Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: jjj on October 08, 2015, 01:43:13 pm
-
Quite an interesting article and I know exactly where the author is coming from. Constantly learning rather than doing can be detrimental to the practice of whatever you are practicing
However knowing when to stop upgrading moving on is key I'd say to doing this successfully.
Digital tools are now quite mature and vast improvements on even what we had just a few years back.
This is why subscription models started appearing as the yearly must have upgrades are no longer essential or making such a big difference.
So now is quite a good time to mark a line in the sand if pursuing that strategy. Not sure that 6 years ago was, the time Huntington has preserved his computer hardware.
And yes PS 4.0 was quite good - at the time. But all later full upgrade versions of PS have made my life much easier and the introduction of LR easier still.
So as soon as the law of diminishing returns starts to appear [which may be the case for many of us now], then would in my mind be a good time to think there's no point in constantly replacing your tools.
-
Yeah. I took one such break from the gear replacement merry-go-round, from late 2007 through early 2013. This was due in part to nerve issues with my right hand & shoulder that forced me to reduce my pic-taking activity, but mainly due to being happy, comfortable & confident with the stuff I had. Then I finally dealt with the nerve issue (via surgery) and have been experimenting with an array of new gizmos ever since. Think I've reached my limit again, though, and at a point where meaningful (to me) tech improvement seems to have plateaued. Now it's time to put some serious wear & tear on my favorite tools!
As for software…I've let my Adobe stuff lapse and am using standalone apps only. Except when printing I do all my post work on my iPad with Sandy's PhotoRaw and the LR-ish Photogene. These tools are unrefined compared to their desktop/laptop counterparts, but I don't mind working within their constraints.
-Dave-
-
At the Age of 65, I can say I've been involved in photography for 53 years, since I was 12. I can't imaging the number of times I've had to re learn photography and the technological weight that has always accompanied it.
I don't consider that to be a burden, I consider it . . . what? Part of the price of doing photography and an opportunity to re-invent myself, at least a little bit.
Every time I've had to upgrade to a new version of Windows, when I stopped using Lightroom and migrated to ACDSee Pro (Now using Ultimate 9, so VERY cool!), when I switched from film to digital and gave up my Canon SLRs, changed from my Canon G3 to an Olympus E500, then an E30, and now, an E-M10, I've learned something new and my photography has changed. Do not think the change from 4/3s to m43s was easy, it was not!
Our technology affects our perceptions, and our perceptions change how we think and what we think about. Maybe no one else can see the changes in my photographs, but they are there.
Now, I'm going backwards, and experimenting with attaching my ancient Canon FL series lenses to my E-M10. Trying to merge the lenses of my young adult self with the technology of my old man self. I'm finding that these lenses offer a subtle difference in color and tonality that we simply don't see in modern lenses. I have no intention of sitting back and watching "Wheel of Fortune" on TV!
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/724/21853328179_db451ee0bb_c.jpg)
-
At the Age of 65, I can say I've been involved in photography for 53 years, since I was 12. I can't imaging the number of times I've had to re learn photography and the technological weight that has always accompanied it.
I don't consider that to be a burden, I consider it . . . what? Part of the price of doing photography and an opportunity to re-invent myself, at least a little bit.
New tools and new processes can be a great thing as they get you out of a rut and refresh your eyes. I like travel for the same reason, new places, new thoughts.
-
In my own case, as I struggle with keeping up with the latest and greatest (though with as much pleasure as angst;-), I take a particular - if slightly vicarious - delight in the fact that my youngest son (a 12 yo) is (1) deeply unimpressed by dynamic range this, megapixels that, features over there,... and (2) is just about joined at the hip with his beloved - and ancient! - SX-70 polaroid. I wrote about some of his early explorations here (http://tao-of-digital-photography.blogspot.com/2015/03/an-old-technology-sparks-new-generation.html), and remain fascinated - and proud, as photographer and dad - at his "retro" sojourn into photography! :-)
-
Well I cannot argue with your skills as a photographer. The images say it all. However, as someone who has spent my life in the software industry, we cannot hide from technology. Even if you want to have a time capsule to keep things the same, they will change around you. For myself, not all new tech is good of course, but it does move the bar. Just as artists move the bar on what is art.
Sometimes backward, then forward, but always changing. Who would have predicted the phone would be the camera. We have more photographers than ever as a result. The same with video. It has become mainstream.
The technology starts out in a specialized form, but always becomes more affordable.
Yes, there will be those who want film and the darkroom, or a hybrid, film and the digital darkroom. Sensor technology and PP tech will eventually give us the same characteristics and more than film could never give us. Movies are made with digital cameras, unthinkable until recently.
David Hockney's book Secret Knowledge is perhaps the best answer as a long view look at technology and art. Even the birth of the "photographic image" before the science was invented.
This is the change that surrounds us.
Having said all of that ... it's good to reflect. Thank you for your article.
-
There are several pragmatic aspects:
1. If you make a living from photography, you need to be aware of the latest and greatest technology, just to compete against others. Unless you are very famous and can just dump your memory cards with your printing person, and leave your business details with a trusty associate.
2. If you are just shooting for yourself, sure, use whatever you are comfortable with.
-
Constantly learning rather than doing can be detrimental to the practice of whatever you are practicing
A couple of weeks ago I found some framed B&W prints I made after my first trip hitching around France in 1984. Shot on an OM4, possibly on XP1, printed on my $100 Chinese enlarger on multigrade Ilford RC. Y'know, I would have been happy to have taken and printed them yesterday :D
-
A couple of weeks ago I found some framed B&W prints I made after my first trip hitching around France in 1984. Shot on an OM4, possibly on XP1, printed on my $100 Chinese enlarger on multigrade Ilford RC. Y'know, I would have been happy to have taken and printed them yesterday :D
Seconded!
I can think back to '65, the year before I went solo, to some prints I made for the 'boss' from his M3 and a 21mm lens, of some sets we did for BBC TV in Glasgow. Black/white and amazing. I never found that b/w 'colour' again using Nikon, Rollei, Mamiya nor Hasselblad. Honest Kodak WSG papers, no Multigrade nor any other aberration to be 'different', 'convenient'. When resin coated papers came in I was lucky: I no longer really needed to print, I was pretty much totally Kodachrome or Ektachrome.
All digital printing has done is save the need to 'borrow' the wife's transparent nail polish.
Yep, far finer control has arrived, but does it help? There is very much such a thing as over-perfection. It kills character and personality, because perfection owns neither.
Rob C
-
A strange parallel: during the five consecutive years that Mick Doohan was 500cc motorcycle world champion, he said his main off-season task was persuading Honda to NOT change the bike. The year he retired due to injury, the title was won by his team-mate, Alex Criville, who at the end of the year agreed to let Honda build him a more powerful bike. He was never in the running for the title the next year and retired at the end of it from a stress-related psychosomatic illness.
-
obsolete adj 1 it works as it always did.
Still, I find it refreshing and re-juvenating to use new ways of producing photographs. I am looking forward to see and use what is yet to come in our field. However, I am now faced with either spending about $2500 to repair my Epson 7890 or a couple more thousands to replace it, and that is just after 3 years of use. The printer is not obsolete, but it does not work! My obsolete Omega D2 enlarger, bought used when I was a student in the late 60's, can be brought out of storage today and make prints. Assuming that obsolete paper is still available :)
Jean-Michel
-
On the topìc of liking or not liking having to learn new techniques, I certainly do not!
In my view, technique should be learned/studied until it is no longer thought about and you just make pictures, never asking yourself how to make them. Just like driving.
You can't reach that happy state when the tools keep changing for no better reason other than to force you to buy something new.
From removing focussing rings, diaphragm rings, depth of field scales, it's all dumbing down to suit the thickest guy with the biggest wallet.
Rob C
-
From removing focussing rings, diaphragm rings, depth of field scales, it's all dumbing down
But it's not compulsory. I have my K3 set to spot meter, so I can take a spot reading and hold it. I also have it set to spot AF, independent of the shutter button: So I point it at what I want in focus, press a button. Point at what I want as mid grey, press a button. Turn a dial under my thumb to set aperture, the one under my forefinger to set shutter speed. I allow the camera to set the ISO that will work with those two, so I can fiddle them to put it where I want. So basically it's a match needle manual exposure system like my Minolta SRT100 of 1978?? with semi-automatic pre-focusing. DoF scale would be nice, but partly that comes automatically from practice and knowing what a given lens does at a given aperture.
