« on: January 20, 2015, 12:55:49 PM »
I don't believe him about every digital camera today beating film -- film / slides is a whole different world -- apples and oranges. UNLESS, you scan and digitize, then it's another different world and you're back to digital anyway. Although, it's unlikely anyone can tell the difference in a print -- unless you're trained to see those differences. And you cannot manipulate slides or film like you can manipulate digital either, which makes a huge difference in your end print too.
The "don't touch it" order of National Geographic is standard throughout the journalism industry. NO news media allows anything but minor adjustments in a photo - recently, a war journalist in Afghanistan (I think I'm correct here, the location) was fired because he removed the tip of a video box out of a war scene. He said it made the scene "more realistic" ... well, realistic is "what is now" -- he changed that 'realistic', and it cost him his job. So, why is the fact Nat Geo will not allow changes a surprise here?
What I do agree with is the premise that you MUST find your images in your camera, not in your computer. Just because you CAN manipulate doesn't mean you SHOULD. If you do ad copy or experimental work, fine - go for it. But the primary focus for all photographers should be: Learn your camera but know your heart. Learn the rules - then break those rules creatively to capture the image that appears in your soul. But capture it in your camera because manipulation will always be manipulation, and the scene you create will be a fantasy not a reality. But, if you want fantasy, manipulate away, and label it fantasy not reality. Either one is fine, and both can be done professionally. My 2 cents !
The major problem with the article, he promotes "ME" as a point of view for the work of all. Too much I and not enough how. Anytime a writer writes with an [apparent] 'ego' larger than the 'self' will come off pompous, which he does without question.
Folks have a tendency to give less credibility to that writing style, as it allows no choice. In a case like he presents, readers need a choice to believe him or not, and to use what each professional says to incorporate part or all into our system as we decide, not him decide for us. The way this is written implies that if you do it any other way, you are wrong. That's moronic and insulting, and damages the advancement of his concept.
The better slant would have been: This is 'how and why I do what I do', instead of 'do it my way or get out of town'. And the second style is not very engaging.
Actually, film can be manipulated like crazy, right down even to cloning things out. Google about Stalin or Hitler and people disappearing fro images. Stuff can be added, dodged, burned, etc...
Film is not some untouchable purity NG dreams it to be...
Oh, and ND Grads? That's cheating too. It's HDR 1.0 (the betamode).