LensWork - Photography and the Creative Process Brooks Jensen

I've been doing and thinking about project-oriented photography for so long that it's become a reflex for me to search the interstices between pictures for threads that connect them together. Looking through some photography books recently, I realized I was doing that reflexively when in fact there was no thread between the pictures, at least not one intended by the photographer.

This week Panasonic introduced a new camera that incorporates wide variety of picture styles that can be instantly applied in camera. These styles go by the technical name of LUT, an acronym for lookup table. Supposedly this will make your photographs more artistic. I'm not so sure.

Ours is the first generation in the history of the planet to have at our disposal such readily available means to record our memories. When our family members die, all their memories, stories, and history go with them.

What would you do if you were to wake up to find yourself in a world with no cameras? Would you still be an art creator with a different medium? Or, is your relationship with photography so photographic that without photography you would not create artwork?

When I haven't photographed for a while, it seems like a bit of rust always develops, on me. I went out photographing a few days ago and boy was I rusty. Diopter dial was moved. Focus stacking lever. Couldn't remember which direction to turn the zoom ring. Lost a Spider Holster pin when I dropped it and lost it. Geez.

Perhaps this is a flawed analogy, but I can't help but look back at the history of technology and conclude that widespread adoption is more important than ultimate quality. Does this also apply to our photographic work? As artists, we tend to want to pursue perfection at all costs. But, like technology, is it just possibly a better strategy to pursue widespread distribution rather than that last 2% of quality improvements?