Re: Art of photography

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:10:03 -0500
>From: P3D Karen Obusek <markaren@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Art of photography

>Allow me to clarify my point of art (tradition) vs
>science (new technology). I support tech. advancement as long as it
>supports "forward progress". 

Sounds reasonable.

>Who on this list would trade in their education using books,long
>math, hands on art etc. for todays methods of teaching and learning?
>Nobody! 

I was never trained to extract square roots and cube roots by hand, and I
don't regret it at all - I spent the time learning things that might actually
be of use to me. I've got the formulas in a book somewhere if I need them,
and if I find myself stranded on a desert island and need some square roots
to design an MHD generator, I can just use successive approximation.

Bear in mind that we have essentially the same "model number" of brain
that the people in the stone age did. Unless you accept that we have
the very best possible civilization and technology right now (I don't),
and that we can keep things running forever without needing to develop
anything new (I don't), education *must* change to accommodate new needs.

>It's one thing to
>become "tech" adaptable and an entirely different thing to understand
>the "how and why".

When I went to college, my microelectronics textbook was full of information
on how to design circuits using transistors. Out of curiosity, I bought
a used copy of the previous edition of the same textbook - it had much less
on circuit design, but a huge section (about half the book, as I recall)
on an extremely detailed theoretical description of the internal workings
of a transistor (differential equations and all), none of which is needed
to design transistor circuits. Sure, somebody needs to know that stuff to
design new transistors, but relatively few people are needed for that,
while an enormous number of people are needed to design things using
transistors (also ICs, etc.)

To bring the analogy back to 3D photography - I suspect very few of us on
this list can write out (from memory) the chemical equations used in
Kodachrome photography, or have any clear idea (except for Jim C) of the
detailed neurological processes by which the brain interprets 3D. But that
doesn't prevent us from taking 3D photographs.

>Technology can become too convenient and too "stupid" which has a
>negative effect on the
>" forward progress" equation I'm referring to.

Greg W was discussing something along these lines. I tend to be in favor of
not removing options except when there's a safety factor involved (for
example, I don't really *want* to run the microwave oven with the door
open, and I don't resent the fact that there's an interlock to prevent me
from doing so, but if I get an autofocus camera, I want it to have a manual
focus override).

>In my opinion, if new technology does not advance "forward progress" in
>all aspects, and
>compromises exist.....it's not justified or needed.
>When digital can rival film under this premise,
>I'll reconsider.  MARK DOTTLE

That's the criterion to completely abandon one technology for another.
But what if digital reaches a point where it's much better for some things
that you like to do, while film remains better for some other things.
Would you consider using digital for the things it does better, and film
for the things film does better?

An analogy would be magnetic hard disks and optical disks (CD and DVD).
I have both in my computer, and each is better at particular functions.
I haven't refused to add a CD-ROM drive until they do *everything*
better than magnetic hard disks. :-)

John R


------------------------------