cebes_johnson Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 ..for those who are, well, not yet burned out on theory of photography and are on the neverending learning curve as well will find it interesting and informative. Could not have been better stated in my opinion. Article by Erwin Puts. http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c003.html ...always nice to know you are not alone. regardsCebes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Hogwash! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 No pictures. Also total b@#locks. Bemoaning the fact that the great photography and photographers of the 20th Century have disappeared. (Yes, well so has the 20th Century! Wake up Erwin, hello?) Instead we will have 21st century photography and photographers both great and mediocre. Methinks he is writing off 21st century photography 96 years too early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 If anyone ever doubted that the illustrious Mr. Erwin Puts is full of it, this is *the* article to cast away all doubts forever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_lieberman1 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Too bad someone already drank that fifth of Jack Daniels . . . sounds like Erwin could use a couple of shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_hector Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I guess a Leica user going to a P&S digicam would be disappointed with the lag, lack of proper camera hand-holdable ergonomic-design and the like. Being a long-time Nikon SLR user (hey, I own an S2 also), I wanted to shoot the same old film way so I didn't gripe, I just bought the right digicam, a D1H, and I manually focus/meter and have image-review off. Get it right in the camera and you don't have to post-process much, be it film or digital, and film-scans and sensor-based images are not the same either. Erwin must believe the 20th Century masters never played in the darkroom after exposure. Well, some of us shot Kodachrome exclusively, and we didn't even have a post-processing option so we had to do it all in-camera like this <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/bss.jpg"> In-camera fun </a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__stu_evans Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Photography will continue to be an extension of the will of the zen as projected through a parallel karma of the alternative time of communal existence. Have a beer. Gotta feed the chickens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
________1 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I wonder if Erwin has ever used a digital camera; it wouldn't appear so by the absurdities in that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I heard the followup article was titled "The Earth Is Flat." Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Seems like a reasonable observation to me. Digital photographers are creating...nothing. Abstract zeros and ones. Perfect nothingness that can be duplicated perfectly. P.T. Barnum would love the concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Eugene Smith manipulated his photos, am I right? using film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msitaraman Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 A splendid effort at wool gathering. Erwin really should mingle with other photographers a bit more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 "The one-to-one correspondence that exists between the moment of making the picture and the reality that is being recorded is lost." Huh? "The digital picture has no longer any direct relationship to the scene that has been recorded." Wuh? "The famous pre-visualisation of Ansel Adams and the importance of having a photographers eye in order to see the scene photographically are redundant." Translates to: "digital cameras can, in the hands of a skilled photographer, increase the number of successful shots, but I don't want you to know that." "I can argue that a digital M is not an improvement as I can always scan the film" How long does it take to scan a frame of 35mm film at 4,000 dpi? Answer: too long. "examining every single picture to see if it is right, kills the whole idea." If you have time then you might want to check the histogram to optimise exposure. Or am I just being unrealistic? "The idea that you can take digital pictures with the mentality and approach of the filmbased style of photography is as grotesk as trying to drive a modern racing car with the mental state of handling a steam engine." So if it's all about 'mental state' then why should it matter what technology you use? Oh, that's right, because the life and death of photography is at stake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_tomalty Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Come on guys! Cut Erwin some slack. It's obvious from his article that he must have played semi pro hockey earlier in his life and is now showing the signs of some sort of repeat head trauma. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I wonder if he's ever shot stuff in a studio, using Polaroids to check lighting ratios and focus. It wouldn't really fit into his definition of the "art of photography." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 <i>"Come on guys! Cut Erwin some slack. It's obvious from his article that he must have played semi pro hockey earlier in his life and is now showing the signs of some sort of repeat head trauma."</i> <p>Oh, right! My bad. But, I thought it was no-gloves boxing, not semi pro hockey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Link courtesy of El Fang from another thread.... <a href="http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041004/photoessay/">click here</a> ..... Doesn't James Nachtway use a DSLR? Don't these photos for Time just show what utter drivel Erwin Puts is talking? Could it be that the difference is made by being a good photographer, and that the good photographer can transfer his skills to whatever equipment he chooses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_brookes5 Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 There are some thought provoking statements but I wouldn't be so dismissive. This year phone cameras will outsell digital cameras. Is photography, as most on this site infer, more than just snaps ? If so then Mr Puts has a point. It all depends what is meant by photography so we are back to the argument - are electronic impressions photographs ? As I said, it is thought provoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Anthony wrote: "Is photography, as most on this site infer, more than just snaps?" Sure, a good point, but do you need digital cameras to make that point? No, of course not. Snapshots existed long before electronic camras. Long before even the Leica itself. Thought provoking articles are good but Erwin has said almost nothing intelligent. Usually he gives the impression that he does know what he's talking about. But not in this article he doesn't. Anthony wrote: "are electronic impressions photographs?" Does that even need an answer?!?! Honestly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul t Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I'm not surprised by his reaction to digital, given that the concept of AE - as used in the Hexar - is abhorrent to him, and puts the camera in control of the photographer, rather than vice versa. I thought his review of the Hexar was equally amusing. <p>Shame people like Lee Friedlander , who use a Hexar, or those poor deluded professionals shooting digital, don't realise their high- tech cameras will one day take over their senses, like something in a 1950s sci fi movie, and they will lose all capacity for independent thought'/ photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 "Digital photographers are creating...nothing. Abstract zeros and ones. " Whereas film photographers are creating... what? Negatives? Slides? Most people look at prints - but cameras do not produce prints. The digital image file is simply another sort of negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bas1 Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I'm not a digital advocate, contrary perhaps, but this guy is so far off it is not even funny. Got about halfway and then he lost me completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw_finney Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 What a load of @*!?# etc. I like my little digicam, all 1.5Mpix of it! How else am I going to show you all my mad projects. It's zoom range almost covers my 3 5x4 lenses too, saves me film by previewing filters etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 <i>"Doesn't James Nachtway use a DSLR?"</i> <p>He prefers B&W film, but when on assignment in a country without reliable lab resources (such as Afghanistan, for example) and/or on tight deadline, he uses the EOS-1Ds and transmits. Whatever gets the job done. <p><i>"Don't these photos for Time just show what utter drivel Erwin Puts is talking? Could it be that the difference is made by being a good photographer, and that the good photographer can transfer his skills to whatever equipment he chooses?"</i> <p>Yes, yes and yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 <i>"I'm not surprised by his reaction to digital, given that the concept of AE - as used in the Hexar - is abhorrent to him, and puts the camera in control of the photographer, rather than vice versa."</i> <p>Yes, in fact the original quote is <i>"Let me say, that you become a bit lazier when using the hexar and that shows in the pictures"</i> (taken from his <a href="http://imx.nl/photosite/japan/hexarrf.html" target=_blank">Hexar RF review</a>). Then the <b>LEICA</b> M7 came out. As if on cue, he <a href="http://imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/m7.html" target="_blank">tapdances his way over</a> to <i>"the integration of electronic exposure automation in the classical body shape, gives the experienced Leica user a smooth migration path and transition to even better photography."</i> <p>Either Erwin Puts is a paid shill for Leica or he has to be the most biased equipment "reviewer" that ever existed in history. Take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now