Just because Atul doesn't get the kind of attention he had before doesn't mean that technology is a curse. Why should a person spend his lifetime to click a beautiful picture? Why only the cream of population enjoy the benefits of Atul and gang? Would Atul like to use the same old medicines and medical technology that was prevalent 20 years back? If it would not have been computers and printing technology there wouldn't be any kingfisher calenders. Its like an competition and people like Atul should learn to cope with it and use it for maximizing their performance.
theres advancement in everything, name it you have it. photgraphy is one such thing, its my hobby i started 13 years ago, earleir it used to be SLR with films..i used to shoot my friends and we eagerly wait for the outcome (esp the prints) to learn and i had to think on shutter speed and apreture all the time. Now, with all digitals it had made life easier and eneryones a photographer now with or with out knoweledge. now i own a digital SLR but half the time im ina hurry, i use auto mode to get the results quick, which is wrong and being in design i also change the image using all design softwares. whats the use?? im saddened and sickened by this but no choice in this fast moving world one has to be really fast to catch up else you are left behind..in the coming future for sure there will be loads of changes and nothing can match good'ol cameras with films..i still love them.
Classic forms of almost everything has either disappeared or is dieing fast. Photography, music and even engineering. I share all 3 of these as my passions and it is very saddening to see whats happening. These days all you need to be is a half-baked computer expert. Rigorous work that produces amazing results and gives you deep satisfaction is not needed and respected anymore. All they want is fast results & substandard products.
Re: All Classic is dieing
by Maximus Meridius on Oct 19, 2010 08:12 AM
Right... I suppose you prefer sending messenger pigeons as opposed to email? Or ride bullock-carts to work? Fast doesn't mean substandard. You can have high standards with digital SLRs too; the fundamentals are the same: A good subject/frame, and light. You still need to set apertures and shutter speeds to get the result you want. The difference is that while Ansel Adams did his dodging and burning in a wet lab, people do it on a computer. So what? They both "cheated", if that's what you are implying.
Re: Re: Re: All Classic is dieing
by Maximus Meridius on Oct 19, 2010 08:22 AM
Yes he did. The difference was that his photoshop was chemical and today it's computerized. Both are just tools. If your subject/composition is bad, no amount of photoshop will make it look good. If your subject is good, photoshop/wet lab processing is secondary.
Re: All Classic is dieing
by gaurav agarwal on Oct 19, 2010 11:26 AM
Film photography leaves less room for multiple takes. With digital u can just keep snapping. Digital is easier to transmit....but then where is the pulp?
The whole process and creativity that was required earlier to compose a shot is gone, the feel is absent. Just like emails are excellent but they have stolen the art of letter writing.
You need to be a photographer to feel the difference
Re: Re: All Classic is dieing
by Ajit Birdi on Nov 05, 2010 11:48 PM
You are correct, Film photography is an art own it\'s own. One can draw beautiful picture near realistic to real life On a computer. But can\'t match the art of mixing colors and strokes of brush. like everything else that art will be lost in few generations. The very first art lost was art of stiching when machines took over. Now only few specialists stitch garments such saris etc. second was art of Kniting which has virtually disappear again due to machines. Now every craft is on stakes and disappearing.
Re: Re: All Classic is dieing
by Maximus Meridius on Oct 19, 2010 12:31 PM
I am an amateur photog. Being able to take multiple photos for free makes you a better photographer quicker than film. This is not a drawback!
The skill in photography is, and I repeat myself, identifying a photogenic scene (or imagining one), setting up lights if necessary, or waiting for the exact lighting and taking the snap. You can't fake that in PS. PS is ok for correcting exposure (which people did in the old days of film too, just not on a computer). If you like the hand-on approach of a wet lab, that's great. But most film photographers also "photoshop" their images to make it look better, including the great Ansel Adams; it's just that amateurs didn't know about or didn't know how to do it, and PS makes it easier. However, it doesn't make digital photography a lesser art. You can still photograph exactly like film using a digital SLR. You don't HAVE to photoshop, and many pros do not. Most pros (except landscape folk on medium and large format film) have moved to digital. There's a reason.
Emails: You can send bad emails, or send well worded emails. The choice is yours as an individual. Same as digital photography, the problem is not the medium.
Re: Re: All Classic is dieing
by Maximus Meridius on Oct 19, 2010 12:31 PM
I am an amateur photog. Being able to take multiple photos for free makes you a better photographer quicker than film. This is not a drawback!
The skill in photography is, and I repeat myself, identifying a photogenic scene (or imagining one), setting up lights if necessary, or waiting for the exact lighting and taking the snap. You can't fake that in PS. PS is ok for correcting exposure (which people did in the old days of film too, just not on a computer). If you like the hand-on approach of a wet lab, that's great. But most film photographers also "photoshop" their images to make it look better, including the great Ansel Adams; it's just that amateurs didn't know about or didn't know how to do it, and PS makes it easier. However, it doesn't make digital photography a lesser art. You can still photograph exactly like film using a digital SLR. You don't HAVE to photoshop, and many pros do not. Most pros (except landscape folk on medium and large format film) have moved to digital. There's a reason.
Emails: You can send bad emails, or send well worded emails. The choice is yours as an individual. Same as digital photography, the problem is not the medium.
If it is done with Digital cameras and computers then it is not Photography. IT IS ELECTROGRAPHY. Once the button has been pressed on the camera,picture captured does not see an light until it is printed. It is all Electron and No Light.
Re: Photograpy
by Maximus Meridius on Oct 19, 2010 08:06 AM
Don't coin your own names. It's still photography. Film and the digital CCD capture the same thing: Light. Photography means writing/drawing with light. One is chemical capture and the other is electrical capture of light. Same thing, different medium. Film photographers have been doing a lot of the tricks that Photoshop does, like dodging and burning, cross-processing and stuff like that. It's just that the process was expensive and less accessible. The problem for the likes of Kasbekar is that now anyone with a computer can do the stuff that only pros knew/could achieve. In other words, it has been democratized. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure kasbekar uses autofocus and uses the camera's built-in metering to expose his film. He doesn't shoot in 8X10 format (probably never did) either but uses SLRs. Obviously things have progressed from Lithography and Daguerreotype.
Re: Stop this marathi adulation
by comfyn on Oct 18, 2010 08:06 PM
relax there is no marathi non marathi here..pls dont give this article a regional point of view
Re: Re: Stop this marathi adulation
by vasant patil on Oct 18, 2010 07:10 PM
then why do you want to come to Mumbai ? build your own city and bollywood in your place.
Re: costly but good
by Ajit Birdi on Oct 19, 2010 02:56 AM
Yes with film it was expensive but it was more enjoyable then digital. Some like my self who are diehards still use film and do own processing the smell of processing chemicals is great,it give you sense off professionalism. Where as digital is okay at point and shoot but is still expensive at the high end and till got a long way to catch up with film. AS for me as far as the film is available I will carry on using it. The flaw with digital is that as the technology changes so does the photography. Just like one can not open file without great difficulty and may be never for old formats of Word etc and many a crucial files are lost if not converted in time. Same will happen with digital on will not be able to read into memory on which the photographs are saved. Give it another say 10 years. If you save your pictures on DVD they may not be availabe to you perhaps DVD will not exist and be taken over completly either by Blue ray or some other format. IF you are a professional you will have lost a lot of work. Where as with film it can be processed even after 100 years surly there will be chemist who will be able to brew up the soup to process a film and coat a paper to print. But with DVD no one will build a a machine to read a DVD. With an average street urchin it does not matter but a professional it does so to photographic libraries.
