Hee hee.
I see it all of the time in period music groups.
They also have to gall to get vaccines, drive a car, and use electric lighting… all things not around during the “period” of their performed music.
The violinst also is using a modern bow, and is probably using modern strings.
Just no commitment to their art
(I’m joking, in case some of you are getting the wrong idea).
That said, we can compare playing with period instruments to shooting film. It was how it was done before, film usually has a higher learning curve (at least in the beginning), and there is something different about the look, unless the photographer is highly skilled in either medium. And shooting film can teach us something valuable about photography, especially if we use some the digital workflow as a kind of crutch.
Shooting film, until you figure it out, seems a little unpreditable. So I guess I can understand people looking at baked in JPEG as “film like”… not in look, but rather in the workflow. For most photographers in the film days, it was kinda what you did: only a small amount of photographers developed their own film. Most high paid professional shooting pretty women sent their film to a lab. So you just “got it right in camera”.
Around here, we are most like the crazy black and white photographers who brew their own developer like it is the newest, craziest drug… we can just do the same thing now with color.
Most musicians use modern instruments because they are easier to play, especially easier to play in tune, they are more reliable, longer lasting, and less expensive. Ya’ know, that progress thing, There are a few period musicians who are very committed to it, and the result is beautiful. Listen to Rachel Brown if you want to hear someone who has “conquered” the baroque flute.
I also know musicians who make the same timbre and aesthetic (well, 98% the same)… with modern instruments. But most musicians, like most photographers, are too… lazy? (might be too harsh a word) to really conquer the tool they use to make their art. Instead, the tool dictates the art, which, IMHO, is the tail wagging the dog.
Like this color argument, it just depends on:
–your intent
–your skill
–your ability to use the tools to make your intent meet the forms available.
On film, ya gotta take the photo with more intent. In digital, we can “save” more. There is more flexibility. But it is a double edged sword… and there are limits. Color used to be a decision you made when you loaded the film. In digital, we can treat color more like the ability to dodge and burn like a B&W film.
My philosophy always asks: did you mean to do that? Or did you let the camera do it for you? Other people think differently. It is art, remember. I also suck at Jazz. Sometimes you get to wear sneakers when you are playing recorder. I wear a Hakama when I play Shakuhachi… not everyone does.
Some people want color they can control with intention… others are more “free spirits”… they want to software to keep them from doing crazy things, yet find halos to be “artsy”. We want precision, but most of us would jump to shoot Kodachrome…one last time.
However, that is no excuse to say things that are just incorrect (you know who you are). This group has the technical background to slap you back with math. Your incorrect technobabble might work on other forums, but here, you get a well deserved “fuck off” (gotta love the French when they get irritated).
All I know is that, with this new workflow, I get more what I want. And people (especially customers), unlike when changing cameras and lenses, can actually see the difference and prefer it.
An odd bunch, us photographers are. One day, we might agree on how things should look. I hope not, as that would be a sad day.
(hops off soapbox)