Obviously if I was doing sports photography to feed myself, I'd be using matrix metering and intelligent follow-focus and all the other tricks... but I'm not, so I don't. I do like the fact I can shoot at ISO 25000 and get something that looks like Tri-X at 400, I like the fact that the image stabiliser lets me shoot 1/20s hand-held with a 70mm lens to grab a clean head shot in a semi-dark stairwell, so I use it.
With this set up, I have sufficient manual control to feel like I'm in control of the process, while relaxing a few of the technical constraints (dynamic range and speed) associated with film. It makes me happy, what more can I ask?
-
But it's not compulsory.
Right. I use my Leica M8.2s in the same way I've always used film rangefinders. Manual mode with fixed ISO (though I do sometimes change the "film speed" from pic to pic if conditions warrant). At this point I've sussed out the metering to the extent that I rarely feel the need to check exposure post-shot, and the rear screen is low res enough that trying to judge focus and/or sharpness is hardly worth the bother. I just take 2 or 3 exposures whenever possible, as I often did with neg film, and then choose the best one later.
I'm less trusting with AF and "evaluative" metering, though, and so far more inclined to verify on the spot.
-Dave-
-
Going the legacy route incurs its own costs. You need to retain backwards compatibility and make sure that nothing in your workflow has dependencies that won't force an upgrade.
Dependencies:
* The camera produces files (normally JPEG and RAW). The Jpeg(s) will probably be readable by future tech... but the RAW files may fall out of support.
* The software for handling the RAW files depends on the operating system, libraries, perhaps even plugins or third party applications.
* The operating system depends on hardware. Hardware can fail. Or if you want more processing power, your current operating system may not be supported anymore.
* The printer that you print your images on... ink cartridges, paper types, rollers, drivers. Eventually, if you need a replacement printer and can't get one, your OS may not have the drivers to support the new printer.
Tools and technology changes. There is a cost to upgrade and relearn. The iterative cost is relatively small, especially if you are in the habit of upgrading and are used to re-learning. However, the longer one puts it off, the bigger that cost will appear. In the end, you will be paying interest on the upgrade cost by having to maintain and support aging systems that aren't supported anywhere anymore.
-
IMO, the tools keep evolving, but the core tools from the early days of Photoshop are still with us, just now better augmented. However, though the tools are evolving, the craft is still the same as from the days of film.
I've watched Hunter's works from the late 1970s and am always impressed with his vision and his craft. His work is simply superb! The digital tools he's used for many years now simply broadened his craft, especially with his floral work from a few years ago. In both film and digital, his work is always well crafted and pleasing to the eye.
Rather than always chasing new tech, perhaps we should all step back and simply use what we have and enjoy it, rather than continual chasing of new software, tools, technique. The grass will always seem greener, but sometimes one should be happy on the present side of the fence. There's nothing wrong with simply standing back and simply working our images with whatever tools we already have.
It's the final print that matters, not the path, software, camera, technique. A good photo is timeless no mater how we get there.
-
I think it's necessary to distinguish between upgrading simply because it's the latest technology and is a 'cool' thing to do, boosts your ego and appears to raise your status among your friends and peers etc; ...and upgrading because the new camera or software overcomes the limitations of the old equipment which has caused some disappointment during your processing of images in the past.
It is the latter situation that has always applied to me whenever I have upgraded my camera equipment, or software such as Photoshop.
Let's take a simple example of dynamic range. Long before Nikon began producing FX cameras with enhanced DR, compared with their major competitor, Canon, I was experiencing frustration and disappointment with some of my Canon images when trying to raise shadows that contained interesting detail (to me), or detail that I felt made the image more complete.
I understood the processes of HDR and ETTR, but the fiddling around required to get an optimum exposure for a single shot, and the carrying around and setting up of a tripod for multiple exposures when HDR was a clear necessity for the capture of good shadow detail, was a distraction and a pain. It was not emotionally satisfying, perhaps because I'm not a 'gear head'. ;)
If one takes the example of moving from film to digital, the same principle applies in a much more obvious way. If spending a good proportion of one's life in a dark room, developing negatives and prints in a cumbersome way, and breathing in noxious fumes from the chemicals as a side effect, is an emotionally satisfying experience for you, then it's quite understandable you would not want to make the transition to digital and deprive yourself of that emotionally satisfying experience that you could continue to have in a dark room using obsolete technology.
