are photographs improving?

[Ken R]

on this and many other photographic sites much talk is given to the technological advances made in photographic equipment and i admit that i sometimes go down that road. we talk about expanded dr, resolving power of new sensors and lenses and dreaming about what is coming down the road. some people actually believe that the newest and best will make them better. unfortunately, and i may be wrong, photographers don't seem to really discuss the actual creating of an image that evokes a response from the mind and heart. frederick evans had only color blind film and equipment that most people consider slightly above cave men equipment yet he created beautiful images. albert stieglitz, paul strand, edward steichen, edward weston, ansel adams, dorthea lange, galen rowell etc. all used old school equipment, yet their images stand the test of time. i also believe that if you had given these photographers today's equipment that they would still produce outstanding images. digital photography creates a googleplexian of pictures but how many of them are images that move us. the line at the top says "equipment and technique" and i think we spend too much time on the first and the later get short shifted by many photographers. maybe because i would take and old master and their paintings over a jackson pollock i'm stuck in the past. if so i'm sorry about this.

Yes, Digital Photography has helped give access to photography equipment (capture device and processing) to SO many people that there are some amazing photographs being produced today by talented people all over the world. People with the imagination, creativity and time to make some awesome images. They don't have to be using the latest and greatest. Even camera phones suffice in a lot of cases.

Yes, improved technology and image quality has really helped some people take their visions to a very high level but technology in and on itself has not made the images greatly better it has just empowered talented individuals to make them better. Also it has tapped into a MUCH wider pool of people.

[Alan Klein]

True there may be more inane snapshots because of iPhone and P&S's  .  However, I think there is also much better quality by more photographers than ever before.  I look at my photo books of excellent landscape photographers in the past.  I see more and better or at least equal results even on internet forums as this one by non-pro photographers.

[david distefano]

True there may be more inane snapshots because of iPhone and P&S's  .  However, I think there is also much better quality by more photographers than ever before.  I look at my photo books of excellent landscape photographers in the past.  I see more and better or at least equal results even on internet forums as this one by non-pro photographers.

i'm going to have to disagree with you. to truly judge, the images have to be printed. as a person who visits many many art and photo galleries, the images may be sharper but many of the images don't move or inspire. i see more in a dorthea lange image of migrants than in most of today's work. alfred stieglitz and his images of new york have more life to me than many of todays images. the top amounts payed for photographs all come from film photography. yes andreas gursky did use digital work to clean the image. yosemite over the christmas holidays had many of AA's prints on display. they always inspire me. like i said in the op, maybe i'm just stuck in my ways, but i think all of us dwell too much on the hardware and we don't spend time talking about light, angles, what is it we want to say etc. there are many pretty photographs, like there are many pretty actresses but give me  grace kelly or ingrid bergman any day,

[Alan Klein]

Grace Kelly and Ingrid Bergman are dead.  So are Steiglitz and Adams.  The past always seems better.  Especially if the artist is dead.  People pay more for Picasso.  Someday we'll be dead too.  Who knows?  Maybe we'll be as famous as they are and our photos will be held in higher esteem.

[Telecaster]

Grace Kelly and Ingrid Bergman are dead.  So are Steiglitz and Adams.  The past always seems better.  Especially if the artist is dead.  People pay more for Picasso.  Someday we'll be dead too.  Who knows?  Maybe we'll be as famous as they are and our photos will be held in higher esteem.

Right! Our perspective is limited by the fact that we live in the Now. We can see the value in the past more clearly because it's had time to shake down...most of the crap has fallen away and most of the good stuff has endured. In the Now everything is still in play, and we simply can't evaluate it with much clarity.

-Dave-

[Peter McLennan]

"Are photographs improving?"  A pretty broad question.  A few examples from my own experience:

"Earthrise" from Apollo 8 is certainly as good a photograph as was ever made.

Annie Leibovitz has raised the art and technique of fashion photography to previously-unseen levels.

My D800 and I consistently out-photograph my former Pentax 6X7.

Focus and exposure stacking have in some situations solved two of photography's most intractable problems.

Large format inkjet printers shame the output of any chemical darkroom EVAR.

James Nachtwey is probably the best social reportage photographer to have ever depressed the shutter button.

I could go on.  All of these examples accrue from the last 40 years, most of them from much more recent times.

I've said it before and I'll probably say it again.  The Golden Age of Photography is now.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

The Golden Age of Photography is now.

I'd rather say:

The golden age of photographic technique is now.

At the core photography is not about our technical means - we all know that.
Its more about us as photographers and how we relate to our subject and express it.
This has never substantially changed.
In the end it comes down to what we invest personally, how well and effectively we invest it (skill, talent) and if we sustain it over a time long enough to let it evolve.
The occasional "lucky shot" may appear to be an exception, but it is not.

Some (anti-)theses:
- Having access to great tools doesn't make us great photographers.
- Having access to great locations doesn't make us great photographers.
- Having access to great people doesn't make us great photographers.
- Having a large fanclub doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being famous doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being financially successful doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being good at bullshitting about photography doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being good at distributing our stuff doesn't make us great photographers.

All the points mentioned may or may not help one being successful, but they don't make one a good photographer.

my 0.02 € of bs.

Cheers
~Chris

[BernardLanguillier]

Some (anti-)theses:
- Having access to great tools doesn't make us great photographers.
- Having access to great locations doesn't make us great photographers.
- Having access to great people doesn't make us great photographers.
- Having a large fanclub doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being famous doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being financially successful doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being good at bullshitting about photography doesn't make us great photographers.
- Being good at distributing our stuff doesn't make us great photographers.

