And then what? Has technology made photography irrelevant?

Pickett Wilson said:
My point is not at all that things should remain the same. What we seem to be right now is awash in nostalgia. We take sophisticated technology, iPhones, shoot photos with them, and then use Instagram to make them look old, believing that somehow legitimizes the pulp photography we are engaged in.

I'm looking for a way forward for photography. Looking backwards is certain death.
Click to expand...


There a few bones in here!

a) Nostalgia? You posted this on Rangefinder forum!
b) People don't use Instagram to legitimate their photos (except, perhaps, to throw a little mud on people drop a lot of cash on "gear"). They simply like the look. A lot cheaper than Polaroid.
c) Photography doesn't need a direction. Not quite sure why you think it does?
d) Looking backwards (history) is very important. As a PJ you know this already!
 
Advancement in photographic technology has and will continue to reduce the importance of technical mastery in the making of photographs. Those whose sole photographic skill is technical mastery/ knowledge, have long been served notice by photographic history that their days are numbered.
 
Photography absolutely needs a direction. Right now, it is stagnating. The only real activity going on in the industry is a result of curation...repackaging and repurposing the past.

"Famous photographers" are deriving most of their income from their catalogs and workshops. Look at websites like Magnum's where most of what is displayed are themed mashups of pictures from their catalog, or the odd project like their Postcards from America concept, where photographers wonder around the country hoping to find stuff to sell in still another me to book.
 
Great discussion! I find it very interesting.

So, you know how HCB gave up photography and turned to painting towards the end of his career? I think that I read somewhere that one of the reasons he gave for doing so was that exposure automation in cameras made photography too easy. He explained this with an analogy of machine gun shooting. Can anyone confirm if this actually happened or is it just my imagination?
 
In the past was it the mastery of then current photographic wizardry that made HCB, Eisenstaedt, Winogrand, Gordon Parks, Evans, Eugene Smith, et- al famous? Eugene Smith's 'Country Doctor' photo essay and his photo 'Tomoko in her bath' have power because of content. Sure, these knew their tools and craft well but the powerful images are what remain.

Powerful, insightful, compassionate, funny, engaging, images will always remain, no manner the technical expertise or lack thereof of the photographer.

Two years ago I finally bought a Leica M4-2. I can walk the streets with that and a brick of Tri-X but I'm quite sure I'm not going to turn into HCB.

Photos made possible by amazing advances technology that are dull, common and boring will suffer the same fate as my film photos that are dull common and boring.

They will not remain.
 
When everybody is special (i.e. the playing field is level), nobody is.

That's what's at the core of the question, correct? That's one of the premises of "The Incredibles" by Pixar.

When everybody is special, nobody can out-special anybody else...so...if you want to out-special some or most, you gotta think beyond the leveled playing field.
 
Writing with a computer and word processor is easier than using a typewriter, which is easier than hand writing with pen and ink. Is it easier to write a great novel now than it was a hundred years ago?

Gary
 
Frank, I don't think good photography is easy...it is, in fact, really hard. The fact that there are tools now that make it seem easy is part of the problem. The emphasis has shifted with the technology from the process to the tools obscuring the process.

When all I had was a couple of meterless Nikon F's, the tool couldn't do much but hold the film. Now I have the latest cool DSLR's that Canon makes, but it hasn't made shooting interesting photos any easier.
 
So, the question is, “And then what?”

Well photography goes on in whatever way and form since the majority of it is birthdays photo's, holiday photo's, vacation photo's and on and on. It doesn't so much matter if it's not perfectly composed, only that it is perfectly exposed.
I'm glad that there are digital tools there that make it easier to do professional work, especially high ISO's, but for the majority of photo's it's for personal remembrances. The digital playback feature was a huge plus for most to make sure they got the shot.
 
Technology has made it easier to take good photos. Making great photos is still a challenge.
 
"When everybody is special (i.e. the playing field is level), nobody is."

You know, I don't know what "special" means in relation to photography. I guess when everyone perceives they are special, than nobody is. I'm a blue collar photographer, a competent technician that has learned over decades how the magic works. I don't know from special.

I think the problem now that "everyone is a photographer" is that many believe that if they could just stand where Ansel Adams did with their iPhone, they could produce equally as good a photo. Which, of course, devalues Adam's accomplishment in their mind.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
When everybody is special (i.e. the playing field is level), nobody is.

That's what's at the core of the question, correct? That's one of the premises of "The Incredibles" by Pixar.

When everybody is special, nobody can out-special anybody else...so...if you want to out-special some or most, you gotta think beyond the leveled playing field.
Click to expand...


This is just one form the "talent" argument. Being special often takes more than just you. Besides, for the past 12 years reality TV has been proving this wrong. :rolleyes:
 
I think the problem now that "everyone is a photographer" is that many believe that if they could just stand where Ansel Adams did with their iPhone, they could produce equally as good a photo. Which, of course, devalues Adam's accomplishment in their mind.
Click to expand...

This is a presumption dontcha think ? I believe, if someone admires Adams enough to want to try and see if they can meet his bar, then they'll always hold him, and his work, in the highest regard.

I mean, if I stood on the exact same Montmartre steps as Brassai and took , compositionally, the same photograph, I'd still think that yeah, it looks like his but it's not and that he is still The Man, in my eyes. ymmv
 
How many of the zillions of books printed today are truly meaningful?
Does that mean that the good old time when it required a year to a monk to copy a book are missed?
 
FrankS said:
Technology has made it easier to take good photos. Making great photos is still a challenge.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even say good. Technically competent, maybe. Again with the writing analogy... You have a grasp of grammar, spelling and vocabulary. Now, what do you do with it? That's the difficult part and what separates good or great from the rest.

