Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: jhmaw on February 21, 2010, 03:36:33 pm
-
For the last few years I have been updating most of my software, including Photoshop about as often as updates were available. It occurred to me the other day that most of what I do on a routine basis (including my work with Photoshop) could be performed equally well on older versions of the software. I have been updating for several reasons. Firstly in order to find out exactly what the newer version could do. Secondly out of a feeling of not wanting to be left out (I think I am freeing myself of that one) and lastly for reasons of compatibility with other software and the hardware on which the programs sit (and other new hardware such as cameras).
I mentioned this to a friend over lunch the other day. She agreed and pointed to the fact that in the past, most people who achieving virtuosity in a particular field did so with tools that remained largely unchanged over long periods. In one sense rapid development of software helps more people to become virtuosi. On the other is may stop just as many from ever attaining that status.
It brought to mind Ansel Adams. As a virtuoso with both camera and piano it would have been interesting to have his opinion on the subject. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen (unless future technology makes it possible )
I would be interested in the reactions of others to this.
John
-
What I do with software is to use it until I cannot get anymore out of it, then upgrade, so I might go from version 3 to version 5, missing out all of the 3.1, 3.4 etc. BUT...........I then have a learning curve as it has changed so much. I like to spend my money on equipment first, then software as and when required.
For commercial and top end users I can see the need to upgrade regularly as the new tweaks do offer improvements.
-
With a few exceptions like Lightroom for improvements in IQ of my processed photos I generally don't upgrade Photoshop or the like unless I upgrade my computer. This usually means I'm 2-3 versions back of the latest when I finally upgrade but it also means I'm getting the most out of the upgrade and the new hardware.
Adam
-
good question. one I will lift for another place+time. Here a first set of quotes:
“I hate cameras. They are so much more sure than I am about everything.”
— John Steinbeck
“People are under the illusion that it’s easy…Technically, it is complex. You have a million options with equipment to distract you. I tell my students to simplify their equipment.”
— Brett Weston
“The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don’t know what to do with it.”
— Edward Weston
“It matters little how much equipment we use; it matters much that we be masters of all we do use.”
— Sam Abell
===
richard
-
Richard.
Your second, third and fourth quotes seem to me to support the idea that the original proposition "Is the pace of software development killing virtuosity?" might be the case. I look forward to reading more thoughts on this. My own mind is far from made up.
John
-
The only killer features I've found in the latest CS versions are Smart Filters and the Healing Tool - is it worth the extra to upgrade? Doubt it.
But your premise in the case of PS is faulty. There is not much to relearn or unlearn when upgrading to a new version. Unlike MS, Adobe doesn't mess with the entire UI (think Office 2007), so you'll be using the same tools in pretty much the same way in all versions of CS, and even earlier. Therefore there shouldn't be any lost productivity or lack of command of the craft when upgrading.
But again, if there are no killer features which one wants - apart from the manufactured "needs" Adobe tries to sell with each version -, there's not much reason to upgrade.
-
For the last few years I have been updating most of my software, including Photoshop about as often as updates were available. It occurred to me the other day that most of what I do on a routine basis (including my work with Photoshop) could be performed equally well on older versions of the software. I have been updating for several reasons. Firstly in order to find out exactly what the newer version could do. Secondly out of a feeling of not wanting to be left out (I think I am freeing myself of that one) and lastly for reasons of compatibility with other software and the hardware on which the programs sit (and other new hardware such as cameras).
I mentioned this to a friend over lunch the other day. She agreed and pointed to the fact that in the past, most people who achieving virtuosity in a particular field did so with tools that remained largely unchanged over long periods. In one sense rapid development of software helps more people to become virtuosi. On the other is may stop just as many from ever attaining that status.
It brought to mind Ansel Adams. As a virtuoso with both camera and piano it would have been interesting to have his opinion on the subject. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen (unless future technology makes it possible )
I would be interested in the reactions of others to this.
John
I think to some extent you are comparing apples with oranges. Your use of the term "virtuosity" implies a comparison with musical skill, but I think photographic skill is quite different.
With music, the virtuosity is not in knowing what to do, but in being able to do it. For example, Yoyo Ma and I can both look at the same Bach cello piece and we both know what to do, pretty much, because Bach wrote down the instructions in the score. The difference is that Ma has the skill, the virtuosity, to actually do it, and do it well, whereas I can barely scratch out a woeful rendition.
In photography, things are reversed. Being able to do it is not a problem - anyone with half a brain can learn how to use a camera and software (although it may take a little time). What differentiates those photographers who regularly produce stunning prints know what to do - where to set up the tripod for the best composition, which filter to use for the most appealing effect, what paper to use, how to adjust curves, sharpness, etc. for the best result.
To get back to your question, I don't think software development affects photographic virtuosity at all (unless you think that "virtuosity" means being able to work quickly and efficiently in a program). A skilled photographer who upgrades to a new program will be just as good a photographer even though he may not be able to process images as quickly.
-
Peter.
I think that I might in fact have been comparing a couple of citrus fruits of different type, but I'm sure I didn't include an apple. For a start I wasn't talking about cameras. I was, as the title suggests, talking about software, but I think you are quite right in some ways. In Photoshop there are some tasks that you can simply tell someone how to do, but there are others that require practice and indeed something approaching virtuosity. You can tell someone how to apply techniques using layers and if they do what you said they will achieve the desired result (I'm sure there are exceptions, but I can't bring any to mind just now). On the other hand you can give someone an image and ask them to make a selection using (for example) three specified selection tools and the result depends very much on how experienced and well practiced they are (something I have observed when teaching this subject).
Equally, you are likely to be more successful if you can look at an image and see the whole path towards making it look as you would wish. You will do things in the right order and apply changes to the right degree, knowing which steps are to follow. I would suggest that this should include taking the original image, knowing in advance of making the exposure, what you are going to do in the RAW converter and what you are going to do in Photoshop after that. That normally comes with practice.
As I said before, my own mind is far from made up either way.
John
-
Hi,
I think it is an interesting topic really. Thank you to bring it in the forum.
I tend to agree with Richard post wisdom.
What is happening from about 20 years has no precedent. The frequency and speed tools have to be replaced is now superior to any human's necesary "learning curve" to acheive a proper mastering, but these tools, being more efficients balanced in part this problem. This, is just an aspect of a deep hill society, the machine is out of control (see the recent world crisis). The human being is not important at all, if he does not manage to "update" he is pull away from the system, he does not serve it any more. Constant updates are necessary in order to maintain the production and capital profits. It is absolutely logical and normal in a world of constant competition. This society does not need all life experienced persons but short term disposable experts.
This is a hellish wheel: what you learn now is FOR SURE outdated in a question of years. All the hours you spent in front of your computer with color profile, this or that version of software, has a short life. Tomorrow, other systems would have replaced and solve some problems, but bring new others.
You have to understand the relation between the amount of time ones spend in learning and get experience, and the time you will have the privilege to use such an investement. This time now is extremely short.
This is creating a mental hill society, individuals more and more lost, useless etc...this is, and I choose my words carefully, an authentic genocide.
There is only 2 ways to escape to this: 1) the desert island 2) the team work. Delegate.
A leonardo da Vinci or a Picasso his virtually impossible today. Maybe tomorrow when all that had collapsed. Now, people is replacable, there is no figure any more, no genious, just a massive flock of clones that have been trained to buy and consume the very latest they do not need.
As Georges Clinton said: "free your mind and your ass will follow".
Regards,
Fred.
-
A leonardo da Vinci or a Picasso his virtually impossible today. Maybe tomorrow when all that had collapsed. Now, people is replacable, there is no figure any more, no genious, just a massive flock of clones that have been trained to buy and consume the very latest they do not need.
I don't see how you can make such a conclusion. Your view of Da Vinci's and Picasso's time is rose-tinted as the mediocre and poor art hasn't survived the generations, and is forgotten. I'm positive there was as much shit in those days as there is today - we just don't have the luxury of hindsight, yet.
