Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: fredjeang on January 28, 2010, 04:31:24 am
-
Is "traditional" landscape photography as we knew it, about to be obsolete?
Let's have a look here (http://www.planetside.co.uk/content/view/15/27/).
Renders have, and are, moving the position of architecture photography, and it seems that this tendency brings more general questions about photography's place in image creation. The camera as a tool in the form that we know, seems to be floating in a medium depth. In fact, digital cameras have just adapted a new technology to an old design that was not made for it. Too much conservatism may cost a high price to the industry. Why? Because we will see soon or later better tools to achieve photographic images.
I read in an old post that Michael was ready to eat his hat if Red cameras would not bring soon all a revolution in image industry. He may be true, but I see about the same problem:
what is the main subject on and on since digital photography appears? Resolution, pixels, IQ unsatisfaction, Bayer, compromised, etc... it is all about how bad it is and not so much how good it is.
Soon, and probably sooner than photo industry will have the time to react, dedicated software applications will be able to achieve every photographic image a creator could think about, with a precision, realism and flexibility that simply does not exist (or is too costly) with current photographic tools. And with no resolution limitation, non sense Bayer artifacts, horrible noise polution and so on...
Maybe the traditional photographer will end as a nostalgic collector, a sort of artist image maker of pre-historic times, let's say in 15 years? It is hard to divine what will happen, but it seems that the revolution is not likely to come from the photographic or cinematographic industry but from kids how are currently programing in their garage. Unless they stop thinking that adapting digital to old designs is enough.
By that, we'll have all the time to wonder about pixels problems, post production brain-teasers, and printings insecure color profiles at scandalous costs per month.
Do you think it is the end of photography as we know it?
[attachment=19799:Terragen___Erat.jpg]
[attachment=19800:terragen_desert.jpg]
[attachment=19801:A_Brand_...Day_Full.jpg]
[attachment=19802:golden_okt_1024_2.jpg]
-
Reality ?
-
OMG! I was browsing the the gallery (http://www.planetside.co.uk/gallery/f/tg2), and must confess that some of the images there could fool me...
-
Reality ?
Yes ou course, (des)information. Although reality seems to matters less and less. Sure there will always have a niche for reality transcription, but I'm not so sure the next generations will have the same perception as us about the importance of reality, as we know that it is already a mystic imposible to acheive.
Reality is just real for one observer point of view that involve personal feeling, cultural programing and so on. So in itself the concept of reality is vague. As soon as there is a tool between physical observer and reality, the last one can only be an interpretation.
Fred.
-
...and the thing is that created images actually coexist with real images without a clear distinction. I like to watch documentaries about space tecnology, universe etc...in those documentraries, the 2 types of images are mixed in a way that sometimes it is very hard if not impossible to determine what is reality and what is not. Very rarely, production would put and advice saying: "(re)created images" because it is part of the overall language. This is information but also desinformation. If sofwares are going that way, a photographer, an artist, anyone with sense of taste and habilities will be able to produce absolutely stunning landscape images (and others) from home, and if it is not mentioned anywhere that it is a created image, who will notice? It might be a serious revolution that I'm not sure we can evaluate at this point its impact in image langages and styles. So photography industry will have to reply soon or later if they want to stay in the train.
Fred.
-
...... Very rarely, production would put and advice saying: "(re)created images" because it is part of the overall language. This is information but also desinformation. If sofwares are going that way, a photographer, an artist, anyone with sense of taste and habilities will be able to produce absolutely stunning landscape images (and others) from home, and if it is not mentioned anywhere that it is a created image, who will notice? ......
One day we will hopefully have forgotten that nature ever existed and we will live happily in our self created illusions ... nothing will get in the way then, like bad weather, frost, bears or our inability to take a good photograph under harsh conditions and whatsever ...
I remember reading Orwells "1984" long ago ...
/me hides and shudders ....
-
One day we will hopefully have forgotten that nature ever existed and we will live happily in our self created illusions ... nothing will get in the way then, like bad weather, frost, bears or our inability to take a good photograph under harsh conditions and whatsever ...
I remember reading Orwells "1984" long ago ...
/me hides and shudders ....
Oh yes, and as you point, the impact will not be only in images creation, it has social, environmental and political implications.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
Is "traditional" landscape photography as we knew it, about to be obsolete?
Do you think it is the end of photography as we know it?
9802:golden_okt_1024_2.jpg]
Verrry interesting! But I don't think programs such as Terragen will be the end of photography. I am sure, with the invention of the camera, that painters asked, "Is this the end of painting?" I think that the camera freed painting from some of the roles that painting used to fulfill, leading to more and more abstract and expressionistic areas of painting. But, in the chain of innovations, despite the original fears, movies did not replace theater; t.v. did not replace movies; the internet has not replaced t.v.; and computers and synthesizers have not replaced musical instruments.
There will always be a cross-borrowing of techniques, and styles will be mutually influenced. However, if photography is described as capturing and interpreting a scene or object as well as a moment in time, I believe there will always be people challenged by that idea who will take camera in hand (whatever the form of that camera will be) and stalk the scene, the weather, the bird, etc, and there will always be an audience for the results.
-
If you're worried that simulation may eliminate photography, go get one of Cartier-Bresson's books, or Helen Levitt's books, or, best of all in my estimation, Elliott Erwitt's Personal Best. If you looked at Planetside's stuff you'll notice that it's all landscape. It completely ignores what's always been photography's most important use: recording the human condition. Simulation can produce a Shrek, but it can't record the kind of human interactions that people like HCB, Levitt, and Erwitt capture with photography. Simulation probably can outdo Ansel Adams, but it's not about to outdo Levitt. It can't even outdo Ansel if you consider some of his best work: pictures of people. I'm thinking specifically of his "Woman Behind Screen Door," which I consider to be possibly his finest shot.
-
We need to have more faith in the viewers. While this sort of imagery is going to be great for advertising and commercial purposes, it's not going to have much of an impact on fine art photography (whatever you definition of that genre may be). Most art viewers want to see images of reality (photography's strength) they can, on some level, have a personal connection with. That is why, IMHO, much of contemporary photography, with it's emphasis on pictorialistic fantasy, has failed to reach the same level of mass appeal as has traditional landscape photography.
....what's always been photography's most important use: recording the human condition.
That is surely ONE of the photography's great strengths, but there are surely others of equal validity.
-
I feel more and more tempted to buy a Zeiss Ikon and a 4x5" and shoot film, ....
... scan it and postprocess and print digitally.
-
It would be fun to have the time to learn Terragen or other similar programs.
Air brushing in all it’s forms has brought a lot to photography. Rendering is an extension. As the tools continue to evolve so shall the techniques and end products. But the goal is mostly to add tools rather than direct the nature of the craft. A world of 6+ billion souls craves variety, after all.
On the other hand, no one does daguerreotypes anymore because they suck compared to what we’ve learned to do since …..
-
Verrry interesting! But I don't think programs such as Terragen will be the end of photography. I am sure, with the invention of the camera, that painters asked, "Is this the end of painting?" I think that the camera freed painting from some of the roles that painting used to fulfill, leading to more and more abstract and expressionistic areas of painting. But, in the chain of innovations, despite the original fears, movies did not replace theater; t.v. did not replace movies; the internet has not replaced t.v.; and computers and synthesizers have not replaced musical instruments.
There will always be a cross-borrowing of techniques, and styles will be mutually influenced. However, if photography is described as capturing and interpreting a scene or object as well as a moment in time, I believe there will always be people challenged by that idea who will take camera in hand (whatever the form of that camera will be) and stalk the scene, the weather, the bird, etc, and there will always be an audience for the results.
I agree totaly with your points and many of the arguments in the other posts. But I see a different situation this time: the beautiful bird you are talking about may not be real, and in a close future it will going to be absolutely impossible to distinguich in the hand of a real artist. Cartier Bresson used simulated situations to create what people thought it was snapshots, real moments. Some of them were truth, some of them were not. But in people's mind this is more true, and it was not always. The point is that the pictures where outstandings, but not always "trues".
For me, the future of photography, and specialy nature and reportage is going to be an integrated language between stills and movies. The photographer as we know now is likely to disappear ( I mean by that, it is gonna be something else). I may be totaly wrong but I am also ready to eat my hat, like Michael, if it does not happen in a close future.
Fred.
-
On the other hand, no one does daguerreotypes anymore because they suck compared to what we’ve learned to do since …..
Actually, neither part of that statement is true. There are not only photographers practicing the craft, there are also a handful of associations for through which they can connect. As for sucking, the quality of the old images can certainly suffer (primarily due to age), but much of the contemporary images are beautiful and unlike any other traditional printing media.
-
I feel more and more tempted to buy a Zeiss Ikon and a 4x5" and shoot film, ....
So do I, and that is exactly what I'm planning to do.
-
I feel more and more tempted to buy a Zeiss Ikon and a 4x5" and shoot film, ....
Out of curiosity, what would that accomplish?
-
Actually, neither part of that statement is true. There are not only photographers practicing the craft, there are also a handful of associations for through which they can connect. As for sucking, the quality of the old images can certainly suffer (primarily due to age), but much of the contemporary images are beautiful and unlike any other traditional printing media.
Well there you go. I did exclude the society for collective anachronism from my considerations. My bad.
What do you think the implication of that factoid is upon the topic at hand?
-
What do you think the implication of that factoid is upon the topic at hand?
Most likely that people do things simply because they enjoy doing them, even if they are not the most efficient or economical way to accomplish a task. People still ride horses in spite of the fact that cars are cheaper, faster, and more convenient form of transportation, and people still listen to vinyl records, too. There are areas where CG can supplement or replace things currently done with photography, but that isn't ever going to kill photography. If nothing else you're still going to need a camera to capture textures...
-
There will always be a cross-borrowing of techniques, and styles will be mutually influenced.
Indeed!
And moreover there ain't such thing as photographic truth - framing can always be some kind of lie by omission.
I can't resist to post this to feed the... debate : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cOPw1R5yRQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cOPw1R5yRQ) . Captioned in French, but I'd think images speak for themselves.
-
Indeed!
And moreover there ain't such thing as photographic truth - framing can always be some kind of lie by omission.
I can't resist to post this to feed the... debate : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cOPw1R5yRQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cOPw1R5yRQ) . Captioned in French, but I'd think images speak for themselves.
Verrry interesting indeed!! Thank you for this post.
cheers,
Fred.
-
That is surely ONE of the photography's great strengths, but there are surely others of equal validity.
Chuck, Strange, you didn't name any.
-
Chuck, Strange, you didn't name any.
Not strange, it really wasn't on topic. But to answer you question the unique strength of photography is simply it's ability to be a medium of record, to act as witness. The human condition IS an important subset of that, but no more so than other genres. Take the Hubble telescope, for instance. It's images have captivated and educated us for years, and have lead to a broader understanding of the cosmos and our own existence. In that same vein, the landscape photographs of Ansel Adams and Clyde Butcher (and the guy who first photographed the Yellowstone area, whose name I forget) have captivated and educated millions of people, leading to important environmental protections of their respective areas. Brett Weston's sand dune portfolios are beautiful and inspiring, as are his fathers images of Point Lobos. The list goes on and on.
