Why live your life through a view-finder?

[johnastovall]

Photography, once a noble art, has become, thanks to the move to digital, a mental illness, says Nigel Farndale.

Article here....

[snydersnapshots]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Photography, once a noble art, has become, thanks to the move to digital, a mental illness, says Nigel Farndale.

Article here....

Hmmm....this opens a WIDE range of possibilities.

First of all, since it's a medical condition, employers should give us time off from work for "therapy" sessions. Insurance/medicaid/medicare will now pay for camera equipment as long as it's prescribed by a doctor (just think--a brand-new D3 for only a $5 copay)! Extended photography trips are tax deductible as "medical" expenses--and for those without insurance, medicaid or medicare will pick up the tab on those extended therapy sessions. There may even be funds available for those who are so seriously afflicted that they are unable to work.

And for the real serious cases, I'm sure there will be a blue "handicapped" tag for the car so we don't have to lug our gear quite so far...

I've got the health-care bill on my computer. When I get done booking this Alaskan cruise and dealing with the DMV folks, I'll be going through it page-by-page searching for these provisions. I'll get back to you...

[marcosb]

real nice article .stovall
reminds me why I like film so much, even when i have one digital camera and like 8 or 10 film cameras

[photonewb]

I am mentally ill and will now need to seek guidance and help. Ken once you've got the details worked out let me know because I could probably use the same doctor.

photonewb added 1 Minutes and 52 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

as for the article...seems like someone let their pet peeve get to them.

people for ages have been taking photos of things. I often look back and wish I had a camera with me on many an occasion. I've been to parts of Europe I'll probably never return to, and some of the images were breath taking, and I have nothing but an image in my mind to remember them...this is of course slowly rotting away due to age and alcohol...but mostly alcohol.

I don't side with the author at all

[zebulus]

I liked the article and agree with him, even though I myself have been guilty of this. Why is it that we feel we must take thirty shots of the same thing, even when we know their all going to look similar and we will more than likely delete 90% of them...and I do this myself and I cant explain it.

I think we all do need to slow down and do as Ansel Adams did. Spend weeks, stare for moments, and click once.

[texxter]

Another borderline idiotic article about how much better things were in the past.

"I think it is as much insensitivity as insecurity." - WTF? Who is this Nigel to psychoanalyze people that like to use digital cameras to capture and share their world?

Digital technology has made it possible for many many people to enjoy photography and share their lives. So what if people shoot a lot of bad pictures? Does it hurt you in any way?

Live (with your old film camera) and let live (the rest of us with convenient digital devices)

[kenw]

more pontification by someone who doesn't get it. pompous ass comes to mind.....

Here, once again the web has given a voice to those who should remain silent.

[ptrd]

I haven't read the article but judging from people's responses, I can kind of come up as to the jist of the article.

I'm still reminded of that scene in "Yes Man" with Jim Carrey. That Zoey character does "running picture trails" where people just run around and take pictures. They're all crap but she doesn't care because it's fun to her.

More power to them. Sorry if you feel as though you're elitist and you think you're more awesome than someone else because you are slightly better at it and experienced.

[jeffkohn]

I think the article is pretty stupid. Yet another snob who thinks the democratization of photography is a bad thing because now too many "common folk" can do it..

For me, photography has had exactly the opposite effect, and I have a much greater appreciation for the world around me than I ever did before getting into photography.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by ptrd

I haven't read the article but judging from people's responses, I can kind of come up as to the jist of the article.

I'm still reminded of that scene in "Yes Man" with Jim Carrey. That Zoey character does "running picture trails" where people just run around and take pictures. They're all crap but she doesn't care because it's fun to her.

More power to them. Sorry if you feel as though you're elitist and you think you're more awesome than someone else because you are slightly better at it and experienced.

I wish I was smart enough to comment on things without having read them.

johnastovall added 3 Minutes and 43 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

I think the article is pretty stupid. Yet another snob who thinks the democratization of photography is a bad thing because now too many "common folk" can do it..

For me, photography has had exactly the opposite effect, and I have a much greater appreciation for the world around me than I ever did before getting into photography.

Could it be that maybe it a variation of Gresham's law where Bad Photography is forcing out the Good.

Preferring good to bad hardly makes on a snob....

[toverman]

I didn't see an article; it is an opinion piece/rant. *big yawn*

Yes, it's annoying when 100 people hoist their cell phones in a dark concert hall to take useless, blurry, underexposed images of whoever is on stage. It's annoying when someone snaps and snaps on their little digicams. But you know what? It only affects me if I let it. I don't.

We can romanticize photography's past all we want, but the late artists we consider great could quite possibly be using today's tools to push their art further. To me, the best part of photography is the images themselves. It really doesn't matter what tools were used, it doesn't even matter who the captured the image or whether they are skilled or unskilled, pro, amateur, blind as a bat, etc. There's nothing wrong with using old photography tools, there's nothing wrong with using new photography tools. But if it's about the tools, that makes the image secondary. Now that's annoying!

[kenw]

In all fairness (and I reach at that…), the implied “Living thru the viewfinder” is a worthwhile comment to those who fail to just put down the camera and enjoy the scene as it is. Sometimes folks (yes, us’ns included) focus so much on “the shot” that we fail to absorb the entire environment that is presented to us. We have all said ‘Photos just don’t do it justice’ more than once, so why are we so hell-bent on making them do so?

What this clown and many others before and after fail to grasp is that to a lot of folks, indeed the overwhelming majority of folks, a photo is simply a means to capture a memory. It ain’t art, it never was intended to be art. And they’re just fine with that. It captures their trip in the cable car as they remember it. If he has a problem with that, then I would suggest his Prozac dosage be adjusted. By force if necessary.

[johnastovall]

The best solution to this is travel places the tourists don't and they are more interesting anyway.

[BSGp8ntball]

I LOVE my digital camera but I think I get what the author is trying to say. I feel like his anger is coming from the fact that he is seeing people trying to "conquer" the situation instead of take it in for what it has to offer. I think his point has merit, some of his comments towards the digital camera crown might be a bit overboard and could have probably been worded better but middle of the road, only slightly opinionated and waffling commentary doesn't make for good journalism.

[toverman]

On every trip or vacation I take with my family, I make it a point to NOT always take my camera. Sometimes the best memories are the ones in your brain rather than the ones on your wall, in an album or lost on the computer.