Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: dreed on May 30, 2012, 07:58:49 am
-
In a local TV show, an old house was being renovated and behind some of the old plaster work, old photos were found that dated back over a century and more recently, in conversation with a professional photographer, they posed the question that if none of the photos that we take are ever printed then what do we leave behind - a pile of hard drives? And who will look at them?
Consider the difference, if you will, of your children or your children's children sitting down after you've passed on and being told one of two things - here's a set of books of photos that you took or here's a set of hard drives with images that you took.
Which do you suppose will receive more interest and be more valued?
-
Which do you suppose will receive more interest and be more valued?
The hard drive ldo. But only if it is still readable, and if it can easily transfer to a smartphone.
Imagine that: after al the bickering over MFDBs vs 35mm they merely skim over great grand pa's photos on an uncalibrated mini VGA display.
-
It's silly to equate family snapshots with fine art photography.
But, it's well understood that if one wants true longevity for either (1-2 hundred years at least) then properly made prints are likely the only way to ensure this.
Michael
-
Bravo Michael!
Regards
Tony Jay
-
On the other hand, could always commission a statue, as long as you remain apolitical, that is.
There used to be a large one at Paisley's Cross, in Renfrewshire, just above the little garden area where the public toilets used to be (I wonder if such establishments are still around in the UK or have been demolished as part of the war on drugs?). It was of a generously proportioned partly-nude lady, and I often, especially in winter, thought that it would be a nice gesture to fit the poor soul with a comfortable bra. However, I didn't know anyone that size, and I certainly wasn't going to stretch altruism to the extent of buying one for her; there are limits, you know. Anyway, as a schoolboy, I certainly couldn't have afforded to finance my generous mind.
Perhaps she shivers to this day. Well, in winter, at any rate.
Rob C
-
Consider the difference, if you will, of your children or your children's children sitting down after you've passed on and being told one of two things - here's a set of books of photos that you took or here's a set of hard drives with images that you took.
Which do you suppose will receive more interest and be more valued?
Good point, Dreed. It's exactly why I print the best of my photographs that survive culling, and comb-bind them into collections as I go along. I've been doing that for a little more than a decade and I have something like six feet of comb-bound books on a shelf in my studio. That collection includes scans from negatives and transparencies going back as far as 1953. My grandkids love these books and it won't be long before my great-grands are old enough to enjoy them too.
But there's another reason to print: An LCD display has more color and tone range, but it lacks the fine detail that's rendered in a good print. My walls are hung with my favorites. I can walk up to one of them and read details that put me back there with the camera in my hand.
-
Printed photographs don't suffer from the effects of "digital rot." Can you still retrieve files from your 8-floppy, 5-inch floppy or even your 3.5-in floppy? What about your Syquest or Zip carts? 3.5 MO anybody?
A *printed* photograph takes no technology to view. Your eyes work fine (usually!) to see the image!
-
Quite correct that digital files will not fare well for descendant use. Printed work will endure as long as anyone gives a damn. But I suspect that the third generation will not recognize us or care what we did. I think that the best idea is to print and frame our best work. And in that frame under the print have a typed paper that tells a bit about yourself and your work. Most of our printed work will end up in flea markets and antique stores. Our digital DVD's, hard drives, and thumb drives will end up in a landfill. Much like ourselves.
The good thing about all this is that nobody will care much if we saved images as raw files or srgb.
-
Printed photographs don't suffer from the effects of "digital rot." Can you still retrieve files from your 8-floppy, 5-inch floppy or even your 3.5-in floppy? What about your Syquest or Zip carts? 3.5 MO anybody?
In the last year, I connected up both Zip and Jaz drives just to ensure that there was nothing of value being left behind :*)
I was actually somewhat surprised that I was able to do this.
All of my 3.5-in floppies have been imaged and are in a hard drive directory. I've yet to decide what to do with the somewhat ancient 5.25 inch floppy archive that I have as finding a way to connect a drive is challenging in itself!
In comparison, holiday snaps from 15 or 20 years ago are all in little pouches and can be viewed any day or night providing there is light :)
-
It's silly to equate family snapshots with fine art photography.
Actually, THAT is silly statement. To the average family, their "snapshots" are far more valuable than any art photos we may make.
-
I don't think that we need to look that far ahead to wonder about digital storage versus print when even now when a hard drive crashes in the home of Mr and Mrs Average non-backuppers; and then they realise that all their family history and memories of their children who are just 5-10 years old - have gone. They were going to get some of them printed "one day".... and that day didn't ever happen and all visual record and memories don't exist any more...not only for the parents, but as a record for their children as well.
-
Properly made and cared for fine art prints may last a long time, but I suspect that most of the prints from one hour photo labs will fade away before too many generations pass. Even good quality colour prints will no doubt slowly degrade as the years go by.
Obviously no digital medium can be relied on to last indefinitely, but the beauty of digital is that you can make as many copies as you want with no loss of quality. (Admittedly data corruption is a possibility, but there are countermeasures.) The media may be mortal, but as long as someone cares for it, the data can, in principal, be immortal. I also have no doubt that more reliable and robust data storage mechanisms will become available in the future.
No doubt screen and printer technology will continue to improve in coming decades. If they have our digital files, our descendents should be able to produce prints that are superior to anything that we can make today. On the other hand, with the ultra high resolution, wide gamut, super high contrast screens that will probably be available in 50 years, I wouldn't be surprised if hardly anyone bothers to make prints anymore.
I imagine that my great-great-grandson would be far more interested in pristine digital copies of my life's work than he would be in some faded prints of my favourite shots.
-
A *printed* photograph takes no technology to view. Your eyes work fine (usually!) to see the image!
That's a good point. If resource depletion causes civilization to collapse, our digital files will soon be useless, but we'll still be able to enjoy our prints. On the other hand, when the fossil fuels run out people may well have to burn the prints to keep warm.:(
-
Printed photographs don't suffer from the effects of "digital rot." Can you still retrieve files from your 8-floppy, 5-inch floppy or even your 3.5-in floppy? What about your Syquest or Zip carts? 3.5 MO anybody?
Often yes.
I remember reading that digital media off of floppy disks was only stable for about 3-5 years. This is incorrect.
I recently did a project to recover content from a bunch of old floppy disks, many of which dated to early 1980s. The disk format was both CP/M and MS-DOS. I did tests on about 30 randomly selected ones, and all but one worked. The client did the other 4,000+ disks and almost all held all the content they originally had. This is in the high humidity NW of the USA. In dryer areas the longevity is probably much greater.
The more difficult part of the task was to find computers which will accommodate 5.25” disks. The current generation computers don’t accommodate the 5.25” drives in the BIOS. I had to go to a local computer recycler to find a couple with a 5.25” drives.
For the original point, I agree that few look to old digital images. As example, a couple of cases I did were to recover content from the computer drives of some folks who’d died. To my amazement no one in the families was interested in any of the digital images on the drives. They effectively died with the computer owner.
-
Often yes.
The current generation computers don’t accommodate the 5.25” drives in the BIOS. I had to go to a local computer recycler to find a couple with a 5.25” drives.
Software changes present similar problems. My 10-year-old, hundred-dollar copy of the complete National Geographic is now useless. The original media (CD-ROM) is intact but current OSs won't read the discs.
I agree with Michael. The only viable long-term backup is a print.
-
Many of you speak as though technology changes so quickly and without notice that there's a serious risk you won't be able to access your image files tomorrow. Whether or not data was stored on floppies, Syquests, Zips, CDs, DVDs or HDs, their respective obsolescence, past or future, is far from immediate. We have years before any technology becomes useless, thus have more than enough time to transfer data to newer technologies.
This is something we should be doing as a matter of course, anyway.