Sure, documentary and photojournalism are important aspects of photography. That cannot be denied, but to label them as the overarching power of photography is, IMHO, a bit narrow of thought.
-
Chuck, If you see photography strictly as a recording technology I can't argue with you. No human hand can record reality as accurately as can photography -- not even the hand of Charles Sheeler. I failed to make clear that I was talking about photography as an artform. I agree: the Hubble is a marvel of technology. But things get a bit less clear when you bring in the photographs of Ansel Adams and others of his persuasion -- including Edward and Brett. Technologically, their work was excellent. But, at the risk of being considered an apostate to photography's cause, I'd suggest that landscape painting by people like Thomas Cole and Asher Durand always has pushed photography into a back seat. I'd say further that the work of HCB, Walker Evans, Robert Frank, Elliott Erwitt, Garry Winogrand, Steve McCurry, et al goes way beyond documentation and photojournalism. The meaning of humanity shines out from some of these pictures in a way no other artform can mimic.
-
I'd suggest that landscape painting by people like Thomas Cole and Asher Durand always has pushed photography into a back seat.
Nonsense. Both Cole and Durand specialized in pictorial romanticism with little emphasis on reality. Ansel, the Westons, Robert Adams, Butcher (and the bulk of modern landscape photographers then and now) use(d) the camera to record (in their own individuality) a reality they had actually witnessed. Both sets may be creating landscapes, but their work is so different in both purpose and mannerisms that neither can be considered better or more important than the other.
I'd say further that the work of HCB, Walker Evans, Robert Frank, Elliott Erwitt, Garry Winogrand, Steve McCurry, et al goes way beyond documentation and photojournalism. The meaning of humanity shines out from some of these pictures in a way no other artform can mimic.
Considering that HCB and Erwitt had no problems either creating or recreating scenes, their work cannot be held in the same regard as either documentary or photojournalistic photographers such as McCurry and Winogrand or Evans. I'm not at all saying that the work of HCB and Erwitt is less valuable as an art form, just that inferring general documentary or journalistic attributes is unfair to those who actually practice the "ethics" those genres require.
As for photography being a recording technology, I stick by the definition. It's that unique attribute that differentiates photography from all other art forms. Please don't assume that I mean the end result of all photography should be a simple reproduction of reality. Far from it. However, the recording of a scene (real or otherwise) is the basis for ALL photography.
corrected for slight grammatical boo-boos
-
Nonsense. Both Cole and Durand specialized in pictorial romanticism with little emphasis on reality. Ansel, the Westons, Robert Adams, Butcher (and the bulk of modern landscape photographers then and now) use(d) the camera to record (in their own individuality) a reality they had actually witnessed. Both sets may be creating landscapes, but their work is so different in both purpose and mannerisms that neither can be considered better or more important than the other.
Sorry, but I think the idea that a landscape photograph can record "reality" is a bit of a stretch. But even if that were possible I doubt a good landscape photographer would argue that his main job is to record reality. The thing that Cole and Durand's pictorial romanticism can give you is an Ahhhh...! I think the work of "the bulk of modern landscape photographers" often is interesting, but it rarely, if ever, transmits the emotion and understanding that an effective painting can transmit. Yes, a good landscape painter transmits the Ahhh by warping reality: emphasizing some things and de-emphasizing other things. But that often gets the message across much more effectively than a photographic record can do, no matter how well the photograph is shot and printed. "Moonrise Over Hernandez" is one of Ansel's most effective photographs, but it's especially effective because it includes the hand of man. In a sense, it's a super street shot.
Considering that HCB and Erwitt had not problems either creating or recreating scenes, their work cannot be held in the same regard as either documentary or photojournalistic photographers such as McCurry and Winogrand or Evans. I'm not at all saying that the work of HCB and Erwitt is less valuable as an art form, just that inferring general documentary or journalistic attributes is unfair to those who actually practice the "ethics" those genres require.
Sorry, Chuck. You lost me with that one. I've read it about five times and I still don't understand what you said.
-
IMO reality as we perceive it is at first the result of an interaction between
- the object or motive - be it a physical object or something like an emotion
- the artist
- the technique (camera, film, paint, pencil, etc ...)
- the context of presentation and metadata (like declaring it "documentary" or "digitally manipulated")
- the viewer
- the ever changing mood of the viewers cat or the artists cat or of both cats and, of course my cat.
Some techniques tend to stress the physical properties of reality - photography does so.
Other techniques tend to stress the subjective part of it (e.g. oil paintings, pastell chalk, etc.).
But despite of its highly objective nature photography has the ability to be highly subjective
and paintings can be very accurate in a technical meaning (e.g. photorealism).
In any case the artwork is the result of that highly complex interaction.
my $.02
~Chris
-
Russ, you had said that the work of HCB and Erwitt transcended photojournalism and documentary. I don't agree. Both were prone to contriving scenes, which is the antithesis to either pj or documentary.
-
Russ, you had said that the work of HCB and Erwitt transcended photojournalism and documentary. I don't agree. Both were prone to contriving scenes, which is the antithesis to either pj or documentary.
Chuck, Can you give me an example? I don't deny that Erwitt contrived scenes. That was his job. Unlike HCB he had to make a living with his photography. (He was doing a commercial shoot on kitchen appliances the day Nixon and Khrushchev walked in.) But when he was through with a day's work he did his own personal shooting -- for fun. That wasn't contrived. I don't know of any situation where HCB contrived a scene, though there may have been one. In my own estimation, HCB's did his best work in the thirties.
-
Russ, I attended a lecture 10 or 15 years ago in which the speaker called into question a few of Bresson's images. At the time his reasoning seemed valid and reliable. I really wish I could remember the specifics. In retrospect, though, I should NOT have included Bresson along with Erwitt. The approaches of the two are quite different and, more importantly, the source of my information could be considered, for all practical purposes, hearsay.....or more correctly heresy.
Should have thought more before responding.
-
There is a big point missing in this thread. Traditional photography won´t die as long as it is fun and rewarding to do it. What would you rather do this spring, go to Alaska and shoot landscapes, or sit in the dark in front of your computer making fakes in Terragen?
What I do see is great applications in advertising photography, which anyway will eventually succumb to 3D modeling, and all that fake artificial imagery that most agencies love. The quest for a perfect world, no blemishes, no scratches, leads us to a place of boredom and unsurprising events. Remember in the eighties when people went to the movies just to see the effects?
We have just lost the capacity to be surprised by all these megahypercybershiny little mirrors swinging before our eyes.
Doing honest photography that is about real people, real events and real places, I think will always have its appeal and its place. And this is exactly the type of photography that needs a photographer to do it. Not a computer geek. (Nothing wrong with computer geeks).
-
Russ, I attended a lecture 10 or 15 years ago in which the speaker called into question a few of Bresson's images. At the time his reasoning seemed valid and reliable. I really wish I could remember the specifics. In retrospect, though, I should NOT have included Bresson along with Erwitt. The approaches of the two are quite different and, more importantly, the source of my information could be considered, for all practical purposes, hearsay.....or more correctly heresy.
Should have thought more before responding.
Chuck, I don't think you need to apologize for heresy after my burst of iconoclasm. In spite of the lack of first-hand evidence I'm not entirely convinced all of HCB's stuff was as virginal as he made it out to be either, but, like you I lack the evidence. Sometimes I think he was like The Shadow: He could cloud men's minds. The one that always blows me away is "The Locks at Bougival." He was standing just behind the guy's elbow with the camera in a vertical position at his eye, which means his right arm was above his head, yet nobody in the picture saw him -- except the dog on the boat. Amazing!
-
As long as pressing the shutter release is faster than designing, building, texturing, and rendering a CG image, there will be a place for photography.
-
I think Jonathan has cut to the chase here; I would add that photography is supposed to be about the doing, in the amateur mode, and about the result in the professional one. I already find current pro digital work so different a scene to what I was doing myself that it not only looks as if I could never fully enjoy doing it, but that since so many other people are involved in the doing, it wouldn't really appeal to me much anyhow, as I don't think of myself as a team player. The whole attraction about being a pro when I started up was doing your own thing; the only fly in the ointment was the need for a client.
As another contributor from Madrid mentioned in another thread (about the costs of being a snapper), so much time and damage is being done to the person since digital, much of it in terms of physical discomfort and long-term threat to health. Apart from that, there isn't really any true parallel between darkroom work and digital computer manipulation. Yes, of course they both lead to an image, but the doing appeals to such different emotions as to make (my opinion) no similarity in the experience of the journey. To repeat myself for the umpteenth time: had I been faced, when I started, with digital photography as the norm instead of the classical type as was, I doubt that I would have felt remotely interested. It's only because I have built my life around the damn thing that I still continue messing about with it now, despite myself.
Rob C
-
.... I would add that photography is supposed to be about the doing, in the amateur mode, and about the result in the professional one.
I think we've pretty much exhausted this discussion, so I don't feel guilty for going OT......
I think know what you're trying to say, Rob, but for me the "doing" is is as fulfilling, if not more so, than are the "results". As with all art, the entire process of photography, from finding a subject to making the final print, is experiential. It's one single, long process.
I would suggest that your definitions are reversed. Professionals are about the entire process (doing) and hobbyists are solely about the final product (print or digital file).
-
I think we've pretty much exhausted this discussion, so I don't feel guilty for going OT......
I think know what you're trying to say, Rob, but for me the "doing" is is as fulfilling, if not more so, than are the "results". As with all art, the entire process of photography, from finding a subject to making the final print, is experiential. It's one single, long process.
I would suggest that your definitions are reversed. Professionals are about the entire process (doing) and hobbyists are solely about the final product (print or digital file).
This resonates with me, Chuck (but I don't know how it divides pro from amateur). In my darkroom days (B&W only) for many years I was enamoured of the entire process -- with one exception, that being developing the darn film, which was boring, boring, boring.
Then one day I noticed that the film development process gave me time to relax and meditate, sort of a zen-like thing. Thereafter I found myself enjoying that part of the process, too.
Then, of course, moving to a digital workflow meant giving up parts of the traditional process and substituting different ones.
As for the "doing" being fulfilling, I remember vividly my first few weeks with an 8x10 camera. It was so satisfying just setting up and looking at the "full-sized" image on the ground glass that I often felt I didn't need to shoot film at all.
As for pro vs. amateur, my feeling is this: A pro is one who makes a substantial part of his living from photography, while an amateur is someone who loves doing photography. The two are not mutually exclusive categories. Some pros are also amateurs (and judging from your work and your comments, I'd say you fit both categories). Some amateurs are good photographers. Some are not. Some pros are so stressed out that they don't love what they are doing, even though they make good money at it.
Eric
-
I think Jonathan has cut to the chase here; I would add that photography is supposed to be about the doing, in the amateur mode, and about the result in the professional one.
Rob C
What I mean by that is simply that the amateur can enjoy the luxury of self-indulgence in the doing of photography whilst for the pro, whether he enjoy it as much or not, the bottom line is earning a living and that depends greatly on the final result, not on whether he has a good time getting there.
I did not see myself excluding the pro from enjoyment, simply stating that it can't be his top priority which has to be keeping the business going. I would guess it a given that most of us who are/have been pros were there because of the love; whether that alone could possibly sustain the venture is another matter! I dare say there have been pros with the financial clout to pick and choose work; I did a little of that myself by limiting the search for clients to a narrow field - not always brilliant as a strategy, but about as far as I could go in keeping alive my own interest in photography. Frankly, looking back over it all, it did give some great times, but at huge cost in many other ways. In fact, in any other field than model-related work, I think that the amateur has the edge because he probaby doesn't need a client to pay the huge bills such interests inevitably create. He can shoot all the buildings, bottles, landscapes, cars or city streets he wants - they are all around him for free.
Rob C
-
This resonates with me, Chuck (but I don't know how it divides pro from amateur).
The trouble with the term "amateur" is that many are as serious and talented as professionals. It wasn't all that long ago that the term was given to people who were actually more knowledgeable and creative than professionals in many fields, as they had the means to pursue their interests full-time. That's how photography, as we know it, came into existence.
To be honest, as everyone now has a camera of some sort, I'm not sure what we call the most casual of users; those that only want pictures for memories: parties, family vacations, drunk uncle Willie in a dress kissing the family dog, etc. It was THAT group to which I was referring when I said they were only interested in the simplest version of the final product, destined for a photo album or Facebook page.
Professionals and serious amateurs are about the print, to be sure, but only as it relates to the entire process, start to finish.
-
The trouble with the term "amateur" is that many are as serious and talented as professionals. It wasn't all that long ago that the term was given to people who were actually more knowledgeable and creative than professionals in many fields, as they had the means to pursue their interests full-time. That's how photography, as we know it, came into existence.
To be honest, as everyone now has a camera of some sort, I'm not sure what we call the most casual of users; those that only want pictures for memories: parties, family vacations, drunk uncle Willie in a dress kissing the family dog, etc. It was THAT group to which I was referring when I said they were only interested in the simplest version of the final product, destined for a photo album or Facebook page.
Professionals and serious amateurs are about the print, to be sure, but only as it relates to the entire process, start to finish.
Yes!
-
I think it is strange that these topics come up over and over again and yet no one seems to want to acknowledge the definitions. Also, I find it strange that digital technology is still (after all this time) somehow seen as perverting 'traditional photography'. Photography is the formation of an image on a light sensitive material by a lens. There is a little leeway in this definition (e.g. infra-red instead of light, a pinhole instead of a lens), but it is first and foremost a recording medium. People will then dismiss the recording bit by trying to say that what you abstract or omit from your composition makes it impossible to record a 'literal truth' (whatever that is) and therefore anything can be allowed as a photograph, provided it looks like one. Rubbish I say. Photographs never represent literal or absolute truths, but personal truths or realities. This is true of any photographic genre, be it landscape, street, documentary or whatever. When someone views a photograph, provided they understand what the medium is, they will have an entirely reasonable expectation that what the photographer saw at the time the photograph was taken is more or less what they would have seen had they been there with them. The photographer in turn has a duty to the medium to not distort this understanding by introducing or removing compositional elements that simply did not exist at the point of capture. No one is going to get too worried about the odd bit of litter or a hair out of place, but we all and I mean all know what is real to us and that is what should be reflected in our photographs. Please do not confuse photography with photomontage, CGI or any other media.
As for art, that is the expressive arrrangement of elements within the medium. They may be contrived, spontaneous, whimsical, sentimental, inspiring, emotive, intellectually stimulating or kitsch or whatever. It all comes under the heading of 'one man's art is another man's poison'.
-
Just stumbled onto this thread again.
What's appears surprising is that we seem to have allowed the heat of the longish moment between posts to distract us somewhat from the main issue, which I don't believe is the difference between pro and am, but the application of this new technological possibility to the working photographer. Regarding the am, why should it matter in the slightest to him? Nothing will prevent him doing whatever takes his fancy, traditional or latest thing.
The impact, I expect, is going to be almost exclusively on the head of the pro. He will probably find himself having to learn yet another discipline or face a declining market for what he does if, indeed, he is allowed to hang on to that part of the process at all!
Considering the currrent heat about stock, perhaps this will change the format of that sector yet again. I do not see all that many amateurs willing to learn/afford even more abstract software and join in that particular race. For a start, as amateurs they have the freedom of choice, of doing what they think is fun, which presumably is shooting pictures. I see the opportunities for existing stock agencies changing too, with fresh markets opening to them as suppliers of ever more clip art at even lower prices. These are opportunities, aren't they, lowered prices?
For people that shot people shots on far-flung beaches, in paddy fields, in cityscapes, on boats etc. the chance for enjoying the buzz of the days of travelling somewhere to do that has already shrunk a lot; maybe this signals the end. It may also mean that fewer creative, curious minds that once sought that very thrill will survive or ever exist in pro photography again. It was only because it formed part of the possible that many of us actually had those pro pho dreams and managed to turn them into fact for ourselves; little else about photography is remotely exciting enough to warrant spending your life doing it for survival.
Frankly, an Orwellian future may turn out to be not one of political tyranny but one of extreme personal boredom.
Rob C
-
... For people that shot people shots on far-flung beaches, in paddy fields, in cityscapes, on boats etc. the chance for enjoying the buzz of the days of travelling somewhere to do that has already shrunk a lot; maybe this signals the end... little else about photography is remotely exciting enough to warrant spending your life doing it for survival...
It just occurred to me there is a parallel in another once-glamorous profession: pilots and flight attendants (or as they were known in my youth: stewardesses... the now politically incorrect term for reasons I would never fathom). Gone are the days when they would fly to Paris or Singapore and have a layover of several days there, with classy hotels and per diems paid, and nothing else to do but to sightsee, shop and kill the time in the most enjoyable way. Passengers would treat flying like a night at the opera and dress and behave accordingly. Pay was accordingly good, among the best. And nowadays? Nothing more than fancier dressed waitresses, overworked and underpaid (and no tips). Pilots' average salaries (and work hours and lifestyle) approach taxi or truck drivers' ones.
