Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: david distefano on January 19, 2014, 02:18:15 pm
-
on this and many other photographic sites much talk is given to the technological advances made in photographic equipment and i admit that i sometimes go down that road. we talk about expanded dr, resolving power of new sensors and lenses and dreaming about what is coming down the road. some people actually believe that the newest and best will make them better. unfortunately, and i may be wrong, photographers don't seem to really discuss the actual creating of an image that evokes a response from the mind and heart. frederick evans had only color blind film and equipment that most people consider slightly above cave men equipment yet he created beautiful images. albert stieglitz, paul strand, edward steichen, edward weston, ansel adams, dorthea lange, galen rowell etc. all used old school equipment, yet their images stand the test of time. i also believe that if you had given these photographers today's equipment that they would still produce outstanding images. digital photography creates a googleplexian of pictures but how many of them are images that move us. the line at the top says "equipment and technique" and i think we spend too much time on the first and the later get short shifted by many photographers. maybe because i would take and old master and their paintings over a jackson pollock i'm stuck in the past. if so i'm sorry about this.
-
Yup.
Difficult topic.
And it is just like that.
It would be great to have more exchange of this type,
but I'm afraid on an online forum this kind of intimate exchange
is almost impossible to achieve.
Maybe Michael, Chris and Kevin could encourage that more
by shifting the content they provide - would surely be interesting.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Has the equipment improved the images?
Have the millions of kids sent to art school improved art?
Edmund
-
Hi,
I actually feel photography is improving. We see an incredible amount of photography and much of that is incredibly good. Quite a lot is no good, of course, but that is a part of the deal.
Best regards
Erik
-
In my experience people who really engage with photography as a creative pursuit don't get hung up on the technical stuff. At least not beyond what they need in order to do what they do. It's the rest of us who geek out on specs...otherwise we'd have to confront the creative & æsthetic qualities of our own photos. :o
IMO a large part of why Ansel Adams is so highly regarded in photographer circles is that he was both a creative guy and a geek. Yet, also IMO, he was an exception and not the rule. All the AA clones and their derivative compositions...meh. Technique without vision.
Also also IMO, a little more spontaneity in Adams' approach wouldn't have hurt. Less 8x10, more Contax 35mm.
I'll bet there are more people doing genuinely creative photography than ever. The tools are better and more easily accessible. But for the same reasons there's a lot more crap too. Over time, though, today's crap will mostly fall away and today's great stuff will mostly emerge. Not counting, of course, people who do great work yet couldn't care less about putting it "out there."
;)
-Dave-
-
Has the equipment improved the images?
Have the millions of kids sent to art school improved art?
Edmund
Actually with photography in particular, I think that it has moved backwards… My view on the reason, has to do with technology and the "digital revolution", what in my opinion has happened, is that because digital made capture easy and cheap, photographers have stopped visualising the print, in fact, more and more "photographers" decide on the final image after they load it on their computer than when capturing it... Additionally, there are much less photographs printed and there more and more people who confuse a digital image viewed on a monitor with a photograph... People keep forgetting that a photograph is only the printed thing on paper... thus they don't do photography, they only capture pictures (not photographs) some of which are very nice, but (printed or not) they are still pictures and not photographs.
-
Actually with photography in particular, I think that it has moved backwards… My view on the reason, has to do with technology and the "digital revolution", what in my opinion has happened, is that because digital made capture easy and cheap, photographers have stopped visualising the print, in fact, more and more "photographers" decide on the final image after they load it on their computer than when capturing it... Additionally, there are much less photographs printed and there more and more people who confuse a digital image viewed on a monitor with a photograph... People keep forgetting that a photograph is only the printed thing on paper... thus they don't do photography, they only capture pictures (not photographs) some of which are very nice, but (printed or not) they are still pictures and not photographs.
Ah, we are ministering to a dying art :)
Edmund
-
i believe it was canon but it may have been epson who stated that only 1% of all photographic captures each year (film and digital) are printed on large format printers.
-
i believe it was canon but it may have been epson who stated that only 1% of all photographic captures each year (film and digital) are printed on large format printers.
I would be absolutely astounded if it way anywhere close to that percent.
Later,
Johnny
-
This was just the question that occurred to me when we were treated to the photos that the Russian lady had taken of her children on another thread. Lovely photos, full of warmth and atmosphere and doubtless she has a great talent for capturing these images. Our admiration is only increased when we read she has been taking the craft seriously for just two years, but then we read she does it not on a point and shoot or consumer DSLR but a Canon 5D, that is to say she went straight in at the top equipment wise. Now whilst we cannot fault what she has achieved would it really have been possible with lesser kit and what would the shots look like if she only had a bridge camera or compact?
-
i believe it was canon but it may have been epson who stated that only 1% of all photographic captures each year (film and digital) are printed on large format printers.
Surely that's way too high… maybe what they mean, is that out of the photographers that use large format printers to print, …they print only 1% of their captures. That sounds more reasonable, but still seems high to me. I know "pros" that have never printed a digital capture in their whole life.
-
This was just the question that occurred to me when we were treated to the photos that the Russian lady had taken of her children on another thread. Lovely photos, full of warmth and atmosphere and doubtless she has a great talent for capturing these images. Our admiration is only increased when we read she has been taking the craft seriously for just two years, but then we read she does it not on a point and shoot or consumer DSLR but a Canon 5D, that is to say she went straight in at the top equipment wise. Now whilst we cannot fault what she has achieved would it really have been possible with lesser kit and what would the shots look like if she only had a bridge camera or compact?
It must be admitted that there is no way that one can be creative unless he uses equipment he can fully control… Also, if one prefers a cheap S/H 5d than an alternative "toy" to start photography, it sounds to me like one that has a right mind on the subject. Though I would say the same for one that buys an even cheaper old film SLR, equipment to develop his films and a film scanner.
-
Digital has made me a much better photographer. The level of control and the quality of the preview (especially when tethered to a big screen) have improved my lighting and critical focus no end.
-
It must be admitted that there is no way that one can be creative unless he uses equipment he can fully control… Also, if one prefers a cheap S/H 5d than an alternative "toy" to start photography, it sounds to me like one that has a right mind on the subject. Though I would say the same for one that buys an even cheaper old film SLR, equipment to develop his films and a film scanner.
