Is modern-day photography ugly?

[charjohncarter]

The entirety of my personal work is in photographing the mundane. I find this to be gratifying, interesting, insightful, and entertaining.

I try to do this too. The problem: nobody else seems to get it. But I guess it is personal, so why care.

 

[johannielscom]

Still not bad but it loses a little something to my eye...

Nice... I get what you mean

 

[tunalegs]

I agree, finding an interesting shot amid the everyday is what makes it challenging, though my point was less about the "plain everyday" element, it's an issue with the ubiquity of plastic, the actual and metaphorical. That locomotive may have been ugly to some but I'm sure it was built well, thoughtfully, and derived a grace through the function of its form. And it will last, was meant to. I guess I find beauty in elegant, less ephemeral design. El Cap speaks for itself, yes the right light will add to its majesty but in my opinion, that's easier subject matter than modern street. There is much more inherent beauty (imo) in either of these examples than in walking advertisements with logo emblazoned hoodies, hats and plastic bags staring down at a little box, disconnected from their surroundings. I find that really challenging to make interesting, uninspiring also.



Still not bad but it loses a little something to my eye...

In 30 years though it may seem positively quaint!
In your case I think it is simply matter of personal perspective. I'm not particularly fond of such things either, but I think they're only boring because they're familiar.

 

[CaptZoom]

I try to do this too. The problem: nobody else seems to get it. But I guess it is personal, so why care.

Right; not doing it for anyone else! Post processing and printing to get to final print, and finally viewing the print is insanely gratifying
I do share my photos, but with friends only.

 

[airfrogusmc]

An interesting interview with Ralph Gibson from a few years ago. Has some interesting things to say about digital. About 5:15 in but watch the entire piece whether you agree or disagree he does bring up some very interesting points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzMQcE2E-1o

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

there is only one answer: "fu*k art, let's kill."

 

[Harry Lime]

I refuse to produce crap. /QUOTE]

Really? We all produce crap, so far as someone is concerned. More importantly, we also produce gold, so far as someone else is concerned.

I have shot thousands of rolls of crap and still do, but all in the pursuit of trying to get it right. I always try to produce the best work I am capable of or that the circumstances allow.

When I go on a shoot people are often surprised by how hard I work, because while I am often shooting for them, I am also always shooting for myself.

 

[charjohncarter]

I have shot thousands of rolls of crap and still do, but all in the pursuit of trying to get it right. I always try to produce the best work I am capable of or that the circumstances allow.

When I go on a shoot people are often surprised by how hard I work, because while I am often shooting for them, I am also always shooting for myself.

Aha, this is is exactly how I feel about the crap that I shoot. I try to learn from every lousy shot, and I try to make every picture, print, file the very best I can (almost to obsession). I don't do much commissioned shooting, but when I do I'm careful to tell them it can't go to press without an OK from me. They still seem to override my OK. So as you said, 'it is for me too.'

 

[jsrockit]

This thread is depressing.

 

[furcafe]

I think this is true of everywhere we're familiar with, e.g., I think most people in Cuba aren't necessarily enamored of the things tourists shoot (crumbling pre-revolutionary buildings, old American cars, etc.). As others have posted, another version of the same challenge is to see the photographically interesting in the mundane, per Eggleston's "war with the obvious."

I live in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. It's a sprawling, monotonous postwar exurb, whose demographics have largely flip-flopped in the past few decades. When I reach for my camera, do I wish to be a photographer of record, recalling the AAA boulevard shots of yore? Do I wish to record the searing California sun and clear skies at high noon, the light most residents experience? Do I want to document the endless strip malls, with their multicultural businesses small and large, and the repitition of national chains from Arbey's roast beef to McDonald's?

Or must I look for that exceptional moment? The rare storm that will add pop to modernist architecture? The old rustbucket that has nothing to do with the shiny freeway stampede? The odd man or woman on the street, who somehow stand out among the dog walkers, baby strollers and bus stop ilk that make for most L.A. street life? Do I look for signs and murals, the true backdrops of Los Angeles? Or do I strain to find rare angles that more resemble Rome?

For me, photography is a hunt for what's interesting. It's also a willingness to venture out, to be there, anywhere, where there is activity. And the longer I practice it, the harder it gets.

 

[Exdsc]

Photography has lost its appeal because of mass production and ease of production -of photos and video.