Fortunately, the attractions of life in a dark room never appealed to me. Long before Adobe came out with Lightroom, I began processing my old film with a scanner and making prints in a light room, which I've always thought is a much better and more satisfying environment than the photographic Darkroom. ;)
-
A strange parallel: during the five consecutive years that Mick Doohan was 500cc motorcycle world champion, he said his main off-season task was persuading Honda to NOT change the bike. The year he retired due to injury, the title was won by his team-mate, Alex Criville, who at the end of the year agreed to let Honda build him a more powerful bike. He was never in the running for the title the next year and retired at the end of it from a stress-related psychosomatic illness.
Sure. At the same time, it seems pretty clear to me that Roger Federer would have won a few more Grand Slam titles had he decided 3 years earlier to move to a more modern racket. ;)
I am far from thinking that always using the latest equipment is a winning strategy, but it makes sense to look objectively at the shortcomings of one's current equipment relative to one's usage when new stuff is released.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed. I think the moral of the story is to select the improvements that are useful to you, rather than the ones the engineers or marketers tell you are cool :-)
-
On the topìc of liking or not liking having to learn new techniques, I certainly do not!
In my view, technique should be learned/studied until it is no longer thought about and you just make pictures, never asking yourself how to make them. Just like driving.
You can't reach that happy state when the tools keep changing for no better reason other than to force you to buy something new.
From removing focussing rings, diaphragm rings, depth of field scales, it's all dumbing down to suit the thickest guy with the biggest wallet.
Things have been changing a lot recently because the tech is new and still not quite mature. Software is already starting to mature and digital cameras are not far behind in many ways.
Don't forget that only ten years back most people didn't even have a digital camera of any kind.
As for dumbing down, no more than it ever has been, plenty of 'complex' cameras out there for those who don't want the modern equivalent of a box brownie point and shoot.
-
Indeed. I think the moral of the story is to select the improvements that are useful to you, rather than the ones the engineers or marketers tell you are cool :-)
Absolutely.
-
I thoroughly enjoyed the article and I've been amazed by Huntington Witherill's work for a long time.
Like others here I'm an amateur photographer and I retired after 40+ years in various hardware and software technology positions. Computers are pretty much second nature to me. I'm also a lifelong learner who delved into photography a little over 50 years ago.
The article brought out for me the dichotomy we face as digital photographers. We want to focus on the creative aspects of photography from capture to output without being overwhelmed by the technology involved to do it.
For me moving from my Canon DSLRs to my Fuji X-T1 seemed to remove a layer of abstraction in capture that was liberating and far easier on my back and neck. :) Now, I only use my Canon DSLRs when it's absolutely necessary for the task. This is NOT a knock on DSLRs...it's just what I'm doing.
Computers and software are quite complex as anyone who ventures into Photoshop can attest. The driving force these days seems to be mobile. Mobile won't tolerate the arcane structures that traditional desktop software enforces. The next advances in desktop computing will likely come from advances in user interfaces made by mobile apps and translated to the desktop. We're seeing the beginnings of that now. Unfortunately we're often curmudgeons when it comes to changing things we've begrudgingly learned and accepted. The most recent example may be the hostility voiced about the changes to the Lightroom "Import" screen.
Digital printing, especially for what we call "fine art" printing, is another case in point in complexity and arcane workflow.
-
Unfortunately we're often curmudgeons when it comes to changing things we've begrudgingly learned and accepted. The most recent example may be the hostility voiced about the changes to the Lightroom "Import" screen.
The hostility is because the changes 'broke' things without a better or indeed any replacement. A very different thing to what is being discussed here.
-
Progress in art have been tied to the introduction of new technology as much as to the introduction of new ideas, social situations, political changes and so on. To freeze one's equipment (literally by putting a back up computer in cold storage in this instance) means freezing one's work with a specific technology, or at least with a specific development stage of that technology.
One of the challenges of doing so is to limit this freezing to one's gear and not let it expand onto one's artistic inspiration. I'm not sure if I would be able to navigate this route successfully given how much interaction there is today between the technology we use and the way we live and think. I personally find these changes to be both motivating and challenging. I also find inspiration in the conversations I have with other photographers about these changes.
Of course this is an individual position, but for me there is an undeniable link between my work and the advancements in the technology that I use. I always find something new and interesting in major software releases and I try to find a way to include the possibilities that these new tools offer in my work. For me to stop this process would mean a drastic reduction in my inspiration because improvements in the tools that I use allow me to better express my vision.