Just looked again and it seems that I mis-remembered the notes that went with the images. My mistake.
-
i believe it was canon but it may have been epson who stated that only 1% of all photographic captures each year (film and digital) are printed on large format printers.
73.6% of statistics are made up ;D
-
73.6% of statistics are made up ;D
Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics ;)
-
73.6% of statistics are made up ;D
100% of the made up statistics are …made up.
-
Statistics are the manager's medium of artistic expression :)
Edmund
100% of the made up statistics are …made up.
-
the results of the survey was not to be taken as a factoid but to show that almost all images produced are not being printed but just passed around the internet. nick said that digital made him a better photographer. digital has that potential if the photographer looks at their capture and does a self critique and learns, but too many just shoot and hope for the best. there is no idea in what the photographer wants to say or as AA said no pre-visualization.
-
Fantastic question, and a good one for every person to ask themselves regularly.
-
There are many aspects to what we call photography and creating images is just one of them.
Others include:
- Selecting/buying equipment,
- Owning equipment,
- Showing off with equipment,
- Testing equipment,
- Comparing equipment without having used it/owned it/tested it,
- Sleeping with equipment,
- Spending time behind a computer away from other possible occupations,
- Talking about photography/writing about photography,
- ...
For good or for bad, many of these things have been made a lot easier/natural thanks to the digital revolution.
The desire to make better images alone would never have resulted in the huge revenue increase the whole photographic sector has benefited from in the last 10 years. The question remains the same... who benefits from the crime... and you will have found the name of the perpetrator! ;)
Now, have images become better? My feeling is very much that photography remains essentially in the mind of the photographer, his understanding of the medium in terms of playing with light, time, perspective, composition,... Those who managed to do that with lesser media typically are still very good at it today.
But I feel that some people who never got interested, because of the hurdles of analog photography and the resulting learning curves, do now focus time on photography and that must result in the creation of some successful images.
So I would say that over, yes, photography has been improving. I am sure this crazy greek cat agrees!
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2844/12040208944_29e7f12fe0.jpg) (http://flic.kr/p/jkXdDo)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It got better.
-
digital photography creates a googleplexian of pictures but how many of them are images that move us. the line at the top says "equipment and technique" and i think we spend too much time on the first and the later get short shifted by many photographers. maybe because i would take and old master and their paintings over a jackson pollock i'm stuck in the past. if so i'm sorry about this.
If you have to ask this question, I'm not sure you would understand the answer.
Of course, today's photography is "better" in many/most respects but are the images today's photographers are producing better? Sometimes...but not always.
Not sure if you ever spent much time shooting in the old days of film, but I can tell you, getting a solid image on film was much harder than getting it in digital. What you do with the image and the impact and importance to society is a different subject.
What you are asking is self evident...of course digital photography is much further advanced than the old film photography was...if you know what lens to use and when to release the shutter. Dooh!
You would do better to quit worrying about whether we are making progress and worry more about whether you are making progress. Are you?
-
Over 90% of getting a great picture is being at the right place at the right time. So people like Michael and Kevin that go on these great trips have a monopoly on exotic places to wow us. Then add their great skill with high end equipment, you are really limited by chance occurrences. The world is not more photogenic in any century.
So yes, technique and equipment are inevitably the topics of conversation on forums.
-
Opportunity is a fine thing.
You make your own opportunities.
We have avoided, largely, naming names but take HCB, was his work "better" did he "progress his art" when he was able to visit China, America, India?
I would suggest his "best" work certainly artistically was taken locally in france very early in his career. His later use of "better" equipment, M series, advanced his art and vision not one jot IMHO.
Did Koudelka ever "better" his Prague invasion work shot with odds and ends of film?
-
I rather think about "development" rather than "improving". You can't make the same thing over and over and over again, and the more time we have behind us the more things have already been done.
But yes, technological advancements have expanded the possibilities of creativity. We can see wildlife photography today that was impossible in the past, thanks to new technology. Long lenses, high ISO, auto focus has changed the possibilities in fundamental ways. The development is even more obvious in video than in stills.
Digital post-processing has also expanded the creativity. I'd say that it's not always used in the best of ways, but many pictures made today could not have been made in the past.
The greatest advancement in photography I think however is that it has become much more accessible, more amateurs and non-photographers can enjoy it thanks to cheaper and more user-friendly cameras. Sure that does mean that we get flooded by more bad images :-), but after-all I find it more important that more people can enjoy family photos and photography as a hobby than if we get more and better artists.
When it comes to medium format systems we've mostly just seen improvements in image quality, and then mainly in resolution. It does make better prints, how much that matter is up to you to decide, but I sure like it. However I think that we're reaching a point where further resolution enhancement is not very meaningful (except possibly from a signal processing perspective), past 60 megapixels only few subjects can make use of it, and the pushing of resolving power lead to extreme optical designs with various drawbacks.
-
Some say that digital makes photography easier; others, such as myself, firmly dispute that.
Photography first took on a difficult aspect with the advent of my F4s; suddenly, I couldn't even be certain that I had managed to load the film correctly, that it had engaged with the drive sprocket. Why? Because Nikon, in its madness, had imagined that snapping shut a camera back without first connecting a strip of film to a simple drive mechanism was going to be more reliable a method of engaging that film to the drive. Madre de Dios - absurdity. And blush after blush with failure after failure to perform that single, basic photographic essential.
But clicking the click was no more difficult then than now. The problems remain identical: correct exposure for your needs. And that's a mind decision, not simply a metered one.
As for making the shapes of your pictures, it was far easier with film because the viewfinders of good cameras were better. The direct consequence of that was that focus was easier. And no, I don't buy into the notion that digital is sharper and so focus has to be more accurate etc. etc. because focus, at the end of the day, is not usually something dependent on a very thin plane being rendered very crisply, it's about zones appearing crisp enough for the purposes required; we are suffering from yet more photographic nonsense issued by those fine photographers of walls, in whose case, a specif, non-usual form of focus does indeed apply.
I'm thinking here of a very expensive brand of camera, where one window is apparently used for focussing and yet another viewing form is utilized for seeing the actual area that the format is covering; is that so much better than what was being offered in the pre-M3 days, when exactly the same concept was thought a big deal? (My little Voigtlander Vito B required exactly the same double-decision system, except that the additional purchase of an external, accessory shoe rangefinder made me feel I was very much - or at least looked very much - the complete photographer!) I can't see that being better than any film reflex cameras that offered 100% viewfinder accuracy. But then, the same brand that offers the current exotica didn't offer 100% viewing back in the film era, either, though the prices were still stellar.
As for aesthetics, we have travelled that path until it's worn quite away. Aestheics are not camera functions - they are head-cum-heart functions - the human bit.
Camera technique. Photography must be one of the most simple concepts imaginable: focus, aperture, shutter speed and receptor sensitivity.
The process after that, the darkroom, was basic, and some now believe the computer to be even more so. I don't think it is, just that it allows more detailed control in some situations but also denies you the simple exposure control you had by moving your hand slowly (or rapidly) beneath the beam of light from the lens. You have no idea the number of times that I wish I could simply shade in a side or corner with the ease that my hand allowed. Yes, I do know ways to do it with Photoshop, but the hand was better, instinctive and very quick.
So harking back to the original question: no, I don't think photographs are improving at all, and I believe the art of photography, as a proportion of the volume of images made, has been diminished considerably in favour of a much larger mechanical heap of rubbish. Highly complicated sets of layers do not, of themselves, make interesting images, just images that are the result of said highly complex layers. The saying about those who know the price of everything but the value of nothing seems to have an ugly sister running a parallel course in digital photography.
Rob C
-
But now - and to my surprise and delight - I find I can focus and compose with the one window with the advantage of achieving 100% accurate focus, exposure and framing and directly from the sensor.
We have never had better means to make beautiful, sharp and correctly exposed images or sharp and correctly exposed shit.
I love that!
As a side-note: I always carry a clothes peg in my pocket. Problem is, it should actually be a filter - save me a lot of time later on.
;-)
Rob C
-
One thing that have changed is : Internet.
The more you get information through internet the less you are creative, this is my analysis.
We see vast clanism / tribalism based on trends : One guy is creative >> many like >> many follow and try to reproduce.
Computers and internet in general like to "copy". This fact sweat on photographers >> They reproduce. They copy.
The guys who have the intelligence to think by themselves and then, want to emancipate, are often judged as marginals or ignored (because out of the trend, the group, the clan, the tribe).
Even thought you think you can emancipate, you are often wrong because you have been contaminated, sub consciously, by what you seen on internet.
What make you think that some photographs improved can also be due to the post processing and software improvements. People love to share the way they cook.
Thus lead to an another form of Clanism / Tribalism again, but more monopolised by software industry. Software industry are now the "artists".
People do not read any-more.
For me, the only way to be creative is to grow your imagination.
The better way to grow your imagination is : Reading.
The way you imagine what you read is unique. The more complicated is to interpret what you think and transforming it into an image.
Then you see that the material is not important.
Then, you see that the spoon do not exist.
-
The new education device, the iPad, lacks a pen :)
Edmund
One thing that have changed is : Internet.
The more you get information through internet the less you are creative, this is my analysis.
We see vast clanism / tribalism based on trends : One guy is creative >> many like >> many follow and try to reproduce.
Computers and internet in general like to "copy". This fact sweat on photographers >> They reproduce. They copy.
The guys who have the intelligence to think by themselves and then, want to emancipate, are often judged as marginals or ignored (because out of the trend, the group, the clan, the tribe).
Even thought you think you can emancipate, you are often wrong because you have been contaminated, sub consciously, by what you seen on internet.
What make you think that some photographs improved can also be due to the post processing and software improvements. People love to share the way they cook.
Thus lead to an another form of Clanism / Tribalism again, but more monopolised by software industry. Software industry are now the "artists".
People do not read any-more.
For me, the only way to be creative is to grow your imagination.
The better way to grow your imagination is : Reading.
The way you imagine what you read is unique. The more complicated is to interpret what you think and transforming it into an image.
Then you see that the material is not important.
Then, you see that the spoon do not exist.
-
The more you get information through internet the less you are creative, this is my analysis.
We see vast clanism / tribalism based on trends : One guy is creative >> many like >> many follow and try to reproduce.
Even thought you think you can emancipate, you are often wrong because you have been contaminated, sub consciously, by what you seen on internet.
For me, the only way to be creative is to grow your imagination.
Yes, and that's why I always advise newbies to avoid 'critique' of their own work, especially, and to look at websites of great snappers. My theory is that you have to struggle to keep your own ideas, and by looking at a lot of images, you discover what it is within yourself that really, really drives you to care about pictures. When you have reached that position, then it's easy to learn the mechanics of photography and start walking the walk along your chosen path.
Possibly the worst thing you can do, after listening to the 'experts', is to try and do a bit of everything. It leads you nowhere other than absolute confusion and mastery of nothing at all.
If you do want to take up photography, you should know that if you become any good, then you have almost certainly committed yourself to a lifetime of more of the same, and to a constant drain on your wallet. You better be rich. It's like boats: the purchase is just the membership fee.
Rob C
-
I'm making better work than I ever did on film. There are two different aspects to that and they're development is coincidental. Firstly, the image quality of medium format digital is vastly superior to what I could achieve with 4x5 transparency. Also, it's far easier to composite images. Compositing scanned film rarely achieved perfect registration. Emulsions expand and shrink through development and drying, so you can't get pixel level perfection when layering images. Compositing also allows me to push the images further in dynamic range and sometimes light elements from within the composition. Also we can zoom into the image on the laptop to make sure all compositional elements are interacting in the best possible way. Try to achieve that level of finesse with 4x5 polaroid!
Secondly, my vision and technique continue to evolve. My work is constantly improving as I continue to grow. Perhaps I'll be satisfied with my work when I'm old and dying, but up until now... it's just never been good enough. This is irrelevant to the advent of digital, but coincides nicely with it.
