Modern photography, the thrill has gone ... not really!

[Roger Hicks]

My argument is not that film is better than digital, my view is that the technological shift from film to digital opened the floodgates and that swept everything that was aesthetic and aristocratic about photography. With film there were many limitations, from the number of shots and rolls of film to the development, printing and editing. Digital made photography a one step process. People do fool themselves with post-processing but its basically another way of trying to better the folks who're not capable or lazy to post-process, but what they usually produce is HDR-like images that look like screen shots from a Japanese anime movie rather than photos of real life.

An art form cannot exist in a horizontal sphere of mediocrity, it has to be aristocratic and those with talent have to stand out appreciated and followed. That is no longer possible because the very notion of whats an artistic photograph cannot be ascertained due to the sheer volume and similarity of images produced with digital sensors and their linear post-processing software.

This is it, photography as a camera hobby or gear-testing hobby (posting images of brick walls and ISO comparisons) taking pleasure in having the best lens and best body and the rare film camera, that is the only small pleasures left. Photography itself has become as easy and convenient as using a phone, ironically speaking because camera phones are the last nail in the coffin of what we've come to know as still photography.

I don't know what the future holds but I don't think 3D and holograms would be the same.

Naaah, still don't agree. Why do you do anything you're not paid for? For the pleasure of doing it, and in order to do as well as you can at it. Where is this 'similarity' of which you speak? Surely, if technique is less of a concern, then the artistic skill of the photographer can shine through all the more, and the 'false artist' (the technique freak) will be shown up as an example of the Emperor's New Clothes.

And if you are being paid for it, there are all kinds of other things to consider: understanding a brief (including mind-reading), delivering on time and on budget...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Peter Klein]

"When everybody's somebody, then no-one's anybody". Gilbert and Sullivan, The Gondoliers.

The same thing happened with writing when the word processor came on the scene. Rather than speculate on whether 1,000 monkeys with 1,000 typewriters could come up with the complete works of Shakespeare, we could actually watch the experiment.

The problem is not that there will not be any artistry. The problem is that there's so much junk around that it is much harder for the good stuff to get noticed. Not impossible, but harder. The noisiest and most flamboyant output gets attention, with a the result that there's less appreciation of the quiet and subtle.

I welcome the speed and ease of digital processing. But when I scan some of my old black-and-white negatives, I am keenly aware of qualities they have that digital capture doesn't. I'm also grateful that I can get those qualities out more easily--it was much harder in the wet darkroom

--Peter

 

[Roger Hicks]

There are bad singers, poets, musicians, and writers - always have been - we just have more access to their work now. Great work still gets discovered and rises to a larger audience.

Good point. We now have writing (poetry and prose), singing (in genres as different as karaoke, folk music and local bands); and there's even professional vs. amateur sport. What else?

Good point about washing the dishes, too.

Cheers,

R.

 

[LKeithR]

An art form cannot exist in a horizontal sphere of mediocrity, it has to be aristocratic and those with talent have to stand out appreciated and followed. That is no longer possible because the very notion of whats an artistic photograph cannot be ascertained due to the sheer volume and similarity of images produced with digital sensors and their linear post-processing software.

I agree about the volume thing to a certain extent. There are still huge differences between poor, average and excellent photographers but the latter somehow always manage to float to the top. Links and references from other viewers on the internet can spread the word very quickly. The "good" photographers still get found.

...Photography itself has become as easy and convenient as using a phone...

True, volume has gone up exponentially but the vast majority are just snapshots. Those of us who take photography a little more seriously still strive (and struggle) to improve and agonize over individual shots and what we might have done differently. On balance, for me--shooting digital--I find my photography to be more enjoyable and rewarding than it was, say, 30 years ago...

 

[claacct]

Comparing still photos to writing is extremely problematic. Language is an extremely advanced and evolved form of communication that depends on thousands of years of development, not only of language itself but the very human mind that produces and interprets it.

Our ancestors would have stuck to hieroglyphs if images were viable but they did not... The closest that still photos get to writing is as short hand notes, "i saw this", that's the best a photo can do. It cannot even explain what it saw, there language is still needed.

As I was just watching Strauss-Khan exonerated and walking out of the court, I saw many furiously taking photos, while here I was watching the whole scene with language and images (news video) and all of that in real-time - on the internet... Its almost like photography has become a learned behavior like a dog who's fixed and yet still marks his territory...

Nevertheless, this is a subjective view and in no way an attempt to enlighten others to some truth. Frankly speaking I can't even stand people with cameras anymore, its reminds me of my own foolishness.

