Out to Lunch
Veteran
Anyone involved with news photography will recognize that phone photography is a game changer. Anyone who does not get this, doesn't understand the news business. Wim Wenders...just another old guy defending his turf.
PhonePhoto
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 74
- Views 3K
jsrockit
Moderator
Game changer in regards to immediacy... that is for sure. Game changer in regards to it being a job, sure. Why does this have to be a black or white argument? Is he defending his turf somewhat? Yes, of course. Is he right in some regards... yes. Again, do you think a 73 year old man with the career he`s has had (in both movies and photography) really needs to defend his turf?
Timmyjoe
Veteran
When I was a kid, Kodak introduced the 126 size Instamatic cameras (and their very inexpensive clones) and it seemed like everyone was taking pictures with them. Probably not as many as cell phones.
But even then my friends and I who were interested in photography could see the difference between a beautiful photograph and the "pictorial representations of what was going on" that were being produced by all the Instamatics.
Think it's the same today with cell phones.
Best,
-Tim
But even then my friends and I who were interested in photography could see the difference between a beautiful photograph and the "pictorial representations of what was going on" that were being produced by all the Instamatics.
Think it's the same today with cell phones.
Best,
-Tim
Out to Lunch
Veteran
Apparently he thinks he does. I like his movies...I don't know much about his pics. His comment makes him sound out of touch and outdated.
PKR
Veteran
Bill;
What do you think Gene Smith would have done with a camera phone? My recollection is, that he would use any tool that got the job done.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Apparently he thinks he does.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Why are you keep on pushing age here? Do you know what some are still reproductive at this age and getting married? My father was fully working at 73 and only retired this year.
This person is slightly older and he works. I see him everywhere in my town. He walks, talks and he is most alive administrative I ever seen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Krantz
Trump is 72 and he is protecting his turf (private interests for profit).
I see many ex-Soviet artists at this age protecting their interest, having babies and not letting new artists to get where. Russian official music industry is like "walking dead".
To me then I saw WW site it was obvious what he still wants to sell. And as person who get used to "here is only few photographers film era" he might be threatened by crowds with mobile phones.
raid
Dad Photographer
I am not offended at all by seeing so many people documenting life around them with phone photography or videos. It has become a part of life. I use "regular cameras" first, but I also value my iPhone for street photography as a tourist, blending in with people around me, and taking photos without anybody really noticing it.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Maybe we should not take what he says so word for word but with a little bit of elasticity...
We can agree or not of course, but we should not forget his experience, culture and desire to experiment in visual communication, both movies and photographs. He made a successful life out of it. I assume he knows what he's speaking about.
But it is not the tool, it is the way people, most of people use the tool...and IMO it can be a smartphone or a 7 K $ digital camera sometimes does not change so much.
And there are many more smartphones than 7 K $ digital cameras 🙂
Tim is correct, we can see the difference between a beautiful photograph and the "pictorial representations of what was going on".
It was Nadar in the second part of 1800 who said he could teach everybody in half a day how to make a photo (with the technology available in that time) but to learn how to use the light and shadows and the framing to render the personality of a person in a portrait was a real different thing.
Just my opinion about...anyway it's nice to exchange different opinions otherwise it would be a boring world 🙂
robert
PS: on my desk I have a book "electronic paintings" by Wim Wenders, ISBN 88-7202-001-8 It was published june 1993. How many of us were experimenting digital photography in that time?
We can agree or not of course, but we should not forget his experience, culture and desire to experiment in visual communication, both movies and photographs. He made a successful life out of it. I assume he knows what he's speaking about.
But it is not the tool, it is the way people, most of people use the tool...and IMO it can be a smartphone or a 7 K $ digital camera sometimes does not change so much.
And there are many more smartphones than 7 K $ digital cameras 🙂
Tim is correct, we can see the difference between a beautiful photograph and the "pictorial representations of what was going on".
It was Nadar in the second part of 1800 who said he could teach everybody in half a day how to make a photo (with the technology available in that time) but to learn how to use the light and shadows and the framing to render the personality of a person in a portrait was a real different thing.
Just my opinion about...anyway it's nice to exchange different opinions otherwise it would be a boring world 🙂
robert
PS: on my desk I have a book "electronic paintings" by Wim Wenders, ISBN 88-7202-001-8 It was published june 1993. How many of us were experimenting digital photography in that time?
Bill Pierce
Well-known
No question that while his basic tools were a brace of conventional 35-mm film cameras (I once saw him with 6 - different lenses and different films - around his neck.), he used what he thought was the best tool for the job. He used 4x5 on a job that required architectural photos. And in the “discreet” mode he used both an Olympus half frame and a Minox. I don’t know what cameras he used shooting within the corporation that was responsible for much of the mercury pollution in the Minimata story, but had it been available and appropriate, he certainly wouldn’t have hesitated to use a cel phone. It’s pretty much accepted as a way to be discreet by current photojournalists. And when the photographers are fired by their publications to cut costs, the wordsmiths often end up doing double duty and taking pictures with their phones. Non professionals seem even more savvy. Much of the spot news motion pictures I see on national news TV programs are moving images shot with a cel phone. Ok, maybe non professionals are not more savvy, but there are certainly more of them than the diminishing number of news photographers, and they charge less.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
" I don’t know what cameras he used shooting within the corporation that was responsible for much of the mercury pollution in the Minimata story"
I remember reading that Smith used the Minolta SRT series of SLRs for that job.
I remember reading that Smith used the Minolta SRT series of SLRs for that job.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I think news just as photography representation has changed.
If you want to get news it is on Twitter. Newspapers are not news anymore.
And photography is mostly viewed on Instagram and similar sites. Mostly via mobile phones. People are taking pictures, have them transferred on mobile phones, edited where and pushed to Instagram for view. Books and exhibitions became secondary and optional representations.
And in viewing mode like this, film/sensor, camera/phone are irrelevant. It is mostly to creativity and giftedness of photographer. Not his job title and connections anymore.
Where are macros and BiF but it was never mainstream photography. Babes, cheesy landscapes and something funky is.
If you want to get news it is on Twitter. Newspapers are not news anymore.
And photography is mostly viewed on Instagram and similar sites. Mostly via mobile phones. People are taking pictures, have them transferred on mobile phones, edited where and pushed to Instagram for view. Books and exhibitions became secondary and optional representations.
And in viewing mode like this, film/sensor, camera/phone are irrelevant. It is mostly to creativity and giftedness of photographer. Not his job title and connections anymore.
Where are macros and BiF but it was never mainstream photography. Babes, cheesy landscapes and something funky is.
David Hughes
David Hughes
One advantage of smart phones is that as everyone is using them no one notices them. Compare that to (say) taking a picture with a digital SLR.
Nadar was right about it taking half a day to teach photography. I often wonder how they drag it for longer but then more time is more fee...
Regards, David
Nadar was right about it taking half a day to teach photography. I often wonder how they drag it for longer but then more time is more fee...
Regards, David
Last edited:
Bill Clark
Veteran
There are many boundaries that have been dissolved.
I’ll mention a few.
Since July 2018, I can now buy wine on Sunday in Minnesota.
I can buy all sorts of stuff from Amazon I couldn’t buy hardly anywhere. I like roasting my own coffee beans and I can now buy green beans from most any coffee growing region in the world now.
Without controlling retail pricing I can now buy stuff I couldn’t even consider at reduced prices. Too bad Leica doesn’t understand this. Competition is good as it’s an important ingredient of capitalism.
Photography is alive and well. It’s better than ever! Smiles.
I’ll mention a few.
Since July 2018, I can now buy wine on Sunday in Minnesota.
I can buy all sorts of stuff from Amazon I couldn’t buy hardly anywhere. I like roasting my own coffee beans and I can now buy green beans from most any coffee growing region in the world now.
Without controlling retail pricing I can now buy stuff I couldn’t even consider at reduced prices. Too bad Leica doesn’t understand this. Competition is good as it’s an important ingredient of capitalism.
Photography is alive and well. It’s better than ever! Smiles.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I am struck by Wenders being out of touch with reality when at the beginning of the video, he states the problem with iPhone photos is that no one looks at them.
I think of the two unrelated photo documentations of a trip we made from Havana to Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Hanoi last year. Mine is a set of 12 8x10 prints shot and edited specifically to document where we went. My significant other shot many photos with her phone which I got her to edit down to just over 100 images. I would almost never say I was a better photographer than someone else but this is one of those exceptions.
A handful of friends have been at the house and asked to see our trip photos so that my prints were retrieved and shown.
About a hundred people have asked if we had trip photos when she pulled out her phone and let them scroll through her photos.
I ask myself if I am out of touch with the real world when I shoot with the specific idea of editing down to a small number of images shown as prints. Should I instead shoot with camera or phone to create a body of work with a hundred or more images that folks will view on the phone that is always in my pocket.
I think of the two unrelated photo documentations of a trip we made from Havana to Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Hanoi last year. Mine is a set of 12 8x10 prints shot and edited specifically to document where we went. My significant other shot many photos with her phone which I got her to edit down to just over 100 images. I would almost never say I was a better photographer than someone else but this is one of those exceptions.
A handful of friends have been at the house and asked to see our trip photos so that my prints were retrieved and shown.
About a hundred people have asked if we had trip photos when she pulled out her phone and let them scroll through her photos.
I ask myself if I am out of touch with the real world when I shoot with the specific idea of editing down to a small number of images shown as prints. Should I instead shoot with camera or phone to create a body of work with a hundred or more images that folks will view on the phone that is always in my pocket.
raid
Dad Photographer
Bob: this depends on what you value most here.
I get a similar sample of views at my smugmug website. The (many) iPhone photos in my travel are usually more frequently viewed than a few chosen images taken by me with a Leica. The phone images collectively provide a better picture of the places that we travel to than a few images taken with a "serious" camera.
For completeness, the interest in viewing (many) phone images vanishes quickly over a few days when compared with the viewing interest of images taken with Leica or Zeiss or ....
I get a similar sample of views at my smugmug website. The (many) iPhone photos in my travel are usually more frequently viewed than a few chosen images taken by me with a Leica. The phone images collectively provide a better picture of the places that we travel to than a few images taken with a "serious" camera.
For completeness, the interest in viewing (many) phone images vanishes quickly over a few days when compared with the viewing interest of images taken with Leica or Zeiss or ....
jsrockit
Moderator
I`m referring to his age and body of work because he probably isn`t too concerned about building a legacy anymore... he has one already.
Yeah, I get that... I just don`t think being critical of cell phone photography is the same thing here. I`m pretty damn sure that WW has seen some photos made on cellphones that he has liked. I think he is talking more about the glut of images being made compared to any previous time and how that has affected photography.
Based on his track record, he has no problem selling anything. I doubt he is worried about phones in the way that you think.
DougFord
on the good foot
WW has his own definition of what a photographer is. Nothing wrong with that. Apparently his definition includes making hard copies/printing, ok sounds good, knock yourself out.
WW is a photographer. Or at least I think he is. My definition of photographer includes the words 'demonstrated history' when referring to an individual who has managed to produce quality images, over time, in their chosen field.
That old saw, 'everyone thinks they're a photographer'. Personally I have no problem with this. The day to dread is the day 'everyone thinks they're a musician!' Egad! