Photography through my eyes (3)
A decade ago in school I was given the chance to use commercial digital photography equipment and was taught the new edge in photography. It was quick, it was instant, but it was cumbersome, at that point of time it was only good in the studio--it has to be tethered to a computer.
It was new tools and new ways of doing something old and I felt like a country bumpkin for a couple of weeks.
The digital images were somehow appealing on screen but something was amiss, at that point of time I don't know why, though at a later stage I finally decided that I had been watching too much television. The images often were tonally flat. Just like how watching a movie in a cinema from projected film and how watching the same movie on a television screen is different, though televisions are better today with high definition flatscreens. Watching a film in a cinema is simply a different experience aside from the plot of the film.
--
I'm always in pursuit for technical formidability in photography, and in the midst of it I'm always caught up with one question regarding personal signature style and technical character (or flaws and shortcomings), whether signature styles likes most in technical character, or signature style in a broad palette of techniques applied aesthetically. It may all be how well it works for all there is, but where do I really decide? If a photographer stops at any particular technical character that is his signature style, wouldn't that mean a halt in progression?
--
Commercial photography is never a one man show, it involves a whole team of dedicated people behind it. In my opinion the most important factor is to get the synergy of the team, that gets the show running properly. Credit belongs to the team, never any individial alone.