There you go, Rob... feeling better?
-
I do not see all that many amateurs willing to learn/afford even more abstract software and join in that particular race. For a start, as amateurs they have the freedom of choice, of doing what they think is fun, which presumably is shooting pictures.
I'm not sure that's the case at all. The freedom of choice gives us the luxury of concentrating on the aspects of photography we enjoy, rather than on the aspects which might make more sellable pictures, or take us there faster or cheaper. Looking at any random non-pro photography forum it's 75% about gear, 20% about software, and 5% photography - and I'm being generous for the photo part.
I photograph when I travel and increasingly in studio for portraits and glamour, and strive to get better at photography with composition, light, color, etc., and trying to say something coherent in each picture. But I also enjoy the software part in the pursuit of that coherence. Gear is mainly a means to an end, although I do drool over the concept of S2 or 645D even though I can't see justifying the cost for myself.
There are many gear fetishist amateurs who are in it for the toys, and don't care so much about the photography. Nothing wrong with that - good for them if that's what they enjoy.
So I would say that amateurs are the driver for much of photography gear and software development.
For people that shot people shots on far-flung beaches, in paddy fields, in cityscapes, on boats etc. the chance for enjoying the buzz of the days of travelling somewhere to do that has already shrunk a lot; maybe this signals the end. It may also mean that fewer creative, curious minds that once sought that very thrill will survive or ever exist in pro photography again. It was only because it formed part of the possible that many of us actually had those pro pho dreams and managed to turn them into fact for ourselves; little else about photography is remotely exciting enough to warrant spending your life doing it for survival.
I know a relatively successful travel photogapher with a writer/producer wife who travels half a year, and edits, markets and sells during the other half. The traveling part sounds glamorous, but they go to so many places and spend so little time in each they have very little (if any) time to enjoy it.
I'm sure there was more glamour in photography in the past, and there still is - I can't fathom shooting this (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010_swimsuit/) could be a drag no matter how much sand you have in your shorts But for the vast majority I would imagine photography is just another way to pay the bills.
As Slobodan alluded in the previous post, glamour is fleeting and changing. Hollywood used to be glamorous; as much as I enjoy Johnny Depp and Salma Hayek, they have absolutely nothing on Bogie or Ingrid Bergman when it comes to star appeal.
But much of that has to do with mystery of the process itself. Back in the days of Casablanca and North By Northwest there was no behind-the-scenes footage or director's commentary. What people saw on the silver screen was almost magical even though people knew it was fake. Now we know exactly how those blue creatures were created in 3D in Avatar.
Same with photography. While roll film brought photography to the masses, it was only the ubiquity and instant feedback of digital along with cheap or free post-processing with PS Elements or Picasa which tore down the last bit of mystery from photography. Someone creates a unique look, and within days we have dozens of draganizers or over-cooked HDR plugins and softwares which get to the same end-result, sometimes with a single click.
I would be the first one to say that free access and sharing of knowledge and techniques is welcome. But I also wish there was more mystery so people would still say oohs and aahs, instead of "Oh cool picture. I see what you did there, you jacked up the high-pass filter, desaturated the highlights, applied post-crop vignetting and increased yellow levels; can't wait to try this at home and put it on my blog so we'll have a million copycats in hours!"
The optimist in me says that we'll have stunning photography from this era for future generations of curators - but right now there's so much of it it's hard to say which is truly good, which just a passing fad.
-
It just occurred to me there is a parallel in another once-glamorous profession: pilots and flight attendants (or as they were known in my youth: stewardesses... the now politically incorrect term for reasons I would never fathom). Gone are the days when they would fly to Paris or Singapore and have a layover of several days there, with classy hotels and per diems paid, and nothing else to do but to sightsee, shop and kill the time in the most enjoyable way. Passengers would treat flying like a night at the opera and dress and behave accordingly. Pay was accordingly good, among the best. And nowadays? Nothing more than fancier dressed waitresses, overworked and underpaid (and no tips). Pilots' average salaries (and work hours and lifestyle) approach taxi or truck drivers' ones.
There you go, Rob... feeling better?
Yes, an almost religious (if topical) feeling: a comfirmation of my own thoughts and experiences! The only fly in the ointment? The Singapore bit: the S.A. stewardesses were even prettier that the model I took there; made me think, too late, that there was something to hiring locally... I should have believed the airline's commercials! On the other hand, it might just be something they slip into those little hot towels.
Rob C
-
this[/url] could be a drag no matter how much sand you have in your shorts But for the vast majority I would imagine photography is just another way to pay the bills.
Hi feppe
Your mention of the travel couple confirms, more or less, what I was told by the head of one of Spain's top stock libraries: to succeed in that genre, you have to be constantly on the move, use very low cost overnighters and, preferrably, live in a tent.
That was very far from my experience with travelling to shoot fashion or calendars; we lived high on the hog, much more so than I could have happily afforded using my own money. (That was one of the main attractions to moving to Spain to live, stock largely on my mind: beach and mountain locations at the doorstep without many added expenses!) In fact, I would say that apart from the pure pleasure of creating images - the fountain of the interest in photography - the possibility of travel abroad (I lived in Scotland at the time - living in similar climates you will understand the attraction) was very potent stuff fuelling the appetite for the type of work I did. There is a beautiful corruption in being paid to have a good time!
