Are we completely missing the boat with digital technology?

[carpark]

Car park, take a look at Bob Michael's images. They are not lacking as is.

I will. My point though has little to do with how good Bob's photos are.
I do state that in the above post.
Over 10 years ago my students were displaying photos as a slideshow with audio on old VGA projectors. The only difference now is a few more pixels for image clarity.
The thread talks about missing the boat. I think people are missing the boat and not using the digital medium to its full potential. Using tired techniques is hardly groundbreaking and quite often detrimental to the work.

 

[Sparrow]

I will. My point though has little to do with how good Bob's photos are.
I do state that in the above post.
Over 10 years ago my students were displaying photos as a slideshow with audio on old VGA projectors. The only difference now is a few more pixels for image clarity.
The thread talks about missing the boat. I think people are missing the boat and not using the digital medium to its full potential. Using tired techniques is hardly groundbreaking and quite often detrimental to the work.

You think that the use of a New Technique automatically makes the previous technology invalid then?

 

[Bob Michaels]

So RFF is just about pretty photos and not communicating information?

I do not consider it a negative or any lesser standard that most RFF members are primarily interested in only how the photos look, but I do think that is the case.

Perhaps you feel the need to add a commentary to your photographs because they don't say enough on their own?

Absolutely. I wish I was so good a photographer that each of my images completely conveyed my thought just from the image itself. But I have yet to find any photographer who can do that consistently about most subjects. One only has to look at other photo exhibits, photography books or periodicals to realize they all contain words as well.

I think that digital exhibitions need new ways of communicating. So much seems lost in translation due to poor presentation regardless of how good the photos are or how talented the photographer is.

Totally agree. I would like to improve my digital exhibitions when I choose to incorporate them. I wish I could find more examples like Magnum in Motion so I could have some new ideas to spur my imagination.

 

[robklurfield]

I have been hanging out on the "People of South Apopka" page of Bob's website. The page and the stories it tells is powerful. I keep going through the same images because there is something magnetic in those faces, young and old. It works quite nicely as a digital story, as do Bob's other pages. If you've haven't looked that work, or like me, haven't look at it in a long time, take minute to visit. Maybe that will say more than Bob can in words in this thread.

 

[Aristophanes]

You think that the use of a New Technique automatically makes the previous technology invalid then?

It can economically. Markets vote.

 

[Sparrow]

It can economically. Markets vote.

For some of us it isn't always about money you realise?

 

[bmasonoh]

Painters continued to paint after photography was invented. Not everyone has to be riding the new wave.

+1

It's about the art, not the method of production.

 

[jwc57]

I was reminded of this thread Saturday night after a couple of statements by Robert Osbourne and Drew Barrymore about how movie directors in the past handled getting their message to the audience, compared to today. Ms. Barrymore made the statement that many directors today tend to leave little for the audience's imagination.

I wondered if this isn't true with today's ability to share photos with music and narrative. We're looking for ways to get our message across and leave no doubt in the minds of the audience what we want to say. Unfortunately, we run the risk of losing the audience because we are minimizing their side of the discussion and failing to engage them, failing to let them use their imagination.

The audience is smarter than we give them credit for.

 

[shadowfox]

I was reminded of this thread Saturday night after a couple of statements by Robert Osbourne and Drew Barrymore about how movie directors in the past handled getting their message to the audience, compared to today. Ms. Barrymore made the statement that many directors today tend to leave little for the audience's imagination.

I wondered if this isn't true with today's ability to share photos with music and narrative. We're looking for ways to get our message across and leave no doubt in the minds of the audience what we want to say. Unfortunately, we run the risk of losing the audience because we are minimizing their side of the discussion and failing to engage them, failing to let them use their imagination.

The audience is smarter than we give them credit for.

I think this is a very good point.

No matter which "boat" you are in currently, leaving some for the viewer's imagination is important and very effective in communicating your message (or, even when your goal is purely to entertain them).

I do agree that the majority of movies nowadays are too ... "in your face."

 

[Murchu]

Interesting thread.

There is no doubt that the electronic form of our images, be they scanned film or captured from start to finish digitally, has changed things a lot. I'm sure people are doing interesting things with their work, but the acceptability of the form (of display) often comes down to being able to point to at least several exceptional pieces of work that utilise it. I don't think this has really happened, or we would see a mainstream shift towards other ways of displaying and sharing work, side from the print form.

I think the keepers of the forms, usually galleries, are very conservative in the main, and just as it took a lot of time for colour and also inkjet prints to become acceptable to the high art world, I think it will take a long time for anything other than the print to gain acceptability. Of course, ultimately any new form has to prove itself, and that means image makers being able to use the form to its utmost and to use it perfectly to show of their work and deliver their message.

