Scott Kelby Quotes

Digital imaging is as much about chemistry as it is about semiconductors.

Light-field photography is a transformational technology that needs a transformational product to introduce it. For the first time, we have a light-field camera that's going to be for everyone - not something in a huge room in a research facility.

Computer photography won't be photography as we know it. I think photography will always be chemical.

But the moment you use an ordinary camera, you are not seeing the picture, remember, meaning, you had to remember what you've taken. Now you could see it of course, with a digital thing, but remember in 1982 you couldn't.

The problem of direct colour photography has been facing us since the turn of the last century.

I like to think of Photography 1.0 as the invention of photography. Photography 2.0 is digital technology and the move from film and paper to everything on a chip. Photography 3.0 is the use of the camera, space, and color and to capture an object in the third dimension.

Whatever respect photography may once have deserved is now superfluous in view of its own superfluity.

I've always shot on film, but the times are changing.

The world just does not fit conveniently into the format of a 35mm camera.

Color correction is one of my things.

I see through my eyes; the camera is just a machine to record it for me.

I'm really only interested in technology that is about pictures. I'm interested in anything that makes a picture.

Let's face it, the human eye is clumsy, sloppy, and unintelligible when compared to the camera's eye.

Nobody thinks about technical issues anymore because cameras or camera phones take care of that automatically. On the other hand, you still have the option of controlling every technical aspect. It's the most accessible, democratic medium available in the world.

There's something very satisfying about old cameras because they're ingenious. I mean when you take them apart and actually see, 'Oh, this is how we make photographs,' it's an ingenious thing, but it feels like it's in a way a layman can appreciate, whereas a digital camera, I don't even begin to know what goes into making a digital camera.

When I was in the 12th standard itself, I decided to join the Adyar Film Institute and study photography. I specifically chose photography because I see photography as an applied science. There is an artistic element also in it. If you perfect your scientific element, you can attain certain quality.

I am one of the last photographers to convert to digital.

From analog film cameras to digital cameras to iPhone cameras, it has become progressively easier to take and store photographs. Today, we don't even think twice about snapping a shot.

We are splintering what was the 'camera' and its functionality - lens, sensors, and processing - into distinct parts, but, instead of lenses and shutters, software and algorithms are becoming the driving force.

I was a photographer. That's how I began my career, behind the camera.

I'm from that generation where there aren't that many pictures of me as a baby.

Photography has become so fundamental to the way we see that 'photography' and 'seeing' are becoming more and more synonymous. The ubiquity of photography is, perhaps ironically, a challenge to curators, practitioners, and critics.

In a way, digital cameras were like very early personal computers such as the Commodore 64 - clunky and able to do only a few things.

I don't think there's a Photoshop professional out there that doesn't owe a significant chunk of their expertise - and a big debt of gratitude - to Bruce Fraser. He almost single-handedly shaped the way we work with color, how we process RAW images in Photoshop, and even how we sharpen our photos.

I don't have a digital camera. I don't understand it - and I don't want to.