Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Rob C on September 28, 2015, 03:08:48 pm
-
http://leicaphilia.com/digital-photography-based-on-a-true-story/
Rob C
-
On the one hand, the author is perfectly correct. A link has been severed.
On the other hand, so what? What did that physical connection actually do?
Manipulation is possible in photoshop. It was possible with film, too. The argument is essentially identical to this argument, which I think nobody ever bothered to make:
Now that we've introduced materials that require the use of a developer, a critical link has been severed. Rather than the silver-halides being physically broken down to form the image, as with "printing out" materials, we now merely form a latent image, a chimera, which must be amplified, one might even say extrapolated, by the use of a chemical developing agent. No longer is a photograph a thing literally made by the light from the world, now it is merely suggested, hinted at in the depths of some poorly understood quantum-mechanical world, from which it can be drawn forth only with additional labor.
I think a strong argument can be made that the medium doesn't actually matter much. What matters is what the photographer chooses, ultimately, to do with the stuff the medium gathers up.
That too is under change, and that is, I think, where the actual issues are and where serious people are thinking hard.
-
Some folks just can't let go of the past and embrace better, newer and easier to use technology to what amounts to a hobby by most.
Sure, deem the digital camera as just a data collector and not a teller of the truth. I'm loving what I'm getting with my digital camera shooting Raw. I never want to go back to shooting film. What a PITA!
No, Rob, it's never going to be over.
-
Unless you expose a substrate to light and that is your finished print I dont think you have any bigger claim to some physical truth. A print from a negative already lost that physical connection. Might as well be ones and zeros by that point.
-
Evidently the author believes Trotsky wasn't there in those pictures.
-
Some folks just can't let go of the past and embrace better, newer and easier to use technology to what amounts to a hobby by most.
Sure, deem the digital camera as just a data collector and not a teller of the truth. I'm loving what I'm getting with my digital camera shooting Raw. I never want to go back to shooting film. What a PITA!
No, Rob, it's never going to be over.
Indeed it is: you say why yourself: the dislike of film techniques.
It was the very visceral, organic even (distrust the use of the word 'organic' usually), life that the medium itself offered, and which to quote somebody else, was true: the medium was the message.
The message was born to each individual the first time (s)he developed a film and made a print. Nothing in digital sows those seeds in people.
I have repeatedly claimed to anyone who cared to listen that, were digital all there had ever been, I would not have had a reasonably good career in photography. I doubt I would have even owned a camera. There is zero in digital that attracts me, as an old photographer, other than the fact that once a camera and a card are bought, that can pretty well be the end of expenses. Unless, of course, you care to factor in all the upgrades and computers you end up buying just to stand still. I could be doing pretty much all I ever wanted to do in PS6 were it not that my latest computers can't use it. That leads to other problems of longevity of image I won't even go into here.
The magic of photography hardly exists for me now, and, I suspect, many others. We do it digitally because we have little economic or practical choice anymore. It took a lot of world-class snappers, Albert Watson amongst their number, to make that leap. Not because they were ignorant, didn't have their finger on the pulse of what was going down, but because they saw every day that, up in their stratosphere, there was a quality with film that digital just couldn't give.
So what about digital and images? I think digital does just as the chap in the link says it does.
I look at pictures on this site that are supposed to represent the best of Leica's dedicated digital b/w cameras and then I remember how real b/white looked - I still have a very few prints from the 70s still left, highly glazed WSG D papers, and though I have managed to get digital b/white A3+ to where I think it can go, those digital prints don't even feel the same. Without a shadow of a doubt, the computer gives far more accurate control in tiny areas than did manual shading and dodging, but so what, the end product is a graceless perfection devoid of personality.
I have never owned a Leica - at the time I was working it fitted no purpose that my Nikon F and so on through the years didn't handle better. I feel no brand loyalty to the marque at all, but I still think the writer was right: it's not photography now, it's another beast altogether. In general, from what I see, it's a pretty soulless mother.
And as to digital being easier to use, I don't think so if you are being serious in your work. What it does make easier is to produce crap. From the simple, three-trick understanding challenge of film cameras it has become a bitch you often find yourself fighting. Too many choices. Too many opportunities for getting caught out on wrong machine settings. Happens to me almost every day I go shooting.
In a nutshell, digital lacks simpatico. Digital is to photography what painting by numbers is to fine art.
Rob C
-
To be fair, the author isn't making the common, facile, and wrong argument that "now that we have photoshop, it's all just balderdash".
He's making a more subtle and, in some ways, interesting point. It is, I think, better phrased as a question:
What, if anything, is lost, when the physical medium of film and all the photochemical stuff and all the physicality of it is removed from the equation?
You can be dismissive if you like, but you're pretty much just angrily saying "SHUT UP, EGGHEAD! THINKING MAKES ME FEEL FUNNY INSIDE!"
-
To be fair, the author isn't making the common, facile, and wrong argument that "now that we have photoshop, it's all just balderdash".
He's making a more subtle and, in some ways, interesting point. It is, I think, better phrased as a question:
What, if anything, is lost, when the physical medium of film and all the photochemical stuff and all the physicality of it is removed from the equation?
You can be dismissive if you like, but you're pretty much just angrily saying "SHUT UP, EGGHEAD! THINKING MAKES ME FEEL FUNNY INSIDE!"
You are so right!
Rob C
-
... In general, from what I see, it's a pretty soulless mother. ...
Rob C
+1
Maybe it’s more difficult for (us old) long-time analog photographers to “let go” and change to digital than for a younger generation. I do miss my Leica M3, my Pentax 6x7, my Nikon F2. But I love returning from a shoot and immediately being able to download images to my computer for viewing, processing and, often, printing.
I miss negatives. I miss developing films. I miss substance after shooting. I’m not keen on the virtual world, be it digital communications, collecting my life on a hard disk, worrying about data loss, buying s new computer every six years or so. But I enjoy the immediate availability of information via the net, the ability to exchange information in forums.
I miss being able to exchange my car’s burnt out headlamp without having to disassemble half the engine’s cooling system in order to reach the darn lamp housing. I miss the ability to set my (new) alarm clock without having to spend hours trying to understand the odd translations in the instruction manual which is a good 300 pages thick and weighs more than the clock/radio set itself and has print so tiny, that I need a strong magnifying glass to read the print plus a interpreter to understand what the (Chinese?) manufacturer is trying to tell me. I’ve gone through some eight new radio/alarm clocks, tossing all out and ended up buying the analog (Saba flip clock) I had in the earl 70s.
Rob, I keep swinging back and forth between two eras (universes?).
-
Interesting discussion. In the process of clearing out the house in preparation for moving permanently to Florida I've given away at least a hundred framed pictures to my four sons and 18 grandkids, mostly from the walls, but a bunch from temporary storage. They also carried off more than another hundred mounted and matted prints. A lot of these pictures ended up or will end up on the walls of my second son's law firm, and my oldest daughter-in-law's real estate company. The equipment I used to shoot these pictures ranged all the way from a 4 x 5 view, through a series of lesser 35mm cameras, a Canon 7, three Leicas, one Ikoflex, one Rolleiflex, and a series of ever-improving digitals ending with the Nikon D3 and D800.
I loved working in the darkroom, but once adequate post-processing software (Photoshop) came along I was happy to leave the darkroom behind. Yeah, I loved watching a print come up in the developer, but when you were finished you had to wash up all that stuff, and I hate washing up stuff. Now I look at those prints, many from the darkroom and many from the Epson 3880, and what I notice is that with the B&W prints unless I think hard I sometimes can't remember which camera I shot them with.
It all comes down to HCB's universally true statement: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." The key is to be so familiar with your camera that you don't have to think about it any more than you think about shifting gears in a stick-shift car. I agree with Rob that most digital cameras have far too many bells and whistles. But you don't have to use all that stuff. You use the stuff that fits your own way of shooting.
As far as the original question is concerned, as Yogi Berra famously said, "It ain't over till it's over." And, though equipment, like climate, is always changing, it ain't over, folks.
-
Personally, I am of the opinion (I think) that what is lost is really just a method of working. Film has a bunch of properties that make using it different from digital. For Rob, those ways of working suited him in ways that digital does not, and there's really no argument to be made against that, is there? It's personal.
Still, there's the all important question (and it is genuinely important) of how society as a whole looks at photos. What does society, en masse, think about photographs? Digital and photoshop are huge players in the changes here. Despite the fact that people could and did manipulate film, the perception of photographs today is far more that manipulation is present.
People were surprised to find that Yosemite doesn't really look like that.
Nobody at all is surprised that there were only 3 mourners, not 3000.
That's an important change.
And then there's the other, squishier, question. What else is being lost? Is there something we can't even see yet, something we can't imagine, that's being lost in the film to digital transition? What are we missing?
Humans are notoriously bad at noticing hugely important things at times of transition and I like to think that the last 100 years has given us a healthy sense of paranoia in times of rapid change. So, it it fit and meet to ask, regularly, What, if anything, is being lost?
-
It appears from my years as a prepress technician working in the darkroom trying to meet deadlines that we're missing from digital the glazed filtering effect from gelatinous layers of dye couplers reacting to sliver halide exposed to light that creates to what amounts similarly to viewing a captured scene through the layered glazes of a decoupage project and assuming that imbues some type of soul to the final image.
My suggestion is to go to the real thing by taking up decoupage. I'm having fun playing around with ACR's WB, HSL and SplitTone to come up with my own looks and color styles straight from my own vivid imagination to create images that for one I haven't seen before and secondly were impossible to convey with film and thus avoiding the disappointments from the lab of shots taken with my Yashica SLR and 35mm print negative film.
-
Personally, I am of the opinion (I think) that what is lost is really just a method of working. Film has a bunch of properties that make using it different from digital. For Rob, those ways of working suited him in ways that digital does not, and there's really no argument to be made against that, is there? It's personal.
Still, there's the all important question (and it is genuinely important) of how society as a whole looks at photos. What does society, en masse, think about photographs? Digital and photoshop are huge players in the changes here. Despite the fact that people could and did manipulate film, the perception of photographs today is far more that manipulation is present.
People were surprised to find that Yosemite doesn't really look like that.
Nobody at all is surprised that there were only 3 mourners, not 3000.
That's an important change.
And then there's the other, squishier, question. What else is being lost? Is there something we can't even see yet, something we can't imagine, that's being lost in the film to digital transition? What are we missing?
Humans are notoriously bad at noticing hugely important things at times of transition and I like to think that the last 100 years has given us a healthy sense of paranoia in times of rapid change. So, it it fit and meet to ask, regularly, What, if anything, is being lost?
