Saturday, June 12, 2010

A rose-coloured morning rant.

Image courtesy of the Library of Congress.

I like - but equally find odd - the idea that some cameras are like putting in a different pair of eyes. They do more than transcribe but rather translate. Some elements suffer from poor translation whilst others are galvanized and romanticized through the process.

Where I think we often go wrong is an over dependence on, and indulgence with the process itself. Similar to other art forms we get distracted by the medium and work can be poorer for that diversion.

Consider the idea that you wouldn't ask a painter what brand of primer they use, nor a writer whether they keyed the book in a particular program.

I am almost hostile when, after the obligatory 'where/who is it?', some one asks me a 'digital or film?' or 'what camera?' type of question.

I admit that my favoured 'pair of eyes' are integral to the look of my work in regards to detail and it's static position due to the weight of the camera but I equally know that I could make the same work with lesser tools and more discipline.

No comments: