|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/11/2002 02:59:43 PM · #26 |
The point is, anyone who ignores good technical values in a photograph will fail as a photographer, just as anyone who makes a perfectly technically good photograph without vision would fail as a photographer. Paganini
Why didn't you just say so in the first place?? :P
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/11/2002 2:59:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 03:10:54 PM · #27 |
I did on the third post :P but just not as explicit i guess (my music analogy was this point). I thought everyone already knew this about photography, guess i was wrong.
Originally posted by Lisa:
[i]The point is, anyone who ignores good technical values in a photograph will fail as a photographer, just as anyone who makes a perfectly technically good photograph without vision would fail as a photographer. Paganini
Why didn't you just say so in the first place?? :P
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 03:19:38 PM · #28 |
But what about the FIRST PLACE??!! ;)
Originally posted by paganini:
I did on the third post :P but just not as explicit i guess (my music analogy was this point). I thought everyone already knew this about photography, guess i was wrong.
Originally posted by Lisa:
[i][i]The point is, anyone who ignores good technical values in a photograph will fail as a photographer, just as anyone who makes a perfectly technically good photograph without vision would fail as a photographer. Paganini
Why didn't you just say so in the first place?? :P
[/i]
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 03:27:17 PM · #29 |
No comment :) i guess i thought everyone knew about the duality of photography already, it's an art and a science part, you know.
Originally posted by Lisa:
But what about the FIRST PLACE??!! ;)
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]I did on the third post :P but just not as explicit i guess (my music analogy was this point). I thought everyone already knew this about photography, guess i was wrong.
Originally posted by Lisa:
[i][i]The point is, anyone who ignores good technical values in a photograph will fail as a photographer, just as anyone who makes a perfectly technically good photograph without vision would fail as a photographer. Paganini
Why didn't you just say so in the first place?? :P
[/i]
[/i]
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 04:24:03 PM · #30 |
My turn to be explicit. My point here would be...if you had simply stated your ultimate point *in the first place* rather than posted something somewhat inflammatory closely followed by something somewhat insulting and pompous...your point would be more well received and I would be more apt to actually pay attention when skimming through your rather lengthy third post to this thread.
Furthermore, I happen to agree with your ultimate point and was not ignorant to the 'duality of photography' prior to your revelation of said fact. I believe the difference in our opinion lies in how much value we place respectively on art/science. I attribute greater value to the artistic side and believe it to be the core of photography...whereas the fine-tuned technical details are merely the dressing. We also probably differ in that I prefer to learn through my own experience rather than read and be led by someone else's experience and theory. Pretty small differences as far as I'm concerned...nothing that should lead to snide remarks or a bitter exchange.
So...here's to more effective communication...both an art and a science in itself!! :)
Originally posted by paganini:
No comment :) i guess i thought everyone knew about the duality of photography already, it's an art and a science part, you know.
Originally posted by Lisa:
[i]But what about the FIRST PLACE??!! ;)
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]I did on the third post :P but just not as explicit i guess (my music analogy was this point). I thought everyone already knew this about photography, guess i was wrong.
Originally posted by Lisa:
[i][i]The point is, anyone who ignores good technical values in a photograph will fail as a photographer, just as anyone who makes a perfectly technically good photograph without vision would fail as a photographer. Paganini
Why didn't you just say so in the first place?? :P
[/i]
[/i]
[/i]
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 04:30:34 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Do you even understand what Zone system is? You said "Zone system is responsible for the most lifeless blah blahb photographs in the world". Uh, no. NO one, not even Adams, has claimed Zone system works by itself. I don't mean to say that there aren't people out there who just take a great "snapshot" of something and think it's the best photograph (and often on DPC those photographs gets the highest rating), but to say that Adams Zone system is RESPONSIBLE is totally false. That's like saying a gun is responsible for shooting someone without the actual person pulling the trigger. THe Zone system is a method of exposure calculation, and that's it.
The point is, anyone who ignores good technical values in a photograph will fail as a photographer, just as anyone who makes a perfectly technically good photograph without vision would fail as a photographer. They are equally important. And for some photographer to basically say "well, the zone system is irrelevant" is simply irresponsible. Erwitt is probably using a modern day camera with a metering system advanced enough to calculate exposure, etc. so he can claim that it wasn't important. In Adams time, that was not possible!