-
Progress in art have been tied to the introduction of new technology as much as to the introduction of new ideas, social situations, political changes and so on. To freeze one's equipment (literally by putting a back up computer in cold storage in this instance) means freezing one's work with a specific technology, or at least with a specific development stage of that technology.
One of the challenges of doing so is to limit this freezing to one's gear and not let it expand onto one's artistic inspiration. I'm not sure if I would be able to navigate this route successfully given how much interaction there is today between the technology we use and the way we live and think. I personally find these changes to be both motivating and challenging. I also find inspiration in the conversations I have with other photographers about these changes.
Of course this is an individual position, but for me there is an undeniable link between my work and the advancements in the technology that I use. I always find something new and interesting in major software releases and I try to find a way to include the possibilities that these new tools offer in my work. For me to stop this process would mean a drastic reduction in my inspiration because improvements in the tools that I use allow me to better express my vision.
I'm sure it wouldn't upset you, but how distant that makes you to poor old St Ansel!
I find that new technology gets in the way more than not; yes, it allows more messing about and the artificial insemination of effects and tricks that, largely, do nohing but create caricatures of photography.
The simple, clean, honest and very able rendition of something that started off being wonderful can't be beaten; however, a whore can be turned into a more shiny one quite easily.
It's much about what you value, I suppose.
For my own sins, I find it more rewarding to play down on bangs and flashes, pyrotechnics of all kinds, and stick as close to normality as I can...
;-)
Rob C
-
…how distant that makes you to poor old St Ansel!
Distant from the Ansel Adams who tested new films and products for Polaroid Corporation for 35 years?
-
Distant from the Ansel Adams who tested new films and products for Polaroid Corporation for 35 years?
What has that to do with the stuff he used? He also wrote a lot of letters, didn't make him a writer.
In the context of Alain's post, I believe we are talking about contemporary options which, by definition, pretty much means digital. Ansel seemed to stay happy with stand cameras until he had to try something lighter. Then, even with the 500 Series, he appears to have lost his mojo.
Rob C
-
I find that new technology gets in the way more than not; yes, it allows more messing about and the artificial insemination of effects and tricks that, largely, do nohing but create caricatures of photography.
I think that says more about you than it does change.
The simple, clean, honest and very able rendition of something that started off being wonderful can't be beaten; however, a whore can be turned into a more shiny one quite easily.
So dodging and burning a print should be eschewed then too? Or making up one's models before taking their photo? Not to mention all that fancy lighting that simply isn't needed.
It's much about what you value, I suppose.
For my own sins, I find it more rewarding to play down on bangs and flashes, pyrotechnics of all kinds, and stick as close to normality as I can...
I reckon that if you were good with software, you'd sing a completely different tune. :P
-
I think that says more about you than it does change.
So dodging and burning a print should be eschewed then too? Or making up one's models before taking their photo? Not to mention all that fancy lighting that simply isn't needed.
I reckon that if you were good with software, you'd sing a completely different tune. :P
Too stretched for time to fight, but I grant you: a beautiful distortion of the meaning of my post!
;-)
Rob C
-
Distant from the Ansel Adams who tested new films and products for Polaroid Corporation for 35 years?
+1
I also enjoyed reading Adam's writings, be it in his how to books or in his letters. I personally consider him to be a writer. His publications are not limited to books of photographs, they also include books where he explains his artistic and technical approach to photography. His words have influenced me as much as his photography.
-
Too stretched for time to fight, but I grant you: a beautiful distortion of the meaning of my post!
No distortion, simply adding context.
-
This article does take a rather extreme position (buying a 6 year old computer to hold in storage?) but each to their own. I can see learning new tools being a frustration if someone jumps from one brand and system each time but the re-learning in the updates of most software and camera bodies is really not very significant (especially in the world of dslrs with their almost glacial advancement). With cameras themselves, after getting a body set-up initially the actual variables in taking a picture stay the same regardless of the brand or model.
Personally, I can’t have enough technical advancement to help me make even better quality pictures. I guess some people are just more comfortable with technology (and change) than others but this is a technology based pursuit after-all.
-
My other half & I run a stained glass business - not leaded lights or sun catchers, but full works church windows & public art commissions. The basic techniques we use are nearly a thousand years old. We have electric & gas kilns now and better glass cutters but basically if a stained glass worker was time machined from 1100 AD & dropped into our studio we could have him up to working speed in a couple of days.
This is in gobsmacking contrast to the constant evolution of digital imaging hardware & software. I remember learning a very convoluted capture sharpening routine which I recorded as an action. It improved my images but took quite a bit of understanding. A couple of years later it was made obsolete by four sliders in ACR which did the same job better. This isn't a complaint, it's just difficult not to contrast it with the techniques & tools that Deb & I learnt over twenty years ago which we'll use for the rest of our working lives.
Having said that, PS, Lightroom & Illustrator have become invaluable to our work. I've used Illustrator to lay out cutlines ( the templates we cut the glass from ) for 5 metre high sets of windows with geometric elements running between the lights. We get these printed up on a large format plotter & they're accurate to within about .75mm per metre which is fine for our requirements & probably more accurate than we could achieve manually. In the past this would have involved hiring a space with a large smooth floor area ( village hall or suchlike ).
PS / Lightroom are also brilliant for preparing / resizing artwork & also for photomontaging images of window sections together to check for mistakes & inconsistencies in colour etc. ( Large windows are made in sections & it's often difficult or impossible to see the whole window as one before installation ).
Digital cameras have been wonderful for photographing our work for portfolio use: I spent over a decade shooting rolls of bracketed slides & throwing two thirds of them away ( stained glass can be a bit of a bugger to expose correctly ). On occasions we'd shoot neg film & 50% of the time the prints would come back overexposed and / or wrongly cut because the labs equipment was fooled by the dark areas in the images. Photography was such a royal PITA that I never wanted to do any personal work with a camera.
So we've ended up using a combo of medieval & 21st century tech in our work to our advantage.
But I absolutely empathise with the writer's position. I feel like the amount of time I've spent learning to use software, relearning to use software when it's upgraded, sorting out incompatibilities, / crashes / backups / new hardware has been to my detriment as an artist: If you're mired in all this shit you're not drawing or taking photos.
Deb hasn't bothered with all of this digital stuff, has instead concentrated on developing the art & craft she trained in & has a creative career: I on the other hand haven't had any design work or done any exhibitions for over a decade ( not that I was ever destined to be any kind of artistic genius anyway - haven't quite got the talent ).
I've helped a few artist friends out with digital imaging stuff & they commented on how 'clever' I am. My response is usually, 'I'm not clever I'm a ***ing idiot'.
Yours ambivalently
Graeme
PS I frequent this forum quite a bit & lurk on the Online Photographer. After a while you notice how many of the regulars are from tech, esp software backgrounds rather than art / craft based ones.
-
My other half & I run a stained glass business - not leaded lights or sun catchers, but full works church windows & public art commissions. The basic techniques we use are nearly a thousand years old. We have electric & gas kilns now and better glass cutters but basically if a stained glass worker was time machined from 1100 AD & dropped into our studio we could have him up to working speed in a couple of days.
This is in gobsmacking contrast to the constant evolution of digital imaging hardware & software. I remember learning a very convoluted capture sharpening routine which I recorded as an action. It improved my images but took quite a bit of understanding. A couple of years later it was made obsolete by four sliders in ACR which did the same job better. This isn't a complaint, it's just difficult not to contrast it with the techniques & tools that Deb & I learnt over twenty years ago which we'll use for the rest of our working lives.
I'm sure before stained glass making processes matured there was lots of experimentation and rejected processes too. Software processes like the ones you mention are very, very new and still being developed. So of course they are going to change a fair bit until they mature also.
Having said that, PS, Lightroom & Illustrator have become invaluable to our work. I've used Illustrator to lay out cutlines ( the templates we cut the glass from ) for 5 metre high sets of windows with geometric elements running between the lights. We get these printed up on a large format plotter & they're accurate to within about .75mm per metre which is fine for our requirements & probably more accurate than we could achieve manually. In the past this would have involved hiring a space with a large smooth floor area ( village hall or suchlike ).
Yet you now use some 21st century tech as it's better than the old method. Just like those 4 sliders in LR were better than the old method. :P
-
I'm sure before stained glass making processes matured there was lots of experimentation and rejected processes too. Software processes like the ones you mention are very, very new and still being developed. So of course they are going to change a fair bit until they mature also.
Yet you now use some 21st century tech as it's better than the old method. Just like those 4 sliders in LR were better than the old method. :P
Yes. Note the 'Yours ambivalently' at the end of my post.