-
I don't think that we need to look that far ahead to wonder about digital storage versus print when even now when a hard drive crashes in the home of Mr and Mrs Average non-backuppers; and then they realise that all their family history and memories of their children who are just 5-10 years old - have gone. They were going to get some of them printed "one day".... and that day didn't ever happen and all visual record and memories don't exist any more...not only for the parents, but as a record for their children as well.
Isn't their local digital storage auto-magically replicated in the cloud?
-
Software changes present similar problems. My 10-year-old, hundred-dollar copy of the complete National Geographic is now useless. The original media (CD-ROM) is intact but current OSs won't read the discs.
Are you sure that your operating system can't read the discs? I can understand you not being able to find software that understands the files, but from what I know the standards for CD-ROM are well defined. I'd be surprised if you can't at least copy the files to a modern machine, unless National Geographic used some sort of prorietary, non-standard disc format. For that matter, if the National Geographic software is only 10 years old I'm surprised that you can't run it on a modern machine.
In general I think the problem of file format obsolescence is exaggerated, at least for widely used, open formats. I can still open files that I produced 20 years ago on the long-dead Amiga platform. With trillions of digital photos in existence, I'm sure that software producers will have a strong incentive to continue supporting common formats like TIFF, JPEG, PNG, and (hopefully) DNG for many years to come. Proprietary raw formats, especially from less popular cameras, are probably a different story, as Michael has pointed out.
-
Many of you speak as though technology changes so quickly and without notice that there's a serious risk you won't be able to access your image files tomorrow. Whether or not data was stored on floppies, Syquests, Zips, CDs, DVDs or HDs, their respective obsolescence, past or future, is far from immediate. We have years before any technology becomes useless, thus have more than enough time to transfer data to newer technologies.
This is something we should be doing as a matter of course, anyway.
The key term there is "should be...."
The way the problem typically comes to me is when a company exec says “we have all these old …. that have been sitting for-ever. We want to keep them. What do you suggest?” And she’s talking thousands of floppy disks and/or backup tapes.
If data can make it to a hard drive it becomes a trivial task to maintain it. The issue is that for data made in the 1980s to the mid 1990s there was a lot of content that was placed on floppy drives and other relatively low capacity media storage, and then promptly forgotten.
And then, for a while, Magneto Optical was the chit for large capacity storage. Problem is that most of the MO drives have disappeared from the market and there were so few made that they are now hard to track down replacements.....
Of course, there are a number of ways to retrieve these by way of data recovery specialists, but that’s a very pricy way to do it….
-
There is probably a business opportunity in creating a "universal image file format converter" that recognizes any proprietary image format and converts it to a more universal image format (TIFF, JPEG, DNG etc).
It would require reverse engineering file formats that are already orphaned.
This issue will ony grow larger with time.
Additionally, until consensus across the industry is reached with regard to a universal RAW format this whole issue is going to remain a minefield.
Add in the ephemeral nature of digital storage solutions currently and one can see that it will remain a major challenge to preserve image files into the future.
Perhaps, ultimately, printing may be a better long-term solution still.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
For the original point, I agree that few look to old digital images. As example, a couple of cases I did were to recover content from the computer drives of some folks who’d died. To my amazement no one in the families was interested in any of the digital images on the drives. They effectively died with the computer owner.
That's a very sad story. Do you think the deceased had become estranged from their families? I wonder if the relatives would have shown any more interest in a suitcase full of prints?
The unfortunate fact is that images are only safe as long as someone cares enough to preserve them, whether they are prints or digital files. A collection of old prints is no safer than a hard drive if nobody wants them.
-
Are you sure that your operating system can't read the discs?
Yes
I'd be surprised if you can't at least copy the files to a modern machine, unless National Geographic used some sort of prorietary, non-standard disc format.
It's the access interface that's the problem. The individual files don't seem to be accessible.
In general I think the problem of file format obsolescence is exaggerated, at least for widely used, open formats. I can still open files that I produced 20 years ago on the long-dead Amiga platform.
In many cases, the problem is not the file format, rather the hardware required to read the media.
-
There is probably a business opportunity in creating a "universal image file format converter" that recognizes any proprietary image format and converts it to a more universal image format (TIFF, JPEG, DNG etc).
It would require reverse engineering file formats that are already orphaned.
This issue will ony grow larger with time.
I don't think it's hard to find software that will open any remotely popular image format. I just opened one of my old Amiga IFF files in Photoshop CS6, and it displayed perfectly. The more esoteric image formats that are no longer supported probably have too few users to create demand for new software.
It's worth remembering that widespread use of digital photography is less than 20 years old. I think it should be possible to run 20 year old software if you really need to. Even if you can't run it on a modern operating system, hardware that can run a 1990's operating system isn't that hard to find.
-
Printed photographs don't suffer from the effects of "digital rot." Can you still retrieve files from your 8-floppy, 5-inch floppy or even your 3.5-in floppy? What about your Syquest or Zip carts? 3.5 MO anybody?
I used to have that media format problem, but not for some years: each new computer has so much more hard drive capacity than the one before it that I just make a copy of all my files from the one before as an archive, in addition to copying into my active documents and photos folders. This gets repeated with each new computer, so my archives are now nested like Russian dolls.
-
Isn't their local digital storage auto-magically replicated in the cloud?
LOL.... and they forget where to find it - and passwords... and time goes by...and all images lost.
Julie
-
It's worth remembering that widespread use of digital photography is less than 20 years old. I think it should be possible to run 20 year old software if you really need to. Even if you can't run it on a modern operating system, hardware that can run a 1990's operating system isn't that hard to find.
What about in another 20 or 40 years from now?
Without universal formats or an updated universal format converter most current and past proprietary formats will be history.
Also having to take ongoing steps to prevent one's accumulated digital images from disappearing into the ether is costly and time-consuming. Even for Getty this is an issue.
The issue is actually a very large one - and does not currently have a broadly applicable solution.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
What about in another 20 or 40 years from now?
Without universal formats or an updated universal format converter most current and past proprietary formats will be history.
Also having to take ongoing steps to prevent one's accumulated digital images from disappearing into the ether is costly and time-consuming. Even for Getty this is an issue.
The issue is actually a very large one - and does not currently have a broadly applicable solution.
I predict that commonly used image formats like TIFF, PNG, and JPEG will continue to be supported indefinitely. Anyone with a collection of images in a more exotic format would be well advised to convert them to something more standard.
I agree with you regarding raw files. Adobe tried to create a common format with DNG, but unfortunately the industry has largely ignored it. I expect Adobe to stay in business for a while yet, but in the world of technology nothing is certain. Let's hope the industry eventually agrees on a common format, either DNG or something else.
-
That's a very sad story. Do you think the deceased had become estranged from their families? I wonder if the relatives would have shown any more interest in a suitcase full of prints?
The unfortunate fact is that images are only safe as long as someone cares enough to preserve them, whether they are prints or digital files. A collection of old prints is no safer than a hard drive if nobody wants them.
> Do you think the deceased had become estranged from their families?
It could be that, at least on some level, or some degree of hostility; it could be merely blunt stupidity. In both cases involving a death, the only thing the family was interested in was things related to the all mighty $. Beyond that, they didn’t GAS.
I’ve seen this kind of thing a number of times. In one case that didn’t involve a death but a partially failed drive I asked the owner if he wanted me to recover the digital images from a wife’s computer. I explained that all that was involved was copying the files as they were intact, and that there were probably a few thousand image files. He said: “No.” I always ask at least 2x and he confirmed 2x. The owner later told me that the wife was thoroughly pissed that the files weren’t recovered.
My supposition is that if there is any latent hostility or an opportunity for a back-hand towards someone, it will come out in times such as this.
> I wonder if the relatives would have shown any more interest in a suitcase full of prints?
Based on the above, probably not, unless they thought they could profit from the prints.
> The unfortunate fact is that images are only safe as long as someone cares enough to preserve them, whether they are prints or digital files. A collection of old prints is no safer than a hard drive if nobody wants them.
Agreed.
-
What about in another 20 or 40 years from now?
Without universal formats or an updated universal format converter most current and past proprietary formats will be history.
Maybe, maybe not. But the possibility is a good argument for converting everything to DNG. When I say "everything" I'm assuming everybody shoots exclusively in raw.
-
> I wonder if the relatives would have shown any more interest in a suitcase full of prints?
At least they'd have the opportunity to look at the images and then decide. As opposed to looking at a beige box of a computer and having zero knowledge of what's inside.
-
^In all cases the owners were offered the opportunity to look, but declined. They didn’t state their reasons for declining, but given I was asked to find financial related information and other things I thought might be important to them, the reasoning seemed clear, even if not directly stated.
-
"If you don't print, then what do you leave behind?"
A better impression?
Rob C
P.S. I think that's tongue-in-cheek but I'm no longer sure...
-
In my own case there is 40+ years of negatives and transparencies, archived publications, prints in National galleries and libraries, a multitude of record covers, magazines and books that should give the curious plenty to ponder.
But frankly, I don't give a damn. My life is fulfilled and I have no need for posterity. I see it as a very poor form of an obsessive ego.
Cheers,
W
-
In my own case there is 40+ years of negatives and transparencies, archived publications, prints in National galleries and libraries, a multitude of record covers, magazines and books that should give the curious plenty to ponder.
But frankly, I don't give a damn. My life is fulfilled and I have no need for posterity. I see it as a very poor form of an obsessive ego.
Cheers,
W
Walter, you're starting to sound older than I am!
But you're essentially right: what does it matter, as he sings here, at 1'39".
http://youtu.be/dm6qw_yeo6o
There's so much earthy, common sense in so much of a certain period's popular music, if not exactly in its culture. You really have to wonder about the minds that find the mots justes drifting into focus like that... guess it was all part of the times. People felt and cared.
Rob C
-
I was at a local camera club for a talk by this Old guy who was a photographer for what was "The Manchester Guardian " which became the national newspaper the Guardian. He had decided to collect photographs going back to the 19th century. Some were found as glass holing up a greenhouse others under a railway line. He never had the chance to use digital or store it appropriately. It made me wonder of the fantastic photography lost forever. It was some of the best I've ever seen, true street life mono grain. Certainly makes you think about storing and printing for future generations.
Mick
-
Russ, I wish that DNG had universal format status but, at this stage, it does not.
Proprietary formats are being orphaned on a regular basis and this state of affairs will likely continue given the volatility of the digital imaging world.
I wish I had the same confidence that some contributors have shown to managing this issue but I do not.
At this point in time, all my digital images are from various Canon cameras, so are not in imminent danger but nonetheless, on a lot of levels, digital asset management is going to a growing issue mainly because there are no robust solutions currently, only costly ephemeral ones.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
I'm inclined to agree with you Tony, which is why I print so much stuff and put it on the shelf. I do family pictures often but most of my shooting is the kind of thing I love when I look at old pictures: stuff that gives a feeling for the era in which they're shot. You can see an example at http://www.russ-lewis.com/photo_gallery/Penny_Arcade/index.html. I turned that batch of pictures into a preliminary Blurb book, and I'm still working on the project. Then there's http://www.russ-lewis.com/photo_gallery/The_Sixties/index.html, pictures of the local scene I made in the sixties. That's roughly forty years ago, so already they're becoming historical artifacts. For instance, check the guy with the long burns and striped pants having lunch with his girl. That one screams "sixties."
But I'm pretty upbeat about DNG. You're right, it's far from a universal format at this point, but it's the only open format out there. Nikon and Canon are trying to make an extra buck on the side with their proprietary formats, and with Nikon their NEF format even varies from camera to camera. But Leica and Hasselblad, among others, have adopted DNG as a primary format, and I think eventually the other manufacturers are going to be forced to do that.
One problem is survivability. If you've ever had a hard drive fail you understand why a single backup isn't enough. I never re-format the cards on my cameras until I have at least three copies on various media including one on DVD. DVD survivability is another problem. But the best guess is that the stuff we put on CDs or DVDs should hold on for seventy years or so. I suspect that within seventy years we'll have media of some sort that'll hold for seven hundred or even seven thousand years, not that anybody's likely to care that far off in the future.
Seems to me enough people recognize the problem that a solution will be there before long. It's a market just waiting to be harvested.
-
Seems to me enough people recognize the problem that a solution will be there before long. It's a market just waiting to be harvested.
I hope you are right Russ - the current scenario is a pain in the butt.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Storing my images as proprietary raw files on a Microsoft-defined hard-drive format that really rely on a proprietary Adobe sql-database format/rendering to look proper sure makes the future retrieval of data harder.
Incidentally, I think that 1/3 or more of the family pictures taken 20-40 years ago in my family have faded/stained to the point where there is only novel interest. All stored in folders, most of them developed through mail-order.
Something like raw *.bmp files are straight forward and biologically motivated. Even though society and technology may change, humans will still have a tendency to think in well-organized 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional arrays, and will still have tricolor vision for some time. A rudimentary jpeg decoder can be written from scratch (using the spec) in a couple of weeks. The specs have been distributed in enough physical and virtual copies that I think that it can be found a long time into the future. I dont know about harddrive/cd-rom/flash formatting, but I am guessing that it is a similar story there. Getting the physical drives and something to hook them up to may be an issue, but if technology continue to progress, it may be possible to read the physical format using a general process (just like people are reading damaged vinyl LP records using image scanners)
I guess my point is that if there is a will, there is a way. If anything we record today is worth enough for society or distant relatives, they may amaze us with the creativity and resources they might put into retrieving the data if it is physically present any more - in my country people are manually punching church books (containing birth/marriage/death records) dating back 100s of years into databases. Hand-writing and language have changed a lot, and the state of those books can wary, but the content is interesting for people today. The sad part (to us) is that most of what is precious to us may not be precious to people living 100 years from now on.
-h
-
This is a topic that hasn't been visited for a while but it's one I have been thinking about. I have a single friend who has recently been diagnosed with ALS and the question has come up what does one do with a life time of photography. I think the reality is that virtually no one (including myself) has any interest in inheriting a hard drive from someone, and boxes of 35mm slides or digital images backed-up on gold CD's are probably a close second.
So what are the options today in 2014? I think the best way to preserve a picture is to sell it in an archival format to someone who will value it because they enjoy it / paid good money for it. A second option might be matted/framed prints within one's family. Bound portfolios or photo books printed on acid-free paper might also survive through several generations.
Donating images/prints of some historical significance to a museum might be another option, but really, how many pictures can one take in their lifetime that will be considered historically important today? Maybe a picture of valley before a road was built through it, or a bridge that has been replaced, or glaciers that have receded.
Any thoughts about this?
-
I think that it's a mistake to believe that because some rare stuff from the 20s until the 60s - say - might have been quite interesting, that more from the past couple of decades is also worth retaining. The early years were great, too, because nothing like photography had happened, but once it became mass culture...
I think the 60s had some revolutionary visual tokens - fashions, for example - and with the snappers with the eye to snap it well, but apart from that obvious pop culture genre, what was there that matters? From the last couple of decades, it's an ever harder guess. Even the fashion interest has vanished into a mess of uniformity, a kind of absolute lack of character. And how do you photograph nothing and make that of interest? There is no fashion anymore. Well, not in the vox pop sense of the meaning of the word fashion. Perhaps there are the empty housing estates nobody bought; the dead factories etc. but those aren't things that form part of the general photographic gamut enjoyed by the masses, which I think is what we are on about preserving here. Anyway, I suppose all the newspaper files and agency shoe-boxes have that stuff well-covered. God, just think of the zillion picture libraries that exist... enough crap in there to float the next Titanic and also to sink it, if it gets cold enough.