I think you are falling into the trap that the quote is trying to point
out and also failing to read what I said too.
The pursuit of technical perfection, zone system application etc is
all well and good. But it seems a whole lot of people do it instead
of taking interesting photographs, rather than as a means towards
helping them take interesting photographs.
I didn't say it was irrlevent. I just said it wasn't the point. It
is a means to an end, certainly not an end in itself, which unfortunatly,
like a lot of the technical aspects of photography, some people can't
see beyond.
I understand about the zone system, and also the variety of matrix and
spot metering modes used in cameras. They help to get a good exposure
in some cases. I'll try and make it clear this time. The technical
stuff is an important component of making a good photograph. Solely
trying to get a technically 'perfect' picture has led to a lot of really
boring, technically perfect pictures. Technical perfection without
any creative input is boring. Trying to read and understand rather
than jumping to pointless flaming might help in future too.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/11/2002 4:36:13 PM. |
|
|
|
10/11/2002 05:00:40 PM · #32 |
It is my understanding that the common rules in art and photography stem from the fact that the majority of people natural find photos that follow those rules to be more pleasing. we find ourselves creating more and more images that follow these rules even when we are not realizing it. That is why I am primarily concentrating on the artistic side knowing that the technical side will follow with practice.
T
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 05:13:21 PM · #33 |
Maybe I jumped the gun a bit, but here is what you have said:
"I think the zone system and
similar stuff is responsible for some of the worlds most technically
perfect, lifeless, dull, boring pictures."
I don't think the zone system creates perfect lifeless dull pictures, or responsible for it. I think DULL BORING LIFELESS people creates DULL BORING LIFELESS photos :) I wans't intending to flame you but that quote is just not a responsible thing to say about the Zone system. Like I said before, it's like blaming a knife for stabbing someone, when it's the person who uses the knife that did it.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Do you even understand what Zone system is? You said "Zone system is responsible for the most lifeless blah blahb photographs in the world". Uh, no. NO one, not even Adams, has claimed Zone system works by itself. I don't mean to say that there aren't people out there who just take a great "snapshot" of something and think it's the best photograph (and often on DPC those photographs gets the highest rating), but to say that Adams Zone system is RESPONSIBLE is totally false. That's like saying a gun is responsible for shooting someone without the actual person pulling the trigger. THe Zone system is a method of exposure calculation, and that's it.
The point is, anyone who ignores good technical values in a photograph will fail as a photographer, just as anyone who makes a perfectly technically good photograph without vision would fail as a photographer. They are equally important. And for some photographer to basically say "well, the zone system is irrelevant" is simply irresponsible. Erwitt is probably using a modern day camera with a metering system advanced enough to calculate exposure, etc. so he can claim that it wasn't important. In Adams time, that was not possible!
I think you are falling into the trap that the quote is trying to point
out and also failing to read what I said too.
The pursuit of technical perfection, zone system application etc is
all well and good. But it seems a whole lot of people do it instead
of taking interesting photographs, rather than as a means towards
helping them take interesting photographs.
I didn't say it was irrlevent. I just said it wasn't the point. It
is a means to an end, certainly not an end in itself, which unfortunatly,
like a lot of the technical aspects of photography, some people can't
see beyond.
I understand about the zone system, and also the variety of matrix and
spot metering modes used in cameras. They help to get a good exposure
in some cases. I'll try and make it clear this time. The technical
stuff is an important component of making a good photograph. Solely
trying to get a technically 'perfect' picture has led to a lot of really
boring, technically perfect pictures. Technical perfection without
any creative input is boring. Trying to read and understand rather
than jumping to pointless flaming might help in future too.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 05:22:55 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Maybe I jumped the gun a bit, but here is what you have said:
"I think the zone system and
similar stuff is responsible for some of the worlds most technically
perfect, lifeless, dull, boring pictures."
I don't think the zone system creates perfect lifeless dull pictures, or responsible for it. I think DULL BORING LIFELESS people creates DULL BORING LIFELESS photos :) I wans't intending to flame you but that quote is just not a responsible thing to say about the Zone system. Like I said before, it's like blaming a knife for stabbing someone, when it's the person who uses the knife that did it.
