Saturday, February 28, 2009

interest is key

I wanted to see what this whole photography thing was about so I took a class. It seems like a bit of a fad at the moment, and everywhere I turn I see people with SLRS slung around their necks. I'm trying to understand why this is. I'm trying to get why Canon is advertising SLRS via not-the-greatest-questionable-celeb: Avril Lavigne. SLRS are pretty expensive... and Canon seems to be selling them to peeps like its the new sliced bread.

So first and foremost 'am-I-artsy-if-I-buy-a-dslr?'
To Canon & The Man: Why is it necessary to buy a camera to prove that you are trendy or 'artsy.' OK maybe you are into photography, which, I think is great. And if you are, you'd obviously know how incredibly technical it is. My prof explained that when you look back into history of the first photographers and artists, they were engaged in far more activities than just those subjects. For example William Talbot who developed the Calotype process (first negative and positive photographic process) was not only a photgrapher, but also an MP, botanist, classicist, physicist and Egyptologyst. Not to mention all the people who came after him were chemists and physicists etc.

So why make this distinction? Arts OR Science...Why is it split in our school system? For God's sake, ever heard of the term: renaissance man?!?

I guess I am getting carried away. Some people just want to take photos with a camera that is above what regular consumers use but below professionals. May it be pictures of their friends, family, squirrels in trees, whatever. But I think, if that is the case, its necessary to take a genuine and serious interest in it. I'll sit with my friend who actually is in photography and look at peoples pics on facebook, and its astounding how crap a lot of them are... Even though they are using such a fine piece of machinery. Because apparently SLRS are like Photoshop. They have zillions of features that hardly get used. Isn't that slightly depressing? Thats why Canon is bugging me a bit. Cus people out there will buy em, spend all that money, and then The Man wins. I do commend them for their advertising though. Even though no one really cares about Avril anymore...

(side note: I do not mean to be controversial. I'm just pretty annoyed w/ media at da mo)


luke said...

this is my passion:

luke said...

i mean

luke said...

you should be more controversial rak, it's fun.

Soo-Hon said...

it's definitely a cash-grab for those willing to buy these 2k+ cams and keep it on auto everytime they take pictures. people always think that the newest and best SLR/DSLR's will make them the next annie leibovitz. even newbies to the photography game immediately assume that living in a digital age means that a digital slr will always prove to be superior. this is not true. it's all based on a photographers taste.

i know some photographers who've made the switch back from digital to analog slr's because there is a certain photographic quality you can't imitate on a mem-card.

I don't consider myself a "photographer" by any stretch of the imagination, but I use a Pentax SLR camera from the 80's. it's built like a tank and will never break if i drop it (plus it produces some pretty good pictures too!) if you're serious about looking more into photography, start with old-school slr's that you can get from a pawn-shop for a pretty pence, and just fuck around!

p.s. props on the fox talbot name drop!

Saffron said...

yeah my prof said the best way to really get a feel for it is with film cameras/old school slrs as you've mentioned. sounds like my plan!