing. Compare that with being skilled at composition, skilled at timing the capture, skilled at climbing mountains to access the view, skilled at getting people to smile, skilled at capturing people's emotional vulnerability without being obtrusive or a jack-a$$, skilled at creating images that engage others minds or emotions. Skilled a seeing juxtapositions, skilled at understanding the interplay of color, tone, etc. Skilled at harnessing perspective ... and the list goes on.
I certainly can regard an appreciation for the tonal controls in the darkroom, and the requisite art / skill of doing so. Going way back, I shot chromes exclusively. When I learned of all the manipulations Adams performed in the darkroom ... my response to my instructor was "He Cheats !!!" As it turns out, I valued the ability to get the shot "in camera", rather than manipulating the snot out of it in the darkroom. Took me a LONG TIME before I developed (no pun intended, but it is fitting) an appreciation for the skill / art that was occurring in the darkroom as a different (but, still skillfully applied) skillset as part of the process of image creation.
There will always be individuals who value different things, differently. Some folks value the ability to get the shot in chrome (unforgiving latitude) vs. negatives (exceptional latitude). The same goes for folks that get the shot full frame vs. those who shoot wide and crop the comp. Some folks value the process and others don't give too hoots about it. I personally value the process and value those who value the process. Yet, inasmuch as I value the process, I also know that when it comes to my work ... in image stands on its own merits in the eyes of the viewer. Some will care about whether or not I "Cheated" by using a different process than they were expecting, or that they valued. Others, won't ever ask, nor never care to think about it.
When I shoot sports with a rangefinder, folks don't go "Wow" you shot that with a rangefinder. Personally, I enjoy my approach of "single shot" timing for sports, moreover than a 30 fps blistering frame rate. But, to the editor of SI, the cover shot is going to be chosen based on the image, not whether or not the capture was made be a different technique. Granted, the authenticity of the shot (vs. AI, etc.) may be part of the equation, but the salient point here is that different people value different skills for different reasons ... and just because they value the weighting of some things in the process, that doesn't mean they innately dismiss the outcomes of the finished piece. Hand made furniture, with hand tools are valued by some folks more highly, than mass produced furniture in factories with jigs, etc.
It isn't that they value the chair more ... just that they value the process more, and the inherent time and skill (and time to develop those skills) attributed to the creator of the chair.
I could go on ... but, the difference in semantics of skill / art ... and the appreciation for the process components of applied skill(s) is varied. Just because someone has a high appreciation for some of the skills involved, doesn't mean they are necessarily dismissive of appreciation for the others. But, it may be that they do have a lesser degree of focus on some skills, moreover than others.
I used to shoot chromes with manual exposure only via Sunny 16 rules. Do you think that anyone cares if my skillset for doing so good enough that I didn't use autoexposure? Likely not. Fine that there are some who do appreciate that, and fine that today's latitude means I can have exposures off by multiple stops and still produce good works. In the end, I may appreciate my ability to manually set my exposure where I want them. Which may be so that my "in camera" work is good. Or, it may be that I set it in preparation for my "darkroom" process and consider the Zone System, etc. Or, I may just let the camera do matrix metering / HDR and HDR Auto in PP. In the end, some viewers will be curious to my process(es). For others, they'll never think to ask a thing about it.
I'm pretty sure no one is going to ask me if this was manual exposure or automatic exposures or how much I adjusted it in post. Neither will they ask if I manually focused or used autofocus. But, they will ask if I remember what was happening the day that this photo was taken (happens to be a mourning period for a family member). They have asked "When did you take that? I never saw you (inobtrusive)." Digital darkroom, film, auto, negative, chrome, lens choice, etc. ... not likely to ever be part of the future conversation with those who regard the image for what they value of it.
Yeah, different folks value different things ... differently. 
|
.