One last thing about personal development as an artist: we grow by working, reviewing our work and making small improvements, growing fractionally every single day. The immediacy of digital capture kicks that evolution into overdrive. I've done bodies of work over a weekend that would have taken weeks to evolve if I had been shooting, developing and printing film.
What's interesting to me is that while digital has allowed a lot of photographers to become lazier and sloppier, with a photoshop mentality... I have actually become more studied in my work. I love being able to examine every element in detail on the screen.
Rinse and repeat.
CB
-
....
One last thing about personal development as an artist: we grow by working, reviewing our work and making small improvements, growing fractionally every single day. The immediacy of digital capture kicks that evolution into overdrive. I've done bodies of work over a weekend that would have taken weeks to evolve if I had been shooting, developing and printing film.
What's interesting to me is that while digital has allowed a lot of photographers to become lazier and sloppier, with a photoshop mentality... I have actually become more studied in my work. I love being able to examine every element in detail on the screen.
Rinse and repeat.
CB
The final part of your post pretty much nails it.
While technique can help you to evolve, it can also make you lazy.
In the end those who strive harder (and still know marketing yadda yadda ..)will survive.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Commercial work is more professional, but I don't think any more or less creative.
Editorial work is less daring for the major titles to the point I can't tell one cover from the next. if you ignore the masthead.
Personal work . . . probably is the same.
The best work I see is television trailers. There seems to be an excellent synergy of concept, graphic design and photography.
IMO
BC
-
Yes, the trailer of True Detective is interesting.
Commercial work is more professional, but I don't think any more or less creative.
Editorial work is less daring for the major titles to the point I can't tell one cover from the next. if you ignore the masthead.
Personal work . . . probably is the same.
The best work I see is television trailers. There seems to be an excellent synergy of concept, graphic design and photography.
IMO
BC
-
I agree with James regarding motion imagery: surprisingly, by far the best landscape work that I see appears on documentaries associated with history, art or wildlife, rather than in traditional media for landscape. BBC4 rules - for me, at least.
I think that's down to the eye of the ciné people, and perhaps also due to the fact that they appear to be blessed with the budgets to get themselves airborne and see what the average Joe never can.
A not too distant - never too distant because of regular repeats - series on popular British drives of the early 50s revealed a country I could hardly recognize as my own. Wonderful countryside rivalling much of rural France.
Insofar as the photography of people: just watch some of the Beeb's period-pieces if you wish to look at exquisite lighting of faces, rooms and atmosphere in general. Of course, they aren't selling brochures for these places, so their remits are different, and that's perhaps why it's not fair to compare architectural snappers doing commercial work with tv photography.
Rob C
-
Yes, the trailer of True Detective is interesting.
Reminds me of True Blood actually...but I like it just the same. Harrelson & McConaughey (What happened to this guy?! It's like his creative genes mutated and all of a sudden he's a powerhouse.) are terrific.
-Dave-
-
The biggest library of photographs is held today by Facebook with over 300 billion images, most of which are cheap food, drunk parties and duckface selfies. Does this answer the question?
-
The biggest library of photographs is held today by Facebook with over 300 billion images, most of which are cheap food, drunk parties and duckface selfies. Does this answer the question?
No. It just tells us that more photos overall means more crap. About the quality of the creative stuff it tells us nothing.
Over time I've grown more intrigued by the Buddhist sand mandala approach to photography. Take your photos, process as desired, print if desired, enjoy 'em for a relatively brief period...then wipe 'em and move on. Kinda like Snapchat. :D I can tell you the part of photography I enjoy the most is the actual doing of it. IMO we fetishize the photographs themselves too much. Facebook oughta keep everything uploaded to it for a week or a month or so, then dump it.
-Dave-
-
The advances in digital photography make for a potential improvement in captured images.
However, this is potential only, not necessarily actual.
For me it is still possible shoot the same rubbish with digital equipment as I did with analog equipment.
When I do get it right, however, it is true that the result can be better than any slide film equivalent.
A good technician with a lot of creativity can certainly do good stuff with current digital equipment but merely owning and using a high-end camera and lenses is no guarantee of anything.
What makes for a good photographic image in the end is an ethereal combination of the technical and creative but the best images are noteworthy not because of the equipment or the techniques employed but the fact that it evokes an aesthetic response irrespective.
It is also worth reiterating that some of the most noteworthy images in the history of photography have marked technical deficiencies but we don't care.
Tony Jay
-
on this and many other photographic sites much talk is given to the technological advances made in photographic equipment and i admit that i sometimes go down that road. we talk about expanded dr, resolving power of new sensors and lenses and dreaming about what is coming down the road. some people actually believe that the newest and best will make them better. unfortunately, and i may be wrong, photographers don't seem to really discuss the actual creating of an image that evokes a response from the mind and heart. frederick evans had only color blind film and equipment that most people consider slightly above cave men equipment yet he created beautiful images. albert stieglitz, paul strand, edward steichen, edward weston, ansel adams, dorthea lange, galen rowell etc. all used old school equipment, yet their images stand the test of time. i also believe that if you had given these photographers today's equipment that they would still produce outstanding images. digital photography creates a googleplexian of pictures but how many of them are images that move us. the line at the top says "equipment and technique" and i think we spend too much time on the first and the later get short shifted by many photographers. maybe because i would take and old master and their paintings over a jackson pollock i'm stuck in the past. if so i'm sorry about this.
Yes, Digital Photography has helped give access to photography equipment (capture device and processing) to SO many people that there are some amazing photographs being produced today by talented people all over the world. People with the imagination, creativity and time to make some awesome images. They don't have to be using the latest and greatest. Even camera phones suffice in a lot of cases.
Yes, improved technology and image quality has really helped some people take their visions to a very high level but technology in and on itself has not made the images greatly better it has just empowered talented individuals to make them better. Also it has tapped into a MUCH wider pool of people.
-
True there may be more inane snapshots because of iPhone and P&S's . However, I think there is also much better quality by more photographers than ever before. I look at my photo books of excellent landscape photographers in the past. I see more and better or at least equal results even on internet forums as this one by non-pro photographers.