-
Peter.
I think that I might in fact have been comparing a couple of citrus fruits of different type, but I'm sure I didn't include an apple. For a start I wasn't talking about cameras. I was, as the title suggests, talking about software, but I think you are quite right in some ways. In Photoshop there are some tasks that you can simply tell someone how to do, but there are others that require practice and indeed something approaching virtuosity. You can tell someone how to apply techniques using layers and if they do what you said they will achieve the desired result (I'm sure there are exceptions, but I can't bring any to mind just now). On the other hand you can give someone an image and ask them to make a selection using (for example) three specified selection tools and the result depends very much on how experienced and well practiced they are (something I have observed when teaching this subject).
Equally, you are likely to be more successful if you can look at an image and see the whole path towards making it look as you would wish. You will do things in the right order and apply changes to the right degree, knowing which steps are to follow. I would suggest that this should include taking the original image, knowing in advance of making the exposure, what you are going to do in the RAW converter and what you are going to do in Photoshop after that. That normally comes with practice.
As I said before, my own mind is far from made up either way.
John
John,
You make a good point about selections, there's definitely an art there, one I still struggle with! My distinction between photography and music may may be too black and white (haha!) but I believe it is generally valid. I am seriously involved in both, and I see this distinction almost every day. I struggle with playing technique every day, and will do so for the rest of my life, but it's very rare for me to be unable to get an image looking the way I want. Rather, my problems with photography, lately at least, is that I am having trouble envisioning and planning images that I find compelling once I have processed them.
-
I would be interested in the reactions of others to this.
I like software and haven't found that upgrading or integrating new tools has slowed me down one bit.
-
I don't see how you can make such a conclusion. Your view of Da Vinci's and Picasso's time is rose-tinted as the mediocre and poor art hasn't survived the generations, and is forgotten. I'm positive there was as much shit in those days as there is today - we just don't have the luxury of hindsight, yet.
Hi,
I think I did not express my point properly, so I apologyse for my unprecise english and try to clarify.
First, I did not say that these times were better. Of course they were not. They had other kinds of problems, challenges etc...
Also, genious, serious artists are of course possible today and it happens.
But what is not possible now, what have changed, is the "format". Andy Wahrol predicted precisely this phenomenon for the next future.
In my examples, Picasso, Leonardo (I could have choosen Ansel Adams etc...) had all life trajectories, dedicated to master "stables" tools and techniques, and overcome them. These were real powerfull figures in their time, recognized and respected or hated so. Now it is the time of "averageness", massification and fast consuming, including in art. Masters are known for a short time, then disappear. Personality is much more diluted, skills uncertain etc...
Look, there has never been so much photography than now. Everybody has a website, everybody has the oportunity to show his talents to the world.
There are virtually millions of sites, everybody is a photographer or try to be so. The difusion and medias employed are so efficient and powerfull, the tools are much better, everything is much more easy, efficient, incredible sofwares, reliables cameras, instant access to information...BUT
It is very strange that we do not have proportionally more Ansel Adams, more Picassos...it is exactely on the contrary. Did you ask yourself why?
That was my point when I said that about the masters. I hope I could clear it well.
Regards,
Fred.
-
For the last few years I have been updating most of my software, including Photoshop about as often as updates were available. It occurred to me the other day that most of what I do on a routine basis (including my work with Photoshop) could be performed equally well on older versions of the software. I have been updating for several reasons. Firstly in order to find out exactly what the newer version could do. Secondly out of a feeling of not wanting to be left out (I think I am freeing myself of that one) and lastly for reasons of compatibility with other software and the hardware on which the programs sit (and other new hardware such as cameras).
You are not alone, and may find this article helpful:
http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/pdf/Hamster_Wheel.pdf (http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/pdf/Hamster_Wheel.pdf)
But those with this line of thinking will drive all the sw vendors out of business, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Then we can return to being photographers.
-
You are not alone, and may find this article helpful:
http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/pdf/Hamster_Wheel.pdf (http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/pdf/Hamster_Wheel.pdf)
But those with this line of thinking will drive all the sw vendors out of business, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Then we can return to being photographers.
Chris,
I agree 100% with Huntington. This is exactely what I was trying to say. Ahhh...I need to improve my english!
Regards,
Fred.
-
Fred, Your English is fine. Wish I could do as well in Spanish or French.
I too agree with Huntington. But Huntington's rant doesn't deal with the title of this thread. The key phrase in that title is "killing virtuosity," and it seems to me that "virtuosity" in photography has little if anything to do with software. The virtuosity that matters comes at the moment you trip a shutter. At that point you either have a good negative or digital file, or you haven't. If you have, you may print it again and again over many years with different processes. If you can't keep up with the changes in the post-processing world you can always take the original object to a professional who's a "virtuous" printer. Most of the discussion in this thread has been about post-processing. That changes pretty rapidly, but the "virtuosity" that creates a great photograph isn't in the printing. I think HCB hit the nail on the head when he said: "Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not a major concern." I think most of us become overly concerned with those technical aspects, and I include myself in that judgment.
-
Hi Russ.
Allow me to agreeably disagree if I may. If I read your comments correctly you are saying that virtuosity exists only in the taking of the picture and not in the processing and editing. For some people in some situations and where little work needs to be done to an image that may be true, but in many cases opening the shutter is only the start of the process. To return to my previous practice of referring to Ansel Adams, I think that he likened the negative to the musical score and the print to the performance. Virtuosity is normally associated with the performance and not with the writing of the score. We refer to the virtuosity of Heifetz or Casals as performers but not to the virtuosity of composers.
Another interesting point that you raise is that you can come back to the file and do it again (properly) later, but to some extent I am not too keen on depending on this too much. Firstly, as I said previously, I think it is beneficial to have the software steps in mind even when setting up the camera. This locks together the process of taking the picture and adjusting it later. They are just different parts of the same process of implementing the vision that inspires the taking of the picture in the first place. For best results I don't think they can be separated completely.
You also suggest the option of leaving it to a ""virtuous" printer". While I agree that the morals of the person printing your work should be the very highest , I don't like the idea of abdicating responsibility for such an important part of the image creation to someone who doesn't (and can't) totally share my vision.
John
-
Fred, Your English is fine. Wish I could do as well in Spanish or French.
I too agree with Huntington. But Huntington's rant doesn't deal with the title of this thread. The key phrase in that title is "killing virtuosity," and it seems to me that "virtuosity" in photography has little if anything to do with software. The virtuosity that matters comes at the moment you trip a shutter. At that point you either have a good negative or digital file, or you haven't. If you have, you may print it again and again over many years with different processes. If you can't keep up with the changes in the post-processing world you can always take the original object to a professional who's a "virtuous" printer. Most of the discussion in this thread has been about post-processing. That changes pretty rapidly, but the "virtuosity" that creates a great photograph isn't in the printing. I think HCB hit the nail on the head when he said: "Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not a major concern." I think most of us become overly concerned with those technical aspects, and I include myself in that judgment.
Thanks for these precisions Russ.
Yes, you are right, "The virtuosity that matters comes at the moment you trip a shutter ".
Maybe we all have fallen at one point or another in post-processing-never-ending-technical-updates, and this uses a lot of precious time and energy that distract from mastering deeply a tool. Many of my friends who have been spending incredible amonut of hours with that are starting to give up and came back into shooting. That was my point when I said "delegate" as you also mentionned in your post.
Regards,
Fred.
-
Hi Russ.
Allow me to agreeably disagree if I may. If I read your comments correctly you are saying that virtuosity exists only in the taking of the picture and not in the processing and editing. For some people in some situations and where little work needs to be done to an image that may be true, but in many cases opening the shutter is only the start of the process. To return to my previous practice of referring to Ansel Adams, I think that he likened the negative to the musical score and the print to the performance. Virtuosity is normally associated with the performance and not with the writing of the score. We refer to the virtuosity of Heifetz or Casals as performers but not to the virtuosity of composers.
Another interesting point that you raise is that you can come back to the file and do it again (properly) later, but to some extent I am not too keen on depending on this too much. Firstly, as I said previously, I think it is beneficial to have the software steps in mind even when setting up the camera. This locks together the process of taking the picture and adjusting it later. They are just different parts of the same process of implementing the vision that inspires the taking of the picture in the first place. For best results I don't think they can be separated completely.
You also suggest the option of leaving it to a ""virtuous" printer". While I agree that the morals of the person printing your work should be the very highest , I don't like the idea of abdicating responsibility for such an important part of the image creation to someone who doesn't (and can't) totally share my vision.
John
John,
I agree that agreeable disagreements are the best kind.
I'm familiar with Ansel's dictum that the negative is the score and the print is the performance, but I've never entirely agreed with him. A photograph, like a musical composition, can produce an infinite number of performances, but when we hear a performance of a Chopin nocturne, though we may appreciate the quality of the performance, we attribute the genius of the music to Chopin.
I agree, to a certain agreeable extent with your second paragraph. When I trip a shutter I know what I'm seeing and I know how the print should look. A certain amount of post-processing always is going to be required to get the file (either scanned or captured with a camera) to the state where it represents what you saw. But too often nowadays "adjusting" the file involves things like pushing the color saturation to the point where the picture emulates a Marlboro ad. Happily, if the original file still exists, and if it's a masterpiece, someone later on can salvage it.
Regarding the third point, it seems to me that a lot depends on what kind of photograph you're making. HCB didn't print his own work, and in his case it didn't matter because the virtuosity displayed in the photograph was in the subject matter and the composition. He relied on a single, trusted printer. One can only hope that the printer was as virtuous as he was competent. I suspect that a lot of my agreeable disagreement with the title of the thread flows from the fact that street photography, rather than landscape, is my favorite thing.
-
Hi Russ.
Allow me to agreeably disagree if I may. If I read your comments correctly you are saying that virtuosity exists only in the taking of the picture and not in the processing and editing. For some people in some situations and where little work needs to be done to an image that may be true, but in many cases opening the shutter is only the start of the process. To return to my previous practice of referring to Ansel Adams, I think that he likened the negative to the musical score and the print to the performance. Virtuosity is normally associated with the performance and not with the writing of the score. We refer to the virtuosity of Heifetz or Casals as performers but not to the virtuosity of composers.
Another interesting point that you raise is that you can come back to the file and do it again (properly) later, but to some extent I am not too keen on depending on this too much. Firstly, as I said previously, I think it is beneficial to have the software steps in mind even when setting up the camera. This locks together the process of taking the picture and adjusting it later. They are just different parts of the same process of implementing the vision that inspires the taking of the picture in the first place. For best results I don't think they can be separated completely.
You also suggest the option of leaving it to a ""virtuous" printer". While I agree that the morals of the person printing your work should be the very highest , I don't like the idea of abdicating responsibility for such an important part of the image creation to someone who doesn't (and can't) totally share my vision.
John
I agree with John that making the print is an essential part of being a "virtuostic" photographer. There are exceptions, of course, with Cartier-Bresson perhaps the best know. But for most photographers, and particularly those doing nature/landscape work, the print is an integral part of the process.
-
Hi Russ.
Something else occurs to me after reading your last post, and that is that quite often in photography two apparently contradictory opinions may each be applicable. I remember an article by Michael Reichmann entitled "Your Camera Does Matter" in which he eloquently demolishes the saying that "It's not the camera, it's the photographer". And yet at times the contrary seems to be true. Maybe in conditions that don't demand very specialised equipment, where a standard lens will do just fine this saying seems to have weight (a Holga may capture the scene as successfully as a 'Blad). Sometimes things that are said are not entirely true but may still be useful. Photography is a complex practice (OK and it's very simple too), with many people practising quite different forms of the craft.
I know this is slightly off the point (I made it in the first place so I feel entitled), but I thought it was worth making. Hope someone agrees.
John
-
I agree with John that making the print is an essential part of being a "virtuostic" photographer. There are exceptions, of course, with Cartier-Bresson perhaps the best know. But for most photographers, and particularly those doing nature/landscape work, the print is an integral part of the process.
Peter, I agree that the print is always "an integral part of the process," just as sitting down and massaging the piano is always an integral part of producing a Chopin Nocturne, but even for a virtuoso printer a fine negative or digital file is essential. To put it a different way, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of performers who can interpret Chopin in a way that brings tears to your eyes, just as there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of printers -- especially with the technology we now have -- who can produce a fabulous print from an Ansel Adams negative. When Ansel was dodging and burning he was performing, but when he tripped the shutter he was composing. Which, in your estimation, is more important?
-
Hi Russ.
Something else occurs to me after reading your last post, and that is that quite often in photography two apparently contradictory opinions may each be applicable. I remember an article by Michael Reichmann entitled "Your Camera Does Matter" in which he eloquently demolishes the saying that "It's not the camera, it's the photographer". And yet at times the contrary seems to be true. Maybe in conditions that don't demand very specialised equipment, where a standard lens will do just fine this saying seems to have weight (a Holga may capture the scene as successfully as a 'Blad). Sometimes things that are said are not entirely true but may still be useful. Photography is a complex practice (OK and it's very simple too), with many people practising quite different forms of the craft.
I know this is slightly off the point (I made it in the first place so I feel entitled), but I thought it was worth making. Hope someone agrees.
John
John, I agree that you're entitled.
-
Russ.
I notice that you agree that I am entitled, but not that the point was worth making. I hope that was merely an oversight.
In your reply to Peter you ask weather he considers the opening of the shutter or the printing (and dodging and burning) to be more important? My question is should we really be separating the two. To use another analogy, it seems a bit like asking weather the back or the front of a horse is the more important. Yet they are normally rather firmly linked and are in most cases equally important even though they are different (one end bites, the other kicks - different but equal). Surely what matters is going from exposure to print with the photographers vision expressed at its best. So the point is, does the rapid growth in the number of features in software contribute (as the makers would have us believe), detract or is it simply irrelevant except for its function of transferring our funds to the software author?
John
-
John, Let's call it an oversight. I do agree that there are situations where two opposing opinions may both have some validity. I also agree that that's slightly off the point.
But let's deal with the idea that the snap and the print are "firmly linked." I agreeably disagree with that idea. If it were true then it would make sense to destroy Ansel's negatives, because Ansel's no longer with us. The fact is that like a Chopin nocturne, Ansel's negatives are still here and it's no longer possible, in the sense of your analogy, to connect the snap with a print made by a later printer, yet the original negative continues to exist as a masterpiece of composition and exposure and can be turned into a splendid "performance" by a competent performer. To insist on the connection between the snap and a particular print would be similar to saying that only a performance by Chopin himself is a valid expression of one of his nocturnes. Unfortunately we can't know how a Chopin nocturne played by Chopin would sound because we didn't have recording equipment in his day. In the case of Ansel, if his negatives are carefully scanned and preserved we can continue to have "performances" of his compositions far into the future. As far as the kind of creeping featurism we see in software development is concerned, that's a marketing ploy, and sometimes the claims made by the marketers make their companies sound like the end of the horse that doesn't bite. On the other hand, underneath the featurism there are improvements that can make performances of Ansel's negatives even more splendid.
-
The only killer features I've found in the latest CS versions are Smart Filters and the Healing Tool - is it worth the extra to upgrade? Doubt it.
The big changes in PS tend to be an aggregation of lots of little things that improve workflow and is the sort of thing most people ignore when you have things like content aware scaling to wow users.
But your premise in the case of PS is faulty. There is not much to relearn or unlearn when upgrading to a new version. Unlike MS, Adobe doesn't mess with the entire UI (think Office 2007), so you'll be using the same tools in pretty much the same way in all versions of CS, and even earlier. Therefore there shouldn't be any lost productivity or lack of command of the craft when upgrading.
