Off Line

Got to do that once in the summer of 2012. Was blissful. Quite a shock to the system coming back online after being away for a week.

Best,
-Tim
 
Ok, I will take your offer, Bill.

My topic has to do with the fact that with all the advancement in camera technology, especially the amazing digital cameras, then how come we don't see more amazing photography, the kind that takes your breath way or makes you in awe of the image as a stand alone item of momentary creation of a slice of life?


Yes, I know that is a blanket statement and a personal generalisation but when I look through my collection of US Camera or Modern Photography or Popular Photography magazines from the 1950s to the 1970s, I don't see much improvement in the quality of photography in today's timeline, I mean I am not seeing today's HCB or Robert Frank or Ralph Gibson, or Tony Ray Jones or Diane Arbus.

Maybe I am not looking hard enough?
 
xayraa33 said:
My topic has to do with the fact that with all the advancement in camera technology, especially the amazing digital cameras, then how come we don't see more amazing photography, the kind that takes your breath way or makes you in awe of the image as a stand alone item of momentary creation of a slice of life?
Click to expand...
I think the problem is not that it doesn't exist but that it is near impossible to find among the billions of images online. You could spend all your time looking for it instead of making your own images, something I'm unwilling to do. My attention span on Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, 500px, etc. is about 30 seconds. And I can't say the galleries are fulling their curatorial responsibilities.
 
Dilution certainly plays a role, but also the disappearance of the structure for presentation. Hard copy magazines (not necessarily photo magazines), photo editors, brick and mortar sales venues, and maybe spending too much time playing with digital cameras and screwball lenses rather than taking photos: these all are different from the past.

One other thought, I know Ansel Adams was a manipulator of images in the darkroom, but generally in the past photos were really what you shot was the end product. Now people may not truly appreciate photos because they know that all of them are faked. They say I could do that if I spent the time to learn Photoshop.
 
ptpdprinter said:
I think the problem is not that it doesn't exist but that it is near impossible to find among the billions of images online. You could spend all your time looking for it instead of making your own images, something I'm unwilling to do. My attention span on Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, 500px, etc. is about 30 seconds. And I can't say the galleries are fulling their curatorial responsibilities.
Click to expand...

+1 Used to enjoy paging through magazines and books admiring street and documentary photography, taking for granted the editorial/selection process that preceded publication. Aside from a few photographers working street/documentary that I try to follow online, I have no patience to wade through the flood of images everywhere. I can't tell whether there's been deterioration in quality since the days of HCB, Frank, and others.

Beyond street/documentary, I am equally unable to respond. Who is the equal today of people like Penn or Avedon in portraiture/fashion? In music, who stands in for Herman Leonard? How would I know unless I spend hours surfing the sites?

It is likely that the quality is still there, somewhere, but that the medium of presentation has left me behind.
 
charjohncarter said:
Dilution certainly plays a role, but also the disappearance of the structure for presentation. Hard copy magazines (not necessarily photo magazines), photo editors, brick and mortar sales venues, and maybe spending too much time playing with digital cameras and screwball lenses rather than taking photos: these all are different from the past.

One other thought, I know Ansel Adams was a manipulator of images in the darkroom, but generally in the past photos were really what you shot was the end product. Now people may not truly appreciate photos because they know that all of them are faked. They say I could do that if I spent the time to learn Photoshop.
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head, dilution is at play here, too much to look at all at once and so easy to do.

And as ptpdprinter has said, our attention span as diminished. I always suspected that spending too much time browsing on our computer, or tablet or smart-phone has re-wired our brain and killed our attention span.
 
as ptpdprinter has said, our attention span as diminished. I always suspected that spending too much time browsing on our computer, or tablet or smart-phone has re-wired our brain and killed our attention span.
Click to expand...


It's easy. Limit your exposure.
 
Recently Deborah & I were day-tripping Central Texas during Bluebonnet time and visited a small town festival. A photographer with a "pop-up" studio was selling large color landscape photographs, rural Texas scenes. I guess they were gorgeous, but with colors and lighting hardly ever seen in nature, I found them somehow off-putting. I chalked it up to digital overkill.
My wife loved them.
 
davidnewtonguitars said:
Recently Deborah & I were day-tripping Central Texas during Bluebonnet time and visited a small town festival. A photographer with a "pop-up" studio was selling large color landscape photographs, rural Texas scenes. I guess they were gorgeous, but with colors and lighting hardly ever seen in nature, I found them somehow off-putting. I chalked it up to digital overkill.
My wife loved them.
Click to expand...

You see this over and over again--hyper reality. Colors that blast the eye, sharpness that cuts the optic nerve. Black and white photos that have only blacks and whites with no real gray tones in between. It's like an epidemic of "me to" photos spreading through the web.

Most of the photographers whose work I admire the most don't post their stuff online. Galleries and publishers might post their photos but most don't have websites or blogs. They just do their work and ignore the trends.

A few years ago, my wife and I would take 2-3 weeks and travel around free of the internet with only the automobile radio, motel TV and a few paperback books. Now we have iPhones, iPads and Kindles and we look for Wi-Fi everywhere we go. I don't think I could get away with limiting my exposure anymore.
 
Dogman said:
Most of the photographers whose work I admire the most don't post their stuff online. Galleries and publishers might post their photos but most don't have websites or blogs. They just do their work and ignore the trends.
Click to expand...
I'd ask you who you admire, but it wouldn't matter if I could never see their work. Of course it is their choice, but obscurity is a not a virtue.
 
ptpdprinter said:
I'd ask you who you admire, but it wouldn't matter if I could never see their work. Of course it is their choice, but obscurity is a not a virtue.
Click to expand...

PTP,

I know many serious artists who remain under the radar. To me not only is it a badge of honor, but also a virtue.

Fame and wealth is not the goal for many, nor is it a judge of talent.

Cal
 
Switching from one media type to another one has nothing to do with amount of gifted people. Increasing of exposure numbers only increasing amount of dross.
Absolute talent is constant value. Only few per century.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Switching from one media type to another one has nothing to do with amount of gifted people. Increasing of exposure numbers only increasing amount of dross.
Absolute talent is constant value. Only few per century.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a certain extent but leaps or changes in technology in photography did give us new artists with a unique vision and a different and still artistic( In a different form) produced image.

No different from say the invention of dry plates and increased light sensitivity led to hand held small cameras and instantaneous photography when compared to large tripod mounted collodion wet plate cameras.
 
ptpdprinter said:
I'd ask you who you admire, but it wouldn't matter if I could never see their work. Of course it is their choice, but obscurity is a not a virtue.
Click to expand...

Of course, most of the photographers I admire the most were long dead before there was an internet. Even before there was an Al Gore claiming to have invented it. Those whose work are on the web or who are still alive and working are usually represented by galleries or else their work is on websites administered by someone else. Their pictures can be found online but they're not out there following trends and looking for "likes" or "friends".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom