>> |
04/22/10(Thu)07:04 No.783069Imagine
your eyes gaze upon the most beautiful photograph that could possibly
exit. Its composition, its detail, its light and its subject all collude
to make the most beautiful pattern of shapes your mind can bare to
witness. As you reel in true awe from this you notice in that, horror of
horrors, it was shot in 'Auto'. Does it make it any less of a
photograph? Does it detract from its worth? If you answer 'yes' then I
call you a liar to your face. To say that because something has less
worth because its creation was machine assisted simply does not bare up
to logic. Would you consider a car less of a work of art and engineering
because a computer assisted in calculating its parameters? Would you
consider man walking on the moon less of achievement because a computer
calculated the necessary trajectory? Is a photo worthless if it was shot
manually but then Gimped afterwards? Of course not. So how is it
defensible that a somehow a computer calculating the best settings for
the conditions detracts from a photo?
So what can we draw from
this? I think the answer is a simple one. Understanding how a camera
works and how to translate these principles into a quality photo is
important. Equally important is the ability to recognise shape and form
and translate that into composition. Most important of all is to be out
there taking photos. Good or bad. 'Auto' or 'M'. Little Johnny's sports
day or the Running of the Bulls. Every time you see a Green Box Warrior
rejoice that here is someone indulging in the privilege of the image. |