-
True there may be more inane snapshots because of iPhone and P&S's . However, I think there is also much better quality by more photographers than ever before. I look at my photo books of excellent landscape photographers in the past. I see more and better or at least equal results even on internet forums as this one by non-pro photographers.
i'm going to have to disagree with you. to truly judge, the images have to be printed. as a person who visits many many art and photo galleries, the images may be sharper but many of the images don't move or inspire. i see more in a dorthea lange image of migrants than in most of today's work. alfred stieglitz and his images of new york have more life to me than many of todays images. the top amounts payed for photographs all come from film photography. yes andreas gursky did use digital work to clean the image. yosemite over the christmas holidays had many of AA's prints on display. they always inspire me. like i said in the op, maybe i'm just stuck in my ways, but i think all of us dwell too much on the hardware and we don't spend time talking about light, angles, what is it we want to say etc. there are many pretty photographs, like there are many pretty actresses but give me grace kelly or ingrid bergman any day,
-
Grace Kelly and Ingrid Bergman are dead. So are Steiglitz and Adams. The past always seems better. Especially if the artist is dead. People pay more for Picasso. Someday we'll be dead too. Who knows? Maybe we'll be as famous as they are and our photos will be held in higher esteem.
-
Grace Kelly and Ingrid Bergman are dead. So are Steiglitz and Adams. The past always seems better. Especially if the artist is dead. People pay more for Picasso. Someday we'll be dead too. Who knows? Maybe we'll be as famous as they are and our photos will be held in higher esteem.
Right! Our perspective is limited by the fact that we live in the Now. We can see the value in the past more clearly because it's had time to shake down...most of the crap has fallen away and most of the good stuff has endured. In the Now everything is still in play, and we simply can't evaluate it with much clarity.
-Dave-
-
"Are photographs improving?" A pretty broad question. A few examples from my own experience:
"Earthrise" from Apollo 8 is certainly as good a photograph as was ever made.
Annie Leibovitz has raised the art and technique of fashion photography to previously-unseen levels.
My D800 and I consistently out-photograph my former Pentax 6X7.
Focus and exposure stacking have in some situations solved two of photography's most intractable problems.
Large format inkjet printers shame the output of any chemical darkroom EVAR.
James Nachtwey is probably the best social reportage photographer to have ever depressed the shutter button.
I could go on. All of these examples accrue from the last 40 years, most of them from much more recent times.
I've said it before and I'll probably say it again. The Golden Age of Photography is now.
-
The Golden Age of Photography is now.
I'd rather say:
The golden age of photographic technique is now.
At the core photography is not about our technical means - we all know that.
Its more about us as photographers and how we relate to our subject and express it.
This has never substantially changed.
In the end it comes down to what we invest personally, how well and effectively we invest it (skill, talent) and if we sustain it over a time long enough to let it evolve.
The occasional "lucky shot" may appear to be an exception, but it is not.
Some (anti-)theses:
- Having access to great tools doesn't make us great photographers.
- Having access to great locations doesn't make us great photographers.
- Having access to great people doesn't make us great photographers.
- Having a large fanclub doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being famous doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being financially successful doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being good at bullshitting about photography doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being good at distributing our stuff doesn't make us great photographers.
All the points mentioned may or may not help one being successful, but they don't make one a good photographer.
my 0.02 € of bs.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Some (anti-)theses:
- Having access to great tools doesn't make us great photographers.
- Having access to great locations doesn't make us great photographers.
- Having access to great people doesn't make us great photographers.
- Having a large fanclub doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being famous doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being financially successful doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being good at bullshitting about photography doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being good at distributing our stuff doesn't make us great photographers.
Agreed with all, except perhaps the size of the fan club.
At some level, it is difficult to deny the fact that having others like one's work provide some guidance about the quality of this work.
I am not saying that compromising one's vision to please the masses is the right thing to do, but I question the quality of a photograph nobody likes besides the person having taken it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Agreed with all, except perhaps the size of the fan club.
At some level, it is difficult to deny the fact that having others like one's work provide some guidance about the quality of this work.
I am not saying that compromising one's vision to please the masses is the right thing to do, but I question the quality of a photograph nobody likes besides the person having taken it.
Quality in any area is a special interest. If you consume a lot of a certain product your taste will be refined and you won't have the same taste as casual consumers of the same product, you generally get bored of mainstream and get more interested in more "difficult" subjects. The product could be music, wine or photographs. If you want to have a huge fan club you should satisfy the casual consumers, if you want to satisfy the expert consumers, ie the critics, and succeed with that the fan club will not be as huge, but hopefully your work will stand the test of time better.
-
"Are photographs improving?" A pretty broad question. A few examples from my own experience:
1. Annie Leibovitz has raised the art and technique of fashion photography to previously-unseen levels.
2. My D800 and I consistently out-photograph my former Pentax 6X7.
3. I've said it before and I'll probably say it again. The Golden Age of Photography is now.
1. Guess you were never a fashion photographer, then, if you can believe that.
2. I had a P67 ll too; I agree about the possibility.
3. Sorry, my experience tells me differently. Golden ages are only slightly about equipment and overwhelmingly about opportunity to go somewhere with the work. Closed labs, bankrupt studios and unemployed photographers deny your reality.
Rob C
-
In 1960 you had to be signed by a major label in order to make a record of sensible technical quality.
In 2014 anyone with a laptop can make a mp3 of sensible technical quality.
The record labels worked as a gateway. "If we invest lots of money on this music, will we have a return on our investement?" One might expect that this filtered away a lot of lousy music. At the same time, it might also have filtered away creative new music (that the record companies did not comprehend) or ugly musicians with poor tv appeal etc.
So in 2014, we have a gazillion pieces of music that is recorded with ample SNR and bandwidth. Predictably, a lot of it is the musical equivalent of photographers taking poor snaps of their cat. But are there more, less or the same number of genuinely good recordings out there? Is the "artistic output" of one generation constant, or is it limited by technical/economical constraints?
-h
-
...
Is the "artistic output" of one generation constant, or is it limited by technical/economical constraints?
...
Mankind in its core changes astonishingly little over time.
Of course there is some cultural progress of some sort.
But in the core we are still cavemen infants struggleing.
The layer of powdered sugar above this is still very thin.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Mankind in its core changes astonishingly little over time.
Of course there is some cultural progress of some sort.