Gary
 
gns said:
Writing with a computer and word processor is easier than using a typewriter, which is easier than hand writing with pen and ink. Is it easier to write a great novel now than it was a hundred years ago?

Gary
Click to expand...

This ain't a "literature is dead", but a "photography is dead" thread!:D

But seriously, I'm convinced that photography is taking a direction, but that, as always, it's difficult to see where it's going to in this very here and now.
When I go through my fathers photo books from the seventies, there's a lot of uninteresing work showing all you can do with a long tele and fish eye shots of jet pilots. And what of all those trick pics of zooming during exposure or combinations of flash and camera movement? All that was gear related fashion in its day.
But it also happens the other way round. Well made but otherwise quiet normal photo's from the past - be it from the 1920 or the 80's - show us different things now than when they were made. And I'm not talking nostalgia here.
Let's take our modern "body language" fashion as an example. Black T-shirted CEO's wearing jeans while streching out their hands moulding air as if struck with arthritis...
So it's not the same tree being shot over and over again (if it's still there, but that's change also). The tree changes, and so does the eye of the beholder. In the end it's all about image, images and imaginacion.

Nescio
 
we seem prone to measuring impact and progress by the effect on mass markets. it is, of course, arguable whether or not photography for the masses has progressed or the opposite. i tend to be in the 'progressed' camp.

how has photography and the experience changed for you/us as individuals? has it become something that contributes to general well being? does it allow you creative expression? to communicate, visually, to audiences you would normally not have had the chance? these are the type of questions i would be asking myself when posed with the original question. it's overall state of affairs within the masses is something i don't think any of us can answer definitively, although i would again lean towards the 'progression ' camp.

there will never be a movement towards large groups of photographers reaching the levels of, for example, the Magnum photographers working on 'postcards'. this is simply not possible. many have indeed reached a point where they can photograph away and post their albums on Flickr. i would suppose many of them are pleased as punch to do so and that is all that matters. the progression of the art form or societal reach of photography is not on their radar.

there are and always will be photographers working towards expanding what the medium can do or be. they are unfortunately a small slice of the camera buyers out there thus the 'white noise' tends to obscure their accomplishments.

they are out there and my suggestion would be to find one and support any way you can.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Photography absolutely needs a direction. Right now, it is stagnating. The only real activity going on in the industry is a result of curation...repackaging and repurposing the past.

"Famous photographers" are deriving most of their income from their catalogs and workshops. Look at websites like Magnum's where most of what is displayed are themed mashups of pictures from their catalog, or the odd project like their Postcards from America concept, where photographers wonder around the country hoping to find stuff to sell in still another me to book.
Click to expand...

THe reason so many very photographers are now concentrating on workshops is economic. They aren't neglecting the production of new images and teaching workshops because they're no longer creative; they're doing it because they need to eat, and no one will pay for photos anymore. The real money is in bilking rich amateurs out of their cash with false dreams of the master's greatness rubbing off on them at a workshop.
 
Internet ephemera

Internet ephemera

Pickett Wilson said:
I've been photography obsessed for over 50 years. Most of those years, change was relatively slow. Cameras progressed and film technology progressed, but significant technology related limitations existed. Over the last few years, rapid advances in digital technology have made almost any kind of photography not only possible, but relatively easy. Want to shoot street at night? ISO limitations are history. Lens limitations? The camera can fix that. Cameras with these capabilities too big and obtrusive? $1,500 can fix that. Other photography related obstacles? Lightroom or ACR can fix that. Left your camera at home? Reach for your cell phone.

Yeah, I know. None of this matters, right? It's the eye of the photographer that's important. The vision of the artist. We've learned from the Internet that there are plenty of people with “vision,” and technology has given them the tools to express that vision easily, cheaply and continuously. I look at a lot of photography. Yes, there is a lot of junk photography out there, but there is a lot of good stuff, too.

This rant was triggered by some amazing nighttime street photography I was looking at this morning. Shot with one of the newest of the wunderkind compact digital cameras, the photos were shot on a very dark night in the city, almost noiseless, sharp, nicely rendered B&W. As someone who cut their teeth on Tri-X pushed in Acufine, this stuff just blows me away.

And then I found another photo set, with over 100 of these nighttime, perfectly exposed, noiseless, sharp, amazing photos from one of the photographer's outings a couple of nights ago. And then I found another. And another.

And I thought, “and then what?” Once everyone knows how the magic trick is done, and once everyone has a shill coin and bang ring in their pocket, the magic is gone.

So, the question is, “And then what?”
Click to expand...

Pickett, thanks for posting this thread. It raises two thoughts for me. First, I'm very sure that the same types of things were being said by large format photographers at the time 35mm arrived on the scene. I know I've read somewhere how those photographers were ranting about how "now anyone can carry around a camera and take pictures of anything, without lugging around tripods and 50 pound cameras and glass plates... ". And I'm also sure that 19th century painters were pretty annoyed when Daguerre arrived on the scene. :)

Second, regarding how much excellent work you're seeing these days. Almost all of that is on the web. Don't assume that much of that work is making into galleries or into books or onto people's walls. Yesterday a group of local photographers (including me) put up our photographs in the local library. We invited friends to a little low-key opening. I was quite amazed at the reaction of the viewers. It was almost like they'd never seen photographs before. Seeing real prints on a wall was a somewhat new thing for a lot of them. Many of the viewers couldn't believe that I can make my own prints!

So... I'd say that we should only be using the internet imagery as inspiration. Then we should go out and make some real photos and put them up on a wall or into a book and let people see our ideas in a more personal way. I believe there is still just as much room for this kind of expression as there has ever been. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom