Bill Pierce
Well-known
John Lawrence
Well-known
Have a look here (unless I've got confused.....) :
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=165783
John
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=165783
John
Bill Pierce
Well-known
No question about it. PKR and Petapixel beat my weekly BBC scan.
PKR
Veteran
Hi Bill;
I don't think the topic is fully cooked, so, please continue with it.
No one brought up the subject of working photojournalists using camera phones. I know that many do. If you can get a WiFi or Cell signal, the photo can go directly to the editor seconds after it's taken. Also, a phone, because it's common now, doesn't label you as a member of the Press. That can provide some needed stealth when necessary.
pkr
ptpdprinter
Veteran
He is denegrating digital in general and smartphones in particular because he has an analog show he wants to bolster. Looky here, I'm a real photographer. What would you expect him to say? It's a marketing exercise.
BillBingham2
Registered User
A minute thirty that I will never get back.
Smartphone cameras have changed the world. At the same time the internet has provided a medium where many of us no longer need to print and show/distribute pictures. I don't think that makes us any less of a photographer. Yes, there was some level of trust in the analog days that photos were "truth", but that doesn't make digital photos any less truthful.
He is he stuck in his ways, afraid of the change to his art-form, or worried about being called out of date?
Smartphone cameras and the internet have decimated several great companies that we loved and I'm sure the will be more as technology marches on. Rather than coming up with a new name, I'd suggest that the time be spent developing an app that allows us to work as smoothly as the Ricoh line of cameras have. Much more productive.
B2 (;->
Smartphone cameras have changed the world. At the same time the internet has provided a medium where many of us no longer need to print and show/distribute pictures. I don't think that makes us any less of a photographer. Yes, there was some level of trust in the analog days that photos were "truth", but that doesn't make digital photos any less truthful.
He is he stuck in his ways, afraid of the change to his art-form, or worried about being called out of date?
Smartphone cameras and the internet have decimated several great companies that we loved and I'm sure the will be more as technology marches on. Rather than coming up with a new name, I'd suggest that the time be spent developing an app that allows us to work as smoothly as the Ricoh line of cameras have. Much more productive.
B2 (;->
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
You are right.
And to answer Bill question, Genosse W is right. He is right to be afraid what his photography is bubble which might burst once useful connections and belongings to right circles will end.
At 73, and with the career he has had... I doubt he really cares:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wim_Wenders
He's lived through many film and photography trends... he might actually know what he is talking about.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
So long as people love looking at an image, whether it be online, on their phone, in a magazine, or as a print, there will be "photography". Doesn't matter what the image was produced with, or how many images were made.
"Truth"?? Just because an image was made on film instead of silicon, doesn't make it any more truthful. Photographers have always been able to point the camera in a direction that supported their notion of the truth. No different today... we just have more ways to do it.
"Truth"?? Just because an image was made on film instead of silicon, doesn't make it any more truthful. Photographers have always been able to point the camera in a direction that supported their notion of the truth. No different today... we just have more ways to do it.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
A change in photographic technology is not the same as killing photography.
Smartphones with built-in digital cameras have killed photography as much as the original Eastman Kodak camera of 1888 killed photography.
What the change is now is that we are inundated with image overload, as photo taking technology has made it much easier and broadcasting the image is instantaneous, which ironically has made us more insensitive to viewing photographs because of the glut of images and what was a joy has now become a chore.
My view is that really good photography is still as rare now as it was in the the days of the original Kodak camera or even to the years of the Calotype or daguerreotype, as genius artists are not limited by their instruments, be it in painting or sculpture or music or poetry or literary works or in motion pictures or in photography.
Smartphones with built-in digital cameras have killed photography as much as the original Eastman Kodak camera of 1888 killed photography.
What the change is now is that we are inundated with image overload, as photo taking technology has made it much easier and broadcasting the image is instantaneous, which ironically has made us more insensitive to viewing photographs because of the glut of images and what was a joy has now become a chore.
My view is that really good photography is still as rare now as it was in the the days of the original Kodak camera or even to the years of the Calotype or daguerreotype, as genius artists are not limited by their instruments, be it in painting or sculpture or music or poetry or literary works or in motion pictures or in photography.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I do think photography is becoming a second language. Phones, automation, the internet and a number of other factors make it possible for a large number of people to communicate with photographs. For many people reading has diminished and viewing images, be they fact, fiction or entertainment has undergone a huge increase. (Do I have to remind anyone that television and movies are photographs?) The visual volume is up; so, there is going to be more trivial and unimportant work displayed. There may be more important or brilliant work, but it will take more effort to dig it out. Some of the lesser work will will be heralded as brilliant but with the passage of time fall in esthetic value and financial worth, making looking for the really good work a little easier for those that stick with it.
Now that photography is a second language, there’s gong to be a lot of talk, much of it unimportant in the long run. And there will also be some monologues and a few conversations that are going to be brilliant.
Now that photography is a second language, there’s gong to be a lot of talk, much of it unimportant in the long run. And there will also be some monologues and a few conversations that are going to be brilliant.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
http://pro.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?ERID=24KL53ZVNE&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&VP3=CMS3
Lived and living through more and not just bourgeois and inner circles trends and at age 66 is using them, the phones.
https://www.instagram.com/pinkhassov/?hl=en
Yes, because someone else uses a phone it makes him wrong...
I do not have any problem with good photos made with phones... Michael Christopher Brown, Kathy Ryan... good stuff. However, there is a bit of truth to what he says... people do not value photography as much as they once did. Newspapers that used to use good photos now use crappy photos. Instagram has photo trends that are easy to see....in which people seek out the same locations and take the same photos. It has nothing to do with elitist attitude... it has to do with the ubiquity of photography and the viewing public's boredom in viewing images. However, you typically have a cynical attitude in general, so I do not expect you to be open minded.
PKR
Veteran
Yes, because someone else uses a phone it makes him wrong...
However, there is a bit of truth to what he says... people do not value photography as much as they once did. Newspapers that used to use good photos now use crappy photos. Instagram has photo trends that are easy to see....in which people seek out the same locations and take the same photos. It has nothing to do with elitist attitude... it has to do with the ubiquity of photography and the viewing public's boredom in viewing images. However, you typically have a cynical attitude in general, so I do not expect you to be open minded.
"in which people seek out the same locations and take the same photos. "
I've read that in Yosemite Valley, there are trail markers indicating the exact three spots where Ansel Adams placed his tripod for specific images. I don't doubt the possibility of the markers, but their accuracy and value, i question. One article said that visiting photo wiz kids became frustrated when photographing on the same day, exact time (yeah?) and spot as Adams, their images don't look like his. One (brilliant brain child) photographer said (it wasn't fair) their photos looked different because the weather was different than when Adams made his photos.
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-documents-exact-ansel-adams-texas.html
http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=347c8f14-dd9b-4e89-a06b-3a7453a6f39d
Photography has surely changed..
pkr
PKR
Veteran
From North Korea to Baltimore, Instagram Is Fostering the Next Generation of Photojournalists
Artsy Editors
Jan 21, 2016 7:00 am
February 13, 2010. Marjah, Afghanistan. A troop-carrying helicopter drops acclaimed American photojournalist David Guttenfelder into the front lines of the then-biggest American air assault in the war against Al Qaeda. Seeing the Marines that surround him snapping photos on their smartphones, he drops his DSLR, reaches for the iPhone 3G (his first) in the pocket of his flak jacket, and begins shooting photos, hoping to mimic the intimacy of those the soldiers were sending back home.
“They weren’t taking the kinds of pictures that I was taking, news photography; they were photographing their own life and this huge experience in their life. So I started shooting with my phone, too,” he says on the phone from the rather more peaceful “boonies of Montana,” near where he’d recently shot the Gallatin National Forest, on horseback, on a 24-day journey for National Geographic. The pictures he published in 2010 were not without backlash, with major publications (like the industry bible, Photo District News) questioning whether war shot through the lens of a point-and-shoot phone disrespected, or romanticized, its gravity. In October of that same year, Instagram was launched.
When Guttenfelder picked up his phone, he broke all the rules of traditional photojournalism—and, by some accounts pushed forward a medium that has been evolving since its inception. Six years later, extemporaneous documentation for journalistic use (and via selfie) has become the norm and Guttenfelder, with 854,000 followers on Instagram—the mobile image- and video-sharing app that has swelled to over 400 million users—is something of a new-tech godfather in the field. But having spent 20 years covering conflict overseas for the Associated Press, in the beginning carrying chemicals on his back, developing film in the field, and hanging it to dry on clotheslines, the photojournalist knows well the history of his craft.