Hi Andrew, You've made some interesting points, and with respect to the kind of photography intended to memorialize something, I agree. But if you see photography as art, whether or not you can manipulate a photograph in Photoshop should be the least of anyone's concern. Once you see photography as art its objective becomes synonymous with painting: to produce a certain kind of experience.
Frankly I don't think anything's being "lost." I think something's being added.
-
I think I'm old enough to qualify as an oldtimer, as Medicare kicks in next year for me. I can't understand why this is an issue, any more than the advent of cars destroyed the natural state of horse-driven transportation ("you don't sit on a living, breathing creature anymore, but rather in a cold metal cage propelled by inanimate mechanical processes ...").
Nobody really looks at a negative as a piece of art, anymore than they look at a sensor. It's the final image - after all the choices (manipulations) of capturing the reflected light on the chemical or semiconductor sensor; all the choices (manipulation) in exposing and developing the silver print or post processing and printing the inkjet print. I fail to see any philosophical difference. I do see many practical and qualitative differences.
In the end, neither us "better" or "worse". Just new.
-
I think the "problem" is not what was lost but gained: the facility to over-manipulate.
Here's a photo I took a week ago:
https://500px.com/photo/123014133/h%C3%B4tel-de-ville-des-pentes-by-graham-byrnes?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=10643117
In your opinion, it looks more like the author's film or digital example?
The fact that digital allows you to stuff around doesn't oblige you to do so...
-
http://leicaphilia.com/digital-photography-based-on-a-true-story/
Rob C
It looks to me the same old lamenting about digital manipulation vs film truthfulness.
The only interesting part (which, obviously, is not explored enough since is not "philosophical enough") is the archivial problem.
But aside that, just old (and boring) stuff.
-
Actually, this reminds me: I have at home a copy of "The International Photography Yearbook 1981" which I picked out of a bargain bin somewhere. It contains a lot of rather painful manipulations by multiple exposure either in camera or in the darkroom (but also some wonderful images by eg Helmut Newton).
Bad taste is bad taste, technology just gives it greater scope.
As to the philosophical difference between capturing the passage of photons via a quantum mechanical interaction with a) an unstable chemical bond in gelatine smeared on plastic vs b) a semiconductor printed on a silicon wafer... it's more a demonstration of ignorance than anything else. Personally, I doubt Barthes would have been so silly as to worry about it.
-
...
As to the philosophical difference between capturing the passage of photos via a quantum mechanical interaction with a) an unstable chemical bond in gelatine smeared on plastic vs b) a semiconductor printed on a silicon wafer...
Let's add the quantum interaction with the opsin proteins.
-
Actually, this reminds me: I have at home a copy of "The International Photography Yearbook 1981" which I picked out of a bargain bin somewhere. It contains a lot of rather painful manipulations by multiple exposure either in camera or in the darkroom (but also some wonderful images by eg Helmut Newton).
Bad taste is bad taste, technology just gives it greater scope.
As to the philosophical difference between capturing the passage of photons via a quantum mechanical interaction with a) an unstable chemical bond in gelatine smeared on plastic vs b) a semiconductor printed on a silicon wafer... it's more a demonstration of ignorance than anything else. Personally, I doubt Barthes would have been so silly as to worry about it.
That's a wonderful pairing! Helmut was famous for (amongst other things) saying that he hated good taste! And he never betrayed himself. Having said which, I admit to a love/not-quite-hate relationship with him. I spent my hundred euros buying the small version of Sumo and periodically put it up on its perspex stand on my workbench, music on loudly, and look through as much as I can before getting physically tired. You can't sit down with it on your knee: it will kill your circulation.
Helmut had one very great talent: he knew how to shock, but how to keep it within publishable limits. He also admitted to a collection of personal porn, but as I have no interest in that I shall not be searching for it.
However, all of this delightful reverie stuff aside, it's painful to have started a thread and later realise just how few will make contact with the actual point of the original link.
Oh well, wiser next time.
Rob C
-
..it's painful to have started a thread and later realise just how few will make contact with the actual point of the original link.
Why, there is any actual point in the original link beside "just film photographers were real photographers"?
-
Why, there is any actual point in the original link beside "just film photographers were real photographers"?
Yes, Diego: it isn't about the photographers being real ones or not, it's about the medium being key. There are wonderful photographers working in both forms of the medium, that's not in dispute.
In this very place, LuLa, there is a very talented photographer who chooses to be known as Cooter, and another who does cars better than anyone else I have seen: Haefner. Both worked/work in the two mediums. Their talents in either are not the discussion.
The discussion is about the one medium being something quite different to the other one. If you don't see that or simply don't find it convenient to see it, that's fine. There's no sense of accusation in that link, simply a distinction being made.
And in my eyes, at least, that distinction is as wide as an ocean. I have worked a long time now in both; I never confuse the differences in my mind.
Rob C
-
Rob, for you I tried, but
"And its indexical nature is closely tied to its analogue processes"
is just rubbish. Photography is already digital, in the sense that it is the breaking of finite numbers of bonds... it's not continuous. At least the luddites who prefer analogue audio over digital have some vague justification in saying that an LP is a continuous representation of the sound (although sampling theory tells us we can recreate that to sufficient accuracy from the digital data).
He follows up with
"what is produced isn’t a ‘thing’ but only a pattern which contains the potential of something else, something else that requires the intercession of of third thing, computation"
... as opposed to a potential that requires the intercession of developer, a point made up top by Andrew M.
Now, one can say that there is a certain aesthetic in working in the darkroom (although my skin is happy to no longer be subject to the chemicals), or a zen discipline in having limited dynamic range and no ability to just wind the ISO up to 3200 and still have less grain than Tri-X, or in processing to take into account the exposure conditions that you carefully noted down at the time of shooting. Just as it's a matter of personal taste to prefer the cross-talk, high frequency attenuation and high noise floor that LP reproduction imposes on music.
But that article just strikes me as someone revelling in his ignorance of the technology he's using while having a wank over Barthe's jargon. I like Barthes, I really do, I think he was an important thinker: his essay on "haute culture / haute couture" is a wonderful deflation of self importance in the arts, and his understanding of the cyclic nature of the "return to source" argument ("rive gauche, rive droite"... I think) is brilliant. But this... why not complain about the use of flash? Or tripods, which destroy the innate implication of the photographer's emotional response to the scene in the immanent image through the shaking of his or her hands... ;D
Actually I prefer June's portraits to Helmut's, and the overtones of BDSM leave me cold, but he did some cool stuff :) I'm tempted by the mini-sumo, but than I'm currently chuffed to have found a copy of Madonna/Meisel's "Sex" for 15€, so I can catch up with what I couldn't imagine buying 24 years ago 8)
-
Yes, Diego: it isn't about the photographers being real ones or not, it's about the medium being key. There are wonderful photographers working in both forms of the medium, that's not in dispute.
What medium?
We're talking of the photographic medium both in film and in digital: what is different is the technology that allows that medium to exists.
The discussion is about the one medium being something quite different to the other one. If you don't see that or simply don't find it convenient to see it, that's fine. There's no sense of accusation in that link, simply a distinction being made.
And in my eyes, at least, that distinction is as wide as an ocean. I have worked a long time now in both; I never confuse the differences in my mind.
Rob C
Would you say that for painting is really such an important matter if the colors used by the painter is a syntetic or a natural product?
Because that's what the difference you're talking about looks like: just a difference in technology that force some minor differences in workflow.
-
Yes this is the same old film/digital discussion.
The discussion isn't over. Digital is, as a mass social phenomenon, extremely young. We don't know what the consequences are going to be, overall. It behooves us to keep our eyes on the ball, to keep observing and thinking about it.
Unless, of course, you choose to work in a vacuum, working privately and out of contact with the larger society, or perhaps hewing closely to a small group of like minded people. That is your prerogative. Enjoy your little dark hole.
-
What medium?
We're talking of the photographic medium both in film and in digital: what is different is the technology that allows that medium to exists.
Would you say that for painting is really such an important matter if the colors used by the painter is a syntetic or a natural product?
Because that's what the difference you're talking about looks like: just a difference in technology that force some minor differences in workflow.
That analogy is false: false, because with painting, it's always and same thing: hands-on hand/eye skills, regardless of paint type. Even the simple act of varnishing a shutter is a tactile experience where you can feel in the brush the different consistencies of the varnish mixture you apply.
With photography I think it's not the same in both mediums: with the wet process it's visceral as well as physical, as with painting; with digital it's got the same charm as I mentioned before, of painting by numbers. Painting by numbers doesn't mean 1 or 2, + or -, it means filling in blocks of predetermined colour which requires little skill. Sitting at a computer able to perform an infinite variety of clicks, cancel them out, try another, isn't what film photography is about: it's something entirely else, which is perhaps why there are so many people doing digital today: everyone's a photographer now - they wish. Working wet offers a connectedness with the artefact that digital never can. You can have that experience in making something with your hands, but simply clicking like a parrot with a mouse under its claws is nowhere near the same thing.
There's no other way I know how I can explain what I believe the original quotation is saying, which made it interesting enough to me to make me think others here may find a similar interest. If you think otherwise, then I can't convince you, and it really doesn't much matter. Certainly not enough for either of us to lose sleep about it.
Rob C
-
The hand wringing regarding the "death of photography" due to Photoshop, Instagram, or automated cameras is lost on me. I like images. I like well though out, hand-crafted images. I also like from the hip, heat of the moment images that really capture something interesting. I like a lot the stuff between those two as well, as long as it's not duck-faced selfies or endless bad food pics.
The process that created those images I like is secondary to me. It's often interesting, but it's not the meat of what the image does for me. Telling a story, showing me an amazing scene, or revealing an otherwise hidden truth. Now the degree of modification or at least the style of it certainly does affect my enjoyment. I'm not really into gaudy HDR or Photoshopped scenes that put a telephoto-sized moon in a wide angle shot, but I'm not bothered that they exist and others like them. It's a matter of taste.
Whether made by carving on a stone tablet, painting on a canvas, exposing an emulsion, or using the latest high tech image making machines, if the image speaks to me then I consider it "good". If it's not journalism I'm not too concerned that the process may have altered what was originally captured. Painters have always had the luxury or adding or omitting whatever would achieve their vision more effectively. If it's overdone then that image is not going to speak to me, or at least not as much.