Rob C
-
Rob,
Perhaps the elephant in the room of what you say is that there was energy, tension, adventure, relief and rebellion to be expressed in earlier times and those energies translated well to visual presentation. Such is no longer the case. Modern Western life is excessively affluent and vision is clouded by the veil that complacency weaves over our eyes. There simply isn't any vitality or attitude to depict because we are largely comatose with self-delusion and self-importance.
I am very much of the school of: 'I came, I did stuff and, when I'm gone, who is gonna give a shit.' Whether I print or not, what I'll leave behind are the etiolated clamourings of the wannabes that never were.
W
-
Rob,
Perhaps the elephant in the room of what you say is that there was energy, tension, adventure, relief and rebellion to be expressed in earlier times and those energies translated well to visual presentation. Such is no longer the case. Modern Western life is excessively affluent and vision is clouded by the veil that complacency weaves over our eyes. There simply isn't any vitality or attitude to depict because we are largely comatose with self-delusion and self-importance.
I am very much of the school of: 'I came, I did stuff and, when I'm gone, who is gonna give a shit.' Whether I print or not, what I'll leave behind are the etiolated clamourings of the wannabes that never were.
W
Can't argue with that; it's really enough to have achieved whatever one has managed to achieve, and let it be. Thing is, we often seem to forget what we managed to achieve in our fifteen minutes. My wife was very cute with that: as is no secret, I find myself down in the dumps very easily, and it ain't nothing new for me to feel the sackcloth where I expected velvet. At such times, she would say what's wrong with you? You did this, that and the other which few you knew in your pond even dreamed about, told you was impossible - wake up and sniff the Chanel 5! So I'd nuzzle her neck, and life became great again. I still have that part-used Chanel spray on the vanitory unit in the bathroom; my daughter got the bottle. Sometimes I take off the cap and relive times past.
That's what the website was eventually made for; it became a repository for the few great working moments I wanted to remember, and it's why I deeply regret having sold or destroyed all of my fashion negs and trannies. I did far more fashion than calendars over more years, and there's nothing left. But who in '81 knew the Internet was coming?
So that's probably my little attempt towards an epitaph: a website.
Rob C
-
I will start a web site that allows one to write and constantly update his or her own epitaph. The epitaph itself will appear as an image on one's choice of tombstones displayed in a pleasant variety of graveyards, or over a user supplied picture of the family plot. A few clicks and the latest edit can be instantly shared in jpeg format on one's favorite social networks. I believe this will make it easy to stay focused on the meaning and significance of one's life. When the epitaph has not been updated for a certain period of time, the last one will be engraved in stone and sent to a predetermined burial site.
-
...what I'll leave behind are the etiolated clamourings of the wannabes that never were.
:D
Quote of the day?
-
I will start a web site that allows one to write and constantly update his or her own epitaph. The epitaph itself will appear as an image on one's choice of tombstones displayed in a pleasant variety of graveyards, or over a user supplied picture of the family plot. A few clicks and the latest edit can be instantly shared in jpeg format on one's favorite social networks. I believe this will make it easy to stay focused on the meaning and significance of one's life.
I suppose this could be called an autobituary. :P
I think photography that is great art today, that has an emotional impact on the viewer will be seen in a similar way in the future. That will be it's value, not because it was taken by some long forgotten photographer.
-
I suppose this could be called an autobituary. :P
I think photography that is great art today, that has an emotional impact on the viewer will be seen in a similar way in the future. That will be it's value, not because it was taken by some long forgotten photographer.
That's a position of extreme paradox: most of all the great shots of the past have known, famous authors. That's what, largely, makes them famous. Context or content are often later hyped to match the current commercial fame of the snapper.
It's an 'ard world oot there, and it belongs to someone else.
Rob C
-
Rob,
Perhaps the elephant in the room of what you say is that there was energy, tension, adventure, relief and rebellion to be expressed in earlier times and those energies translated well to visual presentation. Such is no longer the case. Modern Western life is excessively affluent and vision is clouded by the veil that complacency weaves over our eyes. There simply isn't any vitality or attitude to depict because we are largely comatose with self-delusion and self-importance.
I am very much of the school of: 'I came, I did stuff and, when I'm gone, who is gonna give a shit.' Whether I print or not, what I'll leave behind are the etiolated clamourings of the wannabes that never were.
W
Walter,
I agree with what you're saying, but a record of that complacency, affluence, lack of vitality, self-delusion and self-importance should be left for future generations. That's one reason why I love real street photography. It's not things like HCB's fantastic talent for intuitive, instant composition that matters, or, as in the case of Atget the look you get at the physical milieu of earlier times. What really matters is what you can learn about things like their energy, tension, adventure, confidence, vitality, etc., from the interplay between the people of a different time in a good street shot.
I'm also of the school of "what the hell" when it comes to the longevity of my photographs. When I'm gone my negatives and files will be there. If somebody wants to do his PhD thesis on them, fine. If not, that's fine too. My photographs never have been a matter of "achievement" for me, but simply a way to have fun.
-
It is funny that you just reminded me, Russ, that I have always archivally processed my negatives and wet darkroom prints. It is just such an automatic thing that I clean overlooked it.
-
That's a good point. If resource depletion causes civilization to collapse, our digital files will soon be useless, but we'll still be able to enjoy our prints. On the other hand, when the fossil fuels run out people may well have to burn the prints to keep warm.:(
Ha! And ha again.
I know I sure am going to be looking at pictures if civilisation will collapse. Pictures of food, perhaps.
-
I will start a web site that allows one to write and constantly update his or her own epitaph. The epitaph itself will appear as an image on one's choice of tombstones displayed in a pleasant variety of graveyards, or over a user supplied picture of the family plot. A few clicks and the latest edit can be instantly shared in jpeg format on one's favorite social networks. I believe this will make it easy to stay focused on the meaning and significance of one's life. When the epitaph has not been updated for a certain period of time, the last one will be engraved in stone and sent to a predetermined burial site.
In a way, that's what facebook and other similar sites do.
-
The pictures I hung in my house were taken down over time as my wife changed the decor. Now that we moved, nothing is hanging. However, the 16x20 photo in a 24x28" white matted frame I gave my sister in Florida still hangs on her wall. I love seeing it up there on the wall when I visit. She tells me she loves it. It's her favorite picture. Maybe she likes it because it's so damn hot down there. Who knows? http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/5262311503/in/set-72157625476289859
So that's the clue. Give framed pictures of your favorite photos to your relatives and friends - now. Maybe even organizations you're associated with. So when you visit with them you'll see your work hanging and you'll get good vibes and appreciation from the people and organizations you gave them too. They'll probably be hanging there years after you're gone and maybe passed on to others.
Isn't that enough?
-
So that's the clue. Give framed pictures of your favorite photos to your relatives and friends - now. Maybe even organizations you're associated with. So when you visit with them you'll see your work hanging and you'll get good vibes and appreciation from the people and organizations you gave them too. They'll probably be hanging there years after you're gone and maybe passed on to others.
Isn't that enough?
Are you sure? Obligation's a funny thing - it can ruin families.
;-)
Rob C
-
Most people who buy a picture are probably going to value it and make some effort to preserve their investment. So unless we are talking about family pictures, the landscape/fine art picture that is sold is probably going to receive better care than the picture that is given away.
My experience has been that photos I've given away rarely get framed and hung on the wall, and even with family pictures I'm lucky if they end up on the piano behind the other relatives.
-
Jay: My suggestion was to include a beautiful frame of a well done picture. The way it worked with my sister was I asked her which of the 20 or so framed pictures I had did she want and gave her that one. Sometimes I feel (guiltily) that I wish I still had it. But that's the point. It has to be valuable to you. Hopefully them. And your best ones, not the ones you think are just average. Take the best ones off your wall and give those away. Number them. Name the one you give away 1 of 10, Jay Page 2014. Theirs should always be number 1. Listen. They have a better chance of staying up of their wall then staying on your wall after your dead and your wife's next husband throws them all out.
-
A great read so far.
Also of interest to me is why many photographers print almost as an addiction (me) and others have zero interest.
I am sure many of you have seen famed photographer Vincent Versace's Epson video.
Several of his remarks "The print is all" and "Photography is about the print"
Then you have the other side of the street. A good example the highly respected Michael Erlewine. (Google for his storied life)
He has a very good article on DPreview on shooting with the new Zeiss 55 Otus.
It is in that article or another one of his that someone asks about how he is printing these works of art.
His response, "I do not print anything, never have". I think I read back over that at least 2 or 3 times as it had to be a mistake.
I just could not image someone with his photographic talents not printing. He is taking all these wonderful photographs to print isn't he? I guess not.
Then again I am way more passonate about printing and mounting. (30 hanging in house and 100 (Just recounted,yikes!) in my Studio/Gallery)
When I am out shooting locally and I feel that I have some special shots I pack up early and head back to the print studio.
I just cannot wait to see what these look like as prints. Each to his own I guess and thats what makes the world go round.
And what are my kids going to do with those 130 prints when I leave this earth.
Probably keep a couple and chuck the rest. Sigh...
-
I'm getting a bit antsy because I haven't printed anything since last spring. However, I'm in the process of cleaning up my small studio to get ready to start again. It has become sort of ritualistic. I organize and clean all my flat surfaces so that I have room to admire my work and that of a good friend. In my own home I have very few of my prints because I just don't have the space (about 650 sq. ft) and I like collecting work of other local artists. I do however, have a very nice map cabinet that I store my matted prints. I just got back one of my all time favorite framed prints from a show that I ended up giving to a close friend as a wedding gift. I've definitely questioned why I do this to myself, but I imagine it is better than doing crack. I brought this up to a photographer friend and his response was just be glad your not into large sailboats. Everyone got to do something.
Regarding Rob's comments of the golden age of the sixties, I didn't come to age until the 80's and always felt a bit let down about what my generation had to offer other than the mullet.
-
Maybe many of us feel that the buzz today is all in the shooting... I can understand that, and without a specific commission, why spend money where you don't have to spend it? You got the shot; move on to the next.
Digital processing/printing doesn't remotely provide the kick that wet b/w (in particular - even exclusively, I guess) used to offer me; it's all so mechanical, and you can go on forever changing this, that and the other. Wet was visceral where digital is not. To be blunt about it, I can understand perfectly why digital print making has reduced the perceived skills in making, and, consequently, the values intrinsic in printed images. I suspect that the old gallery concept of demanding and valuing silver print well above digital exists not simply as a marketing device, but because it's a recognition of those different, generally perceived values. The art-buying market isn't always wrong.
Rob C
-
Rob, I think it's not so much that the skills have lessened, it's just that they've changed. In fact, I believe that photography is far more skill-demanding now than those physical days. Granted, chemical-darkroom printing was more hands-on, but I'm glad to say goodbye to the visceral aspects of noisy print washers, exhausted developer disposal and the smell of sodium thiosulfate.
Today, the skills are far more complex, esoteric and intellectually demanding than rubber gloves, fluid ounces and degrees Fahrenheit. And the positive results are obvious. High technologies have brought about The Golden Age of Photography. Witness the astonishing increase in novel, creative, quality imagery available to a global audience in ways unimaginable by those of us who once laboured in dim orange light.
-
Rob, I think it's not so much that the skills have lessened, it's just that they've changed. In fact, I believe that photography is far more skill-demanding now than those physical days. Granted, chemical-darkroom printing was more hands-on, but I'm glad to say goodbye to the visceral aspects of noisy print washers, exhausted developer disposal and the smell of sodium thiosulfate.
Today, the skills are far more complex, esoteric and intellectually demanding than rubber gloves, fluid ounces and degrees Fahrenheit. And the positive results are obvious. High technologies have brought about The Golden Age of Photography. Witness the astonishing increase in novel, creative, quality imagery available to a global audience in ways unimaginable by those of us who once laboured in dim orange light.
I wish that I could agree with you, Peter, but I can't.
Your version of Golden Age isn't the one I'm able to recognize at all. I lived one to the full most of my life and now experience the later concept; I find very little intellectual similarity at all, and doubt very much that I would consider 'higher technologies' as bringing any great gifts other than easy access for a mass market of snappers...
In my view, photography has not progressed: it has simply led to a highly complex mundanity where original thinking has been usurped by technical tricks that are nothing more than that: special effects. Even in movies, those now bore audiences to death.
If there is one great positive in digital, for me, it's that I can now shoot cheaply. Some trade for the rest that I think lost.
To paraphrase something that Walter wrote recently: for those with the ability, the means to achieve things were ever there.
Rob C
-
It was a lot easier shooting slides. You worried about getting in the camera and then went on to the next shot. More fun for me anyway.
-
It was a lot easier shooting slides. You worried about getting in the camera and then went on to the next shot. More fun for me anyway.
Commercially, transparencies were the best bet of the lot: Kodachrome 64 Pro!
I wouldn't go as far as to claim it was easier, though; you had to be pretty careful how you lit/exposed.
From that film I have pulled more pleasing stuff (IMO) using only a simple CanoScan machine as it came out of the box, than faffing about for hours with digital originals. And that most certainly includes better black/whites from Kodachrome, too. There's something very unpredictable with digital black/whites from digital cameras with which I'm familiar; it's something that I can only describe as 'empty spaces' within the tonal range, nothing to do with maximum blacks or burned-out highlights; it happens to some mid-tones sometimes.
Rob C
-
In my view, photography has not progressed: it has simply led to a highly complex mundanity where original thinking has been usurped by technical tricks that are nothing more than that: special effects. Even in movies, those now bore audiences to death.
The pictures that exist of myself as a kid have only personal value. It is fascinating to see yourself (or close family) 30 years back. Technically, they are bad. They were taken with a lowcost SLR and compact camera. Specifically:
-Whitebalance is all over the place
-About 50% of the prints have turned yellow or some other disgusting faded color (there seems to be some pattern in that certain films/developments are ok, while others are really bad)
-Focus is slightly or grossly wrong on almost every picture (I can print my current pictures at 10x15 without being annoyed with focus errors. Not so with the old family album)
-For in-door shots, a hideous on-camera flash is often used, bathing the subject in a harsh face-on light.
I think that todays family shots tend to be better. To the degree that parents actually preserve the image files (which is a problem), I think that todays kids will prefer the images of this generation to the one before them.
I have talked about consumer photography, professional photography may be something different.
-h
-
The same is true about movies. My little 8mm Kodachromes movies that I shot 50 years ago don't compare to today's digital cameras even P&S's. Of course I still have the film 50 years later although they are also converted to digital now and burned on a DVD for playing on an HDTV, just like some of my 35mm slides.
My wife and I just moved recently. We found over forty 50-foot movie rolls her dad had taken some more than 50 years ago. Although I haven't yet sent them out for conversion to digital on a DVD, I did run a couple on my movie projector. (Well the projector ran the correct speed going backwards but slow going forward!) The colors are normal.
Actually I'm sorry I switched over to 35mm Ektachromes years ago. I should have stayed with Kodachromes they hold colors so much better and longer.
-
The pictures that exist of myself as a kid have only personal value. It is fascinating to see yourself (or close family) 30 years back. Technically, they are bad. They were taken with a lowcost SLR and compact camera. Specifically:
-Whitebalance is all over the place
-About 50% of the prints have turned yellow or some other disgusting faded color (there seems to be some pattern in that certain films/developments are ok, while others are really bad)
-Focus is slightly or grossly wrong on almost every picture (I can print my current pictures at 10x15 without being annoyed with focus errors. Not so with the old family album)
-For in-door shots, a hideous on-camera flash is often used, bathing the subject in a harsh face-on light.