 

[paulfish4570]

"Frankly speaking I can't even stand people with cameras anymore, its reminds me of my own foolishness."

so, claacct, why are you posting on this forum?

i think the answer is obvious ...

 

[Gid]

Slightly off topic, but in answer to some of the comments here.

What is more important, the image or the process?

Digital in the music world allowed those with no playing ability to produce music that otherwise would never have been heard because they did not have the technical skill. That didn't mean that their music was bad - in some cases it was and is very good. It was the idea that was important, the end product and not the process.

The same can be applied to photography. If you have an "eye", the current technology allows you to realise your vision. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.

 

[dave lackey]

Gack, here we go again. The image or the process...post processing is always a given...

First of all, I was taught to get the image right in camera as much as possible. Sure, if I can improve an image, I do not hesitate to PP my digital files. But not all of my images need post-processing. I just recently received my slides from Mother's Day on the beach and guess what...NO PP! I will print what I want just by dropping them off at the lab. Or not. Maybe I will just project them on the wall again and again.

Secondly, everybody is different. Some say the image is the only important thing, some of us prefer the process AND the image because the process will necessarily produce a different image. Damn. It still gets down to the destination or the ride.

Many times I have done day-trips with my wife or a buddy on motorcycles, the MG's, the Jaguar or whatever we might have to drive and could care less where we wound up because the trip full of scenery was so enjoyable. On the motorcycle we usually wound up on curvy roads meaning our destination wound up being in the mountains. In the Jaguar, the ride down the interstate was not much fun and we usually wound up at the beach.

Which did we like better? It depends. In rainy weather, we preferred the car. In beautiful Spring or Fall weather, we preferred the motorcycle. The destinations were different but we enjoyed them both.

Absolutes are treacherous, slippery slopes, folks.:angel:

 

[claacct]

I conclude my comments in this thread by my take on another post which said, if everybody is somebody, everyone ends up a nobody. My take is when everyone is a photographer, then no one is a photographer.

Thank you for your kind attention, and hopefully my posts did not depress some of the members.

 

[pachuco]

I've been wrestling with the same issue, Keith. If at all possible, I wait a week or so to edit my photos and that seems to help me. I don't know why that makes the editing process more fun for me but it does.

 

[SciAggie]

@ Gid
I don't believe your comment is off topic at all. I agree that there are more options for accomplishing one's vision. I also think that is what gives rise to much of the bickering we all witness from time to time - we lack a certain tolerance for those whose vision or genre preference differs markedly from our own. For example, I really don't care for youtube style video. Oh yes, I watch video every day, and in the previous example of documenting and publishing breaking news such as the courtroom example, it's great and probably the best medium. My point is that I never return to watch a video more than once. I will however, return to view still images over and over again in order to enjoy the emotional experience they stimulate.

Part of the "pleasure/ satisfaction" of post processing depends on our experience and background. I am comfortable with computers because I work with them daily so PP digitally is not intimidating or dificult. On the other hand, I am just learning how to develop B&W film. I did it as a youngster but never really took it seriously. Now, as I try to produce better negatives, I find myself sometimes frustrated - just because of inexperience and lack of familiarity. I rely on those who have been at it longer to help me along.

That's the great part of a place like RFF - it allows us to share experiences and expertise with one another.
Sorry if I drifted and rambled some - I am getting older you know...

 

[dave lackey]

I conclude my comments in this thread by my take on another post which said, if everybody is somebody, everyone ends up a nobody. My take is when everyone is a photographer, then no one is a photographer.

Thank you for your kind attention, and hopefully my posts did not depress some of the members.

Well, first of all not everyone is a photographer. Not only that but does picking up a camera, using your finger to produce an image make you a photographer? I submit that the answer is no. The basis of the argument is without merit because the term "photographer" is not defined.

Therefore the conclusion of the statement is false.

Nothing depressing about being a photographer because those who really know they are one are confident enough to be one.🙂

 

[SciAggie]

With a return to the cooking analogy, sometimes I enjoy spending all day preparing a meal and sometimes I choose fast food. Film and digital offer us the same choice (I'm referring to time in post as well as need for a computer - not a film vs. digital argument). Referring to the ride versus the destination, we can enjoy both.

Nice topic Keith.

 

[Gid]

Gack, here we go again. The image or the process...post processing is always a given...