Agreed with all, except perhaps the size of the fan club.

At some level, it is difficult to deny the fact that having others like one's work provide some guidance about the quality of this work.

I am not saying that compromising one's vision to please the masses is the right thing to do, but I question the quality of a photograph nobody likes besides the person having taken it.

Cheers,
Bernard

[torger]

Agreed with all, except perhaps the size of the fan club.

At some level, it is difficult to deny the fact that having others like one's work provide some guidance about the quality of this work.

I am not saying that compromising one's vision to please the masses is the right thing to do, but I question the quality of a photograph nobody likes besides the person having taken it.

Quality in any area is a special interest. If you consume a lot of a certain product your taste will be refined and you won't have the same taste as casual consumers of the same product, you generally get bored of mainstream and get more interested in more "difficult" subjects. The product could be music, wine or photographs. If you want to have a huge fan club you should satisfy the casual consumers, if you want to satisfy the expert consumers, ie the critics, and succeed with that the fan club will not be as huge, but hopefully your work will stand the test of time better.

[Rob C]

"Are photographs improving?"  A pretty broad question.  A few examples from my own experience:



1.  Annie Leibovitz has raised the art and technique of fashion photography to previously-unseen levels.

2.  My D800 and I consistently out-photograph my former Pentax 6X7.

3.  I've said it before and I'll probably say it again.  The Golden Age of Photography is now.

1. Guess you were never a fashion photographer, then, if you can believe that.

2. I had a P67 ll too; I agree about the possibility.

3. Sorry, my experience tells me differently. Golden ages are only slightly about equipment and overwhelmingly about opportunity to go somewhere with the work. Closed labs, bankrupt studios and unemployed photographers deny your reality.

Rob C

[hjulenissen]

In 1960 you had to be signed by a major label in order to make a record of sensible technical quality.

In 2014 anyone with a laptop can make a mp3 of sensible technical quality.

The record labels worked as a gateway. "If we invest lots of money on this music, will we have a return on our investement?" One might expect that this filtered away a lot of lousy music. At the same time, it might also have filtered away creative new music (that the record companies did not comprehend) or ugly musicians with poor tv appeal etc.

So in 2014, we have a gazillion pieces of music that is recorded with ample SNR and bandwidth. Predictably, a lot of it is the musical equivalent of photographers taking poor snaps of their cat. But are there more, less or the same number of genuinely good recordings out there? Is the "artistic output" of one generation constant, or is it limited by technical/economical constraints?

-h

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

...
Is the "artistic output" of one generation constant, or is it limited by technical/economical constraints?
...

Mankind in its core changes astonishingly little over time.
Of course there is some cultural progress of some sort.
But in the core we are still cavemen infants struggleing.
The layer of powdered sugar above this is still very thin.
Cheers
~Chris

[Rob C]

Mankind in its core changes astonishingly little over time.
Of course there is some cultural progress of some sort.
But in the core we are still cavemen infants struggleing.
The layer of powdered sugar above this is still very thin.
Cheers
~Chris

So true; just go to a football match if you have any doubts.

Rob C

[MrSmith]

"1.  Annie Leibovitz has raised the art and technique of fashion photography to previously-unseen levels."

 
 PMSL ROLFL

[MrSmith]

being serious for a moment the tools of photographic production are now more accessible than ever before and those images easily shared.
this means 2 things:
 previously unseen talent may be uncovered.
 an awful lot of ephemeral dross gets produced.

[Peter McLennan]

You guys keep talking about whether or not you have improved as photographers.  That doesn't answer the question posed by the OP.  He asked whether or not the photographs have improved.

[JoeKitchen]

You guys keep talking about whether or not you have improved as photographers.  That doesn't answer the question posed by the OP.  He asked whether or not the photographs have improved.

I will take a stab at this, no. What we have are a lot more crappy images that happen to be exposed correctly, due to the technology not the snapper. 

[Alan Klein]

However, what we also have are a lot more good images that happen to be exposed correctly, due to the technology not the snapper.  Not every photograph is suppose to artistic, nor is it expected to have great vision.  Most people take pictures for record purposes of family occasions, vacations, travel, etc.  Where did we get this idea that a photograph isn;t any good unless it equals Ansel's or HSB as some sort of the holy grail?  Most people don't care about Photoshop or Photo forums.  Along the way, they even get some pretty good shots.

[Rob C]

You guys keep talking about whether or not you have improved as photographers.  That doesn't answer the question posed by the OP.  He asked whether or not the photographs have improved.

Is one possible without the other?

Rob C

[paulmoorestudio]

are photographs improving? to me this is very similar to the rabbit hole of "what equipment is 'better'?"
I agree with the others that yes, by learning digital I became a skilled post-production guy, but at what cost to my front-end creativity? 
The hundreds and hundreds of hours spent incorporating the new technology did what to my seeing, my vision? That is an unknown... I do have more control of the post exposure process and this makes my final prints technically superior and perhaps more akin to my inner pre-exposure experience. That was why a guy like Minor White was a devotee of the zone system, his superior technique allowed more control to the plastic medium, allowing him to express himself more fully.. at least that is the intention, but he had intention, focus and desire to create…not document or decorate.  I see the ad pic above for Moab, of Monument Valley, is it a better image due to its photoshopped enhancements? I don't see it as better but a mild example of what has gone so astray in the medium I really care about.  It is all so easy to snap, sizzle and post that the shear quantity which generated is crazy..it has dumbed down the whole medium and it is days like today that I miss that 8x10, it's successful use demanded purpose..full attention to seeing and craftsmanship.