Before one could look at a body of photographic work and admire the skill of the photographer, the printer etc. today, its hard to admire any photos because we've the suspicion, which is largely true, that the images were digitally enhanced or manipulated.

 

[Ronald M]

If you can see the photoshop, it is ugly. If photoshop was required to make the image much different from what came from the camera, it is ugly.

 

[CaptZoom]

Photography has lost its appeal because of mass production and ease of production -of photos and video.

Before one could look at a body of photographic work and admire the skill of the photographer, the printer etc. today, its hard to admire any photos because we've the suspicion, which is largely true, that the images were digitally enhanced or manipulated.

So...obviously you think very little of the old masters because they too "enhanced or manipulated" their photographs.

 

[CaptZoom]

If you can see the photoshop, it is ugly. If photoshop was required to make the image much different from what came from the camera, it is ugly.

Why?
I don't use PS apart from occasionally using the RAW converter. But I do not understand the snobby attitude by photographers about those that do.

 

[zauhar]

So...obviously you think very little of the old masters because they too "enhanced or manipulated" their photographs.

They did it with their hands, or tools they made with their hands.

That is the human element missing in photoshop and other digital manipulations. I am not condemning PS, as I use it too, but there is an element of artistry and organic connection to your work which is lost when you work through a computer interface.

Randy

 

[tunalegs]

They did it with their hands, or tools they made with their hands.

That is the human element missing in photoshop and other digital manipulations. I am not condemning PS, as I use it too, but there is an element of artistry and organic connection to your work which is lost when you work through a computer interface.

Randy

Says the man who wields a camera instead of a paintbrush. :angel:

 

[Exdsc]

So...obviously you think very little of the old masters because they too "enhanced or manipulated" their photographs.

Enhancing and manipulating an image with analogue means was a skill and an art in itself.

Photoshop on the other hand has a fluid process where one simply memorizes the steps. While photoshop still requires a high level of knowledge (not skill) the plug-ins for it have simplified everything to the point of one click.

In the past if a photographer wanted to push a B&W film he had know the right exposure and then develop accordingly and print with skill. Today you can shoot auto mode and then get the imitation of that process with one click using Silver efex etc... But the sad part is even if someone were to use analogue means with high skill today, those who don't know will not think any different of the work.

The same way that automation destroyed many high skill manual labor jobs, the same way digital technology removed the human skill aspect of photography to such an extent to threaten the very relevance and value of photography.

 

[alistair.o]

there is only one answer: "fu*k art, let's kill."

Make mine a large one, please!

It is only when you reach a certain age that you truely realise that there is really nothing new under the sun - in other words it was all modern day once to those of that era. So, some advice:-

1. Of the selling of gear and beguiling of the gormless there is no end.

2. Of the making of books and turning of the mind and skill set i.e. cloning of HCB et al, there is no end.

3. Of the making of pictures there never is enough.

4. The one you have in your hand is all you need.

 

[daveleo]

Photography has lost its appeal because of mass production and ease of production -of photos and video.

Before one could look at a body of photographic work and admire the skill of the photographer, the printer etc. today, its hard to admire any photos because we've the suspicion, which is largely true, that the images were digitally enhanced or manipulated.

1. Photography has lost it's appeal ? ? ?

2. Tools of the trade have been evolving since we stopped making cave paintings with animal blood and berry juice. Was making pictures on film less "artistic" (for lack of a better word) than cave painting? Right or wrong, love it or hate it, "The skill of the photographer" going forward will have to embrace digital technology . . . . image making nowadays involves computer of one sort or another. Digital manipulation is now "a skill to be admired".

 

[Exdsc]

1. Photography has lost it's appeal ? ? ?

2. Tools of the trade have been evolving since we stopped making cave paintings with animal blood and berry juice. Was making pictures on film less "artistic" (for lack of a better word) than cave painting? Right or wrong, love it or hate it, "The skill of the photographer" going forward will have to embrace digital technology . . . . image making nowadays involves computer of one sort or another. Digital manipulation is now "a skill to be admired".

I'm simply concerned with the reality of photography today. I'm concerned for selfish reasons, because I like photography.

Do I resent the photoshopgraphers and the digital artists? I don't. I resent the type of photographer that wants everything easy with a click of a button and still for some strange reasons thinks of that as Art.

The audience, the common people, the consumers of photos as well as viewers and buyers are not stupid. They know what has value and what has no value. This audience have stopped buying photos, they have stopped trusting photos and they seem to no longer care for photos.