Nikon Df. Pure photography vs. a million dials and buttons.

[jjj]

,
As to your position, that's like saying that a pen and ink sketch of the cockroach in your sink is not art because it's pen and ink and not oil.

I like those drawings a lot. Can't stand cockroaches though.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would suggest that democratisation of photography has been ongoing since the days of the Kodak Brownie. What I think we see is that a device most people on the earth are carrying most time can capture images the same time images go around the world fast. News pictures don't need to be large or correctly focused and those cell phone cameras are good enough in many cases. Photographers, that is another thing.

Regarding news, any picture is better than no picture. Now that all folks have phone camera there will often be a picture but that will often be a cell phone picture.

Cell phone cameras are getting more and more capable, but they need to be small, so we are not going to see cell phone cameras with long telephotos or extreme wide angles, but who knows?

Best regards
Erik

It's the democratization of photography.

[Isaac]

... a pen and ink sketch of the cockroach in your sink ...

Durer's watercolor show's a stag beetle.

How lucky you are not to know what cockroaches look like! :-)

[Rob C]

Years ago I was giving some students a tour of our studio.  I was saying this is a cove, this is a c-stand, this is a gear head, this is a set . . . then I stopped, looked at all those spotty faces and said "you know, nothing I'm going to tell you here today really means a thing.

Because if you have it in you to make interesting photographs your going to do it, whether you rich, or poor, talented or blind ass dumb.  The ones that make it will work brutal hours,  won't be stopped by money, family, boyfriends, girlfriends or the economy.  The ones that have to make photographs will make photographs and won't stop until they believe they've got it right.  

Problem is you never really believe you got it right.

BC

James, I've sung that song here for years; still folks seek magical short-cuts and hope/believe it can all be bought from a shop.

It never was.

Rob C

[Ben Rubinstein]

It's the democratization of photography.

Problem with democracy is that it is often very embarrassingly stupid when you get past the higher ideals and to what is actually happening on the ground.

I teach photography in an art school. Yesterday for a beginner class on composition I told them to meet me at a certain location with pencil, sketch book and camera. They turned up looking rather puzzled. I told them to go and find scenes which spoke to them, sketch the scene then take the same photo as the sketch. Every single one came back (as I'd intended) with great sketches and sloppy photo compositions. I then asked them to ask themselves why they pay so much attention to composition, angle and perspective in their drawings then throw it out of the window when they use a camera. They got the point. If you are going to take a snapshot then you just press the button. If you are trying to create an artistic expression then the same amount of thought and care needs to be taken as with any other art form.

Snapshots will always be snapshots for all the instagraming that the world can throw at them. Photographs which have something to say will speak for themselves even among all the democratization creating a sea full of dross in which they have to be noticed. Or at least it might be true if the world cared any more....

[BernardLanguillier]

I then asked them to ask themselves why they pay so much attention to composition, angle and perspective in their drawings then throw it out of the window when they use a camera.

Exactly.

This is a state of mind.

I've always found very telling the comments we see so often on this very forum about the claimed inability of experienced photographers, using high end medium format or large format equipment, to work slowly with a fast camera like a DSLR or to compose without a viewfinder.

They should attend your classes. 

Cheers,
Bernard

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Problem with democracy is that it is often very embarrassingly stupid when you get past the higher ideals and to what is actually happening on the ground.

I teach photography in an art school. Yesterday for a beginner class on composition I told them to meet me at a certain location with pencil, sketch book and camera. They turned up looking rather puzzled. I told them to go and find scenes which spoke to them, sketch the scene then take the same photo as the sketch. Every single one came back (as I'd intended) with great sketches and sloppy photo compositions. I then asked them to ask themselves why they pay so much attention to composition, angle and perspective in their drawings then throw it out of the window when they use a camera. They got the point. If you are going to take a snapshot then you just press the button. If you are trying to create an artistic expression then the same amount of thought and care needs to be taken as with any other art form.

Snapshots will always be snapshots for all the instagraming that the world can throw at them. Photographs which have something to say will speak for themselves even among all the democratization creating a sea full of dross in which they have to be noticed. Or at least it might be true if the world cared any more....

Its that dreaded speed issue again.
Using film the single image has a higher value in terms of time consumed to produce it.
I think much of the film vs. digital debate is based on that.
Slowing down ....