But in the core we are still cavemen infants struggleing.
The layer of powdered sugar above this is still very thin.
Cheers
~Chris
So true; just go to a football match if you have any doubts.
Rob C
-
"1. Annie Leibovitz has raised the art and technique of fashion photography to previously-unseen levels."
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
PMSL ROLFL
-
being serious for a moment the tools of photographic production are now more accessible than ever before and those images easily shared.
this means 2 things:
previously unseen talent may be uncovered.
an awful lot of ephemeral dross gets produced.
-
You guys keep talking about whether or not you have improved as photographers. That doesn't answer the question posed by the OP. He asked whether or not the photographs have improved.
-
You guys keep talking about whether or not you have improved as photographers. That doesn't answer the question posed by the OP. He asked whether or not the photographs have improved.
I will take a stab at this, no. What we have are a lot more crappy images that happen to be exposed correctly, due to the technology not the snapper.
-
However, what we also have are a lot more good images that happen to be exposed correctly, due to the technology not the snapper. Not every photograph is suppose to artistic, nor is it expected to have great vision. Most people take pictures for record purposes of family occasions, vacations, travel, etc. Where did we get this idea that a photograph isn;t any good unless it equals Ansel's or HSB as some sort of the holy grail? Most people don't care about Photoshop or Photo forums. Along the way, they even get some pretty good shots.
-
You guys keep talking about whether or not you have improved as photographers. That doesn't answer the question posed by the OP. He asked whether or not the photographs have improved.
Is one possible without the other?
Rob C
-
are photographs improving? to me this is very similar to the rabbit hole of "what equipment is 'better'?"
I agree with the others that yes, by learning digital I became a skilled post-production guy, but at what cost to my front-end creativity?
The hundreds and hundreds of hours spent incorporating the new technology did what to my seeing, my vision? That is an unknown... I do have more control of the post exposure process and this makes my final prints technically superior and perhaps more akin to my inner pre-exposure experience. That was why a guy like Minor White was a devotee of the zone system, his superior technique allowed more control to the plastic medium, allowing him to express himself more fully.. at least that is the intention, but he had intention, focus and desire to create…not document or decorate. I see the ad pic above for Moab, of Monument Valley, is it a better image due to its photoshopped enhancements? I don't see it as better but a mild example of what has gone so astray in the medium I really care about. It is all so easy to snap, sizzle and post that the shear quantity which generated is crazy..it has dumbed down the whole medium and it is days like today that I miss that 8x10, it's successful use demanded purpose..full attention to seeing and craftsmanship.
-
Right On.
It appears that the amount of effort, focus and drive, in its totality, remains the same as it was prior to digital, while the quantity of photographs exploded. In other words, there is just more shit out there than there was before picture taking became effortless.
are photographs improving? to me this is very similar to the rabbit hole of "what equipment is 'better'?"
I agree with the others that yes, by learning digital I became a skilled post-production guy, but at what cost to my front-end creativity?
The hundreds and hundreds of hours spent incorporating the new technology did what to my seeing, my vision? That is an unknown... I do have more control of the post exposure process and this makes my final prints technically superior and perhaps more akin to my inner pre-exposure experience. That was why a guy like Minor White was a devotee of the zone system, his superior technique allowed more control to the plastic medium, allowing him to express himself more fully.. at least that is the intention, but he had intention, focus and desire to create…not document or decorate. I see the ad pic above for Moab, of Monument Valley, is it a better image due to its photoshopped enhancements? I don't see it as better but a mild example of what has gone so astray in the medium I really care about. It is all so easy to snap, sizzle and post that the shear quantity which generated is crazy..it has dumbed down the whole medium and it is days like today that I miss that 8x10, it's successful use demanded purpose..full attention to seeing and craftsmanship.
-
Right On.
It appears that the amount of effort, focus and drive, in its totality, remains the same as it was prior to digital, while the quantity of photographs exploded. In other words, there is just more shit out there than there was before picture taking became effortless.
There has always been a lot of junk, we just never saw it. Now it's put in electronic scrapbooks for the world, but like changing the TV channel, it's easy to ignore.
I don't think creativity is dead, In fact I think all the thousands of selfies and see me standing in ___fill in the blanks____ has made the good work stand out even more.
IMO
BC
-
There has always been a lot of junk, we just never saw it. Now it's put in electronic scrapbooks for the world, but like changing the TV channel, it's easy to ignore.
I don't think creativity is dead, In fact I think all the thousands of selfies and see me standing in ___fill in the blanks____ has made the good work stand out even more.
IMO
BC
It used to amaze me when I lived in Japan (before digital) how the Japanese just loved their selfies. I'd go somewhere exotic, take a few hundred carefully composed slides, without me in any of them. My Japanese friends would be horrified. Disappointed, as if I had no way to show I'd been there.
Then they'd go somewhere on vacation and come back with hundreds of prints, with the date and timestamp printed in the corner, all of themselves standing in front of things. I remember when a group of about 10 of them went to Venice. Each of them would show me the same exact picture, except for who was standing in front of whatever it was they weren't actually shooting.
So, really we've all just become Japanese...
-
Sounds like some of the slide shows I would be shown at relative's houses years ago of their vacations. You wanted to tear your hair out!
-
Yes,
I certainly feel so. To begin with we have a faster feedback cycle, learning from mistakes is much faster.
The next factor may be that we probably have more photographers than ever, and quite a few are pretty good.
I would also guess that you need to be pretty good to feed your self as a professional photographer. Myself I have an engineering job to feed me, so for me photography is only a hobby.
Best regards
Erik
-
when George Eastman came out with the kodak brownie and accessible process/printing the wizards behind the curtain, or in this case, dark cloths, must have freaked out..the camera was in the hands of the masses..and yet it was good for photography in the long view. What has happened to photography in the past 10 years though is a quantum leap by comparison. The top work is very good and will continue to be but with an explosion at the bottom end the whole gets diluted, I am not talking about selfies published to FB..I don't really see or count those snaps.. I am talking about an explosion of mediocrity in the industry of photography and this has often little to do with the creativity of the photographer..the digital age has changed the creative team process / dynamic of how commercial work gets created. This goes beyond the vast improvement of an instant tethered image on a 30" lcd verses 669 polaroid. When was the last time you were presented a drawn layout with a sketch roughed in for the visual? How much creativity do you have when the client has already signed-off on the standin photo layout?.. but with digital it is easier to match that approved layout..so maybe it is improving.