More
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy...re-ditching-their-dslrs-to-shoot-on-instagram
Artsy Editors
Jan 21, 2016 7:00 am
February 13, 2010. Marjah, Afghanistan. A troop-carrying helicopter drops acclaimed American photojournalist David Guttenfelder into the front lines of the then-biggest American air assault in the war against Al Qaeda. Seeing the Marines that surround him snapping photos on their smartphones, he drops his DSLR, reaches for the iPhone 3G (his first) in the pocket of his flak jacket, and begins shooting photos, hoping to mimic the intimacy of those the soldiers were sending back home.
“They weren’t taking the kinds of pictures that I was taking, news photography; they were photographing their own life and this huge experience in their life. So I started shooting with my phone, too,” he says on the phone from the rather more peaceful “boonies of Montana,” near where he’d recently shot the Gallatin National Forest, on horseback, on a 24-day journey for National Geographic. The pictures he published in 2010 were not without backlash, with major publications (like the industry bible, Photo District News) questioning whether war shot through the lens of a point-and-shoot phone disrespected, or romanticized, its gravity. In October of that same year, Instagram was launched.
When Guttenfelder picked up his phone, he broke all the rules of traditional photojournalism—and, by some accounts pushed forward a medium that has been evolving since its inception. Six years later, extemporaneous documentation for journalistic use (and via selfie) has become the norm and Guttenfelder, with 854,000 followers on Instagram—the mobile image- and video-sharing app that has swelled to over 400 million users—is something of a new-tech godfather in the field. But having spent 20 years covering conflict overseas for the Associated Press, in the beginning carrying chemicals on his back, developing film in the field, and hanging it to dry on clotheslines, the photojournalist knows well the history of his craft.
More
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy...re-ditching-their-dslrs-to-shoot-on-instagram
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Critical thinking is most open mind attitude. Talking from rocket science education. Critical thinking saving lifes.
And it is me who does it on film and digitally, not you.
Are you sure you remember then you read newspaper last time and how do they looked like in seventies? The way they printed newspapers back then ruined any picture. I actually worked in newspaper typography, did you?
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The beauty of photography in the present time are the choices we can still make regarding what era of photographic technology we choose to immerse ourselves in, especially if it is for non-commercial reasons .
No one is stopping us from shooting photos with an Iphone or a Nikon D 850 DSLR or with a few home rolled cassettes of bulk HP 5+ or Tri x film through our M2 Leica or Zorki 4 camera and its 1976 all over again.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Me "No question about it. PKR and Petapixel beat my weekly BBC scan."
That's generosity. Thanks.
PKR said:
That's generosity. Thanks.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Dear Bill,
I see a lot of non-thinking photos taken. With everything from view cameras to cellphones.
But....
But....
But....
I see a lot of people taking picture and looking at phone and saying, "no...not quite right...please, again?" And they are trying again to make better picture.
This is WONDERFUL!!!! With a tool that is everywhere (camera mobile phone) people are developing an visual awareness. A visual aesthetic.
How can this be a bad thing. It cannot. It is a good thing.
Wenders is a friend. He is prone to getting on the washing box from time and time and being very noisy. He is an excellent filmmaker. But he is also a passionate human. He is entitled to his view.
And that brings me to the point:
"Is he right?" No. Not this case. He is not. Yes. He is.
Most importantly, it does. not. matter. Not one little piece. It is only opinion. And perhaps only relevant to his perception of the world.
Ciao, bello,
Mme. O
I see a lot of non-thinking photos taken. With everything from view cameras to cellphones.
But....
But....
But....
I see a lot of people taking picture and looking at phone and saying, "no...not quite right...please, again?" And they are trying again to make better picture.
This is WONDERFUL!!!! With a tool that is everywhere (camera mobile phone) people are developing an visual awareness. A visual aesthetic.
How can this be a bad thing. It cannot. It is a good thing.
Wenders is a friend. He is prone to getting on the washing box from time and time and being very noisy. He is an excellent filmmaker. But he is also a passionate human. He is entitled to his view.
And that brings me to the point:
"Is he right?" No. Not this case. He is not. Yes. He is.
Most importantly, it does. not. matter. Not one little piece. It is only opinion. And perhaps only relevant to his perception of the world.
Ciao, bello,
Mme. O
Are you sure you remember then you read newspaper last time and how do they looked like in seventies? The way they printed newspapers back then ruined any picture. I actually worked in newspaper typography, did you?
I'm pretty sure that I do not need to work in the Newspaper Industry in order to understand that the content and framing of photos has diminished in recent years. And yes, I've seen photos recently from old newspapers ... any quality issues were made up with better photography in my opinion.