[telyt]

James, I've sung that song here for years; still folks seek magical short-cuts and hope/believe it can all be bought from a shop.

It never was.

Rob C

Agreed... yet there seems to be no end to people who think that the next greatest tool/toy will make their work stand out (while LuLa's sponsoring ads pushing the latest equipment flash across my screen).

[Rob C]

Exactly.

This is a state of mind.

I've always found very telling the comments we see so often on this very forum about the claimed inability of experienced photographers, using high end medium format or large format equipment, to work slowly with a fast camera like a DSLR or to compose without a viewfinder.

They should attend your classes. 

Cheers,
Bernard

That it’s just claimed doesn’t have to be the case.

I worked all my days in the business with 35mm and 120, and 4x5 only as an employee (my own stuff didn’t allow for that large format).

The actual working ethic was completely different: the Nikons allowed me to develop a theme around a given set-up, resulting in probably at least one good image on the film (they were probably all good, but that’s just technical considerations) that was good precisely because of the speed that a motor drive allowed me. I did not machinegun; I did avoid the problem of clumsy winding on, though. And for me, the technique was best used on exterior work.

The Hasselblads/Rollei TLR were more (for me) studio cameras, and their fate was usually to gaze at a roll of white paper. That’s so telling of the models as well as the snappers: you have to make it all happen without Nature’s helping hand with generous, believable props such as cute locations that are different to those you see in your home country, all of which make a picture more interesting to a viewer who also hasn’t personally been to the location.

I think I told this tale before. I had a client who worked in PR/Marketing for one of the global fibre companies (wool!) and we used to go off and do the odd magazine advertising shoot, the bill for which her company was footing. In those situations, often stately homes etc., I always felt that the slow set-ups with artificial lighting were not conducive to startling pictures (for me). So, the natural turn-to gear was 120: shoot a roll and go on to the next dress. I remember the lady objecting to the Hassy because, to paraphrase her words, “it looks so much more dynamic when you leap about with the small cameras.” Go figure.

So really, format choices go a lot deeper than just photographic, ultimate technical quality considerations, the latter being somewhat secondary in the scheme of things. Though a photographer instinctively knows which cameras to pack, other pressures also intrude. However, it’s probably always content that trumps technique except in engineering/industrial applications.

There’s the famous story of Bailey’s first shoot in the States; Vogue told him not to use his 35mm, and that he was to shoot large cameras. He did as he knew best to do: used 35mm and later made them copies on LF. They were none the wiser, and the rest is photographic history at its best and most delightful.

Rob C

[BJL]

I would suggest that democratisation of photography has been ongoing since the days of the Kodak Brownie. ...

Exactly the example I was thinking of: the arrival of roll film cameras like the Kodak Brownie into a world of bulky view cameras that required a new plate or sheet for each image (and DIY developing and printing) had a number of effects: it
- vastly increased the number of photos taken, and the number of people taking them
- vastly increased the number of bad and mediocre photos, good at most for showing to family and friends
- vastly lowered the _ratio_ of good, well-made photographs to bad and mediocre ones.

But over the subsequent decades, that worse ratio was entirely a matter of "more bad to mediocre photos", not "less good photography". The long-term effect of the smaller format, lower quality roll-film cameras was surely not to decrease the number of good photographs or of good photographers; if anything, the easier initial access for people curious about photography probably increased the number of people who went on to be photographic enthusiasts developing their skills, and increased the quantity, quality, and _variety_ of worthwhile photography produced.

And as to all the complaining about people who post every snapshot online: is anyone forcing you follow those feeds, and is it any worse than the dreaded hours of holiday slide shows?  

[jjj]

And as to all the complaining about people who post every snapshot online: is anyone forcing you follow those feeds, and is it any worse than the dreaded hours of holiday slide shows? 

Way better as I can look when I want at my own speed or ignore if I want. So not even a problem.
Though people who do not filter images and post numerous similar shots will find no-one bothers to look at them.

What I do dislike is businesses who post photos taken by a non-photographer of their events and every shot gets posted regardless of how shit it is. And even worse, then tag them on FB if they know you.

[bcooter]

And as to all the complaining about people who post every snapshot online: is anyone forcing you follow those feeds.............

Yes they are.  In fact it's completely impossible to communicate in the modern world without having your mailbox scanned, your searches recorded, your purchases catagorized and then get inundated by crappy images, invitations to join the crappy image fraternity, the crappy lighting seminars, easy editing seminars, fast retouching seminars and worse professional marketing and news has joined the crappy image genre.

I'm not talking about small low cost brands or cheap websites.  Major brands and publishers have jumped on the cheap and real bandwagon.

As I write this I just get an advertisement from B_ _ G of a girl in lingerie that was probably shot by someones I phone,  because if they paid real money, they got ripped off.

It's just data that is shot cheap and distributed free.

That's ok except it comes at me and everyone else on the planet every 12 seconds if you live and work professionally you can't function without electronic devices and since I own a dozen computers carry two mobile phones (one for europe, one for the u.s.) have three personal Ipads,  I'm far from wanting to go back in time to film, labs and polaroid.

Today, this record everything mindset is so pervasive that this "style"  of imagery infects the visual landscape and has become acceptable and I guess my main issue with this is it's just easy and cheap.  Easy and cheap is nothing to aspire to.

One of the reasons we moved our business to motion imagery is motion imagery is much more difficult to do well.


IMO

BC

[Isaac]

... get inundated by crappy images, invitations to join the crappy image fraternity, the crappy lighting seminars, easy editing seminars, fast retouching seminars and worse professional marketing and news has joined the crappy image genre.

Time to update spam filters? Time to configure email filters?

[TMARK]

I've been screaming about this type of shotgun marketing. It is damaging to brands.  It is failed communication.  It is a lack of imagination at agencies and slothfulness of in-house brand managers.  Few clients understand the ill will generated by this flood of untargeted communication and bad photography, all they want to hear about are the impressions.  This work is outsourced to digital shops that care about their check rather than the effectivness of communication.

We have a small client that became one of the most successful online clothing retailers.  Millenials are the target.  They are interesting as they are all former AdWorld creative directors.  They get it.  Their photography, all shot in house, is really good.  They essentially publish a weekly e-magazine with somewhat interesting pieces about the obscure.   No ads.  The only link is on the magazine cover, which brings you to the store.  If you sign up for the magazine, make an online purchase, they store your information and only send out PERTINENT information that matches YOUR prior purchases, or announcements of new brands and styles.  They use us for brand management consulting and market research only. This is how it should be done, but its hard, time consuming, and requires thought, so of course most brands spew more bad phone pics and crappy copy advertising something you have no interest in.

Yes they are.  In fact it's completely impossible to communicate in the modern world without having your mailbox scanned, your searches recorded, your purchases catagorized and then get inundated by crappy images, invitations to join the crappy image fraternity, the crappy lighting seminars, easy editing seminars, fast retouching seminars and worse professional marketing and news has joined the crappy image genre.

I'm not talking about small low cost brands or cheap websites.  Major brands and publishers have jumped on the cheap and real bandwagon.

As I write this I just get an advertisement from B_ _ G of a girl in lingerie that was probably shot by someones I phone,  because if they paid real money, they got ripped off.

It's just data that is shot cheap and distributed free.

That's ok except it comes at me and everyone else on the planet every 12 seconds if you live and work professionally you can't function without electronic devices and since I own a dozen computers carry two mobile phones (one for europe, one for the u.s.) have three personal Ipads,  I'm far from wanting to go back in time to film, labs and polaroid.

Today, this record everything mindset is so pervasive that this "style"  of imagery infects the visual landscape and has become acceptable and I guess my main issue with this is it's just easy and cheap.  Easy and cheap is nothing to aspire to.

One of the reasons we moved our business to motion imagery is motion imagery is much more difficult to do well.


IMO

BC

[jjj]

Time to update spam filters? Time to configure email filters?

I spent some time earlier in year unsubscribing myself from various emails and got a huge reduction in inbox size.
Spam filters from my ISP seem pretty accurate, only the odd item gets a false positive and I always check before binning spam. Which doesn't take long even for a few hundred items as it's easy to scan them and spot the occasional email that isn't spam. Then delete the rest.