"for the vast majority I would imagine photography is just another way to pay the bills." Again, you are so accurate. I met with that on my very first job as a trainee in an industrial unit. Apart from another younger chap there, I was the only guy to talk about 'famous' photographers in a nice way or perhaps in any way, or even to think much about the job. I never could understand why those guys were in the business; what we did was so damn dull, the same thing, day after day after day. But it did provide an excellent learning opportunity because nothing was held back by cost: you did whatever you did until it was right. Dear God, what a contrast to the attitude I discovered when I went out on my own and had to use commercial colour labs for the first time!
But, I honestly do think that those exciting days are close to over. I wonder just how long SI will keep doing those specials either; they do raise the best sales of the year for them, but if the rest of the year becomes a slippery slope...
But we gotta keep hoping!
Rob C
-
But, I honestly do think that those exciting days are close to over. I wonder just how long SI will keep doing those specials either; they do raise the best sales of the year for them, but if the rest of the year becomes a slippery slope...
There was a MSNBC special on SI Swimsuit Issue in which they claimed the issue and tie-ins have generated a billion of revenue since its inception. They are doing some pretty innovative tie-ins, and have even managed to increase ad revenues year-on-year. Here a good recap (http://www.communiquepr.com/blog/?p=1320).
And I'd love to move to Spain to follow my parents - if only their economy there was in better shape (read: more jobs).
-
There was a MSNBC special on SI Swimsuit Issue in which they claimed the issue and tie-ins have generated a billion of revenue since its inception. They are doing some pretty innovative tie-ins, and have even managed to increase ad revenues year-on-year. Here a good recap (http://www.communiquepr.com/blog/?p=1320).
And I'd love to move to Spain to follow my parents - if only their economy there was in better shape (read: more jobs).
Thanks, feppe, I did catch that programme on statellite some time back; lovely girls -as they always use - but I have a feeling that some of the older shooters managed to make more of the opportunity. But then I have that feeling about the Pirelli Calendars too, so it may just be my own particular age-trap making its presence felt.
Moving to Spain: I don't think I would advise it unless one is fluent in either of the major languages. Also, the country is full of very talented photographers already, as I soon discovered almost thirty years ago! For anyone still getting their pennies from the UK, the good old days of the pound have vanished - much as the lost Dmark means so much less in euro terms. Personally, I think that the idea of a Common Market was excellent: we all live relatively close together and have broadly similar religious and legal ideals; but going further into monetary unity has destroyed independence of financial flexibility, something that Spain in particular seems to crave, if only in an effort to turn its tourism business around. It is just too expensive now: being trapped in an euro economy, it can no longer compete with other countries that are outwith the zone and free to pitch their currency as suits them.
There is also a huge problem with immigration from northern Africa. Many came over to labour on road-building and on other building sites which have gone into paralysis and show no sign of recovery - quite the reverse. Of those people, some are here legally and many not legally - sans benefit of social security for many of them and only short-term security for most, the future looks to be one of increasing desperation and inevitable crime in order to survive. I suppose that's one advantage of living on an island: harder to invade or vanish after committing something - there are few others! Oh yes, forgot - fewer caravans...
Rob C
-
Thanks, feppe, I did catch that programme on statellite some time back; lovely girls -as they always use - but I have a feeling that some of the older shooters managed to make more of the opportunity. But then I have that feeling about the Pirelli Calendars too, so it may just be my own particular age-trap making its presence felt.
Moving to Spain: I don't think I would advise it unless one is fluent in either of the major languages. Also, the country is full of very talented photographers already, as I soon discovered almost thirty years ago! For anyone still getting their pennies from the UK, the good old days of the pound have vanished - much as the lost Dmark means so much less in euro terms. Personally, I think that the idea of a Common Market was excellent: we all live relatively close together and have broadly similar religious and legal ideals; but going further into monetary unity has destroyed independence of financial flexibility, something that Spain in particular seems to crave, if only in an effort to turn its tourism business around. It is just too expensive now: being trapped in an euro economy, it can no longer compete with other countries that are outwith the zone and free to pitch their currency as suits them.
There is also a huge problem with immigration from northern Africa. Many came over to labour on road-building and on other building sites which have gone into paralysis and show no sign of recovery - quite the reverse. Of those people, some are here legally and many not legally - sans benefit of social security for many of them and only short-term security for most, the future looks to be one of increasing desperation and inevitable crime in order to survive. I suppose that's one advantage of living on an island: harder to invade or vanish after committing something - there are few others! Oh yes, forgot - fewer caravans...
Rob C
Spain has been #2 tourist destination in the world for years, I don't see it losing that position any time soon. They've had euro since 2001 IIRC so the very limited impact that has had on price levels is already well understood. Not sure what you're getting at with the deutsche mark and euro comments, but fiscal policy is national while monetary policy is common in the euro area. There are restrictions on national fiscal policy, though, but this is not the place for those discussions or debate on immigration policy.
I'm not a pro photographer so the number of photographers there doesn't matter to me.
-
Spain has been #2 tourist destination in the world for years, I don't see it losing that position any time soon. They've had euro since 2001 IIRC so the very limited impact that has had on price levels is already well understood. Not sure what you're getting at with the deutsche mark and euro comments, but fiscal policy is national while monetary policy is common in the euro area. There are restrictions on national fiscal policy, though, but this is not the place for those discussions or debate on immigration policy.
I'm not a pro photographer so the number of photographers there doesn't matter to me.
Simple: when the Germans had the Dmark they held power in their wallets; with the euro they hold euros that neither grow nor shrink in relative value between euro countries. With the Dmark they just got richer and richer compared with almost all other currencies.
Regarding Spain. Since they got the euro, the cost of living for Spaniards has rocketed. They never did earn as highly as the Germans nor, for that matter, the British. Nothing about the euro raised salaries, only prices. I remember very clearly sitting in a bar in Spain on the day that the euro was introduced. The price of a coffee literally doubled overnight. Not much, you might say... well, so did all the food market prices go up, everything there being translated from peseta to euro at the official rate (where the local vendors understood how to do it) and then rounded up, which they certainly did understand!