This always reminds me of how painters felt threatened by and hated photographers when they came on to the scene. This is just that same sentiment. I just prefer to think of us all as image makers, people with a common goal rather than adversaries and competitors trying to win a holy war to declare their preferred image creation The One. That reminds me of other futile holy wars that I want no part of.
-
Weeeell, I don't think Rob said photography was dead, just different.
So help me understand... are you saying the camera part is different, or the lab+printing side? That is after all the only bit that is really "wet".
Or is it both because in pushing the shutter you need to think about the limitations of the processing?
Where would you place the practice of shooting film, processing by the book, followed by scanning the negs, and printing from photoshop after dust-removal and some curve shifting?
-
That analogy is false: false, because with painting, it's always and same thing: hands-on hand/eye skills, regardless of paint type. Even the simple act of varnishing a shutter is a tactile experience where you can feel in the brush the different consistencies of the varnish mixture you apply.
And with photograph it's always the same thing: the photographer feels something, creates a composition and produces an image regardless of the light-sensitive material.
So why my analogy is false?
With photography I think it's not the same in both mediums: with the wet process it's visceral as well as physical, as with painting;
My photography involves a lot of trekking with al least 10 kg of gear on my back: is this less physical or visceral just because my gear is digital?
with digital it's got the same charm as I mentioned before, of painting by numbers.
I though you said that "with painting, it's always and same thing: hands-on hand/eye skills, regardless of paint type".
Are you saying that this is not true anymore if the paint is of the numbers type?
Painting by numbers doesn't mean 1 or 2, + or -, it means filling in blocks of predetermined colour which requires little skill
Even putting paint on a canvas requires little skill (in fact, it requires no skill at all).
But, for some reason, none of my paintings are in any museum.
And none of my photos are, either.
How it can be, if "painting with numbers requires little skill"?
Working wet offers a connectedness with the artefact that digital never can. You can have that experience in making something with your hands, but simply clicking like a parrot with a mouse under its claws is nowhere near the same thing.
I'm not an aeronautical engineer and, therefore, I cannot have any meaningful "connectedness" with a jet engine.
But I'm sure an aeronautical engineer can, even if he designs engines "using just numbers".
So, is it possible that YOU don't get connected with a digital artifact because you don't have the right mindset and/or skills?
Certainly not enough for either of us to lose sleep about it.
Said the one who spent so much effort to belittle those who use the digital technology.
As I suspected, it's the same old tirade "digital vs film".
Soooooo boring....
-
The process that created those images I like is secondary to me. It's often interesting, but it's not the meat of what the image does for me.
Being quite nerdy, for me the process is often quite important in the "meat" of what the image does for me because it tells me something more about photography.
But that doesn't imply a process is more noble than the other.
-
I'm terribly sorry you're so bored, Diego. Perhaps you should go find something worthwhile to do instead.
-
I personally find electronic photography to be essentially the same as film photography when I'm clicking the shutter. I have more config options (per-exposure white balance & ISO) but otherwise I'm thinking, feeling & doing the same things. It's the post-exposure process that's changed. Immediately….I typically check the rear screen to verify framing, location of elements in the frame & histogram. Chimping. This can and often does take me out of the moment, which I do not like and yet which proves useful. Particularly so if the point of taking the pics is to "get the shot(s)". Later on…I go for a light touch in post nowadays, but when I first got my hands on a good scanner and Photoshop 2.5 (or whatever it was) I was yanking & twisting tonal values around with the best of 'em. I don't consider any of this better or worse than it was in the days of Kodachrome & Tri-X. But it's certainly different.
Now with all this power comes, for me, a persistent question: If I can do essentially anything image-wise that I can imagine, what happens to the reason for and value of doing any particular thing? It's the kind of question that IMO should provoke thought and reflection rather than attempted answers.
-Dave-
-
If I can do essentially anything image-wise that I can imagine, what happens to the reason for and value of doing any particular thing?
I would have liked to have said that, yes :)
-
Just went back to the Nadav Kander interview Rob posted. At the end he comments that the shooting is very different for him in digital, because of the ability to preview
"as soon as I see I have a good shot, the nervousness leaves"
So he felt that with film he would try more things, and be more adventurous, because he could never be really sure he had a good shot on the film. He recommended throwing the screen out the window.
Otoh, at the start, he talked about going to look at the images on screen and deciding to change the lighting, sooooo.... :D
-
Just went back to the Nadav Kander interview Rob posted. At the end he comments that the shooting is very different for him in digital, because of the ability to preview
"as soon as I see I have a good shot, the nervousness leaves"
So he felt that with film he would try more things, and be more adventurous, because he could never be really sure he had a good shot on the film. He recommended throwing the screen out the window.
Otoh, at the start, he talked about going to look at the images on screen and deciding to change the lighting, sooooo.... :D
Alternatively.
"as soon as I see I have a good shot, the nervousness leaves"
So he felt that with digital now that the shot was secured he could try more things, and be more adventurous. Because he had a good shot on the card, could now take real risks."
It's all a matter of perspective and it's so worth changing position [physically or metaphorically] to get a fresh perspective on the world.
-
Alternatively.
"as soon as I see I have a good shot, the nervousness leaves"
So he felt that with digital now that the shot was secured he could try more things, and be more adventurous. Because he had a good shot on the card, could now take real risks."
It's all a matter of perspective and it's so worth changing position [physically or metaphorically] to get a fresh perspective on the world.
This is very much my take and has always been, secure what I need to do and then play. As an illustrator I always answered the client's request in my first sketch and then I would go on and provide several variations. Often they would select one my concepts.
T'was a grand time...to be paid for personal work!
Peter
-
This is very much my take and has always been, secure what I need to do and then play. As an illustrator I always answered the client's request in my first sketch and then I would go on and provide several variations. Often they would select one my concepts.
T'was a grand time...to be paid for personal work!
Peter
-
T'was a grand time...to be paid for personal work!
How quaint!
-
And with photograph it's always the same thing: the photographer feels something, creates a composition and produces an image regardless of the light-sensitive material.
So why my analogy is false?
My photography involves a lot of trekking with al least 10 kg of gear on my back: is this less physical or visceral just because my gear is digital?
I though you said that "with painting, it's always and same thing: hands-on hand/eye skills, regardless of paint type".
Are you saying that this is not true anymore if the paint is of the numbers type?
Even putting paint on a canvas requires little skill (in fact, it requires no skill at all).
But, for some reason, none of my paintings are in any museum.
And none of my photos are, either.
How it can be, if "painting with numbers requires little skill"?
I'm not an aeronautical engineer and, therefore, I cannot have any meaningful "connectedness" with a jet engine.
But I'm sure an aeronautical engineer can, even if he designs engines "using just numbers".
So, is it possible that YOU don't get connected with a digital artifact because you don't have the right mindset and/or skills?
Said the one who spent so much effort to belittle those who use the digital technology.
As I suspected, it's the same old tirade "digital vs film".
Soooooo boring....
Diego, I'd reply to each point, but I don't think you'd understand anything.
Your loss not mine.
Rob C
-
The author has no perspective on the history of photography...
"And it’s this claim to truth that gives photography its uncanny ability to communicate with us, to make us reflect, or to aid us in remembrance, or to help us see anew."
Photography was invented/introduced the World in 1839. By the 1850's photography was being used to create images composited with circa-30 different exposures: Pure fictions. Esssentially, nothing has changed since then.
-
I suspect that you are underestimating the author's grasp of history, and jumping to conclusions about his point.
-
I find myself astonished that anyone can exist in the is world, in which the advent of digital photography has violently and thoroughly changed virtually everything of or about photography, and say 'eh, digital isn't really any different from film, just a bit less messy'.
How can you say this sort of thing with a straight face? Are you new to this planet?
-
Diego, I'd reply to each point, but I don't think you'd understand anything.
Says the same guy who think that "painting with numbers requires little skills".
Your loss not mine.
Rob C
Don't worry: some other whiners will take your place, so I'm not losing anything you could had given.
-
The author has no perspective on the history of photography...
"And it’s this claim to truth that gives photography its uncanny ability to communicate with us, to make us reflect, or to aid us in remembrance, or to help us see anew."
Photography was invented/introduced the World in 1839. By the 1850's photography was being used to create images composited with circa-30 different exposures: Pure fictions. Esssentially, nothing has changed since then.
Very true, but the real point with the film whiners is that digital technology shown them how average they are.
In the film age, where taking photographs and processing your own film was not something everyone can do, it was easy to feel "special" just because one can perform some basic chemical process.
In the digital age, this illusion don't last long: just doing a search on any photo sharing would show how many millions amazing photographers there are out there.
So that's the crime of digital: showing the bitter truth of mediocrity.
-
I went to the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney. They had an an exhibition of famous photographers from the past. The prints were were from large format cameras but they were mainly small contact prints and very dull. I kept wishing that someone could scan the negatives and could make large digital prints from them. It would be interesting to see an an exhibition of original prints versus digitised prints. I know where my vote would go.
Cheers,
-
Very true, but the real point with the film whiners is that digital technology shown them how average they are.
In the film age, where taking photographs and processing your own film was not something everyone can do, it was easy to feel "special" just because one can perform some basic chemical process.
In the digital age, this illusion don't last long: just doing a search on any photo sharing would show how many millions amazing photographers there are out there.
So that's the crime of digital: showing the bitter truth of mediocrity.
That preceded digital photography as the internet was what made the entire world so small and also so full at the same time.
One of the problems of digital tech in numerous areas, not just photography is that the barriers to taking part have fallen. Yes it is good in some ways, but what it also means is those who were to lazy to put the time and effort into learning basics can get involved and think they have mastered something when in fact they've mastered nothing. Having to put effort in at least filtered out the dilettantes. Sadly you can't filter out those who can learn technical processes whether it be developing or using LR, but have zero talent yet think they do.
Desk top Publishing was the first area where this problem became apparent. People who had a copy of word suddenly were graphic artists and produced a whole heap of awfulness, all to often with the infamous Comic Sans or Papyrus fonts. Photography is no different as many people now equate owning a camera with being a good photographer.
-
I suspect that you are underestimating the author's grasp of history, and jumping to conclusions about his point.
Well maybe, maybe not.
My conclusion(s) about his point(s) is that his line,
"how “photography” got its name: “writing with light”."
...is just as applicable to a digital sensor as it was to a metal/glass plate or some gelatin based emulsion.
Therefore when he writes,
"while photography is dead, images are everywhere"
...he is wrong. A process is dead, not photography. In fact we're talking about a myriad of processes, many of which have seen a resurgence and revival since digital photography blossomed.