You can pull pieces out of context if you like to try and make it seem
like you are making a point, but if you'd bother to read what I'd
said, which was:
'All the best technical stuff in the world is meaningless if you can't
see and compose an interesting picture. I think the zone system and
similar stuff is responsible for some of the worlds most technically
perfect, lifeless, dull, boring pictures.
That's all this quote is saying, the photographer feels that a good
image is the essence of good photography, rather than 'perfect'
technique. "
And I _do_ think they are responsible. People read books on them and
assume that it is the height of photography. We even see it on here
on occasion with the 'what are you talking about art for, we are
doing photography' or the view that everything always has to be in
pin sharp focus with perfect colours.
This sort of technical precision suffocates any interesting image making
when taken to an extreme.
If I was more careful in what I had written I should have said
'I think the pursuit of the zone system and other technical goals, to
the exclusion of imagination and creativty, is responsible for some of the worlds most technically
perfect, lifeless, dull, boring pictures.
But then that was already stated in the various other parts of that
particular post you picked appart to make your 'point' |
|
|
|
10/11/2002 05:30:06 PM · #35 |
Well, i apologize if my post seems pompous or snide, but i was being sarcastic and it's hard to do it on a forum, hence the :) i used in the post as an intent to be sarcastic.
But, it does seem to me at least a somewhat ignorant quote for a photographer to say that Zone system is irrelevant to photography.
As far as learning through your experience: that's fine, but remember, your camera system with the auto-exposure, etc. wouldn't be there if Adams didn't come up with the Zone system (or until someone esle did something similar) because that's where the segmented auto exposure system is based on. You can say you don't need to know much of the technical side because your camera already did it for you except for a few situations where the light meter may still have problems (low light, backlighting, sunset/sunrise, etc.) For a photographer to criticise someone who solved the technical problem of exposure (which WAS a REAL problem back in Ansel's days) is really ignorant and doesn't understand the simple historical context.
I will say that one thing that creates as Gordon puts it, "Lifeless boring phtoographs" in today's world is not so much the zone system or anything like that, but it's digital cameras :) At least it allows BAD photographers to look OK. I am not sounding pompous, but the fact remains that hte ability to take thousands of shot of the same subject without cost, allows a photographer tha have absolutely no idea what his/her vision is in the first place to get a decently composed photo made, purely by chance. And this problem is further damaged by the use of CROPPING to remove "not so great" elements in the photo that should've been elminated in the first place when the photo was taken, such as having an image originally in a vertical composition containing unwanted elements and then converted it to a horizontal composition.
Originally posted by Lisa:
My turn to be explicit. My point here would be...if you had simply stated your ultimate point *in the first place* rather than posted something somewhat inflammatory closely followed by something somewhat insulting and pompous...your point would be more well received and I would be more apt to actually pay attention when skimming through your rather lengthy third post to this thread.
Furthermore, I happen to agree with your ultimate point and was not ignorant to the 'duality of photography' prior to your revelation of said fact. I believe the difference in our opinion lies in how much value we place respectively on art/science. I attribute greater value to the artistic side and believe it to be the core of photography...whereas the fine-tuned technical details are merely the dressing. We also probably differ in that I prefer to learn through my own experience rather than read and be led by someone else's experience and theory. Pretty small differences as far as I'm concerned...nothing that should lead to snide remarks or a bitter exchange.
So...here's to more effective communication...both an art and a science in itself!! :)
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]No comment :) i guess i thought everyone knew about the duality of photography already, it's an art and a science part, you know.
Originally posted by Lisa:
[i]But what about the FIRST PLACE??!! ;)
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]I did on the third post :P but just not as explicit i guess (my music analogy was this point). I thought everyone already knew this about photography, guess i was wrong.
Originally posted by Lisa:
[i][i]The point is, anyone who ignores good technical values in a photograph will fail as a photographer, just as anyone who makes a perfectly technically good photograph without vision would fail as a photographer. Paganini
Why didn't you just say so in the first place?? :P
[/i]
[/i]
[/i]
[/i]
[/i]
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/11/2002 5:45:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 05:39:21 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Well, i apologize if my post seems pompous or snide, but i was being sarcastic and it's hard to do it on a forum, hence the :) i used in the post as an intent to be sarcastic.
But, it does seem to me at least a somewhat ignorant quote for a photographer to say that Zone system is irrelevant to photography.