Spain might well have been the no.1 or no.2 tourist destination, but don't forget that for many regions the British were even larger a percentage of visitor than the Germans. Those numbers are shrinking fast because of the strong euro and weak pound (though God knows why it should be weak, other than because of speculators, when the UK job figures are so much better than the pan-European ones), with non-euro currency areas taking up the missing tourists. Look at the number of unsold, unfinishd apartments here and the hairs on the back of your scalp should rise in fear. That construction boom was partly where the African migrant found labouring work that has now gone, whether or not you approve of such facts being aired here. Extend that to similar situations throughout Europe to all manner of industrial sectors and perhaps US gun laws start to make some sense; an old guy like me can't rely on martial arts (even if he knew any which he sure doesn't!) when the french windows on the terrace start opening in the middle of the night.
Rob C
-
Simple: when the Germans had the Dmark they held power in their wallets; with the euro they hold euros that neither grow nor shrink in relative value between euro countries. With the Dmark they just got richer and richer compared with almost all other currencies.
Regarding Spain. Since they got the euro, the cost of living for Spaniards has rocketed. They never did earn as highly as the Germans nor, for that matter, the British. Nothing about the euro raised salaries, only prices. I remember very clearly sitting in a bar in Spain on the day that the euro was introduced. The price of a coffee literally doubled overnight. Not much, you might say... well, so did all the food market prices go up, everything there being translated from peseta to euro at the official rate (where the local vendors understood how to do it) and then rounded up, which they certainly did understand!
Spain might well have been the no.1 or no.2 tourist destination, but don't forget that for many regions the British were even larger a percentage of visitor than the Germans. Those numbers are shrinking fast because of the strong euro and weak pound (though God knows why it should be weak, other than because of speculators, when the UK job figures are so much better than the pan-European ones), with non-euro currency areas taking up the missing tourists. Look at the number of unsold, unfinishd apartments here and the hairs on the back of your scalp should rise in fear. That construction boom was partly where the African migrant found labouring work that has now gone, whether or not you approve of such facts being aired here. Extend that to similar situations throughout Europe to all manner of industrial sectors and perhaps US gun laws start to make some sense; an old guy like me can't rely on martial arts (even if he knew any which he sure doesn't!) when the french windows on the terrace start opening in the middle of the night.
Rob C
Not sure where your tourism figures are from, but Spain is still in the second or third spot (http://www.unwto.org/facts/menu.html) depending on the metric used, and in the top 10 in tourism competitiveness (http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/TravelandTourismReport/index.htm) suggesting it'll continue to do just fine. I see the abandoned building sites every year, but the infrastructure to support almost 60 million tourists is already there, the sun will still shine, and people will still come. It might not be the British tourists, but to throw anecdotal evidence I've seen a massive increase in Chinese tourists in Murcia, for example.
Blaming the Euro or EU for Spain's inflation isn't supported by historical trends: Spain has traditionally had higher inflation rate than then rest of western Europe (http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication1421_en.pdf), even before the launch of the euro.
There was some inflation everywhere in Europe when countries join the euro as vendors take that as an opportunity to do some rounding up. I can't imagine it being any more in Spain than elsewhere. In any case, the euro launch caused very limited real inflation, but the perception was of much higher inflation due to sensationalist and/or anti-euro press coverage, and people latching onto outrageous outlier cases like the coffee example you gave. It's exactly the same as can be seen in the UK with crime statistics: crime levels are at its lowest in a decade (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15452867) while people feel less safe than in the past due to grisly incidental crimes being overreported, ignoring how overall violent crime levels have dwindled.
If you want guns, the laws for buying and owning them in Finland and Switzerland are quite liberal. The rights to defend yourself or property with them is another matter. For that you indeed would have to move to one of the US States which have a Stand Your Ground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States#Stand-your-ground) law.
Anyway, I'm done with this on this forum.
-
If you want guns, the laws for buying and owning them in Finland and Switzerland are quite liberal. The rights to defend yourself or property with them is another matter. For that you indeed would have to move to one of the US States which have a Stand Your Ground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States#Stand-your-ground) law.
Anyway, I'm done with this on this forum.
Me too, but I never said I wanted guns: what I indicated was that the need is ever a more real situation.
Regarding inflation here in Spain: forget 'official figures' and believe what I have experienced in thirty years of it. The inflation in Spain was mainly driven by the property market and generally hit second-home buyers more than national buyers (who still, of course, were affected). Why? because foreigners bought in different developments designed for them - virtually ghettos, exclusive or otherwise. Even more importantly, nationals knew how to buy. The property market used to be partly white and partly black economics, with few foreigners able to understand or avail themelves of the advantages - or, indeed, dangers therein. Considering a house is the most expensive thing most people experience buying, it represents a huge part of inflationary cost. Because second homes bought by foreigners played such a huge part in the property market, that market was able to zoom, exactly as happens within England and Wales too, with pleasant villages and coastal towns being bought up by Londoners with huge wallets who then price locals right out of the competition. I saw that even in the prettier parts of Scotland, where the price of a London flat translated into an estate!
As far as crime figures go, I trust street opinion far more than sanitized official claims, especially close to election times - i.e. in the UK right now. Considering that criminals are routinely thrown out of jail early there, because there just ain't space for 'em all inside, should tell you something pretty clearly about where the trend is headed - simple maths. I also have family back there and know how going back on visits shapes my perception of the changes going down and how comfortable I feel walking down the street. It has been a few years since I last walked on one at night unless just to where the car was parked and in the hope that I'd still find it there in one piece or even at all. Many don't.
Ciao
Rob C