Seems to me that the skill of a top photographer is to be able to see what the camera will see. In the past [ an example would be Ansell Adams ] it was necessary to know what the camera would see. In our digital age it is possible to take thousands of images then decide which one works. Also PP allows a single image to be many things. Eugene Smith spent a great deal of time processing prints. From memory he said that the negative is just the start, the print is what matters. Don McCullin takes the opposite view and does little if any PP. Both produced B and W prints using film. Both captured moments in time that could not be repeated.
Sometimes I think the tech is used to avoid acquiring the skill [ not sure that is possible ] to take memorable images.
When I visited the Queensland Art Gallery a piece of 'art' that was given pride of place was three spooky looking things made from dead frogs, chickens feet and fish. I might be incapable of seeing the true value of the creation, then again I might be old enough to say "I rekon that is crap."
BTW there was a nice Picaso in a dark corner. I googled it and had a look at the painting on the monitor when I got home.
There a moments where you flick through a photo album quickly, then one photo stops you, your immersed in wonder interest, intrigue, possibly emotions, its connected with you, then you move on and flick further till the next photo that connects and stops you.
There are those that go out and take lots of images and then select the money shots in PP thanks to new technology.
Others take little or very few images yet many of which are all money shots.
The difference i feel is skill sets used artistically, emotionally.
The Smart Phone camera has made more photographers globally than anything else ever.............technology used properly has it value, used wrongly its a curse.
Modern technology allows the novice with even with no real capabilities technically to make mostly money shots. Does this also allow them to focus more on creativeness, ? i think it depends on who you are.
The Smart Phones do the same thing it makes people better photographers composition ally as well as prolific record or memory makers.
I seem to find some photographers are technically savvy and obsessed with sharpness detail and the gear and fall into the category of being more documentary record makers, shooters, others are less technically capable but are visionary, artistic, see things others often don't, they seem to capture a moment that evokes emotion creates a connection for the viewer.
I feel that new technology has its place as tools of trade, but at what point is art or isn't art is what matters to me.
If it doesn't evoke emotion wonder or a wow then its just a record shot, that said again it depends on what it is or who you are as everyone is different.
Only an opinion