And that's where most people miss out on new versions as they keep doing things the same old way and miss many useful improvements.
Office's UI overhaul was a big improvement and a brave thing for MS to do with such a widely used programme and the reason it was done was the the programme had out grown the interface paradigm and didn't really work.
Lightroom is a complete UI overhaul for the image tweaking paradigm and remember it is called Photoshop Lightroom and the UI was radically different from PS's to reflect the dramatic change in photographer's workflows and many photographers have moved to LR as it's now the better tool for many.
John Nack has talked about how he would like to overhaul PS's UI, but he also realises the potential backlash
But again, if there are no killer features which one wants - apart from the manufactured "needs" Adobe tries to sell with each version -, there's not much reason to upgrade.
My way of testing an new version is to use it for a while, make sure I know what is different and then go back to previous version and if the older version which seemed fine, now suddenly feels a bit clumsier and slower to use, it's a good upgrade. I thought the improvements in ACR were worth the upgrade alone from CS3 to CS4, yet many pro photographer's I've spoken to do not even know what ACR is.
-
THis constant learning of new software, cameras, hardware etc is something that sort of annoys me. Even though I love learning new stuff, you can spend too much time learning and not enough time doing. But having said that I think this article is flawed.
You are not alone, and may find this article helpful:
http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/pdf/Hamster_Wheel.pdf (http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/pdf/Hamster_Wheel.pdf)
The author talks about Charlie Parker not having to relearn to play a new type of Saxophone every 18 months or so and as a result could simply spend time mastering his art. The reason this is a poor analogy is that Parker is using a mature technology and at present computers/software/digital imaging is anything but a mature market. As a result things are being constantly invented/adopted/dropped and when things mature and settle down then the new software every 18 months will stop and new revenues wil have to be found.
The megapixel race is gradually winding down, video is now being used as the selling tool as is higher ISOs with both pocket and DSLRs. But once everyone has caught up, then cameras will last until they wear out just like film cameras as they won't be replaced by a much better model 12-18 months later.
And it will then be like the last days of film, another mature market, where all the rapid changes had been done and every now and again a new film would appear that was very slightly better than the older version and that was how it would have continued if it wasn't for digital changing everything. In 10 years time it'll probably be back to incremental changes again and less angst about keeping up unless another disruptive technology appears.
The author uses old versions of the OS and the image editing programmes to work on OS9 and PS 6. Yet he would almost certainly be far more productive and have more time to practice his photographic skills if he moved to more recent soft and hardware. Even if he had to spend a little bit of time learning the new features, he'd still have more time to simply practice his art as computers and software are so much better and more efficient than what he is using.
He also seems to think that the old days were better as enlargers were standardized and digital technologies never will be. I had two enlargers in my cellar, with completely different mechanical operation and exposure/image modification, no more similar or different in methodology than Apple and MS are really.
But he did write this 6 years ago. I'd be interested to see if he still uses such old technologies and is still the luddite in his views. Digital photography was in its infancy then and has improved so much since then. I was still using film when he wrote article yet doubt I'll ever touch it again.
-
Very interesting thread and discussion. I know I am not a "photography virtuoso", but I do think about the pace of development. I have used slide film for 20 years, and I have learned a lot from that. I bought my first digital camera (a Powershot Pro 1) in 2004, just to see what it was all about. My previous experience with digital workflow stemmed from using a film scanner, and the concurrent image processing, to scan my slides. It took me more than a couple of months to achieve the results I wanted.
Therefore, by the time I finally let go of my film SLRs, and ventured into the DSLR world (with a 5D MKII in early 2009), I was not new to digital workflows and softwares. I have pretty much maintained my workflow, both while shooting, and processing the image (more or less, of course). For my needs, PS Elements is adequate, with a couple of plugins for noise reduction and curves. I only have to upgrade when I need a particular camera to be supported; it actually annoys me (to be soft on the subject...) when a new version ov ACR does not work with a previous version of Elements, and then I am forced to upgrade Elements...
Anyway, I am one of those guys who do not upgrade just for the sake of it. I have a well defined workflow (heck, I even still use graduated neutral grds in the field, rahter than this HDR merging stuff), that works for me. I suppose this is one of the difficulties for both newcomers and old timers in photography: to try and develop your workflow - in the case of the former - and to try and not disrupt your established workflow too much - in the case of the latter.
The pace of development, both in software and cameras, is just too much. To become good at what you do, you need to learn the software and get experience with it; only then you will be able to tell if a new version will be good for your photography. Without this "learning period" you will not be able to achieve stability to develop the artistic side of your photography. Software should be used as the tool to get you somewhere, and should not be a hindrance. I work for the oil industry, every couple of years or so the subsurface modelling software I use is upgraded, so I have to learn a few new things. This is fine, because I have a lot of experience with the software.
Cameras are like computers and gadgets these days. For example, the pace of release of new cameras, especially compacts, has attained such a level, that what happens is that when a new camera is announced and finally becomes available in the stores, its replacement is announced! I have seen it happen in my local store time and time again. For example, a new camera is announced today, arrives in the store 1 or 2 months later, and then its replacement is announced. This is ridiculous, and confuses people. Also, in the near future, compact cameras and mobile phones will merge into one gadget. Camera makers are incorporating touch screens and GPS, obviously taken from mobile phones.
-
I tend to be close to Russ thoughts: If possible, onces can delegate and focus on one aspect, learn how to master it totally.
I beleive in exchanges. A super printer is not and rarelly can be a super photographer. If I could do it (because of cost), I'll do it.
Picasso for example, mastered 100% the etching techniques but he did not do his etchings, he had a top etcher that he was used to work with.
Why? Because virtuosity is based on a daily practise of ine medium. Ones adquire a sixth sense, what is called in french "le métier" (the craft).
This can rarelly being acheive when tools are changing constantely at a superior speed of the necessary learning curve.
The problem of virtuosity is that it does not handle scattering. Dispersal, force you to spend a huge amount of time in order to get updated and you never
ende mastering really because you just do not have the time to do so.
Do you imagine a plane pilot that will also have to be a engineer and at the same time an air controler? And if his cockpit changes every one year, if the flight rules are rewrited every 3 mounths....it will never ever had the time to master properlly his job, wich is flying.
He will be in constant relearning, he will always be a student, never a master.
Delegate is a very good response to this crazy speed of our time.
Fred.
-
I tend to be close to Russ thoughts: If possible, onces can delegate and focus on one aspect, learn how to master it totally.
I beleive in exchanges. A super printer is not and rarelly can be a super photographer. If I could do it (because of cost), I'll do it.
Picasso for example, mastered 100% the etching techniques but he did not do his etchings, he had a top etcher that he was used to work with.
Why? Because virtuosity is based on a daily practise of ine medium. Ones adquire a sixth sense, what is called in french "le métier" (the craft).
This can rarelly being acheive when tools are changing constantely at a superior speed of the necessary learning curve.
The problem of virtuosity is that it does not handle scattering. Dispersal, force you to spend a huge amount of time in order to get updated and you never
ende mastering really because you just do not have the time to do so.
But some people pick up new skills really easily and do not find this a problem. They are the new masters.
I'd also say that you can be a really good printer and a really good photographer. And you are not a great photographer, if you have to rely on someone else to make your work look good. Good yes, great no.
So much of the skill in photography is the translation of what you seen and how you represent that image on paper or these days on screen.
Do you imagine a plane pilot that will also have to be a engineer and at the same time an air controler? And if his cockpit changes every one year, if the flight rules are rewrited every 3 mounths....it will never ever had the time to master properlly his job, wich is flying.
He will be in constant relearning, he will always be a student, never a master.
Delegate is a very good response to this crazy speed of our time.
And it is very much of our time and in a short while it'll all settle down as the technology matures and people will start to moan about nothing changing.
It seems like people are not seeing the wood for the trees. We're simply in a transitional period where change is constant. It cannot last forever. Just like economic growth!