First of all, I was taught to get the image right in camera as much as possible. Sure, if I can improve an image, I do not hesitate to PP my digital files. But not all of my images need post-processing. I just recently received my slides from Mother's Day on the beach and guess what...NO PP! I will print what I want just by dropping them off at the lab. Or not. Maybe I will just project them on the wall again and again.

Secondly, everybody is different. Some say the image is the only important thing, some of us prefer the process AND the image because the process will necessarily produce a different image. Damn. It still gets down to the destination or the ride.

Many times I have done day-trips with my wife or a buddy on motorcycles, the MG's, the Jaguar or whatever we might have to drive and could care less where we wound up because the trip full of scenery was so enjoyable. On the motorcycle we usually wound up on curvy roads meaning our destination wound up being in the mountains. In the Jaguar, the ride down the interstate was not much fun and we usually wound up at the beach.

Which did we like better? It depends. In rainy weather, we preferred the car. In beautiful Spring or Fall weather, we preferred the motorcycle. The destinations were different but we enjoyed them both.

Absolutes are treacherous, slippery slopes, folks.:angel:

As it happens I enjoy the process of framing an image and tripping the shutter so much that if the camera had no film in it I'd still be happy = no post processing at all. I agree about absolutes, but that wasn't my point. You don't actually need a lot of technical ability to create a pleasing/wonderful/great image. Where technical ability comes to the fore is repeatability. As for post processing, do what you like, enjoy, want, but to assume it has huge importance for everyone isn't necessarily correct.

 

[gdmcclintock]

"My argument is not that film is better than digital, my view is that the technological shift from film to digital opened the floodgates and that swept everything that was aesthetic and aristocratic about photography"

This sounds like Matthew Arnold's sorry old dictum about culture, "the best that has been thought and said" that old fart literature professors used to spew whenever confronted by contemporary culture they could not comprehend.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Going back to Keith's original post, I now find digital PP enjoyable.

Having spent countless hours in the darkroom over the last thirty five years, at first I found digital post processing to be lifeless, for two reasons.

First, the digital camera/lenses I originally had available to me, and their lack of quality compared to my film camera/lenses, made for some frustrating results. Once I had a digital body that I could use with my Leica glass, the first half of my "issue" was solved.

The second issue I had is that I really didn't know how to properly use Photoshop/Lightroom/Aperture, even though I have been using Photoshop since 1997. I could clone stamp, adjust exposure, crop, all the basics, but that skillset wasn't getting anywhere near the full potential out of my RAW files. Then I was steered on to some PP training in processing RAW images, and the difference in my results were night and day.

With my digital Leica, and the PP training, I can now do what I love to do as an artist/photographer, which is create images. I love the whole process, from coming up with the idea for an image, finding the subject and location, lighting, composing and capturing, downloading, post processing, and delivering. I wouldn't want to give up any part of the process. And I like that my current digital process allows me to create the images I envision, while at the same time being less harmful to the environment than my old wet darkroom, with all its chemicals and paper.

And that's my 2 cents worth.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Sparrow]

I still enjoy tearing the film canister from the packaging and loading the cassette into the camera, the ritual of it the wind-to-zero the rewind of the exposed roll, it's like a tenant of photography ..

 

[benlees]

1) Get a camera that has excellent jpegs.

2) Edit in a ruthless manner.

It is not like you have reinvent the wheel with every bloody shot! 😱

 

[Bill Pierce]

I enjoyed the wet darkroom. Two photographers who were superb printers, Gene Smith and David Vestal, were kind enough to criticize my prints. And in Gene’s case, to actually work with me in the darkroom. But it was never about the darkroom. It was about the final print, your print, your feelings about the subject.

The digital darkroom, Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, whatever, gives you even more ways to do that. Just like the wet darkroom, there’s a learning curve. My black-and-white inkjet prints look a lot like my silver prints - only better. (My color inkjets look a lot better than my C prints and Cibachromes.)

When I hear someone say that digital is no good, I suspect that they are pretty low on the learning curve. I’m convinced that if he were alive today, people would still be marveling at Gene Smith’s prints. And he would be printing inkjet.

 

[gdmcclintock]

...

When I hear someone say that digital is no good, I suspect that they are pretty low on the learning curve. I’m convinced that if he were alive today, people would still be marveling at Gene Smith’s prints. And he would be printing inkjet.

I agree completely. Indeed, I wonder how long the inkjet (paper) print will survive. An excellent, correctly calibrated monitor offers a much wider color gamut than RGB, as well as a more vibrant image.

Has the iPad and similar devices replaced the professional's portfolio?