I wonder if this will happen anytime soon. Generally people get to know how to get the best out of a form, or technology, after it has been around a while. At the moment, I see technology continually churning, and people constantly scrabbling to keep up with it. I think this is also why in the larger picture, there may be less good art being made digitally than with other media. Bear in mind, this is only my personal suspicion, and rooted solely in the fact the technology has not stabilised enough yet, for people to be able to master and work with it to the same extent as other media.

Personally, I have no time for installations, as I need a stable frame within which to be able to appreciate artwork, and prefer to spend my time appreciating the work itself, as opposed to being able to get a handle on the display form before I can actually get to the art. Perhaps this would be better if the installation form and the message and work itself were fused a lot better, but I see a lot of gimmickry, and it turns me off. This would be my fear should we move towards more installation based photography.

On a final sidenote, I like to see a print up close, when it comes to photography, as well as looking at it from a little distance, and do not think the technology is there yet resolution-wise, to be able to see the same fine detail on a computer screen yet.

 

[Bob Michaels]

There is no doubt that the electronic form of our images, be they scanned film or captured from start to finish digitally, has changed things a lot. I'm sure people are doing interesting things with their work, but the acceptability of the form (of display) often comes down to being able to point to at least several exceptional pieces of work that utilise it. I don't think this has really happened, or we would see a mainstream shift towards other ways of displaying and sharing work, side from the print form.

I think the keepers of the forms, usually galleries, are very conservative in the main, and just as it took a lot of time for colour and also inkjet prints to become acceptable to the high art world, I think it will take a long time for anything other than the print to gain acceptability. Of course, ultimately any new form has to prove itself, and that means image makers being able to use the form to its utmost and to use it perfectly to show of their work and deliver their message.

I wonder if this will happen anytime soon. Generally people get to know how to get the best out of a form, or technology, after it has been around a while. At the moment, I see technology continually churning, and people constantly scrabbling to keep up with it. I think this is also why in the larger picture, there may be less good art being made digitally than with other media.

Magnum? as in www.magnuminmotion.com

VII Photo Agency? as in http://www.starvedforattention.org/

Time magazine? as in http://www.time.com/time/video/

 

[Aristophanes]

I was reminded of this thread Saturday night after a couple of statements by Robert Osbourne and Drew Barrymore about how movie directors in the past handled getting their message to the audience, compared to today. Ms. Barrymore made the statement that many directors today tend to leave little for the audience's imagination.

I wondered if this isn't true with today's ability to share photos with music and narrative. We're looking for ways to get our message across and leave no doubt in the minds of the audience what we want to say. Unfortunately, we run the risk of losing the audience because we are minimizing their side of the discussion and failing to engage them, failing to let them use their imagination.

The audience is smarter than we give them credit for.

Peter Jackson's team in Lord of the Rings did a Gandalf vs. Balrog scene that was far beyond anything I could have imagined.

And Avatar. Took me somewhere new.

I don't mind seeing the wondrous scope of someone else's imagination if they have the power to display it properly.

 

[1750Shooter]

Bob, BRAVO! I think you're right on. I think the cogent point here is that we are not the end of the chain - we are trying to convey an idea or a message to others, most of whom are immersed in the media thru cell phones, videos, tablets, etc. If we don't realize this we are truly missing the boat. but if a customer wants photos with a short video clip inserted, I either have to be a Luddite & refuse or (since I really like eating) adapt & discover that it can add a way to capture the attention of people who are used to ideas being communicated in 1 min. or less. If a video, smell, sound, or anything else gets someone to open up to a message then I'm all for it. I'm trying hard to take this all in & have had my failures & some successes.

 

[jwc57]

Peter Jackson's team in Lord of the Rings did a Gandalf vs. Balrog scene that was far beyond anything I could have imagined.

And Avatar. Took me somewhere new.

I don't mind seeing the wondrous scope of someone else's imagination if they have the power to display it properly.

I'll probably catch heck for admitting this, but...

...oddly enough I've never been able to sit through either one of those movies from beginning to end. Especially Avatar. The story was too familiar. It became just me being interested to see the special effects.

 

[jwc57]

While stills were easily interchanged, the video became too much. We eventually dropped it. In a recent issue of Rangefinder, a reviewer mentioned that he was only covering still photography, because to do both was too distracting. While elsewhere in the magazine, someone stated that it was imperative to offer both together now to remain profitable.

Having tried to do both, I too find doing video to be distracting and both stills and video suffer.

