rene_tanaja

John, if you want to put it that way, then, yes, he was. Mind you, when Bach or Vivaldi came back the people who

listened to them were not the "avant garde", but just regular listeners who were introduced to something they've

never realized existed. Likewise Shakespeare. Just "cool stuff people forgot that they existed". The "avant

garde" went for new stuff and new ideas.

I think you misunderstood, John. I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned the Salgado thing. I was referring to Bob's comment on the 10th. I understood you didn't mean such a thing as I said.

 

As for Shakespeare, it wasn't too long before Lincoln's time that he was rediscovered, if I remember correctly, which is why I said "relatively" recently. I wasn't sure about when that was, and I didn't want to guess.

Fascinating discussion! I agree with John that I think Lou has a great point

that maybe art is about how it changes us, rather than how it's supposed to be

admired or created. Maybe Michelangelo's work isn't about academic

impressiveness, but about how it inspires you when you look at it. You don't

have to be admired by art collectors to be a great artist. You just have to have

the ability to inspire something in others. Who cares if an "artist" is in style

and gets to mingle with the rich and powerful? If he/she can't inspire, he/she

is certainly is not up to par with the likes of Michelangelo.

 

I don't agree, though, with the idea that you must be familiar who Salgado is to

be considered a serious

artistic photographer. I don't see why who you are familiar with is should have

any relevance to your ability

to produce art. Even if you've never heard of Atget, Kertesz, or even Newton, it

has no bearing on your ability to create. I myself had not heard of Salgado

until recently, and, it had not affected my ability to create either. (Now, that

I have, I regret not having "discovered" his work earlier!)

 

My own thoughts, though, are similar to many others' here. Michelangelos are

here, and they may not be known or appreciated right now. History will tell

whose works will last. Not that the works which do not become iconic in future

history are necessarily any less. Bach was not "rediscovered" until Mendelssohn

revived him in the 19th century. Vivaldi wasn't "rediscovered" until the

mid-20th century, even though Bach considered Vivaldi a better composer than

himself. Even Shakespeare wasn't "rediscovered" until relatively recently (I

can't remember when). There are probably other outstanding masters of art in

history far greater than Michelangelo, Bach, Vivaldi, or Shakeapeare that

haven't been rediscovered simply because they slipped through the cracks of

people's attentions. Alas, I don't think that trend is ever going to, or can,

change.

Okay, before someone says something, I would like to say I take it back about using flatbeds. I looked up the newest flatbeds, and looks like they can do what the film scanners can do and more! I sit corrected...

Files as good as the Pentax k10D raw files? Heavens! I have an old Canoscan

FS4000US, and I would challenge anyone to be able to match the quality of the

tiff (essentially "raw") files from that scanner using any regular-format

digicam available. In terms of quality, film still reigns by a long shot, even

scanned (with an adequately good scanner, of course), although I expect digicams

to start coming close very soon.

 

That being said, a few years ago, I found a new FS4000US (4000dpi, resulting in

scans of approximately equal to about 24MP (yes, I calculated it) with tiff -

and most of the better films still outperforms the scanner) for half the

original selling price, and it does a fantastic job with 35mm negs and slides.

It doesn't do 120, alas, and it's very slow. The newer Nikon Coolscans (5000,

etc.) and Minolta ones (there's one that can do something like 5600dpi, but I

can't remember the name) should do much better, but they would still be a little

pricier. I would skip flatbeds if you want the best quality scans from 35mm.

Moving photos with audio. I don't think this is the new thing in photography, frankly. It has, after all, been done by film (ie. movies), so this is more of a completely different realm. Or maybe it's a new gray area. I haven't seen much of that being done lately, but that's could be just where I am. And until someone comes with "the complete sensory experience" (one can say), it's little more than a poor attempt to simulate all of reality, and sounds rather gimmicky.

 

Online, or on-screen photos. Yes, it's true that digital display has taken much ground, but it still is something you see when you turn on your computer, or something on a screen. It still lacks the unique treatments in printing, and the tactile (or even just visually "tactile") qualities of print. Maybe it's good for the weekend tourist photographer or those who want some critique and discussion, like on this site, but it isn't quite satisfactory if you want the real experience of the image.

 

What's new in photography? For one thing, I think Photoshop and the like were the "new" thing in photography in the last ten or fifteen years. It gives you a lot more freedom in creativity, as well as allowing you to explore it much faster than in the darkroom. In terms of style, subject, etc., I don't think you can look at the last day, week, or even year and see what's new. It's like trends you see in music or art through the centuries. It's a continuous, slow change. If you compare the photographs of the last couple of decades and compare it with the 50's, or even earlier, you will probably start to see what's new. I haven't done much looking as such, but I have noticed that portraiture style and methods have changed very much since the days of Karsh, for example. As long as we keep taking images, new things will continue to appear, but it won't be immediately apparent as being new.

Wow! That must have been an incredibly interesting double-date! Maybe what I would have asked him that is pertinent to this topic is: Though the church's #1 job is to provide comfort, don't we, regular members of the human race, have a responsibility to comfort each other as well?

 

I agree that truth is ultimately an academic matter. Unfortunately, most people take truth a little too personally.

 

Another thing I would have asked him, for more personal interest, is what he thinks about the Church dabbling in academic matters, and vice versa.

 

Anyway, I do appreciate your input in this discussion. All points of view should always be appreciated. :) Cheers!

Like I said, John, I see no ethical failure here, since the "untruth" (if you see it that way, which I do not) has a positive and harmless effect, and the truth has a negative, and harmful effect. Either can be called ethical, but only one has a positive result. On top of that, ethical does not automatically come from truth, but from doing the right thing, truthful or not. In that way, telling her the thing as it is would be harmful, and therefore potentially unethical if it turns out to be the wrong thing to do (which, in this case, I am convinced that it is).

 

We can also suppose that maybe the images she saw helped to change her opinion about turning forty. It is conceivable that she realized that turning forty does not mean she's lost anything, and was therefore the reason she decided to keep fighting. Someone seeing a picture does not necessarily mean she did not see beyond the image.

 

Bob, you have very good arguments, but I disagree that this particular session is necessarily a blip in the woman's life. Many changes in people's lives were because of one short moment in their lives that changed the way their think. Nonetheless, it doesn't mean that this could not be just a blip in her life, like you said, though, and leads to nowhere, like the woman in your story. However, it doesn't always necessarily end that way, and we can hope it doesn't. Unlike what I would surmise John would say, having the "truth" instead would in no way make anything in any way better. But if it turns out to be a true epiphany, then all the power to Matthew and the lady. All you need sometimes is a spark. Sometimes the fire starts, sometimes it doesn't. All we can do start the spark, hope, and encourage. Perhaps one day she will win her fight. Explaining to her the "truth" will not cause any sparks, and thus will not start any fire. No hope. No encouragement. No reason to continue fighting. Might as well accept to suffer the pain for the rest of her life and wait for death. Which is better? You decide.

As I understand it, normally, an SDHC reader would be able to read an SD card, but never the other way around. It has to do with the number of bits in the recognition coding, or something like that (I read up on it, but can't remember the exact terminology). The SD card just has fewer, so when an SDHC card is inserted, it can't recognize the entire card ID, so it won't recognize the card. However, one can guess that when it's already inserted, the computer assumes that the card is part of the system, and thus does not bother to check the card ID. But inserting the SDHC card into the SD slot should never work nirmally. Nifty trick with the reboot, though. You can get a Lexar card, maybe. They are more expensive, but has proven quality and transfer speed, and they come with SDHC readers included. :)

I see no ethical dilemma here. On the one hand, a lady in pain may or may not have been deceived (or self-deceived) into feeling better and encouraged to pursue further means of possibly ending her pain. On the other hand, the truth of the situation may be explained to her, in which case, she may return to her old self, become even more depressed, give up, and live life with the painful truth, surrendering the pursuit of possible cures. She will know the truth - you might even call it "wisdom", but it will do her no good, and probably more harm. Why tell her "the truth" then? "The truth" isn't so important at the moment, and may be explained later if one so wishes. In the meantime, what she needs is encouragement. Why sacrifice humanity for logic, when logic can bring no good in this case? The mind is also a powerful thing, and is able to amazingly repair much damage (internally or with outside aid) just by believing it can. This has been scientifically proven many times. Even self-deception can be powerful medicine. I'm trained as a scientist myself, and loathe to resort to emotions when it's not needed, but I see no wisdom or logic in bringing her positive attitude down, and I see no ethical dilemma here.

John K. does have a point, but I disagree that it's a point that is of relevance here. The point is not whether the photographs in question has the power to change the course of humanity's suffering. The point is that it has the power to change the lives of two people, like Sally said, and that is plenty for mere mortals like us. We're not trying to be superheroes here, and we need not try to psychoanalyze why or how the lady or the photographer feels better for it. We may not know the real reasons, and, frankly, the point is of no relevance or interest. The fact is that the lady feels better and found the drive to keep going, and the photographer feels better because he made a difference in one person's life. Why? Who cares? How? Who cares? The fact is that the effect is positive on them. Art has power. Music has power. Photography has power. If they didn't, or if we analyze why that is to death, we wouldn't keep producing them out of analness (anality?) and frustration. They have power to change lives. Analyze it if you must, but might as well accept the undeniable result.

 

As for the age issue, some people find it a tragedy, some people don't notice it when it comes. Why some do one and others the other? Who knows? We can't expect everyone to age gracefully (psychologically or physically), and slapping them around to their senses is not going to fix that.

 

So, let's stop fruitlessly dissecting the reasons, and observe the proven effect, shall we? Two people's lives were changed for the better, and it need not be an isolated incident. 'Nuff said.

You're welcome. It's something I've always believed in. I hope to be able to inspire other people the same way sometime. I've always found fascinating the way a photograph can inspire people in different ways, maybe even draw them out. One old photo I made (alas I haven't scanned it, and I can't find the negative at the moment) of an abandoned bicycle beside a stream was the first to surprise me. I thought it was, first, beautiful (at least to me), and uplifting because I thought it symbolizes that we are part of nature, and all thing return to nature eventually. Then a friend saw it and was wondering if I was grossly depressed. :) (FYI, I wasn't.) Perhaps you saw your pictures as sadly touching images of someone struggling with pain and suffering, but to her it was a way to see herself in a way that she couldn't before - as herself with the robust will to live that she didn't see that she has. I wish her good luck, and you, good shooting. :)

I agree with you, Matt. Holding down your emotions has nothing to do with being a "tough guy". Photographs can have enormous power. Like music, it can destroy the toughest person, lift up your spirits to a level you didn't know can exist, or soften the hardest heart. Your story is very touching. I'm glad what we do can have so much power to change lives. The ability to change a life is infinitely more powerful than the ability to hold your emotions in. I tip my hat to you, and keep up the good work for humanity.

 

Rene

Paul Gresham, you are absolutely right about that, but doesn't the number of MP's at the 6-to10MP level does play into the detail issue, depending on how large you are going to enlarge it? Higher than that, the issue is rather moot, unless you are trying to print large posters, and lower than that, don't even bother discussing detail, because you're not going to get much. If you start seeing the pixels at some point, then you are starting to lose detail, since the nature of the pixel is that it detects only one level of light and colour. With 6MP, at 16x20, from my experience with a point-and-shoot 8MP camera, the pixellation should be serious enough that you can say that detail is definitely lost. But it is true that a high MP camera with a lousy lens would do the same.

I still usually use film cameras, because, frankly, the picture quality-to-price ratio for cameras is still much in favour of film cameras, although closing rapidly. Nonetheless, I did get a small 8MP Canon camera for size, portability, and stealth. Alas, it only shoots in .jpg format. For most general uses, it is adequate (I always shoot at the best quality setting), but when I shot a uniformly-coloured wall, where the colour gradation from lighting is very gradual, and over a large portion of the image. This is where the difference between RAW and .jpg shows up, I think. The jpeg compression, even at the highest quality, could not render the gradation to even a merely acceptable level - the image, it turned out, was useless without major PS editing. :(

 

As for resolution (ie. number of MP's), the pixellation is already starting to become (barely) visible (with slight cropping and at close range view) at an 8x10 print. Extrapolating, at 16x20, the pixellation should become bothersome at 8MP. At 6MP, I imagine it would become extremely bothersome (and I hate seeing those ugly pixels on photos). So, yes, more MP is undoubtedly better, if they can keep the heat noise down, as, like someone else said, more information is always better - contrary to salt in cooking, you can always remove information, but you can never add. You should be able to eliminate much of the heat noise from processing, though. I worked with astronomical-grade CCD's when 1MP was still an amazing resolution, and commercial digicams were rare, and heat was always a problem. Too bad you can't have a liquid nitrogen system cooling your digicam CCD. :)