I think that todays family shots tend to be better. To the degree that parents actually preserve the image files (which is a problem), I think that todays kids will prefer the images of this generation to the one before them.
I have talked about consumer photography, professional photography may be something different.
-h
Everything depends on the skills of the people doing it.
I also have old transparencies and b/white silver prints; they look as good today as when I made them. I suspect that my silver will look better longer than the digital counterparts, theoretical ink/paper time-testing notwithstanding. (Less and less do I believe anything from the lips of the photographic industry. All I need do is compare viewfinders of my F3 to those of the D200 and D700 to realise that progress sometimes means going full steam ahead in reverse.)
Regarding longevity, that also depends largely on how one stores things.
Rob C
-
Everything depends on the skills of the people doing it.
Sure, but I believe that todays tools are more forgiving for the less skilled people.
Regarding longevity, that also depends largely on how one stores things.
In this case, pretty standard photo albums stored on the shelf. Like 95% of other peoples family pictures, I would think.
I tend to believe that some mail-order developers used lesser quality tools/chemicals than others, and that this shows 30 or 40 years after, not matter how you store things. I am no expert on film stuff, though.
-h
-
It was a lot easier shooting slides. You worried about getting in the camera and then went on to the next shot. More fun for me anyway.
Hi Alan,
I agree with Rob -- about it not being easier. As he pointed out, exposure had to be right on the money, and with what now seem quite primitive light measuring tools, that wasn't easy.
To me, by far the most important advantage of digital is the LCD screen on the back of the camera. Yeah, the histogram can be a help, but the whole scene on the LCD is even more help. You can bracket and see -- right then -- what the different exposures are doing to the thing. If you're going to shoot with flash, and you want to include ambient light, you can start by making a shot without the flash, see what the ambient light is doing for you, and then plan your flash setup. And as you go you can look at the LCD and adjust things until you're happy. With film you had to use hot lights to get any idea what you were going to end up with.
I'm sorry to hear that Rob's having predictability problems with digital B&W. I get very consistent results with my D3, D800, and Olympus E-P1. When I make a conversion with Silver Efex Pro, at least 90% of the time I can use one of my favorite presets and get exactly what I'm after. That's a single click. If not, Silver Efex has tools to do anything I want to do with the thing, including picking a canned conversion to the characteristics of one of film-days' favorite films. With the B&W capabilities built into my Epson 3880 I get better B&W than I ever used to get with gelatin-silver, but that may be because I wasn't as good a darkroom printer as I thought I was.
-
Regarding longevity, that also depends largely on how one stores things.
Rob C
How prints are stored is very Important! People confuse stability with durability. An inkjet carbon pigment on cotton rag paper is far more stable than a silver print, but has far less durability. I have inherited old (~ 1 century old) silver prints that have been stored loose in boxes or drawers for most of their life, the edges are a bit beat up and some have creases but overall they are OK. Pigment inkjet prints are easily damaged by scuffing or scratching.
-
I wish that I could agree with you, Peter, but I can't.
In my view, photography has not progressed: it has simply led to a highly complex mundanity where original thinking has been usurped by technical tricks that are nothing more than that: special effects. Even in movies, those now bore audiences to death.
Rob C
To me, that's an inexplicable perception. I agree that photography's ubiquity has resulted in mundanity. I am in fact guilty of that very mundanity myself by sending images of my meals home to my wife as a form of shorthand, in-depth communication.
"Writing with light", right?
Surely no photographer who has become familiar with LR and PS can deny that photography has progressed. If you discount compositing as a valid component of photography and dismiss all special effects as boring, then you must be even older than me. :) Besides, all of photography is a special effect.
And don't get me started on the big, gorgeous prints available everyone with a little desk space in their bedroom. Or the fact that anyone with a grand to spare can produce images for free that are better than my old 6X7 outfit did at several dollars per button-push.
I'm reminded of my comment to a manager of the GoPro booth last Spring at NAB in Vegas.
On viewing their latest demo reel, I said: "I've never seen any of those images before."
He laffed. : )
-
GoPro booth last Spring at NAB in Vegas.
Photography has truly progressed by leaps and bounds. Open up any issue of the US Camera Annual from the 60's and ask yourself this...where are the pictures of the skateboarders?
Anyhoo, GoPro is passe. The Mobius is the new king of first person POV. You have to keep up, that's the trick.
-
To me, that's an inexplicable perception. I agree that photography's ubiquity has resulted in mundanity. I am in fact guilty of that very mundanity myself by sending images of my meals home to my wife as a form of shorthand, in-depth communication.
"Writing with light", right?
Surely no photographer who has become familiar with LR and PS can deny that photography has progressed. If you discount compositing as a valid component of photography and dismiss all special effects as boring, then you must be even older than me. :) Besides, all of photography is a special effect.
And don't get me started on the big, gorgeous prints available everyone with a little desk space in their bedroom. Or the fact that anyone with a grand to spare can produce images for free that are better than my old 6X7 outfit did at several dollars per button-push.
I'm reminded of my comment to a manager of the GoPro booth last Spring at NAB in Vegas.
On viewing their latest demo reel, I said: "I've never seen any of those images before."
He laffed. : )
Kind of proves the point I made, I think. It's a mind set. I don't think traditional photography is a special effect at all. I think that traditional photography was something real whereas PSed perfection is simply another common manifestation of airbrushed life: a fakery no more exciting than silicone tits, a perception which also makes me older than you might be.
I have never said that digital manipulation does not make more control possible; I have said that ultimate digital control removes the art from the equation and puts photography into the monkey writing Shakespeare category of artistic expression. Having worked with both media (and having bought and owned a monkey for a few hours) I know the reality of what digital can do, and also recognize the sense of artistic loss that working that way produces for me. Gone the inner satisfaction, and the arrival of the well, I could always have done this, that or the other as a further layer... You will or will not see the differences, and if you don't there's nothing I can add, and it simply makes no difference to anyone at all other than to me, and least of all to you
Rob C
-
And yet, Rob, we all know that even in "traditional" photography, the end results often look not too similar to the original scene as viewed. It's all just smoke and mirrors or lights and chemicals or silicone and LEDs.
-
And yet, Rob, we all know that even in "traditional" photography, the end results often look not too similar to the original scene as viewed. It's all just smoke and mirrors or lights and chemicals or silicone and LEDs.
Absolutely so, but what you are writing about here is interpretation, in the sense of St A. and his dictum about negs, scores and performances.
My references are aimed at the differences in approach: with the wet systems, it was something that lay absolutely within the realm of skill; with PS and the rest, it's far more a matter of when you give up, and unlike the wet ways, where the skill lay totally within you, you can now go on forever, mechanically putting layer upon layer until something works. Just as with the monkeys/keyboard/Shakespeare analogy, the chances are that at some stage, you've managed it. It doesn't work like that on the traditional route.
That's why digital is so attractive to newbies: it's as close to painting by numbers as you can get with a camera.
Don't misunderstand me: for those who depend on speed and commercial priorities, I'm sure it's the perfect solution except that it's made most work twice as hard for the same or even less reward, and invest God alone knows how much more on equipment than with film and a darkroom. For the amateur, I think he's been robbed of a far more profound personal experience. And for the amateur, isn't that what it's supposedly all about?
For me? It let's me play now for not much money, as long as I don't go nuts and buy into the fibs. I won't.
However, closer to the theme of the thread, I suggest that one would have had far more pride and interest in the conservation of a single hard-won wet prints of which one was proud, than of the totally unlimited number of identical prints of whatever that one can make with a computer. When things come so easily, where is their value, even to you, the maker? I suppose that's why my HP B9180 has lain unused and wasting tick-over ink for months; what's the point? My kids could come here after I'm gone and just press the button and the pix would come churning out all by themselves... some craftsmanship that requires!