I'd agree and if you find anyone who actually said that, I'd be happy to disagree
with them for you. You basically made the actual point again later
on in your last post. All the technical aids are totally irrelevent
if you don't have an idea, or a vision. Be it a system that allows you
to manually get good exposure, or an automated version of that system,
its all totally useless if you don't have an idea or spark or vision
behind how you apply it. Exposure systems don't make good photographs.
That was the original quote at the top of the page. You seem to have
spent a whole lot of time arguing and yet saying the same thing.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 05:41:44 PM · #37 |
That's ridiculous. You're saying that someone who published a book about the Zone system of devloping photographs is responsible for creating bad photographers. So you're the type of person who would probably blame guns for someone using it to shoot someone else, or a knife for using it to stab someone, huh? Great logic there, but that's ok, i know you're from the UK where everything is banned :-)
And if that's your logic, then maybe i can say that DPc is creating bad photographers because it forces everyone to want to get to the top scores which doesn't necessary have good photographs :) I do understand your frustration with the "art" comment by people on here, but you have to take it in context: most people on here are just your normal average guy with a camera. They take snapshots of vacation photos and that's it. There is nothing wrong with taking great snapshots for memory usage, but it's just not interesting to me or you. I don't think the Zone system did it for them, i think most of them don't understand what an exposure system does even, they just use the camera's auto metering system and take the result from it.
I think if anyone is looking into the photography book section, they are at least serious about it and thus I doubt they'll think "Oh, it's the Zone system and it will give me good photographs". Even when Adams discuss the Zone system, the first chapter is always on how he sees his photographs.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Maybe I jumped the gun a bit, but here is what you have said:
"I think the zone system and
similar stuff is responsible for some of the worlds most technically
perfect, lifeless, dull, boring pictures."
I don't think the zone system creates perfect lifeless dull pictures, or responsible for it. I think DULL BORING LIFELESS people creates DULL BORING LIFELESS photos :) I wans't intending to flame you but that quote is just not a responsible thing to say about the Zone system. Like I said before, it's like blaming a knife for stabbing someone, when it's the person who uses the knife that did it.
You can pull pieces out of context if you like to try and make it seem
like you are making a point, but if you'd bother to read what I'd
said, which was:
'All the best technical stuff in the world is meaningless if you can't
see and compose an interesting picture. I think the zone system and
similar stuff is responsible for some of the worlds most technically
perfect, lifeless, dull, boring pictures.
That's all this quote is saying, the photographer feels that a good
image is the essence of good photography, rather than 'perfect'
technique. "
And I _do_ think they are responsible. People read books on them and
assume that it is the height of photography. We even see it on here
on occasion with the 'what are you talking about art for, we are
doing photography' or the view that everything always has to be in
pin sharp focus with perfect colours.
This sort of technical precision suffocates any interesting image making
when taken to an extreme.
If I was more careful in what I had written I should have said
'I think the pursuit of the zone system and other technical goals, to
the exclusion of imagination and creativty, is responsible for some of the worlds most technically
perfect, lifeless, dull, boring pictures.
But then that was already stated in the various other parts of that
particular post you picked appart to make your 'point'[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 05:44:04 PM · #38 |
NO, the original quote on top, the photographer said "GOOD PHOTOGRAPHY is NOT about ZOne System and other technical nonsense..."
That by itself is false. Good photography has to have BOTH and this guy says it's irrelevant, that was what I was against. People on here seems to quote certain photographers as the final word.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Well, i apologize if my post seems pompous or snide, but i was being sarcastic and it's hard to do it on a forum, hence the :) i used in the post as an intent to be sarcastic.
But, it does seem to me at least a somewhat ignorant quote for a photographer to say that Zone system is irrelevant to photography.
I'd agree and if you find anyone who actually said that, I'd be happy to disagree
with them for you. You basically made the actual point again later
on in your last post. All the technical aids are totally irrelevent
if you don't have an idea, or a vision. Be it a system that allows you
to manually get good exposure, or an automated version of that system,
its all totally useless if you don't have an idea or spark or vision
behind how you apply it. Exposure systems don't make good photographs.
That was the original quote at the top of the page. You seem to have
spent a whole lot of time arguing and yet saying the same thing.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 05:50:10 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by paganini:
NO, the original quote on top, the photographer said "GOOD PHOTOGRAPHY is NOT about ZOne System and other technical nonsense..."
