Is modern photography lacking soul?

[rayfoxlee]

I have been a snapper for 50 odd years and there is no doubt that photography has changed dramatically over that time. It is not just the equipment that has changed - and this is the most obvious example - but it seems to me that the soul seems to be missing from a lot of the modern work that I see, when I compare it to the images from the great Life and earlier Magnum photographers. So, what is going on - if anything - that is making this apparent, to me at least? Is it the fact that most of the earlier work was mono, or are digital cameras in some way producing clinical images in the technical sense? Are we becoming over concious of the functions and features of the digital age that we are missing the point of the picture? Of course, much of the modern work , especially in wild life photography is jaw-droppingly good, probably far better than anything produced even a few years ago.

I started thinking about this this morning after reading an article in the UK Times2 supplement about George Rodger of Magnum fame. Probably also prompted by my recent musings over whether to buy an M7 (I did!) and the inevitable questions that I have had to think about (apart from can I afford it) - will it connect me to the picture more successfully, will it encourage me to shoot more mono and will improve my images? Who knows? I shall soon find out.

What do you all think?

Thanks and best wishes to all at RFF for a happy Christmas and successful image-making 2010.

Ray

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Ray,

I think a lot of the impact of older pictures is a form of nostalgia -- "Yes! It was just like that!" -- plus the fact that we have 150+ years of pics to look at: the bad has fallen by the wayside. Look at AP from 50 and 100 years ago and the majority of the photography was worse than today.

I'm currently re-reading 20th Century Photography, Museum Ludwig Cologne and there's an awful lot of indifferent mono in it as well as a great deal of brilliant stuff.

As for the M7, my own view is that buying the right camera should spur you to improve your photography, becase if it doesn't, you're a fool to buy it. Then again, there are plenty here who don't appear to understand the concept of the right camera: they just buy cameras because they can.

Oh: and Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year to you too (and to all others).

Cheers,

R.

 

[maddoc]

In my opinion the "new" media, first TV and then the world-wide-web together with computer-aided graphic design, have taken over a lot of that what was covered by documentary photography in earlier times. Nearly everybody using a modern cell-phone can take snaps and upload them in real-time to the social- and other networks.

I think that it is much more difficult to present a portfolio of documentary photographs successfully these days than let's say 30 or 40 years ago and thus photographer were forced to find new ways of seeing over time.

 

[MickH]

Ray, I honestly think the element missing from modern photographs is the 30+ years of time that's passed by in between the pressing of the shutter release and the viewing of the print.

In 30 years time much os the soul-less stuff you're seeing now will look just fine.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ray, I honestly think the element missing from modern photographs is the 30+ years of time that's passed by in between the pressing of the shutter release and the viewing of the print.

In 30 years time much of the soul-less stuff you're seeing now will look just fine.

Dear Mick,

And the remainder will have been forgotten!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chris101]

I think Gabor got it right. The fact that we are bombarded by hundreds of bad pictures dilutes the overall effect of photography on the public consciousness. In effect, one sees so many pictures that one's 'eyes glaze over'.

 

[rayfoxlee]

Dear Ray,

I think a lot of the impact of older pictures is a form of nostalgia -- "Yes! It was just like that!" -- plus the fact that we have 150+ years of pics to look at: the bad has fallen by the wayside. Look at AP from 50 and 100 years ago and the majority of the photography was worse than today.

I'm currently re-reading 20th Century Photography, Museum Ludwig Cologne and there's an awful lot of indifferent mono in it as well as a great deal of brilliant stuff.

As for the M7, my own view is that buying the right camera should spur you to improve your photography, becase if it doesn't, you're a fool to buy it. Then again, there are plenty here who don't appear to understand the concept of the right camera: they just buy cameras because they can.

Oh: and Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year to you too (and to all others).

Cheers,

R.