It's OK to adore film and despise digital, that's anybody's prerogative, but to go on to claim that digital capture and/or retouching are not photography is misguided (or intentionally inflammatory). Retouching has been part of photography from practically day-dot (my original point), and digital capture is quite clearly "writing with light."
Of the introduction of Photoshop he writes,
"Photography’s tight bond with reality had been broken"
It was broken over 150 years ago. They were compositing multiple images with Calotypes - the first process that granted multiple copies - quite happily back then.
His whole argument about the lack of physicality of the digital medium fails when he writes,
"The eloquence of a single jewel like 5×7 contact print has turned into the un-nuanced vulgarity of 30 x 40 tack sharp Giclee prints"
This perspective and use of language to express it is found throughout this essay, and strongly suggests (to me anyway) that rationality and objectivity are not the authors strong suits when it comes to the topic in hand.
Personally, I'd rather read the dictionary...
"photography |fəˈtɒgrəfi|
noun [ mass noun ]
the art or practice of taking and processing photographs."
"photograph |ˈfəʊtəgrɑːf|
noun
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally."
-
Well said Stanmore.
-
I have been at some pains to elucidate what I think are the actually important points in the piece already, which points you've chosen to ignore. So, there's not actually a lot of further discussion here.
-
That preceded digital photography as the internet was what made the entire world so small and also so full at the same time.
One of the problems of digital tech in numerous areas, not just photography is that the barriers to taking part have fallen. Yes it is good in some ways, but what it also means is those who were to lazy to put the time and effort into learning basics can get involved and think they have mastered something when in fact they've mastered nothing. Having to put effort in at least filtered out the dilettantes. Sadly you can't filter out those who can learn technical processes whether it be developing or using LR, but have zero talent yet think they do.
Desk top Publishing was the first area where this problem became apparent. People who had a copy of word suddenly were graphic artists and produced a whole heap of awfulness, all to often with the infamous Comic Sans or Papyrus fonts. Photography is no different as many people now equate owning a camera with being a good photographer.
Yes, I agree.
What I would add is that what the film whiners whine about is the huge number of amazing photographers the digital technology has allowed to express.
-
Is it over or is it just the beginning. I am bored by contact prints presented representing great past photographers under archival lighting. Digital offers a whole new world where large format contact prints can be transformed into fantastic large prints. Maybe the stumbling block is entrenched market forces.
Cheers,
-
I have been at some pains to elucidate what I think are the actually important points in the piece already, which points you've chosen to ignore. So, there's not actually a lot of further discussion here.
I read your posts. I chose to ignore them because (as I see things) they are embedded in your own train of thought, not the train of thought communicated by the writer of OP's linked post... Which is the point of this thread.
The "piece" is a shambles ... a rant ... troll'esque: Your points/posts are not.
-
Is it over or is it just the beginning. I am bored by contact prints presented representing great past photographers under archival lighting. Digital offers a whole new world where large format contact prints can be transformed into fantastic large prints. Maybe the stumbling block is entrenched market forces.
Cheers,
Tom, would you like to expand on that?
Is it a reference to St Anselm & Co. and their 8"x10" contacts, or are you on to something else I'm missing? It sounds an interesting direction for debate and, for this unfortunate thread, made in manner totally sane.
Rob C
-
Tom, would you like to expand on that?
Is it a reference to St Anselm & Co. and their 8"x10" contacts, or are you on to something else I'm missing? It sounds an interesting direction for debate and, for this unfortunate thread, made in manner totally sane.
Rob C
Living in Sydney I don't get to see many classic Masters' prints. So when an exhibition of some of my favourite past photographers came up I jumped at the chance. It was a major disappointment, even the 10"x12" contact prints exhibited under archival lighting seemed flat and lifeless.
Modern technology has shown that you can make stunning images from a 10"x12" negative. I would love to see some of Edward Weston's negatives scanned and printed digitally, really large. However, that is just a fantasy, it is never going to happen, it would just devalue existing print values.
Cheers,
-
Living in Sydney I don't get to see many classic Masters' prints. So when an exhibition of some of my favourite past photographers came up I jumped at the chance. It was a major disappointment, even the 10"x12" contact prints exhibited under archival lighting seemed flat and lifeless.
Modern technology has shown that you can make stunning images from a 10"x12" negative. I would love to see some of Edward Weston's negatives scanned and printed digitally, really large. However, that is just a fantasy, it is never going to happen, it would just devalue existing print values.
Cheers,
That's interesting; getting contact prints from 4x5 negs allowed me a wonderful image/impression(?) of tonality that even printing up only to 8x10 didn't quite catch, as good as those prints were. In fact, it's akin to that Leica lens magic that some deny, but that I experienced when printing for my last boss. It's almost impossible to verbalise these qualities; they belong to sight, not words.
Yes, you're right about reprinting classics: old first prints are much more valuable than later ones that may look better. But that's galleristas for you. Nice work if you can crack it though, and I'd be first in line if they were to open the doors a little wider!
But anyway, I would have imagined that larger than 4x5 contacts would have had the same quality but over an added area. Actually, I had originally thought you were referring to contact sheets which threw me somewhat!
Cheers,
Rob C
-
A few years ago I saw an exhibition of very large, and I believe recently made, prints of well-known Walker Evans. They had a different -- not necessarily better or worse -- feel than the more familiar smaller prints. I thought they were interesting.
-
This is an argument that comes up reasonably often and there are parts I agree with and other parts I find to be fundementally harmful to creative work.
I agree that there is a difference between film and digital capture. I hope that photographers who prefer shooting on film have access to the materials as long as they desire. For some photographers, the uniqe qualities of film are integral to how they see the world. This can be seen particularly in modern photographers who use processes like wet collodion or photo gravure. The specific tool or process used can contribute dramatically to the final result. Film renders an image in a distinctly different manner from a digital capture. There is a naturally chaotic grain structure. Depending on the film stock, there are different biases of tone and color. Of course film size matters. These are all valuable consideration when choosing the right tool to create an image.
But shooting on film does not, in any way, elevate the work to a higher status simply by virutue of the fact that it was shot on a photochemical process. What is the purpose of a photograph? When I look at a photograph, I care about how I respond emotionally to that image. I care about the experience I get when I look at a scene in a photograph. Does something of what the photographer experienced in creating that image translate to an experience I have in seeing it? Is there a kind of communication between the photographer and myself?
If I start thinking about whether the image was shot on film or digital, then (unless that's the point) the image has failed. If I start thinking about a technical process instead of the content of the image, then something has fallen apart and the things that are critically important to artistic expression have given way to quibbling about tools.
The worst thing that can happen to me as a photographer is for the person to ask about my tools or how I shot it. What I want them to do is to respond visserally to the image itself. I've had people look at images that I have shot digitally and they have assumed they were shot on film. This is no less disapointing to me since, again, the person is more interested in the tool than the image.
I think where older photographers might become frustrated is that here is a distinct difference between the look of film capture vs. digital photography. In looking at images shot digitally, there may, to some eyes, appear to be something wrong. It simply doesn't look like what they have known all their lives. I'll admit to the same reaction. I imagine a number of photographers felt a degree of frustration as dry plates became popular even though they might have lacked the smoother tonal scale of wet collodion. Others might have objected to the introduction of pan-chromatic films. And certainly color photography fought to be regarded as an equally credible artistic medium to black and white.
The look of digital images can be off-putting to some people. To some extent it is the fault of a too limited range of equipment and sometimes it is due to photographers who rely to heavily on software presets.
Another factor that I think bothers a lot of experienced photographers is the "black box" problem. Digitial cameras often feel like devices that apply a great deal of unknown and unknowable processing to the image before spitting out a homogenized image file. To an artist who cares deeply about expressing something deep within themselves, it can feel like key decisions have been taken out of the photographer's hands and have instead been made by a a device designed to fit every photograph into the same, normalized pigeon hole.
But the black box problem was always there in film photography. Engineered films produced by Kodak or Fuji, Ilford or Orwo are black boxes that function in a certain way and allow the photographer some degree of freedom in terms of processing but also limit what can be done in the image (it is relatively difficult to get a color image from black and white film, for example.) But as with digital cameras, most photographers do not bother to create their own emulsions nor care much about the chemical or quantum mechanical processes that occur to form the image on a peice of film. Most film photographers allow some descisions to be made by the producers of the film, and simply learn the features of the black box enough to get predictable and desireable results.
The same applies when shooting with a digital camera. If the photographer knows what must be done in exposing the image to get a specific, predictable result that can be printed in a certain way, then it really doesn't matter what happens within that black box. Learning the properties of a new medium might be frustrating and not worth the effort, but the fact that it is new or different does not invalidate it as a medium in which creative work can be done. An example might be found in different types of artist paints. Oil based paints tend to have a distinctly different look from acrylics, but that does not mean that a painting made with acrylics is inherently less valuable than one made with oils.
An argument made in the linked article was that there is a truth to an image shot on film that doesn't exist in one shot digitally. It is possible that the author is thinking of the black box here and worries that some unknown processing occurs behind the scenes that inherently modifies the image in a way that can not be trusted. There is a valid argment that film is far harder to manipulate so, to some extent it can be trsted more. But that is not to say that film cannot be manipulated. Any experienced photographer can tell you many ways in which film cannot be trusted. For a photo journalist, what is cropped out of the frame can greatly alter how what is left in the shot is seen. Or the angle at which the scene is viewed. Are we looking down on a person or up at one. These is also the problem of color reproduction. Anyone who has photographed artworks or products where exact color is an issue knows that neither film nor digital represent color perfectly. Or exposure. A scene shot in darkness can appear well lit simply by extending the exposure. The apparent brightness of a scene in a photograph is not a direct reflection of the amount of light hitting the original objects.
In fact if anything can be said to have the potential of displaying a scene truthfully, digital photography has an edge over film. It is precicely because film is harder to manipulate that an impercice depiction of reality is more common. Digital systems allow for the profiling and correction of lens distortions. While subtle and not always important, because it is easy to correct for curvature or chromatic aberations, the digital image has the potential of reprodcing the original scene more accurately than a film image. Proper profiling allows the photographer to get closer to the original colors by providing tools to adjust color with far more detail.
I find the film vs digital argment very frustrating becase it is often fought with an intent to prove that one is better than the other. It's a bit like saying hand tools are better than power tools in wood working or that horse drawn carriages are better than automobiles. Each have valuable qualities and there are often clear trade offs.
I particularly dislike the attempts made by some people to characterize film as "real" photography while digital is somehow not real photography. The linked article makes the patently ridiculous claim that because digital photography does not permenently form an image on the photsensitive sensor that it is not "writing with light" and thus not "photography". By this logic, a writer who uses a computer to write a novel is not a real writer whereas one who uses a typewrtier or a pen and paper is. The argument completely ignores what is valuable about photography (Creating a compelling image) and instead assumes the value of the medium is purely the tool itself.
Here's what matters in photography; the image you create. The camera is the central tool used in the work, but the key work in photography, as in every other art form, is done in the mind of the artist. Art is the experience of a person, condensed and processed into a physical media or performance that communicates that experience to another person. Each art form has its tools. But the tool is nothing more than a means to an end. Believing that the tool is more important than the work of art is so utterly misguided that I have to question the good sense of anyone who tries to make this claim.
-
This is an argument that comes up reasonably often and there are parts I agree with and other parts I find to be fundementally harmful to creative work.
I agree that there is a difference between film and digital capture. I hope that photographers who prefer shooting on film have access to the materials as long as they desire. For some photographers, the uniqe qualities of film are integral to how they see the world. This can be seen particularly in modern photographers who use processes like wet collodion or photo gravure. The specific tool or process used can contribute dramatically to the final result. Film renders an image in a distinctly different manner from a digital capture. There is a naturally chaotic grain structure. Depending on the film stock, there are different biases of tone and color. Of course film size matters. These are all valuable consideration when choosing the right tool to create an image.
Thanks for taking the time to write at length.
The film/digital argument, however, is not necessarily as clean-cut a one as might be imagined.
I come from the olde filme school, having turned pro in '60, if only as a trainee in an industrial photo-unit. But for me, the thing is an older, deeper conviction than simply one based on the final 'look' of the picture. Because of my mindset, I know that had there been no film, the world of digital imaging would have kept me away all by itself. Indeed, it would have precluded any interest in the medium at all for two principal reasons: I do not enjoy using or interfacing with hi-tech (which is how I see digital cameras); my initial curiosity in photography was inspired well before I was really aware of photographs as creative outlets - I fell in love with the design of 40s/50s cameras such as the Leica, the Rolleiflex, of how they looked, the best design of anything made as a tool to make something else. It was visual attraction for the tools. I should have grown to become a geek, but I'm as far removed from that as can be imagined. But, digital camera design freezes my emotions.
Next on the long road to now, was the inevitable experience of the first wet print to emerge from a soup I'd made all by myself. That has never gone away, but what the actual print featured as subject escapes me completely, a loss that causes no pain.
Because of such a long life in film and darkrooms, I have grown to understand relationships between contrast and tonality, and also know just how good a good wet print can look, an advantage when it comes to working in digital images. Without that early experience, it would be very easy, in a rapid-fire medium, to quit working on a picture the moment it looks 'good enough' if only because you don't have the knowledge of just what might make it look even better. Equally, and as bad, there is the ever-present opportunity of working the poor image to death, if only because it doesn't cost you anything and is so simple to do.
However, reverting to my earlier point of mindset, I see further proof of that in the fact that I never took an active interest in motion imagery, beyond going to lots of movies! (I did write to a movie director once - David Lean - asking how to get into the business, and he was gracious enough a man actually to reply, but it meant living in another place, infinitely beyond the abilities of a schoolboy to engineer into reality.) It all seemed so complicated, so much to learn. And that's a reason why today's photographers are different to the old-school ones: not only do they welcome motion, they actually need it to remain in business; what would have alienated me doubly attracts the new ones.
If there's a single, overriding reason why I use digital today, it has actually to be a combination of two interrelated ones: cost and poor availability of the support systems for working in film.
Rob C
-
It's interesting to read how you relate to your art and where we have similar and different responses.
I'll agree that it is unfortunate that the cost of film prevents some photographers from using that medium. There are qualities to it that are appealing and it should remain a viable process.
I suppose my experience with cameras and darkrooms differs from yours. While I had the same sort of excitement of seeing the image form in the devolper, I also found it deeply frustrating since it was impossible to determine if the print was adequate under the safe light. Eventually I took to deveoping my prints face down or in complete darkness so I wouldn't be tempted to alter the development because i had been fooled by what I saw under the poor red light. I tried having others print the images, but found it impossible to communicate what I wanted in the print and so, if I wanted the prints to match what I was going for, I had to do it myself. Perhaps my fault here is a lack of patience.
I never really enjoyed darkroom work and eventally learned I prefered shooting transparencies because I could control the image in the camera and let it be whatever it was with out manipulation in printing. The advantage I have found in digital work is that I now have the control over the image without the frustrations (and alergic reactions) of a wet darkroom. I find I can make digital prints that are better than anything I was able to do in a darkroom. The process of arriving at the right print; getting the right paper surface, size, tonal scale, dodging and burning etc, may take as much effort as doing so in a wet darkroom, but digital systems better suit my personality.
For me, cameras have always been tools and little more. I love cameras and enjoy holding them, but more for what they allow me to do than for any sensual enjoyment of the machine itself. I am confused by camera reviews that complain the that camera looks ugly. I really don't care what it looks like. I just want it to give me features that help me create an image. I have a beautiful old rose wood 4x5 view camera that was given to me by my father. It is beautiffuly made and there is some sentimental value, but frankly if I'm going to shoot 4x5, I'd rather use my aluminum rail camera that is both easier to use and provides greater movements.
There's definitly something to be said for enjoying craftsmanship that goes into creating a well designed, beautiful camera. I enjoy the compact (Mostly) efficent design of the Leica M cameras. I love how utilitarian Hasselblad V system cameras are. These provide exactly the features I need without a lot else to get in the way. But it is the fact that they do what I need that really appeals to me. They are tools that are well designed to help me do the thing I really care about; creating an image.
Most of the work I have been doing in the last couple of years has been with a Sony Alpha 7r with Zeiss lenses. It provides both the resolution and shadow detail I want in my images. There is room for improvement and I am considering whether the latitude of the latest version of the camera is worth the price. I switched to this camera from the Canon 5D cameras because I was unhappy with the digital noise in the shadows of the Canons. Ultimately my needs for this type of camera are simple. The digital files translate well into black and white. It allows me to work in fully manual mode. The images it shoots can be printed within the size range that I need. The camera doesn't look or feel like a work of art so if it gets scratched or dented or irreperablly damaged, the worst I'll feel is annoyed that I have to buy an new camera. I won't feel like I've injured a child. Like the Hasselblad or the Leica, the Sony gives me the tools I need and gets out of my way so I can create the images I want to create.
Whether shooting on film or digital, all I ask is that the camera and the process do what I need. Each medium comes with its strengths and limitations. Some cameras, like the Lytro, do things I have no use for. Future cameras may provide technologically surperior results and yet may not provide anything I need in creating an image. I'm glad that these things are created because they provide tools for those who can use them well. I would hope that the tools I need to do the things I care about do not fade away. I think that's the key problem in how digital has eclipsed film. Although I did not use it much, I became quite depressed when A&I in Los Angeles stopped processing Kodachrome and was stunned when they eliminated E6. I like keeping my options open. I like the freedom to create work in the manner that suits me. And I want my images to be seen for the images that they are, not the tool that was used to create them.
-
Rob - regarding negative film vs digital,
From your perspective, in the continuum from GOOD or SOULFUL, (film to enlarger to print) to BAD or SOULLESS(sensor to memory card, to computer, to printer/print), where do you place the process of film to scanner to computer to printer/print?
Perhaps another way to ask the question... what is the key item in the path that makes the film era process "GOOD"? Is it the film itself? Or is it light from an enlarger passing through the negative? Or is it a wet chemically processed print? And given the answer, where do you place scanned film, digitally printed into the discussion?
Brad
-
I've always been attracted to visual media and used it plenty to express myself, my ideas and my feelings over the years.
The first time I was given a camera, it was my parents' Olympus XA. They gave me a roll of Kodak color negative film and explained the basics of operation, then they let me loose with it. I took horrible pictures, most of them with motion blur, some underexposed and others overexposed, but it was ok because I started learning something.
Though shooting film for me was truly hard, because as a kid living on the outskirts of the city I had to rely on my parents to move anywhere interesting (both for shooting and developing/printing), considering they both worked 9 to 5 jobs I was stuck at home or at school most of the time so the opportunities were relatively few.
This all changed when I started to become more and more independent, but around the same time digital cameras became affordable and decent. So as soon as I left high school and started university, one of my cousins gave me his Nikon Coolpix 5400, which was such a step forward from the Olympus Mju II I was using at the time, and it freed me from the labs as well. I started anew, because with digital I could finally experiment without wasting tons of time and money on it, and shot more and more as the time passed. I still have that little camera, and I can't beliebe how good it still is under the right light.
Today I'm completely independent and have a lot more access to photo equipment. I have built up a pretty good collection of film cameras over the past few years, and along with some friends I've set up a dark room. We still shoot any kind of film, from black and white orthochromatic to the odd slides. C41 and E6 have been hard and expensive to do at home and the labs are gradually closing down, so those are still fairly expensive to do, but we're looking for a decent Jobo to help us automate the process. We are not touching color prints in the darkroom because that requires way too much time and equipment, and we are perfectly happy with scanning + digital printing. We still do b&w prints, though. Sometimes we spend friday nights like that, with a beer in one hand and a timer in the other.
If I could, I would shoot more film because it's the cheapest way to shoot medium and large format cameras, but until I can be independent on processing I'm not moving away from digital for things that require very fast turnovers. I don't really mind shooting either, I've used both mediums for so long that they are pretty much the same thing to me. Sure, they have different characteristics, but as far as just taking pictures goes they both work wonderfully.
I've seen incredible images taken with all kinds of equipment, even cheap feature phones and old Kodak box cameras. As long as we can keep all the choice we have and maybe get even more amazing stuff, I'm all for it.
If I have to be frank here, I don't know about soul nor do I care about sentimental stuff involving the process of creating a picture, in the general sense. I do what I do because I care about the pictures I make and the people I do it with.
-
1 I suppose my experience with cameras and darkrooms differs from yours. While I had the same sort of excitement of seeing the image form in the devolper, I also found it deeply frustrating since it was impossible to determine if the print was adequate under the safe light. Eventually I took to deveoping my prints face down or in complete darkness so I wouldn't be tempted to alter the development because i had been fooled by what I saw under the poor red light. I tried having others print the images, but found it impossible to communicate what I wanted in the print and so, if I wanted the prints to match what I was going for, I had to do it myself. Perhaps my fault here is a lack of patience.
2 I never really enjoyed darkroom work and eventally learned I prefered shooting transparencies because I could control the image in the camera and let it be whatever it was with out manipulation in printing. The advantage I have found in digital work is that I now have the control over the image without the frustrations (and alergic reactions) of a wet darkroom. I find I can make digital prints that are better than anything I was able to do in a darkroom. The process of arriving at the right print; getting the right paper surface, size, tonal scale, dodging and burning etc, may take as much effort as doing so in a wet darkroom, but digital systems better suit my personality.
3 I love how utilitarian Hasselblad V system cameras are. These provide exactly the features I need without a lot else to get in the way. But it is the fact that they do what I need that really appeals to me. They are tools that are well designed to help me do the thing I really care about; creating an image.
1. This I've read elsewhere, too, and it puzzles me: a red safelight was only ever used - in my pro experience - for working with line film. For bromide papers (b/white), we always used a yellow/greenish filter, which I think was called an OB or something like that. It gave a very clear indication of the way a dried print would look - and as far as memory goes, you judged the dried print to look a tiny bit darker. But there's a caveat: in the pro world there was only one surface: WSG, and as well-glazed as Kodak would allow. Glazed gives the widest tonality that paper can offer you. (Repro houses often requested dried but unglazed glossy, but that was just to make their job easier.) All of the other surfaces are, from a pro perspective, bullshit. They exist to make wedding couples look less pedestrian and ridiculous by the trick of disguising them beneath surface, to lend a helping hand to pictures with no intrinsic merit (think canvas today) and so on. Their purpose is, basically, disguise. In the commercial world, a print existed in order to make the final reproduction as faithful to the concept as possible, certainly without letting surface tricks intrude on intentions. Which of course, is also one of the main reasons that transparency film was rated the best of all for reproduction of colour.
So no, I wouldn't blame you for lack of patience, simply for using the wrong safelight all that time. It's almosty impossible to process well using red, despite the fibs that feature and perpetuate the myth in every movie that shows an active darkroom scene bathed in RED! From college days I remember something called the Purkinge Shift, which partially explains this. Incidentally, for C Prints, it was total darkness, and development by the Kodak rules, with exposure simply a product of experiments in fixed dev. time and varied exposure steps plus, of course, filtration calculations built in. (I wouldn't dream of doing E6 at home: I did Cibas for a while but not by choice!)
2. Yes, I can also make digital prints that are more accurate interpretations of what I can achieve in micro detail simply because of Layers, but this carries a penalty: they can end up too perfect. Is this paradox possibly also a reality? It certainly is, and to illustrate it, I must use another medium, paint, and take it to a bit of an extreme. Just think of what Van Gogh's stuff looks like, and then switch to Dali's famous works. I want my pictures to resemble the emotional look of Vincent and not the clinical look of Dali's oeuvre, maintaining, the while, their photographic integrity.
And the above, deadly, digital precision is what I dislike most about much of today's fashion and makeup photography: too much impersonal perfection in all things. Soul, the raison d'être of these two genres, has been sacrificed to artifice and falsehood. Look no futher back than at Sarah Moon's Cacharel adverts for cosmetics to see what glamour and emotional aspiration consists of, and then turn rapidly to todays stuff and ask yourself: do women really want to look like plastic Barbies on a bad day?
3. I couldn't agree with you more: in fact, the older and possibly the physically slower that I become and the more sure of what really appeals to me in women, were those old 500 Series still in my case, the models still available to me, I'm certain I'd give up every other camera and genre and concentrate right there. And when film finally dies, I'd go with it, happy I hadn't betrayed either it or myself. I think!
;-)
Rob C
-
Rob - regarding negative film vs digital,
From your perspective, in the continuum from GOOD or SOULFUL, (film to enlarger to print) to BAD or SOULLESS(sensor to memory card, to computer, to printer/print), where do you place the process of film to scanner to computer to printer/print?
Perhaps another way to ask the question... what is the key item in the path that makes the film era process "GOOD"? Is it the film itself? Or is it light from an enlarger passing through the negative? Or is it a wet chemically processed print? And given the answer, where do you place scanned film, digitally printed into the discussion?
Brad
Brad! What a complicated question-within-questions!
What do I like about film? Well, it was my first love - the medium within which I earned all of my living. My entire photographic thinking was based on what I found out from using different films, and the greatest realisation was to use as few different ones as possible: learn a few well. So, on Nikon it was Kodachrome and FP3/4 and HP3/4 whilst on 6x6 it was Ektachrome and TXP 120. All the b/w film went through the same developer, D76 1+1. Prints went into D163, and were always Kodak WSG in, usually, either of two grades: 2 or 3. Almost never did I need softer or harder.
Negative to print. I still have an old fashion image that I shot in '72:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/6563033_orig.jpg)
This was shot on HP3, I think, and with a 2.8/35mm Nikkor almost certainly. As a paper print, along with some very few remaining non-fashion images still in a box somewhere, it has a 'look' that I never got from printing digitally. I speak in the past tense about digi printing thanks to HP and a dead HP B 9180 that now serves to help stop the desk flying away.
(Edit: looking at the blocked highlights, these were often intentional and added to the flavour of the time; today, with digi, nobody would be free in their minds to think of light like that.)
Oddly enough, despite a lot of people claiming that Kodachrome is the worst film to scan, I found it gives me good b/white digital prints! Perhaps it just happens to react well with the way I like to make things look, and that's why people with another aesthetic find it poor. In the same way, I found my first foray into Velvia 50 to be a bit of a difficult one, and certainly useless, in colour, unfiltered at least, for people shots. But, again, it scanned okay for black/white, as in the cropped Nikon shot below:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/1064888_orig.jpg)
The thing is, you always end up having to cope with your personal state of reality, and mine is that a darkroom is impossible, and the financial cost involved in film, whilst possible to handle, is unpalatable in the extreme, and simply not worth it as an amateur.
Added to that, the dead HP means that all I shoot now has one ultimate destination: my website. If it works for that, it works for me.
But in that elusive ideal world, I would accept a real, double weight glossy print before a digital one. Its just my way, my thing, as it were.
Perhaps the best compromise would be to shoot 6x6 black/white film and scan it on a dedicated, top-quality film scanner, which also puts such tricks out of my limited choices. Not only do I think that 6x6 suits girls very well, it also seems to coincide with the few landscape pics I like, as with Michael Kenna. Colour, I feel less and less affinity with as time moves on. It becomes just another distraction unless it can be the actual focus of an image, in which case it become indispensable.
Difficult to say, with mere words, how emotional responses to images work; the danger seems to be that it all ends up reading as pretentious bullshit, which serves nobody well, least of all the writer.
Rob C
-
Colour, I feel less and less affinity with as time moves on. It becomes just another distraction unless it can be the actual focus of an image, in which case it become indispensable.
I have an occasional fruit obsession...
-
I have an occasional fruit obsession...
That makes for a wonderful sunset, Graham!
Expand the black background and insert a tiny building (or camel) silhouette...
;-)
Rob C
-
I already have problems suppressing the cat hairs from the background (both the ginger and the black & white like sleeping on the back-drop).
I'm not sure I want to get involved with camel-hair :-)
-
I already have problems suppressing the cat hairs from the background (both the ginger and the black & white like sleeping on the back-drop).
I'm not sure I want to get involved with camel-hair :-)
Don't get me started on cat hair. I have a white, a black and a mixed colors one so there is NO safe color for me!
-
We seem to have a penchant on these pages for debating the undefinable...it takes me back to my younger years when,
in the grip of several pitchers of ale in the ole familiar ratskeller, we would debate the "meaning of it all' while curing the world of it's ills.
Like the snake eating it's tail...round and round...never-ending.
-
We seem to have a penchant on these pages for debating the undefinable...it takes me back to my younger years when,
in the grip of several pitchers of ale in the ole familiar ratskeller, we would debate the "meaning of it all' while curing the world of it's ills.
Like the snake eating it's tail...round and round...never-ending.
But here, I trust, we can do it sober and perhaps learn something new; discover a fresh point of view?
Rob C
-
It looks to me the same old lamenting about digital manipulation vs film truthfulness.
The only interesting part (which, obviously, is not explored enough since is not "philosophical enough") is the archivial problem.
But aside that, just old (and boring) stuff.
Sorry for the late tackle. :)
Even the "archival problem" is pretty boring. It's the same as it ever was: people need to care enough to preserve whatever must be archived. Think of all those movie film rolls that have been destroyed by a lack of care, of my mother who threw away the negatives and kept the 70's Kodak prints that quickly lost their color balance, and so on.
The challenge with digital archives is not about their intrinsic archivability or lack thereof, it is whether anyone will bother keeping the stuff.
My guess is that this will work out just as it has been in the past: museums and archives will archive things to the best of their ability, as will some enthusiasts.
We've had a few discussions about archivability in the past, I tried looking through my archives (haha), but all I found was this post:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=5355.msg44543#msg44543
I recall that I once mentioned that the only way to be sure, was to take these checksums I mentioned and re-verify your data at certain intervals, while copying the data to new media, in perpetuity.
So, technically speaking, if anyone bothers, archivability for digital is infinite. If nobody bothers, archivability is moot, regardless of the medium.
YMMV.
-
Indeed, it would have precluded any interest in the medium at all for two principal reasons: I do not enjoy using or interfacing with hi-tech (which is how I see digital cameras);
I hope you realise that this emotion about "hi-tech" is an artefact of your mind, and your background, and nothing else.
There is no such distinction for the two-year-old who sits down and learns how to use a modern, touch-screen tablet computer (iPad, Android tablet, Microsoft tablet).
Back in its day, the Nikon F3 and your chemical printing processes was the hi-tech you now loathe.
Why did you not loathe the F3, and these processes, back then?
Or, if I'm off mark with my comment about the specific model F3, please substitute any contemporary state of the art camera of the day when you vigorously pursued your love of chemical photography.
The point is: it is easy to get set in your ways.
I grew up with computer, I am extremely comfortable around computers, and I learned touch typing early on. SMS typing and virtual keyboards are, however, not my friends, and if I were tempted to fall into the illusion that my truths are universal truths, I would probably write about how soulless these virtual keyboards are, and how they are not really about typing things anymore - my writing loses touch with the reality of putting things down to the computer, and how that affects the results.
There are differences in the process here, and the differences may affect us individually, but they do not impose a static truthiness on a certain, time-limited technological state-of-the-art that once was.
