Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Chris Pollock on October 16, 2009, 06:26:20 pm
-
I often read Bob Park's What's New column at http://www.bobpark.org (http://www.bobpark.org). I also read his book Voodoo Science, which I liked. He's a physicist, obviously a smart guy, and most of his commentary is well informed and interesting.
However, in his October 9, 2009 column he showed what can happen when you offer an opinion on a subject you know little about. Writing about the award of the Nobel Prize to the inventors of the CCD, he included the following comment:
In effect, Boyle and Smith ended the profession of photography; an eight-year-old child can pull out a personal cell phone, point it, and capture an image superior to anything professional photographers can do with armloads of paraphernalia and hours in the darkroom.
Just about every assertion in this sentence is wrong. Is there anyone here who would defend it?
-
Sure. An 8 yo can do that. They probably won't. F8 and be there.
-
Same way as the word processor ended the writing profession. Mamma don't take my Snopaque away!
-
I'll defend it, to some extent -- the original quote didn't say they destroyed photography, only that they ended the PROFESSION of photography. That is wholly true in several areas of professional photography, partly true in others, and not true at all in a lucky few. When art buyers at major ad agencies look at Flickr when they need photos for an ad, when a major newsmagazine pays $30 for a cover and the photographer is thrilled, when it seems like half the photojournalists I know have been laid off and newspapers and magazines are folding left and right, and everything is "crowdsourced," there is some truth to the idea that advances in digital technology are making professional photographers redundant.
Yes, there are all kinds of problems with using "nonprofessional" photos -- but as long as the client doesn't give a rat's arse, and only wants the lowest price, they'll continue to be used.
-
I'll defend it, to some extent -- the original quote didn't say they destroyed photography, only that they ended the PROFESSION of photography. That is wholly true in several areas of professional photography, partly true in others, and not true at all in a lucky few. When art buyers at major ad agencies look at Flickr when they need photos for an ad, when a major newsmagazine pays $30 for a cover and the photographer is thrilled, when it seems like half the photojournalists I know have been laid off and newspapers and magazines are folding left and right, and everything is "crowdsourced," there is some truth to the idea that advances in digital technology are making professional photographers redundant.
Yes, there are all kinds of problems with using "nonprofessional" photos -- but as long as the client doesn't give a rat's arse, and only wants the lowest price, they'll continue to be used.
Yes, but how many people are doing serious photography with cell phone cameras? Do you think it's fair to say that an eight year old with a cell phone camera can produce better photographs than a professional with a high end DSLR, medium format digital back, or large format film camera? Do you agree with the implication that digital sensors somehow make the skill of the photographer irrelevant?
-
Yes, but how many people are doing serious photography with cell phone cameras? Do you think it's fair to say that an eight year old with a cell phone camera can produce better photographs than a professional with a high end DSLR, medium format digital back, or large format film camera? Do you agree with the implication that digital sensors somehow make the skill of the photographer irrelevant?
You miss my point. The cell phone and the eight year old are simply hyperbole.
It doesn't matter how many people are doing serious photography with cell phone cameras. The original quote wasn't talking about serious photography -- it was talking about making money from photography, a.k.a. photography as a profession. These are very different things. If clients are happy buying pictures from a cell phone camera, and paying $30 to use them, or getting them free from Flickr, it doesn't really matter how "serious" the photographer is, it just becomes that much more difficult to make a living.
In economic terms, digital imaging has removed some major barriers to entry from the photography market. One no longer needs to know how to expose transparency film. One no longer needs to convince a major stock agency to take you on as a photographer (which required a solid portfolio and shooting skills.) Shooting with a p+s camera and uploading to a public web site is enough (though it helps if you mark your photos with the Creative Commons license.) In many cases, the skill of the photographer is irrelevant -- if an art director needs a basic photo of the Taj Mahal, why in the world would they pay a professional fee for it??
As I said above, this is true for some segments of the industry, partly true for others, and not true at all for a lucky few. For example, how many professional, highly skilled and experienced wedding photographers are happy with the current condition of the market? What about magazine photographers? Stock photographers? Some of the problems with the photo industry are caused by other economic issues (the furniture photo market in North Carolina, for example, has been hurt by the loss of manufacturing to overseas plants, and the stock photo business has changed dramatically as it consolidated into a few very large companies.) Some are self-inflicted. But many of the changes in the photo industry are a result of the move to high quality digital imaging.
-
You miss my point. The cell phone and the eight year old are simply hyperbole.
You have tried to redefine the original quote to mean something sensible, and then launched into a largely irrelevant discussion of the state of the photography business. Let's take another look at what Bob Park actually wrote:
an eight-year-old child can pull out a personal cell phone, point it, and capture an image superior to anything professional photographers can do with armloads of paraphernalia and hours in the darkroom.
This is the important part of the quote. I don't disagree that digital photography has made it harder for a lot of professionals to get business, but that has little to do with what the original commentary was saying. Park clearly stated that a cell phone camera in the hands of an eight-year-old who isn't even trying can produce photographs that are superior (not good enough, but superior) to anything (not just mediocre work, but anything) that a professional photographer with professional equipment can do. Do you think this is a reasonable statement?
-
I have to admit admit I am very amused that Dr. Park thinks professional photographers still spend "hours in the darkroom."
Paul
-
Having multiple degrees in one field does not necessarily qualify one to comment intelligently about other fields. Mr. Park's comments are an excellent example of this principle. The more egregious flaws in the quote are:
1. Cell phone cameras are OK for what they are, but have yet to seriously challenge 35mm film regarding image quality. Perhaps the old disc film format (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_film), but not any film format professional photographers ever used on a regular basis.
2. Photographers have switched to digital for the most part. The technological advances of digital have greatly expanded the boundaries of what can be done with a camera, allowing photographs to be captured under previously impossible conditions, with greater resolution, dynamic range, and color fidelity than ever before. This is far from a Bad Thing, despite the effect technology has had on the industry of photography.
3. Much of what distinguishes a professional photographer from an amateur button-pusher has little to do with the image capture device itself. Lighting, composition (including the selection of vantage point), focus selection, depth of field, and capturing the "decisive moment" (for moving subjects) are all critically important aspects of making a great photograph, and are independent of whether silicon or silver is used to capture the image. The probability of an 8-year-old with a cell phone accidentally capturing something that eclipses the most determined efforts of a creative and intelligent professional photographer who still chooses to use film is absurdly remote--it would require the assistance of an Infinite Improbability Drive to happen often enough to matter.
-
[...]
3. Much of what distinguishes a professional photographer from an amateur button-pusher has little to do with the image capture device itself. Lighting, composition (including the selection of vantage point), focus selection, depth of field, and capturing the "decisive moment" (for moving subjects) are all critically important aspects of making a great photograph, and are independent of whether silicon or silver is used to capture the image. The probability of an 8-year-old with a cell phone accidentally capturing something that eclipses the most determined efforts of a creative and intelligent professional photographer who still chooses to use film is absurdly remote--it would require the assistance of an Infinite Improbability Drive to happen often enough to matter.
Exactly! No matter how affordable (both economical and ergonomically) cameras become, no matter how many automatisms they can fit into a camera: a badly composed photo will always be a badly composed photo; this is the best argument against the "your camera takes good photos" argument, I think.
-
digital imaging has removed some major barriers to entry from the photography market.
If your competitive advantage over the 'hyperbolic' eight-year-old is that tenuous, you were in serious trouble without even considering disruptive impact of digital technology.
-
Jonathan, Are you talking about "professional" photography or about art? There's a world of difference.
-
One more try, and I'm done.
The most important part of the original quote is this: "In effect, Boyle and Smith ended the profession of photography..."
All of you are still confusing "serious photography" with the "profession of photography." They are not necessarily (or always) the same. Don't take this as a personal attack on your photographic skills -- yes, all of you can out shoot an 8 year old with a cell phone. That's wonderful. But given the changes in the photo industry, having serious photographic skills doesn't always translate into making it as a professional photographer. (See examples above.)
-
Anyone on here ever try doing a wedding with a cell phone?
-
Anyone on here ever try doing a wedding with a cell phone?
I looked at some wedding pictures recently. There was of course the predictable professional album. But in a separate album there were hundreds of "crowdsourced" cell phone and P&S shots, and that was the couple's favorite album for the simple reason it was so much fun, mostly goofy pictures of people stuffing cake in their mouths and the like. We barely looked a the dullsville pro album at all.
In the early 80's I covered some weddings with an SX-70, it was very trendy at the time. Biggest problem was keeping the guests from stealing shots, literally!
-
Anyone on here ever try doing a wedding with a cell phone?
The "pro" (£2k) photographer (chosen by my wife ) who took our wedding photos used a 6 Mpx (I think) 1st generation "pro" DSLR you could have picked up on eBay for a few hundred pounds... a modern cell phone might have been better. He did not have the skill to have done much better whatever camera he might have used... and he was an established pro with decades of experience.
¿...and people wonder why photography is a dying profession?
-
The "pro" (£2k) photographer (chosen by my wife ) who took our wedding photos used a 6 Mpx (I think) 1st generation "pro" DSLR you could have picked up on eBay for a few hundred pounds... a modern cell phone might have been better. He did not have the skill to have done much better whatever camera he might have used... and he was an established pro with decades of experience.
¿...and people wonder why photography is a dying profession?
If your pictures were poor quality I would suggest that is down to the skill (or lack of) of the photographer concerned. I could quite easily shoot weddings with my 6mp Canon 10D from many years ago. 6mp is more than enough for most wedding albums. I took my 10D to a wedding last year and used it for some of the shots just for old-times sake and was quite pleased with the results. I realised that some of the limitations it had six years ago were down to the cheaper lens I used then, and the fact that I did shoot in jpeg back then and not RAW. Not defending your photographer, but just saying that it is risky to judge a photographer by their camera! You could pick up an 'old' Canon 1DS for a few hundred pounds now, but it would still be good enough.
Jim
-
If your pictures were poor quality I would suggest that is down to the skill (or lack of) of the photographer concerned. I could quite easily shoot weddings with my 6mp Canon 10D from many years ago. 6mp is more than enough for most wedding albums. I took my 10D to a wedding last year and used it for some of the shots just for old-times sake and was quite pleased with the results. I realised that some of the limitations it had six years ago were down to the cheaper lens I used then, and the fact that I did shoot in jpeg back then and not RAW. Not defending your photographer, but just saying that it is risky to judge a photographer by their camera! You could pick up an 'old' Canon 1DS for a few hundred pounds now, but it would still be good enough.
Jim
When I do weddings with a H4D-60, the pictures will be good enough to print 2 feet by 3, frame and hang on a wall, and the group shots (stitched with a P3) will be good enough to produce a reasonable portrait of each of the 50 people in the shot... and this is the quality I think couples should be expecting if they pay real money for their wedding pictures.
-
When I do weddings with a H4D-60, the pictures will be good enough to print 2 feet by 3, frame and hang on a wall, and the group shots (stitched with a P3) will be good enough to produce a reasonable portrait of each of the 50 people in the shot... and this is the quality I think couples should be expecting if they pay real money for their wedding pictures.
Ah well, if we are talking about stitching, I could always stitch together a dozen pictures from the 10D and get poster sized wall print no problem! Much lighter than the 'Blad as well. The only problem might be getting the whole wedding party to stand still while I make all the exposures.
-
Ah well, if we are talking about stitching, I could always stitch together a dozen pictures from the 10D and get poster sized wall print no problem! Much lighter than the 'Blad as well. The only problem might be getting the whole wedding party to stand still while I make all the exposures.
I was thinking that, for a wedding party, two or three stitches would be ample with a 60 Mpx back ...does anyone do a motorised back for so you can take two or three pictures as fast as bracketing?
-
I was thinking that, for a wedding party, two or three stitches would be ample with a 60 Mpx back ...does anyone do a motorised back for so you can take two or three pictures as fast as bracketing?
Well, it is not a back, it is not as fas as bracketing, and it is for P&S's only, but... Gigapan (http://www.gigapansystems.com/).
-
Well, it is not a back, it is not as fas as bracketing, and it is for P&S's only, but... Gigapan (http://www.gigapansystems.com/).
Great idea ... I have a Leica Dlux 3, which I am thinking of upgrading to a Dlux - 4. I was thinking of becoming a robotics engineer, so I might make one myself, especially for using an H4D-60 and a Sinar P2/3 on a Manfrotto Agnoscope 10m tripod, for landscapes where it is difficult to get round foreground obstructions.
-
Just about every assertion in this sentence is wrong. Is there anyone here who would defend it?
Well...
He is basically saying that switching to digital has opened the door to inifinite technological progress. His basic assumption is that mobile phone in 10 years from now will deliver an image quality equal to that of our current best cameras. I wouldn't bet much on him being wrong on this account.
The flaw here, so widespread that it might in fact be reality, is that he is obviously overlooking many important aspects of photography (talent, composition, light, moment, location,...). He is one more of these many people for whom photography is still aimed mostly at capturing reality. Per this definition, he is 100% right, mobile phones will soon capture reality as well as today's high end cameras.
How could we blame him for this perceptional gap though? We claim that the photographer's abilities makes 95% of the photograph, yet we keep talking about high resolution, DR, detail capture,... we keep differentiating our work using the brand of the cameras it was shot with (there was one great example in this very thread).
Photography might have been an art form in the film days, but every line we - photographers - write on its technical aspects in the digital world is one additional nail we stick in the coffin of photography as an art form. We de facto contribute to the mobilephonization of our work.
We are not alone, camera manufacturers are also doing a great job at this. The digital revolution is the metrics revolution. An object can be assessed along a limited number of axis, starting with pixel count. Benchmarks have also been invented, supposedely to measure what matters to photographers, and cameras are designed so as to perform well long these axis. People debate within the pre-defined box, but forget that the key thing is to fight the metrics themselves.
This is a beautiful example of self fullfilling prophecy when you think about it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Jonathan, Are you talking about "professional" photography or about art? There's a world of difference.
I agree, but I also think that my comments are applicable to either. Yes, professional photography is undergoing great upheaval because many things that used to be done by a professional can be done by Aunt Sally and her digicam with an acceptable level of quality. Because of technological advances, the low-hanging fruit on the tree of for-pay photography is being devoured by hordes of amateurs with digicams or entry-level DSLRs. But those same technological advances have raised the top of the tree quite a bit higher than it used to be. Those who learn to climb survive, those who don't are eaten by the zombies.
The same is true of art. New tools offer new means of artistic expression. Some people learn how to use them creatively, others don't.
-
He is basically saying that switching to digital has opened the door to inifinite technological progress. His basic assumption is that mobile phone in 10 years from now will deliver an image quality equal to that of our current best cameras. I wouldn't bet much on him being wrong on this account.
He didn't use the future tense. He wrote that a current mobile phone camera can outperform the best professional equipment.
Unless cell phones become a lot bigger, I very much doubt that a phone camera 10 years from now will be able to outperform a medium format digital back or large format film camera of today. I'd be suprised if it could even equal a current 35mm DSLR. I predict that fundamental physics (diffraction, shot noise, etc.)will limit what can be done. In 10 years we'll see if I'm right.
-
He didn't use the future tense. He wrote that a current mobile phone camera can outperform the best professional equipment.
Unless cell phones become a lot bigger, I very much doubt that a phone camera 10 years from now will be able to outperform a medium format digital back or large format film camera of today. I'd be suprised if it could even equal a current 35mm DSLR. I predict that fundamental physics (diffraction, shot noise, etc.)will limit what can be done. In 10 years we'll see if I'm right.
We will see. I don't think anybody 5 years ago would have expected Canon and Nikon to release DSLRs with usable ISO 100,000 in 2009, and the very same physical reasons were used then to explain us why it would not be possible to do.
Whether his predictions end up being true or not is not really the point anyway. The belief is what matters.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Seems to me this thread is getting awfully close to the "my camera (or whatever) is bigger than yours" kind of argument you can see every day on "Leica User Forum" or "Nikonians" or the equivalent forum for Canon. What difference does it make whether or not a cell phone will be able to shoot quality pictures? If it can, I'll be happy to use a cell phone to make quality pictures.
-
We will see. I don't think anybody 5 years ago would have expected Canon and Nikon to release DSLRs with usable ISO 100,000 in 2009, and the very same physical reasons were used then to explain us why it would not be possible to do.
This is off-topic, but I own a 5D II with a nominal maximum ISO of over 25,000, but I certainly wouldn't call it usable for anything but the most extreme emergency, such as finally getting close enough to the Loch Ness Monster to get a clear shot. Even 6,400 is too noisy for my liking.
Whether his predictions end up being true or not is not really the point anyway. The belief is what matters.
I don't think they were meant as predictions. He didn't use the future tense, so I'm pretty sure he intended to make a statement about the state of current technology.
-
Seems to me this thread is getting awfully close to the "my camera (or whatever) is bigger than yours" kind of argument you can see every day on "Leica User Forum" or "Nikonians" or the equivalent forum for Canon. What difference does it make whether or not a cell phone will be able to shoot quality pictures? If it can, I'll be happy to use a cell phone to make quality pictures.
I don't really care about what a cell phone camera will or will not be able to do in 10 or 20 years time. Bob Park wrote that a cell phone camera in the hands of a child can (present tense) outperform the best professional equipment in the hands of a professional. If you think that's a reasonable statement, please explain why.
-
I think it would be helpful for Mr. Pollock to check the meaning of hyperbole.... and yes, in that sense (ie., abstract and hyperbolic), the quoted author is absolutely right. It would be also fair to assume that Bob Park was contrasting digital photography with film-based one, in which case his sentence makes even more sense.
And just for the fun of it:
"...iPhone photo... of the crash into New York’s Hudson River... The picture appeared on the front of Janis’ hometown Sarasota Herald Tribune today, as well as at least 21 others — including the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Orlando Sentinel, the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, the Kansas City Star, the San Diego Union Tribune, the San Franscisco Chronicle and the Charlotte Observer.
[attachment=17384:iPone.jpg]
And for even more fun:
"An ad campaign shot entirely on a mobile phone camera? Well, Sony Ericsson -- claiming to be the first -- has done it, using the C905, ostensibly to prove what an awesome (8.1-megapixel) camera it boasts. The results can be found exclusively in December's issue of FHM..."
[attachment=17383:sony.jpg]
-
In effect, Boyle and Smith ended the profession of photography; an eight-year-old child can pull out a personal cell phone, point it, and capture an image superior to anything professional photographers can do with armloads of paraphernalia and hours in the darkroom.
If they can, then why have they not?
Where are the eight-year-old-child-cell-phone gallery shows, the eight-year-old-child-cell-phone advert accounts, the eight-year-old-child-cell-phone sports shots, the eight-year-old-child-cell-phone wedding albums?
If pigs can fly, why have they not done so and escaped becoming bacon?
-
I think it would be helpful for Mr. Pollock to check the meaning of hyperbole.... and yes, in that sense (ie., abstract and hyperbolic), the quoted author is absolutely right. It would be also fair to assume that Bob Park was contrasting digital photography with film-based one, in which case his sentence makes even more sense.
Show me the evidence that it was intended as hyperbole. It was stated as if it were a simple fact. Even as hyperbole it makes no sense - he's effectively saying that low quality equipment in the hands of a child is better than high quality equipment in the hands of a professional.
And just for the fun of it:
"...iPhone photo... of the crash into New York’s Hudson River... The picture appeared on the front of Janis’ hometown Sarasota Herald Tribune today, as well as at least 21 others — including the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Orlando Sentinel, the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, the Kansas City Star, the San Diego Union Tribune, the San Franscisco Chronicle and the Charlotte Observer.
What's you're point? Sure, if nothing else is available a phone camera may be better than no camera at all. I never denied that. How does this photo prove that a cell phone camera will consistently take superior photos to the best professional equipment?
-
"An ad campaign shot entirely on a mobile phone camera? Well, Sony Ericsson -- claiming to be the first -- has done it, using the C905, ostensibly to prove what an awesome (8.1-megapixel) camera it boasts. The results can be found exclusively in December's issue of FHM..."
No doubt the ad campaign is an impressive achievement for a cell phone. However, I'd be willing to bet that it was done carefully by expert photographers working under optimum lighting conditions, with cooperative models. I very much doubt that it was done by a few 8 year olds who just pointed, shot, and hoped for the best. I'd also be very much surprised if professional equipment were unable to do at least as good a job.
-
Show me the evidence that it was intended as hyperbole. It was stated as if it were a simple fact. ...
Well... given that you appear to be no stranger to hyperboles (i.e., the very title of your thread is a hyperbole in itself - "least informed comment ever on digital photography")... can you show us some evidence that you intended it as hyperbole? If you didn't (intended it as hyperbole), then you stated it as a simple fact, right? Can you show us then some evidence that it was indeed the least informed comment ever on digital photography? Since I doubt you can prove it, then you either "... offer[ed] an opinion on a subject you know little about..." or you indeed meant it as a hyperbole.
-
Well... given that you appear to be no stranger to hyperboles (i.e., the very title of your thread is a hyperbole in itself - "least informed comment ever on digital photography")... can you show us some evidence that you intended it as hyperbole? If you didn't (intended it as hyperbole), then you stated it as a simple fact, right? Can you show us then some evidence that it was indeed the least informed comment ever on digital photography? Since I doubt you can prove it, then you either "... offer[ed] an opinion on a subject you know little about..." or you indeed meant it as a hyperbole.
You really need to learn to pay more attention to the finer points of English grammar. I ended the title with a question mark (?), which makes it a question. To someone who can read English, it has roughly the same meaning as "Is this the least informed comment ever on digital photography?" I phrased it as a question because, although I can't recall reading a less informed comment from a serious source, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else finds one. Do you have a less informed comment that you wish to share with us?
Getting back to the original question, please explain how you know that Bob Park meant his comment as hyperbole. Hypothetically, if you wanted to express the same meaning seriously (not as hyperbole) how would you write it?
-
I'm actually not a real photographer at all. I just have a "herd" of 8 year old kids with mobile camera phones who do all my work for me and I just take all the credit.