Rob C
-
But it does require craftsmanship in the first instance, either to get the shot right or to post-process it to create the image that you want. Sure, it seems easy to drive PS or LR to do some magical things (and many times that's true), but as most here know that doesn't help you to create a vision that actually works and constantly refining has traps all of its own (contrast creep, anyone?).
I think you devalue the new over the old mostly because the old is your paradigm. There's nothing wrong with that - it's personal - but in an objective way I don't think there's any less skill involved in creating a truly wonderful image today than when my Dad first gave me a Minolta HiMatic E that he picked up from a friend (Dad was using an SR-T 101 at the time). I was 7, and had no idea what I was doing, but it was fun :-)
-
Quote from: Alan Klein on January 12, 2014, 04:48:02 PM
It was a lot easier shooting slides. You worried about getting in the camera and then went on to the next shot. More fun for me anyway.
Hi Alan,
I agree with Rob -- about it not being easier. As he pointed out, exposure had to be right on the money, and with what now seem quite primitive light measuring tools, that wasn't easy.
As an amateur, I didn't worry much about those that were bad. What I was referring too is let's say I went on vacation. I took a few 36 exposure rolls of pictures. Of course I could not know which were no good at the time. But when I get home, those that were badly exposed, usually not many at least for my use, or duplicates or whatever that I didn't want to keep, were discarded. Those left went into an (80?) slide tray for projection. No post processing. That's what made it easy.
-
Sounds a lot like the arguments that were leveled at photography by painters, back in the day. Goddam no-talent upstarts and their cheap-as-dirt process! There is nothing more upsetting than seeing the price of admission to one's most cherished talents, which one may have paid in blood at its peak, lowered down to the level of Everyman's pocket change. I don't like it either. But it will ever more be thus, in all fields. The good news is, I sometimes see very powerful and beautiful images produced by non-technical people who would otherwise have never been able to express themselves in imagery.
Absolutely so, but what you are writing about here is interpretation, in the sense of St A. and his dictum about negs, scores and performances.
My references are aimed at the differences in approach: with the wet systems, it was something that lay absolutely within the realm of skill; with PS and the rest, it's far more a matter of when you give up, and unlike the wet ways, where the skill lay totally within you, you can now go on forever, mechanically putting layer upon layer until something works. Just as with the monkeys/keyboard/Shakespeare analogy, the chances are that at some stage, you've managed it. It doesn't work like that on the traditional route.
That's why digital is so attractive to newbies: it's as close to painting by numbers as you can get with a camera.
Don't misunderstand me: for those who depend on speed and commercial priorities, I'm sure it's the perfect solution except that it's made most work twice as hard for the same or even less reward, and invest God alone knows how much more on equipment than with film and a darkroom. For the amateur, I think he's been robbed of a far more profound personal experience. And for the amateur, isn't that what it's supposedly all about?
For me? It let's me play now for not much money, as long as I don't go nuts and buy into the fibs. I won't.
However, closer to the theme of the thread, I suggest that one would have had far more pride and interest in the conservation of a single hard-won wet prints of which one was proud, than of the totally unlimited number of identical prints of whatever that one can make with a computer. When things come so easily, where is their value, even to you, the maker? I suppose that's why my HP B9180 has lain unused and wasting tick-over ink for months; what's the point? My kids could come here after I'm gone and just press the button and the pix would come churning out all by themselves... some craftsmanship that requires!
Rob C
-
Sounds a lot like the arguments that were leveled at photography by painters, back in the day. Goddam no-talent upstarts and their cheap-as-dirt process! There is nothing more upsetting than seeing the price of admission to one's most cherished talents, which one may have paid in blood at its peak, lowered down to the level of Everyman's pocket change. I don't like it either. But it will ever more be thus, in all fields. The good news is, I sometimes see very powerful and beautiful images produced by non-technical people who would otherwise have never been able to express themselves in imagery.
I drew and painted before I had a camera: I share that 'old-fashioned idea' too!
Had I been more skilled with paint, I think I'd have felt the better artist staying with it, but I realised early on that I was no Alberto Vargas. The photographic genre that first drew me - fashion - was clearly the only game in town close to my desires. To tell the complete story, I really doubt that photographers can make the same legitimate claims to being thoroughbred artists as falls to painters... Mostly, we can lay claim to dabbling, touching the edges of the mantle.
Rob C
-
This is an interesting topic which I've just come across. I can understand Michael's and Tony Jay's perspective that the print is the best method of preserving the best of one's work.
But I feel this is a traditional perspective based upon past experiences without regard to what seems a fairly predictable trend in increasing storage capacity, increasing reliability, as in steady state devices such as SD cards, and increases in the size and resolution of TV screens and monitors.
My Kindle DX E-book reader displays a constant image when switched off, without using any battery power. Of course it's B&W and not high resolution. However, I imagine in 20 or 30 or 40 years time, it will be in color and will be very high resolution.
We already have SDXC cards the size of a thumb nail which hold 256 GB of data. From the time I bought my first digital camera in 2003, I've bought many compact flash and SD cards. I've never experienced one failure. That's not true of hard drives.
My prediction of the future is, you will be able to store all your photos ever taken, and all the scanned files of images taken by your distant relatives and grandparents, on one or two thumb-nail-size SD cards, and if you want to ensure they don't get lost or accidentally destroyed, make a dozen copies.
However, a hundred years ago, the print would have been the safest method of storage and accessibility. To demonstrate the point I attach a 130 year old (approx) scan of a print of my Great Grandfather and Grandmother, and their family. The two older folks in the front row look rather rigidly Victorian don't you think! ;D
I never met them of course, except one of the young men in the group who was my grandfather, middle of the back row, the guy who looks a bit mesmerised. It's interesting to note that the lady, top left, has moved during what must have been a long exposure in those days.
Obviously, to store the photographic print in an album was much easier in those days than storing the 6x8 or 8x10 photographic plates. But a 1TB SD card at an affordable price is unbeatable.
-
All in all, quite nice tonality, too. But poor cropping at foot level!
I think space really will become a very pressing factor in a few years, if only for the problem with house prices. The current flat spot will surely pass - everything always changes - and the available spaces for building are finite unless we learn to eat concrete. So with the probability of smaller and smaller living spaces available, where will all these boxes of prints finally hide? A neater, more tidy format will have to be utilized.
;-)
Rob C
-
I think you devalue the new over the old mostly because the old is your paradigm.
That nicely summarizes many many comments.
-
good news is, I sometimes see very powerful and beautiful images produced by non-technical people who would otherwise have never been able to express themselves in imagery.
Bill illuminates a key point in "The Golden Age of Photography": Everyone's a photographer now. Maybe not a good photographer, but a photographer nonetheless. And that's a good thing for both them and photography.
-
Ray; That's a great picture. The older gentlemen in the front row looks like Robert E. Lee. Do you come from a Southern family? :)
-
Bill illuminates a key point in "The Golden Age of Photography": Everyone's a photographer now. Maybe not a good photographer, but a photographer nonetheless. And that's a good thing for both them and photography.
Why do you believe that to be so, Peter?
Everyone can find a piece of paper and a pencil, but I never heard anyone saying that they thought that was a great thing for the traditional arts. Why would piling up the world with more and more trash be a 'good thing'? And it will be trash. Democracy of that sort always does produce more trash. The great will always find its way out, regardless of hurdles, but mindless junk never even thinks about itself - it just is. Tons and tons of it, all around us, and when we don't see it anymore we should know that's because we just grew too used to it. It's like our sense of smell: after a while we don't notice anything anymore, good or bad.
Rob C
-
Ray; That's a great picture. The older gentlemen in the front row looks like Robert E. Lee. Do you come from a Southern family? :)
Thanks! As far as I know, they're all Scottish, Alan, although I'm half Welsh. :)
-
Ray: Not Lee but Andrew Carnegie, the Scotland born American steel magnate of the 19th century!
http://www.biography.com/people/andrew-carnegie-9238756
-
Yes, I see a resemblance, Alan. I'm embarrassed to admit that I know very little about my family tree. I've never even lived in Scotland. Perhaps I should dig into my history on one of these ancestry.com sites. I'm not sure it's a priority though. Got so many other things to do.