Hi Roger - yes, I have been wondering how much nostalgia has to play in this too! Perhaps it's an age issue - trying to recapture something from the past. How maudlin does that sound?! As for the M7, what has driven me was the speed at which I can shoot an M7, compared with my M2. I have never really trusted my own judgement for exposures and the VCII meter is just a bit too slow for grab shots. Just a matter of personal choice based on my own shortcomings, I guess.

 

[Keith]

I think life/culture in the 21st century lacks soul ... no need to single out photography!

It's definitely an age thing though.

 

[ZeissFan]

Ray, you raise an interesting question. I think at times photographers can get caught up with the machinery involved: cameras + lenses + software.

I also think that there can be this approach that software can correct our mistakes as photographers. This can make us lazy photographers, because we don't push ourselves to get it right at the moment of capture, knowing that we can manipulate the image later with the computer.

There is entirely too much "focus" on shooting everything wide open, concerns about bokeh over composition and putting too much emphasis on "which version 'cron?"

But I guess that's how photography has been with software now thrown into the mix.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

I love the fact that I can view thousands of photos in many different ways and forms. And I see a lot of very inspiring and "soulful" photos. There are some great photographers posting on the web and publishing books. When it comes to communication and media, we really live at a magical moment in history.

 

[morback]

Roger and Mick are right. In the now you have a lot of unfiltered imagery because it's so easily available to everyone. There were bad shots in the past too (someonehad a thread about some famous photographer's lost LA pictures. Can't remember the name, very recent post. In my opinion those shots should have remained lost...) and there are some excellent images nowadays as well. You just have to find them yourself, since nobody has done a retrospective or best-of our current years yet.

This here has fanned my fire:

Images Courtesy of Hans-Christian Schink.
Have faith.

m.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Back in the day, the only photography that made it into the view of the common man was the very best, because most folks only had access to more than snap shots (their own) photography through the great photo magazines, etc. Today we have access to to just about everything. And, has been pointed out, we are awash with photos. We could look at millions a day, if we just had time. So two factors are at work. Only the best survive from the old days, and the best now is overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of images we see today.

I think it's our perception that has changed (for the reasons above) rather than the reality. Indeed, I think there is far more great photography being produced today than ever in history.

 

[gavinlg]

I hate HDR

 

[sjw617]

This here has fanned my fire:

m.

Not sure I would consider them photographs, more composites, manipulations, collages or something...

Steve

 

[sevo]

Not sure I would consider them photographs, more composites, manipulations, collages or something...

Nope, these are from a series of long term (1hr, to be exact) exposures with a solarized trace of the sun. Schink is unmanipulated to the degree that many of his exhibitions have it in the title.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I've read of photographers using cameras so fast that it's basically a High-Def motion capture and they sort through the frames to pick the "right one". I think that lacks soul.

Anytime the Photographer looks at the image and actually presses the shutter release to capture it, that is soul. Manipulating it into something that it was not at the point of capture, is not photography. It is Image Processing.

I'll add, my DCS200ir requires perseverance to use.

 

[bmattock]

Yes, modern photography these days lacks soul.

And kids today have no respect for their elders.

And their music; it's just noise.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I am always catching Nikki listening to Tangerine Dream.

But- I am worried about this recent fascination with 70s Disco.

 

[mfogiel]

There are two things to it: colour and digital.
The colour to begin with is boring, and at best it can stun you with a postcard like images of wildlife or sunset landscape, at worst it presents you face to face with everyday's banality like the work of Eggleston.
Digital is a big equalizer - all photos look roughly the same, with the same burnt highlights and oversaturated colours, to the point that you lose the sensitivity to a good image when it comes up.
I disagree that it has to do with when the photo was taken. Look at today's shots of Salgado, or a talented photographer like this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emmanuel_smague/sets/72157594412763400/show/
and they do have the soul.

 

[_mark__]

Photography has never been healthier, the aesthetic value of any picture is relative to your tastes.

The proliferation of the medium has allowed many more people to publish their work for a worldwide audience; 10 years ago it would of been impossible.

I also think the Magnum portfolio is stronger than ever with the addition of photographers such as D'Agata etc.