Philosophical: Photography "too easy" ?

[smoke665]

Poor example because letters never have been art.

I have to also disagree with this. As in another comment I received a letter recently written in ink, that the penmanship bordered on art. Calligraphy is considered a visual art related to writing and the ability to concisely put to paper in indelible ink a coherent conversation without flaw, is in itself a skill that some would call art. I might even go so far as to call it a lost art in today's digital world of auto correct and delete buttons.

 

[Ysarex]

Poor example because letters never have been art.

I completely disagree. Writing is an art, and letter-writing is included - or was included - in this; it was not just transactional.

Regular conversation. Not art.

Kind of the point. Conveying messages became easier and cheaper - more conversational and transactional - and so they spent less time on the message, were not so invested in the medium. And so they lost the art of writing a well-crafted, artful, meaningful letter.

"I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter." -- Pascal

Joe

 

[JonFZ300]

I'm glad it's "too easy." That means it's more accessible. Yeah there's lots of visual drivel out there, but you can still geek out as much as you want and the cream still rises. I agree with Rob L. quoted by Derrel above.

 

[Original katomi]

digital has made life easier for me. But one thing is clear from the posts and seeing peeps at the camera club. Whatever camera, be it film, digital, telepathic imprint... is the person behind the lens that makes the difference
I take photos as a hobby, so my work is not subjected to the same examinations as a pro. My style is very much out of the box and I have a lot of marmite pics ( love them/hate them). I worry that digital photos will not last the test of time and that in 100 years someone will look at digital storage and think the equivalent of what the bleep

 

[smoke665]

I worry that digital photos will not last the test of time and that in 100 years

Valid point, this is a scan of a studio print, from early 1800's of my grandparents. It was stored in a box, in a shed for years, with no special care given and still it's pretty darn good. Can we really expect digital to last that long when the storage media of today won't.

 

[Original katomi]

Smoke, I hope that I have got this right, it’s taken me three goes lol, I have tried to a use the thumb up button as you put in a nut shell my worries about the longevity of digital images.
You photo was stored in a box, I can just imagine the reaction if I handed the great grand kids a hard disk and said here is pics of family history.

 

[Original katomi]

To all, yes I know I have started to go off topic here, but I plead my case that it’s relevent as a follow on.
Night all from me in the UK.

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>>>I worry that digital photos will not last the test of time and that in 100 years someone will look at digital storage and think the equivalent of what the bleep.

I expect pretty good longevity from CD's and DVD discs of JPG and raw files...but will "most people" have machines to translate the Xs and Os onto visible images or moving pictures? Probably not! I,personally, know of NOBODY who currently owns an 8mm,16mm,or 35mm movie projector. VHS tape player/VCR? More common, yes, but I have not OWNED a VHS player for 5+ years...yet still, I could have a VHS tape transferred to DVD if I payed for the service,and I expect that, in the future, there will be companies that specialize in transferring "obsolete" formats such as CD and DVD to whatever format is current at the time..

 

[Soocom1]

true, but there is another layer to that argument:
When old tyme photos were taken, they were something special and were a keepsake. Precious and something to protect and display with pride.
Vs. Fakebook.

 

[Derrel]

Without a doubt, digital, better and easier-to-use cameras, and automation and computers have made it easier,and cheaper,to LEARn the basics of many types of photography. When I look back to the mid-to late-1970's, equipment and lenses are MUCH easier to use, and BETTER, than before.
One of the best comments in response to the TOP blog entry:

"Dave Levingston: "I’ve had a personal experience that exemplifies this. Back in college in the 1970s I started photographing dance at Ohio University (where the Clarence White School of Photography is located, by the way). I was pretty good at it and the dancers were very happy with my photos. Shooting dance performances back then was a technical challenge. The stage was dark, the film had to be push processed, and of course autofocus was decades away."

"After I retired I decided to return to OU and make more dance photos as a way to 'pay it forward' for the kindness and support I had received when I was a student. That was in the early days of digital and it was still a challenge shooting with my Nikon D100".

"I would edit my photos and put them on a site where the dancers could order prints. I put the prices at cost. A lot of dancers bought the prints. But over the years the orders declined. Eventually they stopped all together. I realized that dance performance photography was no longer difficult. The dancers had plenty of photos taken by their friends with their digital cameras and even with their phones. And they had no use for prints. They just wanted small digital files for the Internet."

 

[limr]

I,personally, know of NOBODY who currently owns an 8mm,16mm,or 35mm movie projector. VHS tape player/VCR?

*raises hand*

But I don't think I count - you know me virtually, not personally, and I'm a dinosaur anomaly

 

[Derrel]

In this group...I should have known there would be SOMEBODY who owns a film projector...

 

[webestang64]

I,personally, know of NOBODY who currently owns an 8mm,16mm,or 35mm movie projector. VHS tape player/VCR?

*raises hand*

But I don't think I count - you know me virtually, not personally, and I'm a dinosaur anomaly

Do forget me Derrel, I own many of those things you list plus cassette decks, typewriters, turntables, heck I even have an 8 track player. And yes I use them.

 

[smoke665]

but I have not OWNED a VHS player for 5+ years...

Call me, if you need to I have player, a recorder and tapes, also have some 8 track tapes (probably a player around somewhere), a reel to reel (plus several boxes of tapes), several boxes of LP's and a turntable, and believe it or not a box of paper reels for a player piano somewhere (the piano is long gone but the music lives on). My kids are gonna cuss me one day when they have to clean it all out.

As to longevity many of the current CD's only have a shelf life of 5 to 10 years not recorded, and anywhere from 10 to 100 after. The so called 1000 year CD came out around 2013, but with all of them, the lifespan is dependent on environmental storage conditions and handling. Throw a stack of them in a box and put it in a hot shed for a few years, shake the box every now and then, and see how long they last.

 

[smoke665]

In this group...I should have known there would be SOMEBODY who owns a film projector.

Does a slide projector and a whole bunch of carousels count. LOL