-
Everyone can find a piece of paper and a pencil, but I never heard anyone saying that they thought that was a great thing for the traditional arts.
It must be, Rob. What sort of art would we get if there were no paper, canvas, pen, pencil or paint brush available. Probably something like Aboriginal rock carvings and cave paintings at best. A bit restrictive, maybe, but fine in their own right.
The great will always find its way out, regardless of hurdles...
How can we be sure? That's a very broad assumption. Only the great that has succeeded in making its way out comes to our attention. However, I suppose if one defines 'greatness' as that quality which can transcend and overcome all hurdles, then you would be right.
-
Ray, why don't you just take my word for it?
;-)
Rob C
-
Anyhoo, GoPro is passe. The Mobius is the new king of first person POV.
I thought to myself: "That's the first time I've disagreed with Bill." Now, having done my due diligence, I'm back. And I'm inclined to agree with myself. The Mobius looks like good value, but its lack of an easily-changed battery cripples it. I do like the form factor.
I bought one of these for my vehicle.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F2GMWCG/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1WCEA3DWLFV89&coliid=I1ELOEY7YKHFHE
Same price league as the Mobius, lacks a removable battery and an intervalometer, but it has a VIEWFINDER. Quite a useful innovation in a camera. : )
All of which proves nothing other than that the GP is a stepping stone. Far better "action" cameras are on the horizon.
-
Why do you believe that to be so, Peter?
Everyone can find a piece of paper and a pencil, but I never heard anyone saying that they thought that was a great thing for the traditional arts.
Rob C
The high cost of entry and the high price per image has historically inhibited photography's acceptance by the general public. This was never so for paper and pencil - only a lack of initiative stopped one from participating.
The low cost of entry and zero cost per image has encouraged everyone to learn to photograph. The fact that a lot of crap has materialized is irrelevant. Tens of millions of people are learning photography and every one of their mistakes teaches them something.
Slobodan's post of the Russian woman's farm photographs illustrates my point perfectly.
http://www.boredpanda.com/animal-children-photography-elena-shumilova/?fb_action_ids=10202522404557284&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B600223250049386%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map
This woman is an amateur photographer. Absent inexpensive digital photography, I doubt that she'd ever have progressed so far, so fast. And that would be our loss. And photography's.
-
The high cost of entry and the high price per image has historically inhibited photography's acceptance by the general public. This was never so for paper and pencil - only a lack of initiative stopped one from participating.
The low cost of entry and zero cost per image has encouraged everyone to learn to photograph. The fact that a lot of crap has materialized is irrelevant. Tens of millions of people are learning photography and every one of their mistakes teaches them something.
Slobodan's post of the Russian woman's farm photographs illustrates my point perfectly.
http://www.boredpanda.com/animal-children-photography-elena-shumilova/?fb_action_ids=10202522404557284&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B600223250049386%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map
This woman is an amateur photographer. Absent inexpensive digital photography, I doubt that she'd ever have progressed so far, so fast. And that would be our loss. And photography's.
I had a box Bownie at one stage, then a little Brownie Reflex TLR, the former running 620 and the latter 127, I think - prints were almost free; Mr Eastman took care of that. Paper and pencil being cheaply available and pretty ubiquitous isn't the point: the point is that even with all that pile of paper and those mugs full of standing, sentinel pencils with rubber helmets, the artists coming forth from all of that possibility have always formed but a tiny minority. Neither do I accept that either all of those dabbling with graphite desired to become proficient artists any more than those with toy digital cameras today intend to 'learn' photography, as you put it. The camera is just a notebook in which to record lunch or a family event, much as the honest little Brownie was.
The step up from dabbling and learning is huge: most of all it requires intent, and then dedication. With those you will probably learn, but that won't mean you become good. You just acquire a better idea of why you might not be.
As I mentioned somewhere earlier today or yesterday, the good will always out. It doesn't require recognition to be good: think Viv M. Nobody knew of her, yet she had more talent than many of those who did much the same thing only in a more attention-gathering milieu.
I really can't buy into the notion that 'everybody' doing it means more good people doing it. Good was ever tightly rationed.
But then that's just how I see life - I don't expect many others to feel like that, and it really doesn't matter to them nor to me, does it? We think as we do, and as long as we don't prevent others from thinking as they do (as long as that doesn't harm others) 'tis fine by me.
;-)
Rob C
-
We think as we do, and as long as we don't prevent others from thinking as they do (as long as that doesn't harm others) 'tis fine by me.
;-)
Rob C
Agreed.
And, as you Brits are fond of saying, "There it is, then." : )
-
Interesting questions. Digital files are really easily forgortten and lost. I'm using cloud storage for storing, but there are too many photos, I can't find the one I need timely. Maybe I really need to print the great ones into photos. ::)
-
Interesting questions. Digital files are really easily forgortten and lost. I'm using cloud storage for storing, but there are too many photos, I can't find the one I need timely. Maybe I really need to print the great ones into photos. ::)
Just keep a nice external hard drive handy; as long as you keep your shots in reasonably logical folders, it's quick enough finding stuff.
In film days, we all (I expect) used to run a shoot ledger, with the negatives/transparencies numbered in order; if you remembered the client (the model usually helped you remember the shoot - for better or for worse) then it was simply a matter of consulting the good book. Not the Good Book, just your own.
Books seldom crashed.
Rob C
-
It must be, Rob. What sort of art would we get if there were no paper, canvas, pen, pencil or paint brush available. Probably something like Aboriginal rock carvings and cave paintings at best. A bit restrictive, maybe, but fine in their own right.
How can we be sure? That's a very broad assumption. Only the great that has succeeded in making its way out comes to our attention. However, I suppose if one defines 'greatness' as that quality which can transcend and overcome all hurdles, then you would be right.
There's the answer to the title question. Rock/cave paintings. At least those are guaranteed to last a while and they were already there, so no environmental damage is inflicted.
Not sure about the second statement though. A lot of headstones have transcended more than anyone here or elsewhere can guarantee about their own work, yet, sometimes apart from size, greatness is not their main feature.
-
There's the answer to the title question. Rock/cave paintings. At least those are guaranteed to last a while and they were already there, so no environmental damage is inflicted.
Not sure about the second statement though. A lot of headstones have transcended more than anyone here or elsewhere can guarantee about their own work, yet, sometimes apart from size, greatness is not their main feature.
And even there, much of the best is reserved for Paris. The dead can be choosy, too.
;-(
Rob C
-
On the subject of greatness, regarding human endeavour, I recently came across a relevant quote from the 30th U.S. President, Calvin Coolidge.
This is what he is reputed to have said:
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than the unsuccessful man with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not -- the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination are omnipotent."
-
On the subject of greatness, regarding human endeavour, I recently came across a relevant quote from the 30th U.S. President, Calvin Coolidge.
This is what he is reputed to have said:
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than the unsuccessful man with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not -- the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination are omnipotent."
Cal may be right, unfortunately. Just think about most successful politicians, who have neither talent, nor genius, nor education.
-
Eric: Calvin wasn't talking about successful men with talent but rather unsuccessful men with talent. If they're successful, well, they're successful!
-
Cal may be right, unfortunately. Just think about most successful politicians, who have neither talent, nor genius, nor education.
I think you have to start by defining success, Eric. Is being able to lie convincingly success? Depends on your point of view. If you're a politician the answer is yes. For most of us the answer is no.
-
And even there, much of the best is reserved for Paris. The dead can be choosy, too.
;-(
Rob C
I wouldn't know, but I guess people get fed up with waiting forever on the line with W'minster Abbey. You do have the rest of eternity ahead of you but how long can you listen to Vivaldi for?