-
The archiving problem has very little to do with the medium.
There have been a handful of archives in the 100,000 negative range that have been effectively mined. The task was monumental, and only done because of affection combined with very high perceived value.
In the digital world 100,000 frames isn't even a large archive. There are many people reading this right now have bigger archives.
At the same time the perceived value of photographs is dropping fast.
Who's going to dig through a million frames? Why would they?
-
At the same time the perceived value of photographs is dropping fast.
I disagree. Photographs have never been more valued by so many.
Who's going to dig through a million frames? Why would they?
People are collectively digging through orders of magnitude more frames than that, every day.
They do so because they love photographs, sharing them, and showing eachother what they like.
-
Just googled "tomato image" and in .39 seconds, Google found over 67 million tomato images
-
Collectively digging through millions of pictures posted online is not the same thing as digging through someone's archive. The two activities are not even related.
You might as well argue that the rhinos are doing fine because everyone eats their horns, or because children like stuffed animals.
-
I disagree. Photographs have never been more valued by so many.
Collectively, yes images are valued probably more than ever before. But, on average, each individual image is now treated as a disposable.
People are collectively digging through orders of magnitude more frames than that, every day.
Yeah, yeah. This conversation reminded me of one of Kevin's recent rantatorials, about a box with old photos.
If I were Kevin, oh yes, I'd be very worried about his archives, and willingness of his grandkids (let alone grandkids of his grandkids) to browse through all those RAWs in Lightroom 827. Does he regularly export his images into JPEGs, into folder structure that makes sense for those who'd want to browse it? Something tells me he doesn't.
Truly, unless somebody has a time machine, I'm not inclined to listen to what he/she has to say about the future of digital archives. All speculations I've seen so far were gross oversimplifications (this includes the aforementioned rantatorial).
Digital archives have huge potential, but it's not clear at all whether it will be realized of not. The younger among us will have the answer many decades later...
-
Collectively digging through millions of pictures posted online is not the same thing as digging through someone's archive. The two activities are not even related.
You are absolutely correct, and for those who did not spot my point quite as easily as you did:
Back before we shared images on the Internet, nobody did that collective digging.
-
Collectively, yes images are valued probably more than ever before. But, on average, each individual image is now treated as a disposable.
Which they are, to a large extent, for better or worse.
Additionally, copying photos is easier than ever before, so the "good" photos (well, the ones that the most people like, anyway) are valued more than ever before, but I suspect they are not valued as much financially.
Yeah, yeah. This conversation reminded me of one of Kevin's recent rantatorials, about a box with old photos.
If I were Kevin, oh yes, I'd be very worried about his archives, and willingness of his grandkids (let alone grandkids of his grandkids) to browse through all those RAWs in Lightroom 827. Does he regularly export his images into JPEGs, into folder structure that makes sense for those who'd want to browse it? Something tells me he doesn't.
Truly, unless somebody has a time machine, I'm not inclined to listen to what he/she has to say about the future of digital archives. All speculations I've seen so far were gross oversimplifications (this includes the aforementioned rantatorial).
Yup.
What helps us a bit these days, is image comparison algorithms, which are pretty good at finding images that are similar to something.
Okay, we do not currently run Google's extensive image search on our own computers' digital archives, but this is something that has been worked on quite a bit.
Remember the silly feature "find pictures for tagging" in your old Photoshop Elements?
Digital archives have huge potential, but it's not clear at all whether it will be realized of not. The younger among us will have the answer many decades later...
Curated digital archives already exist, but may not be directly accessible to the public due to rights restrictions.
-
This is a Post duchamp and beuys world where the problem lies in what isn't art?
My personal experience is the world is against art, including forbidding photography , in all open spaces , and destruction of world treasures like the Buddha in Afghanistan .
Leica article that started this forum about or bases its influence to forbid photography, in the name of emulsion. Digital Photography came out of ecological concerns about a fragile environment.
Film was and still is a dirty business and not very ecological and with
humanity reaching 10 billion in the world I can't imagine 10 billion bathrooms draining silver halide and color dyes down the sink.
I never want to start a conversation of what isn't art, but rather how all of us can embrace art .
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
You've been on the old fixer again! Whenever did bathrooms equate with number of people? Getting a ratio of one to two is still considered pretty modern: the average is more like one to a hundred. (Source: my own head.) It's rumoured that W. Eugene S was prone to doing your fixer-tasting trick during his sleepless sessions doing Pittsburgh. Or so I've read. Is it nice?
Welcome to the fish tank.
;-)
Rob C
-
Is it Over?
Yes it's over. Around 1.8 billion images are posted online each day.
http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/now-upload-share-1-8-billion-photos-everyday-meeker-report-224688.html (http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/now-upload-share-1-8-billion-photos-everyday-meeker-report-224688.html)
Cheers,
-
Thanks for the welcome, but I still disagree with you. Even at 1 : 100 photography moved in better direction with more philosophy and concern for the environment than Ansel could of ever dreamed or composed.
Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk
-
Thanks for the welcome, but I still disagree with you. Even at 1 : 100 photography moved in better direction with more philosophy and concern for the environment than Ansel could of ever dreamed or composed.
Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk
The welcome is unconditional; in this democracy you are free to disagree with me or anyone else.
I'm not, of course, saying that I believe in a total democracy, as it's my opinion that the number if idiots exceeds the number of non-idiots, but that's life, as Aristotle was given to saying, and it seems the lesser evil of the several choices of governance available to us. It remains to be seen whether Britain will come out on the right side of the Brexit situation - perhaps it will and perhaps not. Isn't it ironic, perverse even, that the freedom of the vote puts such an illogical demand upon the population - that we shall trust in (and be bound by) the decisions of those we might consider less able?
But insofar as we think about it in photographic terms - I can't change my mind and accept your approach. Photo-chemistry was eventually recognized for the hazard that it was, and in Britain at least, before the 80s, it was made legally compulsory for darkroom chemicals to be collected safely and removed for recycling or whatever the chemical process was called. I remember this well, because it marked the period where my life switched almost completely away from darkrooms to the joys of Kodachrome.
Embracing art: what's art, is the first problem. Some see it's apogee in kicking a ball around a field, yet others in hitting it with sticks. In most of these instances the definition of greatness seems to be derived from - or based upon - the attendant difficulty in performing well the 'task' experienced. In that vein, as the photographic 'task' has been ever reduced in complexity and skill required to reach an even minimal level of competence, I can only conclude that the entire concept has been devalued so far that it will soon stop being though of as art at all. Happy days!
Rob C
-
Rob C , The time we live in this moment is very religious and a turn to the right in the political realm leaves the voters to not believe social programs can't work. Art has suffered in the consequence especially from perception . I've been reading the photography literature from Shawn Tomlinson he brings the bottom line for photography. His books are between 3 and 4 $ apiece. He loves the color that older digital cameras create, and discusses the lost world of the area where he lives. He shows the beautiful photos he's taken with the different older cameras between 2 1/2. megapixel to 14 1/2 . The insight is the way he and his family and friend find their way in photography. Give it a read, maybe you could lose some of the hopeless feelings you
have about living in the present. :)
Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk
-
Our current technological period has range of choices unrivaled by any other period in photographic history. If your process is to use 100 year old lenses and wet plates, there is a thriving group of people doing that, or if you just want to make silver prints off film, thats alive and well. C-prinitng? Yeah there are still some people rocking it, or if you like me use a hybrid process and scan, then you can do that. How about full on digital? At this second we are riding the very apex of technology (or you could choose to use older digital technology to make a statement). If you wanted to you could even have robots take photographs for you, it happens in factories and sorting facilities millions of times a day. I mean being worried about interpolation is like being worried about dye couplers or something... Because the color isn't really there, but through process is added later. I'm sure when people really started to embrace film the guys coating their own plates were saying "thats bogus!" too ;).
-
I think I've figured it out. Once upon a time, there were a few people making high quality photos, and they sold them to people who needed them.
Now there are many, many, many photographers, some of whom buy things they think will help them make high quality photos: not just cameras, but courses, subscriptions, printers, exotic textured papers, cloud space where they can exhibit. They might even rent a real gallery to show their photos to their friends.
Photographers are now the market.
-
I think I've figured it out. Once upon a time, there were a few people making high quality photos, and they sold them to people who needed them.
Now there are many, many, many photographers, some of whom buy things they think will help them make high quality photos: not just cameras, but courses, subscriptions, printers, exotic textured papers, cloud space where they can exhibit. They might even rent a real gallery to show there photos to their friends.
Photographers are now the market.
I think you have made quite a discovery, there. I'd never really thought of it in those rather absolute terms before.
We've always managed to be a market of sorts for magazines and photo-product makers, but I have to agree - we now seem to be more closely connected with marketing to one another (within photography) than we were before.
Not a good sign; strikes me as one of those bubbles that comes along now and again and then explodes, leaving a sticky mess behind it.
Rob
-
I think you have made quite a discovery, there. I'd never really thought of it in those rather absolute terms before.
We've always managed to be a market of sorts for magazines and photo-product makers, but I have to agree - we now seem to be more closely connected with marketing to one another (within photography) than we were before.
Not a good sign; strikes me as one of those bubbles that comes along now and again and then explodes, leaving a sticky mess behind it.
Rob
There's always been a vanity market for photographic enthusiasts, all you have to is look in some old photo magazines and you'll see the same kind of stuff that was marketed back then today, but on a nonmaterial level the internet can work wonders if you can use it properly. As far as social networks go Instagram is the only one I really use besides Tumblr, but its opened my up to new circles of artists who I'd never see otherwise. Thats really something special, especially when you can trade with them, and exchange critiques or support. Awhile ago I was talking with a photographer I used to assist, and he was telling me that in the days where a printed book would travel around to reps or clients it was almost like espionage to get a look inside, but now the world is at your fingertips.
-
Thats really something special, especially when you can trade with them, and exchange critiques or support.
Absolutely, and you are free to take it all very seriously and do excellent work... provided you have some other way of paying the bills.
Once upon a time, driving a car was quite a technical challenge, and so being a chauffeur was a job. Cars became easier to drive.
Of course there are still taxi drivers, but their skill is not driving, but knowing their way around... and that is being taken away by GPS, as Uber have demonstrated. So aside from artificial protection by legislation, the only remaining driving jobs are for heavy trucks (which doesn't pay much) or delivery vans (even less).
-
Our current technological period has range of choices unrivaled by any other period in photographic history
Absolutely. This is The Golden Age of Photography. Right now. Today.
