Thu 13-Jun-13 07:16 AM | edited Thu 13-Jun-13 07:26 AM by km6xz
A good analogy was related to a long conversation last night. A friend and client came over last night for me to advise him about a new audio effects processor. He is investing a lot of money in trying to get pristine recordings of his original music. One 1954 built German mic he added to this home studio was $5200. A small rack mount summing buss was 2800, His cables, monitors, monitor amps additional mics, eqs etc is over $60,000 and nothing has been recorded yet. His whole focus is on getting a technically perfect sound. I asked him to name a few important songs in his life that made a difference. He names several. I had to inform him of how they were recorded and with what equipment and the, technically inferior product they were. That made my point to him, no one cares or notices technical aspects of a song or photo or painting unless it is a bad song, photo or painting for content reasons. He could not describe any faults in those songs because the compelling song transcends the technical realm. The brain fills in what is needs to and ignores what it needs to if the core image intrigues or compels enough to capture the emotions or imagination. No great song has been ruined by poor technical processes, nor has a great photo. But no bad song or image become desirable or evocative due to its technical aspects, any more than a painting became desirable because of technical aspects of the pigment or canvas, r brushes. In my friend's case I had to chastise him for getting caught up in the technical process of making rather than performing it. I have heard the songs on his project and nothing stood out as really interesting. Nothing on the production side is going to change that, whether he spent $1 or $1million. I find that the fascination for hobbyists in the creative arts often gets sidetracked into focus on technical details of lenses or minute resolution differences when it is usually a way of seeming to be creative, when they have nothing compelling to share. So for many, the hobby becomes the equipment, not use use of it in creating something that would be a new standalone entity of art. A lot, if not the majority have a hobby of photographic equipment and processes but not making photographs. There are far more posts on camera forums than photo forums.
This is where the idea of pixel peeping has harmed creative output much more than aided. Pixel peepers are almost alway equipment hobbyists, not photo art hobbyists. Hi-End hi-fi people are equipment hobbyists and seldom care as much for the music. They say they are great music fans but watching their behavior dispels that notion.