Comments on: Playing with Aperture https://darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/ no more band-aids Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:14:22 +0000 hourly 1 By: PatrickQG https://darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82432 Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://59671597#comment-82432 I bought a copy of Aperture at the beginning of the year, and despite living with it on a 12″ PowerBook for 6 months, I’ve never regretted the purchase. I’m finding as I’ve got to know my camera (a D50), and using it in manual mode 99% of the time, with Aperture I’m getting much better results.

The switch to RAW is particularly great one – shooting to JPEG always felt slightly wrong to me, like I was throwing data away before I even got to see it.

]]> By: Sami Khan https://darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82442 Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://59671597#comment-82442 Little children getting their blemishes removed, what is the world coming to? Perhaps in the future we’ll have glasses that remove blemishes and wrinkles from people’s faces so everyone looks young. 😉 Is that a good idea? As for becoming a photographer, hmm. I wonder how long that job is going to be around?

]]> By: dnorman https://darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82445 Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://59671597#comment-82445 There’s actually a camera that removes blemishes, even makes you look thinner, all in-camera. That’s a bit over the top…

As for the job of “photographer” – it’s been around for 150 years. I don’t think universal access to cheap photography tools will change that. If anything, it might increase the appreciation of what it takes to take/make a good photo.

Everyone has a video camera, and the resulting accumulation of 50 trillion hours of birthday party shaky cam footage hasn’t reduced the demand for real cameramen etc…

]]> By: Sami Khan https://darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82446 Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://59671597#comment-82446 I could go for the thinner. What I actually wonder about photography is not whether it’s going away, but whether photographers are becoming ubiquitous…? Home videos can’t become commercial videos, they don’t have the budget… but photography is the photographer and the camera, that’s is… The view doesn’t cost anything. But I guess you have to have enough free time first to learn the craft, and then when you practice it you have to be paid enough to make a living… so that keeps the pay levels decent enough for those who choose to go in it… I guess its sort of a supply demand curve for work… If there is too much supply it causes a drop in the demand or the pay, and that causes people who can’t afford the life style to leave. However a while back some freeland writer who wrote for mags including Rolling Stones was complaining about the fact that he was getting paid not a penny more than when he started and taking in inflation, quite a bit less.

]]> By: dnorman https://darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82447 Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://59671597#comment-82447 Photography died in the ’50s when cheap point-and-shoot cameras took off. Everyone could take a picture. Wait… It didn’t die, it just got more common/popular…

but, yeah. I couldn’t imagine actually making a living off of taking pictures. it’d sure be cool, though…

]]> By: Sami Khan https://darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82448 Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://59671597#comment-82448 What I really mean is… I can not accept defeat… 😛 No seriously though, how about 3-D pictures?? When will 3-D holoscapes replace photography?

]]> By: dnorman https://darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82449 Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://59671597#comment-82449 they might add to it, but I don’t think they’ll replace it. a simple 2D photograph is a powerful thing. daguerrotypes from the mid 1850’s are as powerful (or moreso) than any 3D hologram, because they’re a snapshot in time (literally and figuratively). It’s not about technology, it’s about story telling. As stuff gets invented, it just adds more ways to tell a story – but the old ways don’t get forgotten, they get refined.

2D beats 3D in some areas, because it lets multiple viewers share the same perspective. With a 3D holograph, everyone sees something slightly different…

]]>