Again you insist on taking things out of context:
The original quote continued to say that everything else is academic.
All that technical stuff is required, but it isn't what good photography
is about. The implication there is that you can learn all the other stuff
but if you aren't looking or seeing, you might as well not bother. |
|
|
|
10/11/2002 06:01:08 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by paganini:
That's ridiculous. You're saying that someone who published a book about the Zone system of devloping photographs is responsible for creating bad photographers. So you're the type of person who would probably blame guns for someone using it to shoot someone else, or a knife for using it to stab someone, huh? Great logic there, but that's ok, i know you're from the UK where everything is banned :-)
Ignoring your ignorant personal comments, I'm saying that someone who
reads a book about the Zone system and assumes that that is all they have
to do to get great pictures, are responsible. I'm saying the people that
spend their time obsessing about every small technical aspect are responsible
for some of the dullest pictures. The same happens in the digital
forums - people who are obsessed about perfect resolution, or noise
reduction or image resizing. The ones who devote months to getting a
perfect conversion curve for a linear format.
The ones who do this to the exclusion of taking interesting pictures.
Exposure systems are all very well, but they just give you an 'average'
exposure. It takes understanding to use that creatively. You need to
understand the technical stuff to get to the starting point. It
is not an end in itself. Thats what the original quote is saying.
All the technical stuff in the world won't help you if you can't see
something interesting to apply it to. The technical stuff is the
academic side of things. Its easy to learn. But it isn't the point.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 06:08:26 PM · #41 |
I can say the same thing about someone who doesn't know anything about exposure but with a good eye should also not bother taking photographs as well.
His original attack on Adams' work is truly ignorant. The "Zone" system might not be as relevant today due to the automatrix exposure system in most cameras and allows photographers that doesn't know about exposure to get their vision across easier, but the technical side is still there. For a so-called "accomplished" photographer to blatantly ignored that in the quote is just foolish. Look, he wouldn't call Adam's work "NONSENSE" if he doesn't believe it.
In today's world, maybe hte Zone system isn't as relevant as the old school photography but that's why i am always impressed with the golden days of photography,mainly in the 1900-1940s, where they don't have the exposure system, they have to work it out manually, etc. The guy who criticized Adams' work obviously does not understand the historical context in which it was made. And the zone system is every bit as relevant today as it was in the 1940's once you ignore what the 3D matrix metering system is telling you, such as during bad lighting conditions (harsh sunlight or low sunlight for example. 3D matrix metering works well if the entire scene averages to middle gray, which in a lot of conditions it does not) Maybe in a CONTROLLED STUDIO condition with flash, once you set it up, you don't need to worry as much about it because the exposure is controlled, but in the natural world, that is not the case.
I will agree with you that eventually everyone can learn the technical side of things but maybe not everyone can learn vision or rather, vision that inspires others. Everyone has a way to see things in the world that others don't see, but whether it's effective and gets someone else excited when looking at his photograph remain to be seen.
The artist problem voting on DPc is nothing new. Whenver i went to art museums i always hear people commenting on Picasso "What the hell is that?" :) That probably represents 60-70% of the people on DPc.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]NO, the original quote on top, the photographer said "GOOD PHOTOGRAPHY is NOT about ZOne System and other technical nonsense..."
Again you insist on taking things out of context:
The original quote continued to say that everything else is academic.
All that technical stuff is required, but it isn't what good photography
is about. The implication there is that you can learn all the other stuff
but if you aren't looking or seeing, you might as well not bother.[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 06:14:13 PM · #42 |
Fair enough, i thought your original quote (the very first one when you're talking about books) is that Zone system is responsible for bad pohtographers (the way you worded it sounds like that). Glad to see you haven't fall off of the deep end working for Motorola :)
But still, when I read the original quote, it seems the guy who said it is against Ansel's zone system in general and thinking it is irrelevant. Like I said, someone should look at the Zone system in historical context before they open their mouth and say it is irrelevant to photography. And it's not so "academic" as he puts it. That's where I have the problem with.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]That's ridiculous. You're saying that someone who published a book about the Zone system of devloping photographs is responsible for creating bad photographers. So you're the type of person who would probably blame guns for someone using it to shoot someone else, or a knife for using it to stab someone, huh? Great logic there, but that's ok, i know you're from the UK where everything is banned :-)
Ignoring your ignorant personal comments, I'm saying that someone who
reads a book about the Zone system and assumes that that is all they have
to do to get great pictures, are responsible. I'm saying the people that
spend their time obsessing about every small technical aspect are responsible
for some of the dullest pictures. The same happens in the digital
forums - people who are obsessed about perfect resolution, or noise
reduction or image resizing. The ones who devote months to getting a
perfect conversion curve for a linear format.
