Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, that was...tortured.
Well, that was...tortured.
Not quite sure what you mean by tortured....perhaps Lin is an English as a second language Taiwanese national....it seems like he might be. But yeah...this type of fluffy, off-the-cuff nonsense is annoying. I enjoy scholarly writing about the topics Lin touches on, but do not like his flippant attitude about a subject I hold dear.Specifically, there are a couple of statements in there that Lin presents as being accurate and factual, but which I think are way too broadly overstated. One tack he takes is for example, him assigning the majority of credit behind the early popularity of digital photography to geeky men who worked in IT as the driving force of a huge social revolution, and I think he's flat-out wrong about that. I think he's ignoring the huge interest in early digital photography among the rank and file of the world-and that included one hell of a lot of women! Moms, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, working women, retired women, and women in academia, the arts, and well, regular, everyday women-folk of all types. The idea that geeky hipsterish white males who worked in IT drove the first wave of digital, on-line-associated photography? Uh...that's one hell of an unsupported argument, but WTF, right? He's working on a blog, so B.S. is A-okay, fer sure,fer sure, right?
Apart from his writing, I really LIKED Lin's three portfolios-even if they are the street photography that he disparaged in his blog post.
Not five minutes before cgw posted this link to the above article, I posted here that I consider photography to be the earlier, film-based field of endeavor that many of us learned on, and I consider digital imaging to be the name of the new paradigm; I, as do many others, consider that the goal of photography is to capture a permanently-fixed-format image on some type of emulsion-coated substrate, an image that has a tangible, permanent form. I consider digital imaging to be using an electronic image capture device, in which the created pictures are made up of computer language, and an endeavor in which the image is not considered permanent or fixed in its form, but infinitely malleable,infinitely variable, and easily manipulable with a computer and software.
I think calling modern, electronic digital imaging by the name of the its predecessor,which was photography, is just not the right way to describe the new paradigm. I "get" that he's using photography to mean all types of picture-making, but I think photography and digital imaging are two, different, yet related things.
[...]
Not five minutes before cgw posted this link to the above article, I posted here that I consider photography to be the earlier, film-based field of endeavor that many of us learned on, and I consider digital imaging to be the name of the new paradigm; I, as do many others, consider that the goal of photography is to capture a permanently-fixed-format image on some type of emulsion-coated substrate, an image that has a tangible, permanent form. I consider digital imaging to be using an electronic image capture device, in which the created pictures are made up of computer language, and an endeavor in which the image is not considered permanent or fixed in its form, but infinitely malleable,infinitely variable, and easily manipulable with a computer and software.
I think calling modern, electronic digital imaging by the name of the its predecessor,which was photography, is just not the right way to describe the new paradigm. I "get" that he's using photography to mean all types of picture-making, but I think photography and digital imaging are two, different, yet related things.
[...]
Not five minutes before cgw posted this link to the above article, I posted here that I consider photography to be the earlier, film-based field of endeavor that many of us learned on, and I consider digital imaging to be the name of the new paradigm; I, as do many others, consider that the goal of photography is to capture a permanently-fixed-format image on some type of emulsion-coated substrate, an image that has a tangible, permanent form. I consider digital imaging to be using an electronic image capture device, in which the created pictures are made up of computer language, and an endeavor in which the image is not considered permanent or fixed in its form, but infinitely malleable,infinitely variable, and easily manipulable with a computer and software.
I think calling modern, electronic digital imaging by the name of the its predecessor,which was photography, is just not the right way to describe the new paradigm. I "get" that he's using photography to mean all types of picture-making, but I think photography and digital imaging are two, different, yet related things.
I agree with most of what you just said, as the article was a lot of bogus to me. If anything, people around me are starting to get more and more into photography, since it became a lot easier to do, and since DSLR's are quite affordable, especially if you pick up a model a couple years old.
What I disagree with though, is your separation of photography as it was two decades ago, and the way photography is now. For starters, the term you use does not do it justice. Photography is more than just a (digital) image. Perhaps it's because I've never really used old film, except for those throw away camera's, but my first real camera was a DSLR.
The way I see it, I can draw a comparison between cars and photography. Cars nowadays have many new features, rear view camera's, parking assistance, power steering, cruise control, automatic lightning etc. New features that makes people become better drivers. Should we start calling it different now, with these additions? Photography for me is just the same. We get new features, with the digitalization, which makes it a lot easier for people to take up the hobby, but the essence remains what it has always been: Capturing what we see, and for me it is reason to not call it something else. It has just.. evolved, like many other items as well with technology bringing us forward.
Cars nowadays have many new features, rear view camera's, parking assistance, power steering, cruise control, automatic lightning etc. New features that makes people become better drivers.
Should we start calling it different now, with these additions? Photography for me is just the same. We get new features, with the digitalization, which makes it a lot easier for people to take up the hobby, but the essence remains what it has always been: Capturing what we see, and for me it is reason to not call it something else. It has just.. evolved, like many other items as well with technology bringing us forward.
New features that makes people become better drivers.