 

[robert blu]

As photographer, amateur and passionate, I think it's all about communication. And the new instruments, the new possibilities can change the way we communicate. It is not a question of a print series is better than a multimedia presentations: it depends on our goals, our audience and our capacity to use, to control the process we use to communicate. If I need to tell something to a group of young people, it will be easier to use a projection with strong images and related sound track, rumors included not only music. That will get their attention. But if the audience are older gentlemen probably I'll better communicate through a series of prints. It is exciting to have new possibilities available even if at a certain age (speaking about myself) it requires an effort to learn all of them. But this is what keeps us alive...just my opinion...
robert

 

[surfer dude]

My thinking is that most of us are living in the past as far as ignoring the opportunities available from current digital technology. We tend to use a digital M9 exactly the same as we do an M2 or a view camera. We think in terms of creating a singular image to hang on the wall, include in a publication, or show on a computer screen. Sure the capture medium is electronic instead of film but that is no big deal. It is less significant than the development of color film or availability of pre-sensitized glass plates. We have a century old presentation mindset that ignores the opportunities from using new technology.

There are exciting new presentation opportunities from digital technology. We no longer have to think about just a singular image or series of related images that the viewer moves through. Electronic viewing gives us the ability to show paced slide shows, include short video clips, and include the photographer’s narration, music, or words from the subject. Viewing on a computer or TV is no longer required. This can now be done with a simple digital photo frame.

Some are saying that technology is making the photographic process so simple that everyone can do it. Some realize that no camera can make a good photo. That is still up to the photographer. We must learn to grab and hold the viewers attention in a modern environment so they have time to absorb our message.

There will always be a place for the classic print on the wall or image in a print publication. But if our goal is to communicate information to the viewer, we must acknowledge their changed demands. Print media is declining. Electronic media is increasing in popularity. We must adapt our presentation methods to the new market.

Now I am still shooting film, not that it matters. And I am still hanging prints on gallery walls. But I am also developing electronic multimedia presentations both for exhibits and for my website.



Your thoughts?

Well, good for you Bob. However I'd rather be the master of what I project to the world than let an imagined audience of two-second attention spanners be my guide.

I don't really understand the assertion in the first place. Technology hasn't gone Bang! from prints on the wall to video and multimedia technology. I, as I'm sure many here did, learned multimedia presentation via a bank of Kodak Carousels fading and transitioning to a soundtrack back in the 70s. Digital multimedia is arguably just a progression/refinement of that, though with increased capacity. Interestingly, though everyone where I studied had to present a multimedia piece, no-one I knew ever did it again after they were assessed. The same with various other means of displaying one's work - installations and the like. People tried them and moved on.

There is of course, constantly, a great opportunity for people to embrace technology as a means to help deliver their message or even to become the fundamental basis for their self-expression. Great - whatever floats your boat. Assess it, take what works for you and move on. But this always has been and always will be the case. It is also still, at least in my observation, the case that, by and large, a lot more people will go to look at photographs hanging on a wall in sequence than will go to virtual or real exhibitions featuring whatever the technologie du jour happens to be.

I wonder why there is almost an implicit assertion in the OP that, by doing what one enjoys, one is somehow shooting oneself in the foot. Even if we accept that there is some hypothetical global consensus amongst people that we should now lurch after technology to the virtual exclusion of all else, and I don't agree that this will necessarily happen where people are able to exercise their preference, aren't we as artists responsible, first and foremost, to be true to ourselves? If we are followers, or bandwagon jumpers, what value does our originality project? Bob, are you of all people seriously suggesting we should compromise anything, least of all our integrity as artists, for the chance of appealing to an audience that is assumed to have the attention span of a gnat?

In many ways the OP makes me think of the enthusiasm of the futurists for the machine age, when technology was seen as an end in itself and the only way forward for society to grow.

Living in the past? Or exercising choice? I feel confident in my ability to recognize technological advancement, weigh up various pros and cons as to its usefulness and attractiveness to me then, informedly, to use it or reject it as befits my needs. If I were to buy an M9 and wanted to use it as I would an M2, how am I compromising any opportunity other than some perceived opportunity I have no interest in following?

I don't think that I need to catch a boat that is sailing for a destination I have no desire to visit, regardless of what anyone else thinks or does. And if I somehow lost or surrendered or agreed to abrogate the capacity to exercise that choice, I think there would be far more to worry about than hypothetically missing hypothetical opportunities to hypothetically present work to a hypothetical audience I have no interest in.

 

[Bob Michaels]

surfer dude: welcome to the party / discussion even though it went on for quite a while and appears to be ending now.

I believe the answers to all your comments are already contained in the 100+ posts on this topic.

Well, good for you Bob. However I'd rather be the master of what I project to the world than let an imagined audience of two-second attention spanners be my guide. ...........................

I wonder why there is almost an implicit assertion in the OP that, by doing what one enjoys, one is somehow shooting oneself in the foot. ........................

In many ways the OP makes me think of the enthusiasm of the futurists for the machine age, when technology was seen as an end in itself and the only way forward for society to grow. ...................