But rapid change can also be exciting and can lead to fresh new thoughts and ideas. Though sadly with instant worldwide communication, this now also leads to widespread and instant copying of anything fresh and new.
-
Do you imagine a plane pilot that will also have to be a engineer and at the same time an air controler? And if his cockpit changes every one year, if the flight rules are rewrited every 3 mounths....it will never ever had the time to master properlly his job, wich is flying.
He will be in constant relearning, he will always be a student, never a master.
Fred.
Fred, I was a military pilot for ten years. I flew F84s during the Korean war, but getting to the point where I could fly the F84 I flew the AT6, the T28, the T33, and the F80. After I came back from Korea I continued to fly the T-33, I also flew the C-47, C-45, U-3A, L-20, and, toward the end, the C-54, though I had to move on before I was able to check out in the C-54. I flew all these airplanes simultaneously, flying one one day and another another day. All of these cockpits were different, yet I think I mastered them all. Had I not felt that way I'd not have flown them. I agree that it's nice to be able to fall into the easy chair -- the one you're familiar with -- but it's also necessary, and a lot of fun, to learn new things. I tend to think that photographic post-processing is sort of like computer programming. Once you learn the elements of programming, structures like if-then-else, do while, etc., it doesn't matter what language you use. You can pick up a new one in short order. If you learned to program in Basic, it's not hard to switch to, say C. Switching to C++ is a bit harder because the paradigm involved in object oriented programming is different. But not that different, and not that hard! I see the changes in Photoshop the same way. I recently added the rest of the Nik plugins to my collection. They're a breeze to learn and they simplify a lot of things. I don't agree that it's necessary to stabilize our post-processing tools in order for a good photographer to do good work. I do agree that we see a lot of unnecessary "features" in that software, but that's been the bane of computer software from the very beginning.
-
I'd also say that you can be a really good printer and a really good photographer. And you are not a great photographer, if you have to rely on someone else to make your work look good. Good yes, great no.
May I say that what you just write here is absolutely not true?
The greatest masters always tend to delegate. Because they are great, they know their limits. Picasso was a genius, he mastered the technical skill of painting at the age of 11. Picasso was perfectly able to do his etchings BUT he relied in an etching master simply because he was aware that working daily gives you the wisdom in your particular medium, and Picasso was aware he was lacking this 6th sense in printing. The master always listen to the others, is open to their points of view, he works in team. Only the second-rate-people and average artists think that they can master each and one aspect of all the chain. The real virtuose trust others in their specific virtuosity. The Master and wise man is the one who knows how to surround himself with the right persons. The incompetent always want to do everything by himself, does not trust the others and think he is a great artist. I do not know any serious artist that does everything alone, if so it is because they cannot afford it, but since they can they do it.
The best projects have always happened with the combination of various knowledge.
It seems like people are not seeing the wood for the trees. We're simply in a transitional period where change is constant. It cannot last forever. Just like economic growth!
But rapid change can also be exciting and can lead to fresh new thoughts and ideas. Though sadly with instant worldwide communication, this now also leads to widespread and instant copying of anything fresh and new.
Yes, a certain dosis of constant evolution is good and necessary. But what is involved know is that they "force" this in order to do quick benefits on a short term basis. The frecuency is absurd and respond only to comercial strategies, not to help people being better.
They want and need this constant changing speed so that the ships do not have the time to think, to rest, to have distance but consume, even if they do not need to.
There is a little difference between an helphy constant evolution and an uncontroled crazy surrabundance of products and updates.
And I repeat my post: If you are so sure about the new masters, WHY we do not see proportionally now more Amsel Adams??? More Picassos?
If the technology brings us incredible tools in order to make us greater...
As someone said in another thread, what a wonderfull life here in LuLa...
Fred.
-
Fred, I was a military pilot for ten years. I flew F84s during the Korean war, but getting to the point where I could fly the F84 I flew the AT6, the T28, the T33, and the F80. After I came back from Korea I continued to fly the T-33, I also flew the C-47, C-45, U-3A, L-20, and, toward the end, the C-54, though I had to move on before I was able to check out in the C-54. I flew all these airplanes simultaneously, flying one one day and another another day. All of these cockpits were different, yet I think I mastered them all. Had I not felt that way I'd not have flown them. I agree that it's nice to be able to fall into the easy chair -- the one you're familiar with -- but it's also necessary, and a lot of fun, to learn new things. I tend to think that photographic post-processing is sort of like computer programming. Once you learn the elements of programming, structures like if-then-else, do while, etc., it doesn't matter what language you use. You can pick up a new one in short order. If you learned to program in Basic, it's not hard to switch to, say C. Switching to C++ is a bit harder because the paradigm involved in object oriented programming is different. But not that different, and not that hard! I see the changes in Photoshop the same way. I recently added the rest of the Nik plugins to my collection. They're a breeze to learn and they simplify a lot of things. I don't agree that it's necessary to stabilize our post-processing tools in order for a good photographer to do good work. I do agree that we see a lot of unnecessary "features" in that software, but that's been the bane of computer software from the very beginning.
Russ, of course you are right. As a pilot, you want and need to master different planes and licenced for that. My point was, you do not want to do the mechanic or engineer job and at the same time the tower controler.
When you sat on your plane, did you ask yourself constantly if the mechanic guy is ok?
When you talk with control, did you trust their order?
When back from mission after debreifing, did you open the reactor for maintenance?
Well this a bit what we do have to do now.
My point is that you could master the flight as a pilot, and of course, any kind of "birds", but you could not being virtuose in every aspect of the chain.
It is impossible.
Fred.
-
If I read your comments correctly you are saying that virtuosity exists only in the taking of the picture and not in the processing and editing. For some people in some situations and where little work needs to be done to an image that may be true, but in many cases opening the shutter is only the start of the process. To return to my previous practice of referring to Ansel Adams, I think that he likened the negative to the musical score and the print to the performance. Virtuosity is normally associated with the performance and not with the writing of the score. We refer to the virtuosity of Heifetz or Casals as performers but not to the virtuosity of composers.
In music, there are those who score but do not perform, and those who only perform others' scores, as well as those who perform their own scores. Each can be at the top of their game. The same holds true in photography. (Does that set photography apart from painting? Another worthy topic.)
In photography, I would venture to say that *genres* and *intents* can play a significant part in how a practitioner chooses the above endeavors. Landscape photographers like AA tend to want to score and perform, with high expectation (and control) of the end product - the print. So are the collage photographers like Jerry Uelsmann and Maggie Taylor. (Are there famous landscape or collage photographers who don't?) Commercial photographers like Liebowitz can be somewhere in the middle. For technical capability and business ROI reasons, Liebowitz might very well pass her shots to others to digitally edit and print, but with control of the final product. Then there are the photojournalists. Their goal is to capture that image in time for publication, often only in newspapers. The story trumps quality. They are after the scores, and leave the printing to others.
-
Fred, I'll concede most of your points. If I was a virtuoso in any of those airplanes it was the L-20. The L-20 was a Canadian Beaver -- a bush plane. You could land it almost anywhere. I flew it all along what we called the "high line," the line of radar sites tucked along the U.S.-Canadian border in the fifties and sixties, some in the U.S., others in Canada. That kind of flying was more fun than any other kind.
But I want to add one thought to what's been said so far: Ansel Adams's dictum: "The negative is the score. The print is the performance," is quite correct if you take the meaning to be exactly what the words say. The problem is that it seems Ansel, and most people who read his statement, think it implies that the performer has to be the same person who wrote the score. But if we're going to use a musical analogy then we have to recognize that though the person who writes a score may be the one who performs it in the beginning, if it's a good score there'll be many other performers down the line, and some of them may even be better performers than the composer. I think the confusion arises from the fact that Ansel followed very closely on the heels of Stieglitz, who, in his attempt to raise photography to the level of fine art, saw the photographic print as analogous to a painting. It was the wrong analogy. As I said earlier, a photograph is infinitely repeatable. A painting isn't repeatable at all. So I'll re-state Ansel's dictum this way: The negative (or digital file) is the score. The print is the performance, and for the performance to be good the score must be performed by a good performer. But the score is where the genius of the composition resides.
P.S. Chris hopped in as I was writing the above. I think he nailed it.
-
THis constant learning of new software, cameras, hardware etc is something that sort of annoys me. Even though I love learning new stuff, you can spend too much time learning and not enough time doing. But having said that I think this article is flawed.
The author talks about Charlie Parker not having to relearn to play a new type of Saxophone every 18 months or so and as a result could simply spend time mastering his art. The reason this is a poor analogy is that Parker is using a mature technology and at present computers/software/digital imaging is anything but a mature market. As a result things are being constantly invented/adopted/dropped and when things mature and settle down then the new software every 18 months will stop and new revenues wil have to be found.
The author was (and is?) indeed addressing the pain of living through digital imaging technology's infancy, and how he dealt with it. I did not live through the film technology's infancy. But I would imagine that its maturing pace was not nearly as rapid and frequent as digital imaging technology's today.
The article is NOT flawed at all.
-
Peter, I agree that the print is always "an integral part of the process," just as sitting down and massaging the piano is always an integral part of producing a Chopin Nocturne, but even for a virtuoso printer a fine negative or digital file is essential. To put it a different way, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of performers who can interpret Chopin in a way that brings tears to your eyes, just as there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of printers -- especially with the technology we now have -- who can produce a fabulous print from an Ansel Adams negative. When Ansel was dodging and burning he was performing, but when he tripped the shutter he was composing. Which, in your estimation, is more important?
I'd say both are integral parts of the process, but the "composing" is more important - not that it really matters which is more important!
-
But the score is where the genius of the composition resides.
Jerry Uelsmann and Maggie Taylor would disagree. The genius resides in the *final* compositions of their *prints*.
Let me repeat myself, different strokes for different folks.
-
Chris, I'm sure Jerry and Maggie would disagree, but then, I have a hard time calling what Jerry and Maggie do "photography." Maggie's spread in Color Magazine was very nice, but Color sometimes seems to get hung up on color instead of on photography.
-
Jerry Uelsmann and Maggie Taylor would disagree. The genius resides in the *final* compositions of their *prints*.
Let me repeat myself, different strokes for different folks.
I disagree. Both are genius and masters. That is why in fine arts, you always have mentionned: the artist, the score AND the printer, the composer.
Both are considerated masters. In older times, the printer was a real recognized master=to the artist.
In Madrid, in Paris, (and anywhere else) there are recognized genius printers that works for the best photographers. They earn a lot of money and prestige, but the public doesn't know them. The best photographers works with them because they do not have their knowledge, and these printers do not have either the "eye" of these photographers.
Just have a look here: Gregory Crewdson,
http://www.aperture.org/crewdson/ (http://www.aperture.org/crewdson/)
see how many people are involved in his images? But without Crewdson they do nothing, and Crewdson will be unable to do all the other things alone.
In cinema, good photo director is very respected. Why having a photo director if a director could do it himself?
And this one is for Russ,
[attachment=20440:beaver.jpg]
Cheers.
-
And this one is for Russ,
Fred, Thanks. That's my baby. Used to fly it off skis in the winter too -- just like that.
-
For the last few years I have been updating most of my software, including Photoshop about as often as updates were available. It occurred to me the other day that most of what I do on a routine basis (including my work with Photoshop) could be performed equally well on older versions of the software. I have been updating for several reasons. Firstly in order to find out exactly what the newer version could do. Secondly out of a feeling of not wanting to be left out (I think I am freeing myself of that one) and lastly for reasons of compatibility with other software and the hardware on which the programs sit (and other new hardware such as cameras).
I mentioned this to a friend over lunch the other day. She agreed and pointed to the fact that in the past, most people who achieving virtuosity in a particular field did so with tools that remained largely unchanged over long periods. In one sense rapid development of software helps more people to become virtuosi. On the other is may stop just as many from ever attaining that status.
It brought to mind Ansel Adams. As a virtuoso with both camera and piano it would have been interesting to have his opinion on the subject. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen (unless future technology makes it possible )
I would be interested in the reactions of others to this.
John
This is a great topic for conversation. I do find it more than a little annoying when a favorite tool is "updated", as it means another slog up the learning curve; but more often than not there are worthwhile benefits. ACR is a far, far better tool for starting the process of interpreting a digital capture nowadays compared to its original form.
There's a critical level of familiarity with our tools required to produce really excellent work. Beyond that it's easy to reach a point of rapidly diminishing returns, where ever greater expertise with the software/hardware is not rewarded with any commensurate improvement in the resulting art. I'm betting we've all met Photoshop "Jedi masters" whose software skills are incredible...and whose images, well, suck.
And finally, Ansel Adams wasn't using a single technique carved in stone. Over the course of his career he migrated from glass plate negatives to sheet film; his darkroom techniques and printing materials likewise evolved greatly over time. The pace of change with digital capture/printing has been faster, but really it's the same process. We learn and master a set of tools with the goal of producing some really excellent prints. When the tools improve enough to provide a real benefit, it's worth moving up the ladder...or running a little faster on the hamster wheel.
-
Chris, I'm sure Jerry and Maggie would disagree, but then, I have a hard time calling what Jerry and Maggie do "photography."
Ah, I think that we have finally arrived at the gist of this debate. Perhaps we should have started out by establishing what is and isn't photography. (That should take another century, if we ever get there.)
Approaching the debate with different, fundamental, and unstated beliefs, it's no surprise that we can't agree whether "virtuosity" and "genius" reside only, or more in the score or in the performance, or in both equally. By embracing photographic genres and practices of all kinds, I contend that each practitioner is entitled to his/her own take, and not dictated by those with a narrow view.
-
I wrote a post for this thread a day ago, but the power supply went dead on me and I lost everything I'd scribbled. Your sigh of relief is premature: I'll try again now.
The Huntington article is far from funny, amusing or anything other than damn well bang on target.
Several fellow posters have espoused musical analogies which, unfortunately for me, fall upon musically impaired ears and so I shall refrain from taking part on that score; sorry about that. However, I don't think there is any basis for such a comparison at all, any more than for flying (another thing I can't do) or film-making.
There is a sort of divide line that I think exists within the spectrum of photographers represented here; there's the kind with landscape interests where, I'd imagine, there is little need for the mass processing of a couple of hundred images at a pop; then there is the commercial type with such a possibility, accompanied by the wedding and photoreporter who will both undoubtedly have hundreds if not thousands of clicks to sift through at the end of each shoot.
I fall into a different category these days, where I shoot ever less and seem to be doing not a lot more than closeups of small painted areas. If I shoot four exposures in pursuit of the 'right' side of the histo then that's overkill! So what does software mean to me? As long as I can do curves, layers and some cropping, then that's about as important as software is to me. The only thing PS6 fails to deliver is correction of verticals, which though I have done it on later versions of the system, I still find 6 a far more instinctive process. I don't really have to think about using 6; I didn't really have to think about printing in a wet darkroom either.
There is nonsense spoken and/or written about the relationship between photographer and printer. During my early years in the business as an employee, I learned how to pring b/w to a very high level - we were an industrial unit and accurate b/w related to engineering information that was vital to purpose, exactly as was the case with colour, where jet engine flame tubes and their colours provided highly important info to the engineers who needed the unit's services. You had to learn to print colour damn accurately. I ended up doing the colour printing for quite a while. So I think I knew something about it at the time.
