(embiggenable) iPhone
(embiggenable) iPhone
(embiggenable) iPhone
(embiggenable) iPhone
OVER THE PAST 2 DECADES, AS the analog photo world was being swallowed whole by the digital photo world, there arose such a clatter, I sprang from my bed to see what was the matter.
The clatter, of course, was all of the caterwauling, re: the sky is falling and/or the end of photography as we knew it. To be certain, for some-think KODAK-the sky did indeed fall. However, for the picture makers in the crowd, well...the fact is, we just kept on making pictures.
Sure, sure, you might venture, but there was a change. Sure, sure, I would venture but adding, the more things change the more they remain the same. You know what I mean...for example, be it analog or digital, a "real" camera still has aperture, shutter speed, and focusing "mechanisms". Hell, even a cameraphone module can have the same via photo apps.
And, sure, sure, the sky fell for the analog photo lab industry but virtually every "serious" picture maker I know, print making is alive and well. And, much of that output ends up 0n gallery-or the like-walls. Hell, even the wonderful, "dumpy" little diner pictured in my last entry had 5 20x30 inch prints for sale on their walls.
So, all of that written, when I encounter / read crappola like the following-via VSL/Kirk Tuck...
Photography as I practiced it ten, twenty and thirty years ago is pretty much dead now. Frequent shows of prints in galleries, and print sales to individuals seem absolutely passé....Images are now a consumable and not a physical collectible, object.... [cuz, according to Kirk] it all gets crunched down onto a screen.
...I feel like I have to respond.
With all due respect to Mr. Tuck-anyone who has made a steady, good living in the commercial photo world deserves respect-I 100% disagree with his sentiments as quoted above inasmuch as I practiced photography (commercial and personal) starting 50 years ago and, from my perspective, the making of pictures has not changed one tiny bit. That is, unless one is concerned gear and technique. But even then, the one constant-the most important concept-has not changed at all...gear and technique never made a picture, it is the picture maker who makes a picture. As you know, hopefully, cameras do not make a good / great picture any more than a typewriter (or the modern equivalent thereof) makes a good / great novel.
All of that written, I also disagree with Kirk's notion that...
Cameras have superseded photography as "the" hobby. So we long time practitioners will find it hard to give up the pursuit of gear.
I understand that sentitmnet coming from Mr. Tuck inasmuch as I believe his picture is in the dictionary along the definition of "gearhead". However, gearheads have been part of the photo world seemingly since its inception, especially so in the "serious" amateur world. Most pro picture makers, myself included, found the gear which they needed to suit their picture making and they tended to stick with it throughout their entire careers. The exception being those whose careers spanned the analog to digital eras.
All of the mentioned specifics in this entry aside, I guess my ultimate bitch is with nostalgia that is based upon specious / false / "romanizied" rememberances of things past, aka: the good old days.