The ones who do this to the exclusion of taking interesting pictures.
Exposure systems are all very well, but they just give you an 'average'
exposure. It takes understanding to use that creatively. You need to
understand the technical stuff to get to the starting point. It
is not an end in itself. Thats what the original quote is saying.
All the technical stuff in the world won't help you if you can't see
something interesting to apply it to. The technical stuff is the
academic side of things. Its easy to learn. But it isn't the point.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 06:27:09 PM · #43 |
Uh, John...think there've been enough comments posted yet?
Erwitt says good photography is not "about" the Zone System, meaning it is not the crux or heart of the matter -- nowhere does he say it is irrelevant. On the continuum between artistic vision and technical expertise Erwitt falls on the side of thinking the vision is -- in his opinion -- the more important factor in producing excellent images. I'd say that's an opinion expressed by approximately 100% of the posters to this thread...
How about arguing over a new quote or something? |
|
|
|
10/11/2002 10:48:53 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Uh, John...think there've been enough comments posted yet?
Erwitt says good photography is not "about" the Zone System, meaning it is not the crux or heart of the matter -- nowhere does he say it is irrelevant. On the continuum between artistic vision and technical expertise Erwitt falls on the side of thinking the vision is -- in his opinion -- the more important factor in producing excellent images. I'd say that's an opinion expressed by approximately 100% of the posters to this thread...
How about arguing over a new quote or something?
I think it's been fun... I think Erwitt is trying to say that the image itself is the 'crux' of the matter... I believe that he thinks the processing of the image is not as important as the image itself. Adams' landscapes are truly beatiful, and his processing methods definitely enhance the images.
I had Lisae in mind when I posted this :)
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 11:28:19 PM · #45 |
I think the zone system is still very valid, it may not take the labor it once did (custom exposure and developement of each shot), but it still needs to be understood (I think) for a photographer to know how to get the vision onto display. The exposure systems, and exposure latitude of many films and digital devices allow one to capture a significant tonal range, but if one does not know what can be achieved in post processing, the image may turn out rather flat. Without the knowledge of what can be achieved, the photographer may never even try, may never know the image waiting to be released. Also, the photographer may never know the joys of large format film.
Originally posted by paganini:
The "Zone" system might not be as relevant today due to the automatrix exposure system in most cameras and allows photographers that doesn't know about exposure to get their vision across easier.
Originally posted by Gordon:
[i]Originally posted by paganini:
[i]NO, the original quote on top, the photographer said "GOOD PHOTOGRAPHY is NOT about ZOne System and other technical nonsense..."
Again you insist on taking things out of context:
The original quote continued to say that everything else is academic.
All that technical stuff is required, but it isn't what good photography
is about. The implication there is that you can learn all the other stuff
but if you aren't looking or seeing, you might as well not bother.[/i]
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 11:39:21 PM · #46 |
I don't think that Erwitt's comment was slamming the zone system either...
|
|
|
|
10/12/2002 12:03:37 AM · #47 |
HERE is a little information on the Zone System...
|
|
|
|
10/12/2002 09:19:37 AM · #48 |
My opinion on Erwitt's comment is:
I don't believe that he is making fun of or putting down the zone printing process at all. I believe that what he is saying is that, no matter what the production process is, it's irrelevant if the image is not worthwhile. He is making a statement about being able to see what makes a good image and what doesn't.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2002 01:41:07 PM · #49 |
Well I think it may be interesting to find out when he made this comment ( early in his career or much later ) and how well it was taken at that time.
Both Ansal Adams and Erwitt shot black and white and were at their best at almost the same time. There may be reasons other than a personal philosophy in making such comments. |
|
|
|
10/12/2002 01:44:20 PM · #50 |
I don't have, and can't locate, a date for this quote. It was taken from the August/September 2002 issue of Lenswork Magazine.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 01:40:28 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 01:40:28 PM EDT.
|