Now, we come to the commercial world where we meet the thing about photographers farming out their printing. This has, in my personal experience of that world, little to do with the photographer's ability and much to do with cost, time and turnover of quantity. From the start, I was determined to be a one-man band and do the whole thing myself. I was absolutely convinced that my pre-self-employed experience had made me as good a printer as any I'd find outside my own work space. I did all my stuff myself except for two types: large blow-ups on paper roll that I hadn't the space to produce; colour prints of any size other than some Cibas that I had to do once in a while. Why not do pos/neg colour printing when I was pretty good at it? Scale. Too expensive to keep a system going for the relatively low volume of throughput. My experience of both outside services was pretty bad and much as I had feared it would be. Why? Cost. No lab was willing to go that one test more to get the colour print exactly on target, citing commercially acceptable as their matra; even the b/w were seldom close to matching the guide prints I supplied, though I can accept that prints don't scale up to such extremes very well - I was doing shop and exhibition display shots for fashion stores and manufacturers as extensions to normal usage, which was press ads. and publicity prints. Thank goodness most of my later work was limited to Kodachrome! Color transparencies were really a liberation; how simple it was to collect the slides, stick 'em on the lightbox and edit it all in a very short time.
Whether digital capture has turned us into lesser or greater snappers is not really a true topic for debate: those raised on the tit of a pixel will be totally comfortable with it; those of us raised on milk will perhaps not be as assured for much of the time, possibly not even because of technical doubts but from frustration born of an earlier, more straightforward and gut experience now lost to us.
If you bring press shooters into the discussion, their needs are all about speed and, in the old days, the newspapers had their own darkrooms. Why would (or could) you do your own printing in a normal day's work when staff were employed to do it for you? In my opinion, that's the main reason many 'stars' didn't often print their own work - neither time nor opportunity.
One can debate the idea of whether a great printer can make a greater print than can a great photographer; this depends, I'd suggest, on how close a supervision the photographer can or is permitted to apply to the printer. I would, though, accept that a pro printer will always be able to produce better prints from a dud photographer than will that photographer himself; but, unless he prints his own stuff, how does he know where he has being going wrong before he reaches the printing stage? Having said that, I do not believe that a good photographer will ever accept another printer's version of his work with anything but reluctance.
We can only be honest when we are being subjective in matters such as this.
Off to fry up some old spuds and a new egg.
Rob C
-
I wrote a post for this thread a day ago, but the power supply went dead on me and I lost everything I'd scribbled. Your sigh of relief is premature: I'll try again now.
The Huntington article is far from funny, amusing or anything other than damn well bang on target.
Several fellow posters have espoused musical analogies which, unfortunately for me, fall upon musically impaired ears and so I shall refrain from taking part on that score; sorry about that. However, I don't think there is any basis for such a comparison at all, any more than for flying (another thing I can't do) or film-making.
There is a sort of divide line that I think exists within the spectrum of photographers represented here; there's the kind with landscape interests where, I'd imagine, there is little need for the mass processing of a couple of hundred images at a pop; then there is the commercial type with such a possibility, accompanied by the wedding and photoreporter who will both undoubtedly have hundreds if not thousands of clicks to sift through at the end of each shoot.
I fall into a different category these days, where I shoot ever less and seem to be doing not a lot more than closeups of small painted areas. If I shoot four exposures in pursuit of the 'right' side of the histo then that's overkill! So what does software mean to me? As long as I can do curves, layers and some cropping, then that's about as important as software is to me. The only thing PS6 fails to deliver is correction of verticals, which though I have done it on later versions of the system, I still find 6 a far more instinctive process. I don't really have to think about using 6; I didn't really have to think about printing in a wet darkroom either.
There is nonsense spoken and/or written about the relationship between photographer and printer. During my early years in the business as an employee, I learned how to pring b/w to a very high level - we were an industrial unit and accurate b/w related to engineering information that was vital to purpose, exactly as was the case with colour, where jet engine flame tubes and their colours provided highly important info to the engineers who needed the unit's services. You had to learn to print colour damn accurately. I ended up doing the colour printing for quite a while. So I think I knew something about it at the time.
Now, we come to the commercial world where we meet the thing about photographers farming out their printing. This has, in my personal experience of that world, little to do with the photographer's ability and much to do with cost, time and turnover of quantity. From the start, I was determined to be a one-man band and do the whole thing myself. I was absolutely convinced that my pre-self-employed experience had made me as good a printer as any I'd find outside my own work space. I did all my stuff myself except for two types: large blow-ups on paper roll that I hadn't the space to produce; colour prints of any size other than some Cibas that I had to do once in a while. Why not do pos/neg colour printing when I was pretty good at it? Scale. Too expensive to keep a system going for the relatively low volume of throughput. My experience of both outside services was pretty bad and much as I had feared it would be. Why? Cost. No lab was willing to go that one test more to get the colour print exactly on target, citing commercially acceptable as their matra; even the b/w were seldom close to matching the guide prints I supplied, though I can accept that prints don't scale up to such extremes very well - I was doing shop and exhibition display shots for fashion stores and manufacturers as extensions to normal usage, which was press ads. and publicity prints. Thank goodness most of my later work was limited to Kodachrome! Color transparencies were really a liberation; how simple it was to collect the slides, stick 'em on the lightbox and edit it all in a very short time.
Whether digital capture has turned us into lesser or greater snappers is not really a true topic for debate: those raised on the tit of a pixel will be totally comfortable with it; those of us raised on milk will perhaps not be as assured for much of the time, possibly not even because of technical doubts but from frustration born of an earlier, more straightforward and gut experience now lost to us.
If you bring press shooters into the discussion, their needs are all about speed and, in the old days, the newspapers had their own darkrooms. Why would (or could) you do your own printing in a normal day's work when staff were employed to do it for you? In my opinion, that's the main reason many 'stars' didn't often print their own work - neither time nor opportunity.
One can debate the idea of whether a great printer can make a greater print than can a great photographer; this depends, I'd suggest, on how close a supervision the photographer can or is permitted to apply to the printer. I would, though, accept that a pro printer will always be able to produce better prints from a dud photographer than will that photographer himself; but, unless he prints his own stuff, how does he know where he has being going wrong before he reaches the printing stage? Having said that, I do not believe that a good photographer will ever accept another printer's version of his work with anything but reluctance.
We can only be honest when we are being subjective in matters such as this.
Off to fry up some old spuds and a new egg.
Rob C
Rob,
I think your post ad a really interesting focus. I agree in most of the parts and may disagree in others.
There is no doubt that photographers can acheive very good printings and consider that this step is an all part of the artistic process where they want to have the perfect control over. That is absolutely fine. It can happens for deep artistic reasons or for economical reasons, depending each case.
You also have artists who are more "sofware" orientated and others more "photography" orientated and it's fine, nothing to say about that.
There are people who take a lot of inspiration in learning how to master the latest software availables, and it is part of their work.
There is no rule, no one has the magic clew, neither is right or wrong. Everyone has the right to work in the way he wants.
But what is involved in this topic and in Huntington (I found it well written and agree 100%), is in what kind of wheel are we "obliged", in other words, the relevance of such a frecuency of relearning. When I'm complaining about that, saying that it is not normal at all, that there is something else behind the scene, I do it from a point of view and training of someone who was born with these tools. I'm trained to updating all the time...but I've decided to move away from this crazy and no-sense race. Again, it is not the evolution, it is the speed and the "short-life" products we are inundated.
The amount of time spending in updating, but also looking for the correct information, is ENORMOUS. I think that this rate of changings have reached a point where it distract more than it helps, it is like a good meal, you know, an overdose and instead of enjoying you get sick and vomite.
Well, if onces think that all these tools are made to make us a better life, more creative, more artistic, more exiting...I can't avoid to think it is very romantic and naive feeling. These are made to make maximum profits to the companies, regardeless of the healph impact among users.
The relation photographer-printer make all sense to me because we are more and more "independant" or we beleive so, but we are manipulated.
I work in advertising you know, people are manipulated to a point they do not imagine. We studdy them, we know their minds, we have tricks against anti(s).
Very very precised studdies about mass mind, individual groups etc...The most easy to manipulate, (to force them to consume) are the youngest. Because they tend to have a very strong but very immature relation with their tools.