-
What has that to do with the stuff he used?
Is it possible that you just don't know what film and equipment Ansel Adams used?
In the context of Alain's post, I believe we are talking about contemporary options which, by definition, pretty much means digital.
Granted, Ansel Adams did not live long enough to have the opportunity to experience digital photography.
-
Some Art is driven by new tech. Some isn't.
Plenty of people working with paint and brushes and doing fine work.
At some point every artist needs to stop monkeying around with the latest tech and get down to the business of making art. It's a full time gig right there.
Different story for commercial guys, of course. They can't afford to hold still. Which means they now have two full time jobs.
-
Some Art is driven by new tech. Some isn't.
Plenty of people working with paint and brushes and doing fine work.
At some point every artist needs to stop monkeying around with the latest tech and get down to the business of making art. It's a full time gig right there.
Different story for commercial guys, of course. They can't afford to hold still. Which means they now have two full time jobs.
Which is why I'm so grateful that I was running when I was!
My F, F2, F4s, 500C, 500C/M were viable for decades, as is my F3 today, as would be the rest of them did I still have 'em. My D200 and D700 in thirty years time... ? I sure won't be viable, before anyone hastens to point that out as a factor.
;-)
Rob C
-
My F, F2, F4s, 500C, 500C/M were viable for decades, as is my F3 today, as would be the rest of them did I still have 'em. My D200 and D700 in thirty years time... ? I sure won't be viable, before anyone hastens to point that out as a factor.
You never know, there may be a decent upgrade for yourself in a few years time. ;)
-
Some Art is driven by new tech. Some isn't.
Plenty of people working with paint and brushes and doing fine work.
At some point every artist needs to stop monkeying around with the latest tech and get down to the business of making art. It's a full time gig right there.
Different story for commercial guys, of course. They can't afford to hold still. Which means they now have two full time jobs.
+1
-
Nothing the matter with upgrading equipment or even changing systems. Some very good, and very successful photographers have a good command of more than one camera system, Dan Winters comes to mind first but there are others.
My personal experience is that during a period of changing equipment, very little good work gets done. I need time to acclimate. Once it becomes my familiar toolset (or set of brushes), then I start seeing work I like again... That alone is good incentive to avoid churning through gear.
-
My D200 and D700 in thirty years time... ? I sure won't be viable, before anyone hastens to point that out as a factor. ;-)
Rob C
Worry not, keep your lenses! In twenty years, you'll be able to upgrade to a gently used D810 or 7rII for $100.
-
Worry not, keep your lenses! In twenty years, you'll be able to upgrade to a gently used D810 or 7rII for $100.
Les, at best I'll be a speck on someone's sensor! Which is a wonderful opportunity, now that I think about it!
;-)
Rob C
-
I fully understand the author. The question we should ask ourself is; Do we get RoI (return of investment) for each increment between upgrades? Our personal RoI should give us more either pleasure than irritation or less time spent on workflow than upgrade/learning time from each upgrade. I kind of doubt that we have such RoI? Instead the industry convinces us somehow that we need these upgrades and the social groups pressures us to do the upgrading.
The solution? F*ck if I know :). Perhaps a brain wetware upgrade?
-
At some point every artist needs to stop monkeying around with the latest tech and get down to the business of making art. It's a full time gig right there.
I agree, but at the time it's sometimes difficult to decide whether you're learning something which will be relevant to your art or are in fact just 'monkeying around'.
Easy to tell with hindsight though.
-
This seems a good point at which to make the following quotation from an interview by John Paul Caponigro with Richard Benson, the latter speaking:
"The difference between an artist and a craftsman is that a craftsman is interested in his/her tools and an artist disdains them."
Rob C
-
This seems a good point at which to make the following quotation from an interview by John Paul Caponigro with Richard Benson, the latter speaking:
"The difference between an artist and a craftsman is that a craftsman is interested in his/her tools and an artist disdains them."
Says a man who writes about how to use Photoshop. JPG that is.
It's nonsense anyway as most good artists will seek out the best tools to create whatever it is they want to do.
-
It seems there are two strands to the same discussion and I don't think the two are necessarily equitable.
There is the camera gear and then there is the development software.
Certainly the former has changed dramatically in pure technology, but at its core is still exactly the same. The latter, though, is entirely different.
I don't see how you could successfully avoid embracing the software and 'back end' changes as sometimes the physical equipment requires it, but it also opens endless new avenues and possibilities.
However, upgrading cameras does not require a 'sea change' in working methods. If you approach from an empirical perspective it is actually very easy. After all, all you need to do is pick the right lens, set the parameters of exposure and make sure the right part is in focus!
I think too many get hung up on menus and shortcuts. They can help speed things if that is of vital importance, but I just ignore the majority and carry on as I always did. In many respects, the part I have accepted (the treadmill of software and computers) has allowed me to do that with impunity, because you can shoot in RAW and leave the precise choices until later.
-
Only a very small percentage of the modern silicon and glass mass is bought by artists or professionals. People who produce the mass of 'content' visible on various photo and equipment sites are like me, people with a daytime job and time and money to spare. The market is always right in the modern world. The market says that new is good or at least better than old whether we talk about cars or cameras or other electronics. Wines and vintage stuff are an exception but they are for the rich snobs. Collectors, moneymen and the like.
I do not envy people who are making their daily bread & butter doing photography. Nowadays everybody who counts is an art director and a designer or producing 'content' on the Net. Those who get clicks get ad money and they survive. Those who click are not more qualified than anybody else. They like fast food and American TV-series. They listen to commercial radio channels and buy their essentially identical clothes from 'outlets' or Net stores. Money cattle, horses.
Quality has become a scarce commodity that is reserved for connoisseurs with money and to those who can create it themselves.
An illusion of having the capability to be able to create quality can be bought. That's why most people buy their Leicas and Nikons and their fluorite glass, vests, harnesses and Billingham bags. You carry quality around your neck with the belief that it is contagious.
Quality can be taught and learned. Artistry cannot, which is very unfair and against the egalitarian ideals of the modern society.
Which brings us to the 'why' of the hamster wheel hystery of luxury gadget consumerism. Creativity is grossly overestimated in our popular culture. This is because whe are shown people who have risen from nobodies to Vevo and MTV, Pirelli and Elle and what have you, who make millions and fly their private jets from one of their private island to another.
People want to emulate creativity. Some decades ago everybody wanted to be a journalist or a secret agent. Now kids play war games, racing pilots and guitar heroes...other superheroes as well. My generation (I am 63 soon) grew up in a world where photographers were superheroes (at least to some of us) and somehow this has stuck. Of course most of us had economical realities pointing us towards something that would create steady income with our particular set of abilities of which graphic arts often were not the most notable.
The dreams never died. "What could I achieve if I had a Real Camera with a big lense and a thorough user's manual"...
We are basically the reason why there are prosumer cameras with enough pixels to print high quality murals and lenses to match them.
Would the artists or the sports and the fashion guys ever had created enough cash flow to finance the deluge of optoelectronics that floods the marketplace today? Not likely, but the masses could.
And that's how we are here.
Sorry, a rant. I am stuck at work and there is very little to do. Potato.
-
It seems there are two strands to the same discussion and I don't think the two are necessarily equitable.
There is the camera gear and then there is the development software.
Certainly the former has changed dramatically in pure technology, but at its core is still exactly the same. The latter, though, is entirely different.
I don't see how you could successfully avoid embracing the software and 'back end' changes as sometimes the physical equipment requires it, but it also opens endless new avenues and possibilities.
However, upgrading cameras does not require a 'sea change' in working methods. If you approach from an empirical perspective it is actually very easy. After all, all you need to do is pick the right lens, set the parameters of exposure and make sure the right part is in focus!
I think too many get hung up on menus and shortcuts. They can help speed things if that is of vital importance, but I just ignore the majority and carry on as I always did. In many respects, the part I have accepted (the treadmill of software and computers) has allowed me to do that with impunity, because you can shoot in RAW and leave the precise choices until later.
Spot on.
-
I think there's a big difference between choosing to get a new tool ("I really want more pixels ...") vs. being more or less forced to upgrade because something in your ecosystem no longer works with something else (your PP software no longer works on the new OS you had to install because you needed a new computer because your old one died, and you can't get security updates on the old OS anymore, ...).
In the former, we all get to choose. Happy with your tools? Excellent! Want a new whizz-bang? Terrific!
In the latter, we all grumble - more or even more - and then just need to get on with it.
-
When would you suggest I upgrade from my Olympus E-1?