Rob, I share your fondness for camera fondling and the Pentax Spotmatic that caused me to fall in love with photography is still an object of private tactile engagement. My D800, however, elicits no such feelings. But the Pentax sits unused in a drawer, while the Nikon continues to amaze and inspire me. Not because I can't feed the Pentax with film, but because the Nikon makes better images. Far, far better images.
Many have made the point that "there's no comparing the moment you first see one of your images emerge in the dev tray". I disagree. Having had that seminal moment myself many years and many darkrooms ago, I can say that seeing a four by six foot print emerge from my Epson was just as significant.
If you want to hear real whining about the loss of the wonderful days of film, talk to cinematographers. They used to hold the keys to the kingdom. Now, they're just another crew member.
-
There's always been a vanity market for photographic enthusiasts, all you have to is look in some old photo magazines and you'll see the same kind of stuff that was marketed back then today, but on a nonmaterial level the internet can work wonders if you can use it properly. As far as social networks go Instagram is the only one I really use besides Tumblr, but its opened my up to new circles of artists who I'd never see otherwise. Thats really something special, especially when you can trade with them, and exchange critiques or support. Awhile ago I was talking with a photographer I used to assist, and he was telling me that in the days where a printed book would travel around to reps or clients it was almost like espionage to get a look inside, but now the world is at your fingertips.
Yes, and those 'books' - portfolios - got one a lot of work, even if not always all that similar to the work in the book. The secrecy was clearly defensive: why let the competition see what you were using to get work? They'd only copy what you did and dilute your own value. You could also buy space in a couple of very expensive publications, and get international exposure that way.
Today, all that secret weaponry is dead. You have to have a site, and everybody in every country can look and, if they find it, copy as much as they like. I've never been able to fnd a website for the David Bailey; I wonder what he does - probably doesn't even care. In a way, I imagine that all this free access and exposure is why there are now so few standout photographers; today, they are all pretty much clones of the same generic style, everybody copying everybody else. Only some of the older ones seem to have been able to hang on to some identity of their own.
Rob
-
Absolutely, and you are free to take it all very seriously and do excellent work... provided you have some other way of paying the bills.
Once upon a time, driving a car was quite a technical challenge, and so being a chauffeur was a job. Cars became easier to drive.
Of course there are still taxi drivers, but there skill is not driving, but knowing their way around... and that is being taken away by GPS, as Uber have demonstrated. So aside from artificially protection by legislation, the only remaining driving jobs are for heavy trucks (which doesn't pay much) or delivery vans (even less).
I find that sentiment rather freeing. I sort of self identify as an artist who works photographically, and I'm about to take the plunge into MFA land soon... I grew up with a father who was a professional photographer, and I just never really wanted to work in that world, I did for awhile as an assistant, but I kind of prefer to keep it separate from my livelihood, and therefor preserve it for myself in some way.
-
The challenge with digital archives is not about their intrinsic archivability or lack thereof, it is whether anyone will bother keeping the stuff.
The only problem is the amount of stuff you have to keep in order to access the digital archives, because it isn't enough to keep the digital archives themselves: you have to keep the software that can access those archives.
And the operating system that can run that software.
And the hardware that can run that operating system system.
A failure in any of these component will make the digital archivers unaccessable.
-
The only problem is the amount of stuff you have to keep in order to access the digital archives, because it isn't enough to keep the digital archives themselves: you have to keep the software that can access those archives.
And the operating system that can run that software.
And the hardware that can run that operating system system.
A failure in any of these component will make the digital archivers unaccessable.
Is this something for which we ever wished?
Rob
-
Is this something for which we ever wished?
Rob
NO!!! This never ending insane cycle is so much more of an expense then film ever was...
Peter
-
I believe digital images to be equal to and as valid as those made on film (or slides). I don't think it matters what gear was used or how 'great' the photographer is propertied to be. The image should stand and speak for itself.
It's not helped I suspect by the fact that almost all images are now viewed on a monitor/screen and from 18" to 24". Why oh why pixel-peep at 100% and more when (as an example) the final output should be viewed as a 3 foot wide print and from 6 feet away.
I've been a photographer for over 40 years and as a teenager developed my own mono images in the family bathroom. These days like most people I rarely if ever use film though I still own a 1932 Leica II D and a plethora of Olympus OMs including perhaps my most favourite camera of all time, the Olympus OM3 which is I might add is in mint condition. Over the years I've shot everything from 35mm, sir, rangefinder, tlr, MF, LF studio cameras and of course now dslr, digital rangefinder and iPhone. Am I less a photographer now than I was then?
When I became a photographer, most things were tricky. The gear, especially SLR or rangefinder equipment necessitated a degree of competence and understanding to use it effectively. You needed to know your gear well and understand exposure as well as tricks of the trade from composition to panning techniques and beyond. Then of course was the film; which to use and in what circumstances. And if you did your own developing and printing, push and pull, Ilford vs Kodak etc, film vs slide, fuji velvia, kodachrome 64 etc etc. Oh and not to mention my favourite of all agfa scala 200!
I could go on! Cameras went on for years and years. My OM3 first introduced in 1983 is still as good as ever. I remember shooting a Zenit E with a 400mm lens attached having to prefocus to obtain shots of fast moving, often high flying motocross bikes. You needed to build and develop your skills well to get any decent images. Is my work less valued (if at all!) than it was in days of yore? Of course I am not suggesting that one doesn't need much of this knowledge and many of these skills today.
For me photography has always been an art form, something to be cherished and to be executed technically well combined with all the other elements to make great images (hopefully) more often than not. Less was always more. These days of course everyone's a photographer what with smart phones/camera phones and point and shoot 'mode' cameras. There's no doubt that for many, these new cameras take away much of the guess-work and the necessity for many of the 'gear' skills once needed. I recall watching a short video of a sports photographer shoot a 'dance' gymnast performing with a ribbon. Shooting at 10 FPS with a long 400mm lens and VR he managed to capture the perfectly timed image. Nothing wrong with that, I'd have missed it for sure in the olden days.
Perhaps familiarity breeds contempt? Perhaps less perceived (or actual) effort in the making results in a lowering of the worth of our output? Images surround us now, more than they ever have but is that at a cost? I believe so. Whilst it is great that photography is therefore available to everyone often at least cost and with greater ease there is for me personally a massive downside.
Mediocrity.
The great shame despite all these 'improvements' is that rather than use the high ISO capabilities, faster shutter speeds, amazing AF systems, truly marvellous dynamic ranges et al to create better and more exciting images, many just use them to shoot poor images that get added to the plethora of mediocrity that abounds throughout the internet. Many of today's so-called photographers shoot hundreds if not thousands of images in the hope that just a few will be worthy. Many don't understand exposure, don't get composition, can't manage to focus on the right point, do not understand depth of field, depth of focus, when to use which focal length and how to use subject to lens distance for effect.
Of course, lets not forget pixel peepers; where would we be without 100% and 200% view? And then there's the forums. Self proclaimed experts who argue from I'll-informed positions spouting option as fact. Where will it all end! Don't get me started on Ken Rockwell either!
-
Of course, lets not forget pixel peepers; where would we be without 100% and 200% view? And then there's the forums. Self proclaimed experts who argue from I'll-informed positions spouting option as fact. Where will it all end! Don't get me started on Ken Rockwell either!
The kit and how an image is produced has changed, how images are viewed has changed, who can get involved has changed and the debates and arguments and where they take place have all changed. Everything has changed, but isn't it all just the same? Back in the day we did things differently and we argued about different things in different ways so what's changed? :D
-
Once upon a time, driving a car was quite a technical challenge, and so being a chauffeur was a job. Cars became easier to drive.
Of course there are still taxi drivers, but their skill is not driving, but knowing their way around... and that is being taken away by GPS, as Uber have demonstrated. So aside from artificial protection by legislation, the only remaining driving jobs are for heavy trucks (which doesn't pay much) or delivery vans (even less).
That is an interesting analogy. I suspect that professional taxi drivers have the same complaints as professional photographers concerning technology affecting the customer's perception of the worth of the professional. There are also similarities concerning taxes and insurance between the two professions.
I wonder how many professional photographers use Uber?
-
That is an interesting analogy. I suspect that professional taxi drivers have the same complaints as professional photographers concerning technology affecting the customer's perception of the worth of the professional. There are also similarities concerning taxes and insurance between the two professions.
I wonder how many professional photographers use Uber?
Client perception has always been paramount, especially in situations where finite quality, if that's even measurable, is open to opinion. That's why people with good clients seem to attract more good clients: each reinforces the confidence of the others in choosing a particular photographer. Or taxi firm.
Rob C
-
Client perception has always been paramount, especially in situations where finite quality, if that's even measurable, is open to opinion. That's why people with good clients seem to attract more good clients: each reinforces the confidence of the others in choosing a particular photographer. Or taxi firm.
I find GrahamBy's analogy to be spot on -- as far as technical skills are concerned.
What you're talking about is business skills, which are not to be underestimated, of course (up to a point that more often than not they outweigh everything else...), but that's a different matter.
-
It comes down to the photographer in the end and how they see it, professional work I have no choice it has to be digital, no client would wait for film scans and would have no idea what to do with transparencies if they fell out of an enveleope onto the desk.
Take the client out of the equation and I have my reasons for choosing film and not liking digital, but it's my opinion for my work, I have to please no one else or justify my choice. When shooting digital I am aware of most digital techniques and use them, it's great I can control DR ,saturation, tone curve and the end result has nothing to complain about for technical quality.
So why choose film? my vision of the difference and it's only my view is digital lacks soul, it's too easy, I miss the journey you go on with film from loading it in the camera, processing, printing. A decision has to be made at every stage and most are not reversible.
My digital cameras are just as the article says data collection devices, I collect raw files then turn them into whatever takes my fancy whenever I want, for many that is the reason for preferring the digital capture.
In the end use what you want for whatever reason.
-
That's a fascinating article. It got me thinking and I did a little research into exactly how the brain processes information. I found this link - http://news.mit.edu/1996/visualprocessing - a few years old now, but still with enough relevant information. The brain uses a process called "subject contour" where it - the brain - fills in any missing information in order to complete the whole.
-
You mean like I do my tax return :-)
"That's a fascinating article. It got me thinking and I did a little research into exactly how the brain processes information. I found this link - http://news.mit.edu/1996/visualprocessing - a few years old now, but still with enough relevant information. The brain uses a process called "subject contour" where it - the brain - fills in any missing information in order to complete the whole."