[AlfSollund]

The problem with street photography today is three fold:  1. people don't edit their stuff enough;  2. people don't engage their subjects; 3. people don't explore enough, meaning they go to the same places that and cover teh same subjects that have been photographed for 60 years.  Coney Island comes to mind.

There is a different mindset at work when you go to make a specific photograph as opposed to just being there and hoping something shows up.  When you have a commission or are sent to cover something, or you know the shot you want, you make it happen even if you hurt someone's feelings.  When wandering, looking for something, you want to be discrete, but this is a shitty way to work.

The advantage of a small camera is that it is not intimidating when you engage a subject.  A Leica fits the bill.  people are interested in it.  They have maybe heard of a Leica.  Fild helps too because they don't associate you with Stalkerazzi.  But even large cameras work well when engaging a person on the street.  I used to use a Mamiya 7, a Littman and a even a Linhoff Tech IV with the RF.  People are interested in teh camera and are put at ease, but even with a 1ds3 and a giant 24-70, if you ask permission and talk to a person, they are likely to let you take their photo.  They really get offended when you shoot first, ask permission later.

I for one almost always ask permission, talk a bit, show them the camera.  Smiling helps.  People arte usually flattered, in a way.

Thank you. I have to agree fully, although I belive many in Street understand this a different way; you never need to ask. I have also been puzzled by the lack of editing in street. Why? IMO you should have the same demands to composition etc as in other photoes.

[DanielStone]

[snip]

It bloody breaks my heart that now news photography is done by the rabble all holding glowing little boxes pointed at everything, from the last ga ga concert, to every snowflake that hits their apartment, then turning them into bad orange polaroids and putting them up on insticrap for all the world to bore over.

[SNIP]
IMO

BC

^^^WORD^^^

[jjj]

Thank you. I have to agree fully, although I belive many in Street understand this a different way; you never need to ask. I have also been puzzled by the lack of editing in street. Why? IMO you should have the same demands to composition etc as in other photoes.

Good street photography is often well composed, so not sure where this criticism comes from. Not to mention that sometimes it's the content that is of most importance not the composition, same goes for news photography.
Now if you want to criticise a branch of photography that celebrates poor composition, you should look to fine art photography.

[Rob C]

BC,

My F and F2 Photomic ended up looking new - with the exception of the tripod hole area, they were only worn out inside. You don't have to vandalise in order to be busy: I loved them too much to treat them with disrespect, but I wasn't in the war game. My F3 also looks brand-new, but mainly because it's been used so very very little, and living in a safe saves it any loving attention at all...

I really don't think a new Nikon FF would have needed to do more than other cameras in the line, quite the opposite: provide the basic controls that we always had with film; provide a proper pentaprism with real screens on which you can focus, and simply add a screen at the back to check the histogram, if you feel you want to, and get a rough confirmation of what you shot. Seriously, the Matrix metering is so good you wouldn't go wrong, and for those special conditions when you want to underexpose the sea - for example - to make a silhouette, any snapper knows you just underexpose and go a couple of shutter speeds faster, and with digital that's close enough for Curves to get you where you want to go. Movies? What movies? Use a movie camera if you want that, or a Canon.

Like I said in another post, it was never expected to be Everyman's camera; it was hoped that it would be a simple camera designed to suit the habits of the guy who knows what he wants and how to get there: to make good, still images and nothing else.

This shot was done as above - underexposed to save the glass. It's just about an effect; not about an ad. shot. Even used an old lens - 2/35mm manual Nikkor that I bought second-hand. Just the sort of lenses some of us have, and would want to use on a retro body.

Rob C

[LKaven]

Thank you. I have to agree fully, although I belive many in Street understand this a different way; you never need to ask. I have also been puzzled by the lack of editing in street. Why? IMO you should have the same demands to composition etc as in other photoes.

Street has evolved, but in almost every period I know, the best work is characterized by brilliant composition, as well as a meaningful coincidence of elements in flux.  There are very very few good street photographers, the best work being continuous with the best work in photojournalism.  You could say HCB and Robert Frank were both street photographers.  They had different ideas about composition, but were both very aware of it.  The problems you note in editing have to do with the fact that most street work is junk.  In reality, it's a very challenging genre.  W Eugene Smith shot for months or years sometimes before coming up with a portfolio.