-
This has always been a hard business.
Anyone can look back on any industry and pick out the good ol' days, but honestly, it was never that good, it's just people had selective memories.
For everything somebody can point out how much better the past was, I can form an opposite argument of how much worse some elements were.
Once again this is a hard business if you plan on making you livelihood doing it and it's not for the faint of heart.
Digital has made some things easier, some things cheaper and some projects that require less skill to get mediocre results, but remember just because it's exposed properly or in focus doesn't mean it's not mediocre.
I personally try very hard not to fall into the I could have done that syndrome, because that gets you no where.
I actually think professional imaging (I think photography really isn't the proper terminology anymore) is more interesting and creative than ever, but the past always looks better because it's viewed through a fog filter.
In regards to the changes in my profession, it's the economy that has changed more than the medium.
The wall street journal reported that 82% of all ad managers have lost their jobs in the last 4 years. That is the hardest hit of any job category by a wide margin and since ad managers hired the people that hired us, well . . . that tells you something.
So my view is digital has change it, but not made it any easier, in some ways much harder, but the decrease in production numbers doesn't come from digital, it comes from an anemic economy and money doesn't buy creativity, but money does buy time and time usually improves any art form.
IMO
BC
-
Advertising itself has changed. Social media have become so important that I suspect that people doing the job of ad managers are now called something else "computerese" or just "social media manager".
-
The technical quality of photographs is greater than before, and the range of things that can be photographed is greater than before, due to improved technology. Apart from "how did they do that" type of photographs, the level of interest has not gone up. I personally take a fair number of technically adequate images, but only a few are memorable and worth showing to strangers. Strict documentation alone does not make a memorable photograph, there has to be that emotional factor.
-
Is one possible without the other?
Rob C
Not always, but sometimes. A relatively unskilled person can make a superb image by having both luck and technology on their side. The chances of this happening with a similarly unskilled person and, say, a Speed Graphic are much less. Better, easier to use cameras result in better pictures.
As NancyP says, "The technical quality of photographs is greater than before, and the range of things that can be photographed is greater than before, due to improved technology". That doesn't mean that suddenly everyone's a photographer. Far from it, as we see daily. But it does mean that photographs (and photography) in general have improved.
Similarly, word processors didn't turn everyone into writers. But they did enable many more people to write, and the quality of much of their writing improved vastly over the days of typewriters.
-
Nancy P put it very well.
In my own case, I know that there are things that I can accomplish now that were essentially impossible for me back in film days. There is a lot more garbage out there now than there ever was before, but there is also excellent work. For me, the immediate feedback of histogram and instant replay has sharpened my seeing as well as my craft.
-
I take for granted that as the cost of the tools for production and mass-distribution of photography decrease, there will be more "crap".
The more interesting question is whether the absolute amount of genuinely "good" work stays the same, increases, (or even decreases).
So the conclusion might be that we have to wade through more crap (or find good ways to keep it out of our way), but that we don't know if there will be more gems than before/in an alternate reality. My guess is that there will.
-h
-
I take for granted that as the cost of the tools for production and mass-distribution of photography decrease, there will be more "crap".
The more interesting question is whether the absolute amount of genuinely "good" work stays the same, increases, (or even decreases).
So the conclusion might be that we have to wade through more crap (or find good ways to keep it out of our way), but that we don't know if there will be more gems than before/in an alternate reality. My guess is that there will.
-h
You are right, and if you can judge the standard from what you get to see in magazines, for example, I would say that the standard has changed: where there used to be very high emotional content I now see very high production values, but sterile content. In other words, digital makes people glow like inner-lit Halloween masks, but that's what you get: masks. Emotional impact is lost to surface falsehood.
And even worse than that, who believes any photograph anymore? That's a loss that can't be restored. The damage is done, the faith and belief shattered.
Rob C
-
...And even worse than that, who believes any photograph anymore? That's a loss that can't be restored. The damage is done, the faith and belief shattered.
Rob C
The most deflationary question that you can be asked about your photo: "Did you Photoshop it?"
-
It used to amaze me when I lived in Japan (before digital) how the Japanese just loved their selfies. I'd go somewhere exotic, take a few hundred carefully composed slides, without me in any of them. My Japanese friends would be horrified. Disappointed, as if I had no way to show I'd been there.
Then they'd go somewhere on vacation and come back with hundreds of prints, with the date and timestamp printed in the corner, all of themselves standing in front of things. I remember when a group of about 10 of them went to Venice. Each of them would show me the same exact picture, except for who was standing in front of whatever it was they weren't actually shooting.
So, really we've all just become Japanese...
People have always done that, and not only in Japan. When they go to Venice, for example, most tourists do not want to take a picture of the city or the monuments. They want to take a picture of the known tourist spots (so that their friends recognise Venice) with themselves in the picture (so that they can show they were there). If they want the scenery without themselves in, they buy a postcard. Why would they want to redo a picture of the Rialto when it has already been photographed thousands of times and with better production values that they can achieve?
It has always been so that the vast majority of people wants pictures of themselves. And, if you think about it, it probably makes more sense than what the average "advanced amateurs" do with their pictures.
What has changed is the sheer number of pictures taken. Facebook alone has over 300 billion pictures. It really is a lot, definitely a lot more than what was achievable in times of analogue photography. If you estimate the size of 300 billion pictures printed, you'll come with a small country entirely covered and a paper consumption that will start to show in national statistics. Conversely, since there are many times more picture taken now, their half life, the time they live before being pushed down the Facebook timeline is shorter. They are not better or worse than they used to be, it is still "myself in front of the Rialto", but they change faster.
-
The most deflationary question that you can be asked about your photo: "Did you Photoshop it?"
IMO, it all depends on the visualisation involved, if the action was included, it is accepted… if not….
-
And even worse than that, who believes any photograph anymore? That's a loss that can't be restored. The damage is done, the faith and belief shattered.
Acknowledging the man behind the curtain always involves some discomfort, even some pain. But this was a false belief that merited shattering. It might be a problem for photography as advocacy—Look at these facts and respond (the way I want you to)!—but otherwise IMO it's not an issue.
-Dave-
-
Digital has made some things easier, some things cheaper and some projects that require less skill to get mediocre results, but remember just because it's exposed properly or in focus doesn't mean it's not mediocre.
When asked about what digital has done for photography I comment on the pluses and minuses. On the minus side, digital capture (with auto exposure and auto white balance) has allowed unskilled photographers to become mediocre. At the same time, shrinking budgets have allowed mediocrity to become perfectly acceptable.
-
When asked about what digital has done for photography I comment on the pluses and minuses. On the minus side, digital capture (with auto exposure and auto white balance) has allowed unskilled photographers to become mediocre. At the same time, shrinking budgets have allowed mediocrity to become perfectly acceptable.
:)
-
You are right, and if you can judge the standard from what you get to see in magazines, for example, I would say that the standard has changed: where there used to be very high emotional content I now see very high production values, but sterile content. In other words, digital makes people glow like inner-lit Halloween masks, but that's what you get: masks. Emotional impact is lost to surface falsehood.
And even worse than that, who believes any photograph anymore? That's a loss that can't be restored. The damage is done, the faith and belief shattered.
Rob C
? Photos could be substantially "faked" with film. It is just easier to do it with digital. Anyway, film or digital, photos always lie, retouched or not. The medium itself does it.
-
http://www.felixlammers.com/
I had imagined that within photographer circles, the differences between manipulation, aesthetic sympathy, lies and digital reinvention were rather clear.
For example, if you check out the head-shots this chap produces, you see lots of after-work, but the girls still look as if they are covered in skin; the humanity hasn't been removed. Now, compare that work with so much coming out of competitor studios (formulate your own list - I don't want to hire a lawyer), and you get the point at once. Some stuff is perfectly acceptable and some simply ridiculous.
Rob C
-
This.
When asked about what digital has done for photography I comment on the pluses and minuses. On the minus side, digital capture (with auto exposure and auto white balance) has allowed unskilled photographers to become mediocre. At the same time, shrinking budgets have allowed mediocrity to become perfectly acceptable.
-
At least for video, I would say the technical quality has become worse lately due to the influx of HDSLRs and the use f/1.4 lenses. I feel this "phenomenon" is also increasingly visible in photos, but mainly notice it in video because documentary and tv-shows/films used to be filmed on small sensor cameras. Now it seems that 80 % of everything I see is shot with the lens wide open, with no other purpose than to shoot wide open with no depth of field. Sorry for ranting, but I really don't understand why a steak in a cooking show requires only 1cm depth of field in the middle. Even more frustrating - documentaries about people in interesting locations - but with the environment completely out of focus...! Argh! Here is an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXS6Aby5AUg
An interesting documentary, nominated for an Oscar... but the overuse of DSLR, and lack of focus, made me want to throw something at the screen! If the problem is lack of light - add some lights or increase the ISO - don't make everything go soft and floaty, please!
Like this. I want to be able to see the location, and maybe the person and the paintbrush. Nowadays you are lucky if you see a blob of paint in focus.
(http://dag.priv.no/candb.jpg)
(rant mode off).
-
http://www.felixlammers.com/
I had imagined that within photographer circles, the differences between manipulation, aesthetic sympathy, lies and digital reinvention were rather clear.
For example, if you check out the head-shots this chap produces, you see lots of after-work, but the girls still look as if they are covered in skin; the humanity hasn't been removed. Now, compare that work with so much coming out of competitor studios (formulate your own list - I don't want to hire a lawyer), and you get the point at once. Some stuff is perfectly acceptable and some simply ridiculous.
Rob C
Plenty of artificial-looking skin with old-fashioned air brushing too.
-
lack of depth of field seems to have become photography. everywhere i look, 1mm of focus going to bokahland. it seems today we are seeing the same tug of war that waged between the f64 group and the pictorialist early in the 20th century, with the fuzzy wuzzys now in vogue. 3d can still be shown in an image that is sharp all over. it just requires more work. shallow depth of field does have its place but not on every photograph.
-
A few years ago my friend Bruce & I saw Let Me In, the English-language remake of a superior (IMO) Swedish original. Both versions based on a great Swedish novel, Let The Right One In (a Smiths lyric reference, BTW). There's a scene where one of the main characters, a young boy, listens while his mother talks on the phone. You see the mom only as a totally blurred out shape while the camera focuses on various fore- & background objects. The idea is that she's an undefined, nebulous presence in the boy's life. Okay, got it. But the scene kept on going...then Bruce & I finally turned to each other and said almost in unison, "Canon 5D!" Then we started laughing. The effect was quite striking visually, but it took us right out of the film too.
-Dave-
-
A few years ago my friend Bruce & I saw Let Me In, the English-language remake of a superior (IMO) Swedish original. Both versions based on a great Swedish novel, Let The Right One In (a Smiths lyric reference, BTW). There's a scene where one of the main characters, a young boy, listens while his mother talks on the phone. You see the mom only as a totally blurred out shape while the camera focuses on various fore- & background objects. The idea is that she's an undefined, nebulous presence in the boy's life. Okay, got it. But the scene kept on going...then Bruce & I finally turned to each other and said almost in unison, "Canon 5D!" Then we started laughing. The effect was quite striking visually, but it took us right out of the film too.
-Dave-
Because you are snappers? Do Mr & Mrs J. Doe feel the same, I wonder? Probably, should they notice, they might imagine it very impressive.
I would probably like it - at least, in one movie.
Rob C
-
"Photographers" think of photography the way they "anticipate" it.
-
Because you are snappers? Do Mr & Mrs J. Doe feel the same, I wonder? Probably, should they notice, they might imagine it very impressive.
I would probably like it - at least, in one movie.
The technique was effective...the scene just seemed to go on too long. So the effect drew too much attention to itself...or at least that's how it struck us at the time. (Haven't seen the film again since.) I can imagine some people in the theater thinking, "How come almost everything is still out of focus?"
-Dave-