We put them pressure in order to make them beleive that they need the lastest, that they will have the best and if not they will be out of race. Of course it is not true. I'm one of these guys, I'm from this side so I know what I'm talking about. And I will leave soon this job because it goes more and more against my values.
Are updating good? Of course, but in fact, in 5 time updates, only one is a real step (more or less). All the rest are unsignificant updates that we can call garbages but they look so. Then, the big ones every 4 years, the revolution promised. Another 6 months of headaches...and again in little updates etc...
People think they live in an happy world with these wonderful new tools...yes, a lot are wonderfull it is true, but what they do not want to accept, is that they have not increased virtuosity at all. They just make things easier, more accurate, more reliable...but there is a cost. If you see it, if you understand where it really is, you can avoid it keeping the benefits of technology, if not...you just spend your time and money with no rest to increments bank accounts of others that manipulate you. And you are not a new Amsel Adams...either.
I do not play this stupid race any more. If some wants to, all my respect, they are free to do it.
Fred.
-
Fred, it takes courage to drop out; it can be the making of one but also the destruction, so be very sure about what you intend to do before you do it. As long as there is a viable alternative that keeps you eating well, then that's okay; if you are just fed up with the reality of a cynical world, then take comfort from the fact that unless people see it for themselves then they do not feel they are being exploited and would probably think you mad to believe it about them.
There is no mileage in losing sleep about the minds of others; as you say, some people need all the latest things and others manage perfectly well with much less. The difference between really needing something and just wanting something for its own sake, for the mere possession of it, is quite wide a chasm and represents different things to different people. I suppose that in photography, unless it is simply a business treated as such, then scope for ownership of many things is vast but hardly necessary in the greater scheme of things. Some just want to make pictures but others enjoy playing with the toys and don't actually mind if they don't really achieve much with them once they have them - and that's okay too. In fact, it could well be that there is more satisfaction to be found playing than doing, which can be a real pain in the ass at times, particularly when your living depends on it.
It's no ideal world, but finding your personal solution to how you cope with it is the best you get. I've been looking for a very long time but am as far from any truth as I was when I began to realise that I should be looking for something. Maybe that's what drives writers; and all they need is what we've got: a keyboard and a dumb box.
And I didn't get my old potatoes and new egg: I wanted to catch The Big Chill and there was time only for making some rice pudding.
Rob C
-
Fred.
You make lots of very good points (and make them very well). The one part of your replies that has me a bit uneasy is a feeling that we are somehow victims of this process. I think that we are in fact partners. If we buy the product (I intentionally didn't call it software on this occasion as I feel this same point applies in almost any sphere of a market economy) we encourage the manufacturer to make more. If we buy another when a new version comes out we encourage them to update. If we slow down in our consumption of a product we make it very hard for them to keep developing it as such a fast pace.
I hope you don't feel like a victim, and that wasn't my intention when suggesting the topic in the first place. I simply feel that it is useful for each of us to reflect on how often we each need to upgrade (both hardware and software), and to reassess this from time to time. I think that this is a truly exciting time to be a photographer, even though it is quite a tough time economically. Let's not loose sight of the wonderful things that are available to us, just as we should not loose sight of the fact that we don't need everything that is offered up before us.
John
-
My posts may had a kind of an old-communist-complain touch, I admit so
But, I do not feel like a victim of a nasty conspiracy. I'm a born consumer, I like technology, advanced products, new ways of communication.
I think that the tools we have now are really exiting, interesting and open virgen lands that has to be explored. In that sense it is a very positive
balance. This wheel is a wheel I want to be in, not out. But not at any price.
Really, I think that the wheel has reached a point where it start clearly to be out of our control. Making analogies or images:
We can see that our global economical world is giving signs of hillness and decadence. The machine is more and more out of control.
There is a crazy race, that the richest countries have to exploit with no care 2/3 of the planet in order to maintain the consuming into posositive
numbers. It is all about more and more for less and less people. Well, something happened the same way with tools. We are inundated with a volume
of new stuff, new needs, etc...but to such a frequency that, in my understanding, is not going to lead us to nice lands.
The problem, is that onces have to spend an impressive amount of time in order to update constantly, it is like eating constantely, BUT onces has to digest.
You need to have ALSO the time to digest, to integrate. What is happening is that the time to necessary digestion (integration) is more and more reduced while the time and frecuency spent in eating and eating is each time bigger...what do you think it will happen? One day, the string breaks.
The time onces spend in that process might be very exiting, in fact, it is made in such a way that you feel excitement. But the reality is that in most of the case, you do not reach neither better pics, nor new virgen lands.
Don't you think it is very eye-catching that we now have incredible tools, in production and diffusion, that were unthinkable some years ago. Half of the planet is doing photography, the volume of pictures produced has never been as high. Anyone can control the all process from his home and send it to the world. There is no more time lost in darkrooms etc...
So, we should see proporcionally more Amsel Adams, more Winogrand. And that is exactly the opposite.
Other phenomenon catch my attention: 90 or more % of the photographs we see are classic style. Why is so?? if we have really powerfull tools to make crazy images that could not be acheived before? That means that we all have these tools, we upgrade them constantely, but in fact we use 5% of their real power just to reproduced more easily, (with no fatigue), the kind of photography that were making our ancestors, but very few really use their tools at their full power. That can happen because of our hunger of consuming whatever we can. If onces really slow-down for awhile, and star to think about "what do I really need in order to acheive the pictures I want to acheive, I'm pretty sure you'll find a lot of garbage, distractions and useless tools, without talking of the amount of time spent (lost) to play with these. That phenomenon is new, it could not happened before at this scale, and I do think it is a real social problem.
My last analogy: Do you watch Formula 1 ? I remember the duels Prost/Senna. Now it is a world of pure technology. The races have been such boring that they need to compensate with a superdosis of publicity and polemics in order to maintain the audience. The contain is empty, extremely boring, but the enveloppe is more golden than ever and need to be so. I better watch a good rugby 6th nations game! Still authentic.
I do think that these bombings of constant changes, produsts and updates at the level we are inundated, kills virtuosity.
Of course that is a personal view and I respect every single point of view as well.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
Ah, I think that we have finally arrived at the gist of this debate. Perhaps we should have started out by establishing what is and isn't photography. (That should take another century, if we ever get there.)
Approaching the debate with different, fundamental, and unstated beliefs, it's no surprise that we can't agree whether "virtuosity" and "genius" reside only, or more in the score or in the performance, or in both equally. By embracing photographic genres and practices of all kinds, I contend that each practitioner is entitled to his/her own take, and not dictated by those with a narrow view.
Chris, I certainly agree that each practitioner is entitled to his own "take," but I don't agree that each practitioner is entitled to his own definitions. Do you call a collage a "painting?" The reason we have a term like "collage" is that a collage is different from a painting. The collage may contain elements from paintings, but, in the end, it's a different "product" with a different name. What Jerry and Maggie do are photographic collages. They're unusual collages because they end up as single negatives or digital files. Another term for that kind of construction is "assemblage." They use photographs to create their collages or assemblages, but the end product isn't a "photograph" any more than the end product of a collage put together with paintings is a "painting."
-
Still authentic
I think we need to ditch the rose-tinted view of past 'authenticity'. Nothing has changed. The world today is the same as it was 2,000 years ago.
-
<blockquote>A collage isn't anything but a collage. </blockquote><p>The material is immaterial he would say, it is the process that defines, delimits the artists circle. And if this is your own argument, then are you eliminated from being a photographer if you use a digital record-output process. So says the silver print, film is photography, lens & camera are photography mannered photographers. Those who wear large pocketed khaki vests are photographers type of photographers.</p><p>I ask you, as a reminder too, do you use asphalt or bitumen? Do you use ferric salts without a lense? Do you photograph anything other than dead flowers, distant mountains, or demure maidens? If the answer isn't YES, YES, SOME, then you are not an original photographer. You are undefined. So very sorry to hear you fading away... like a whisp, a whispering, a whimper.</p>
-
Eh?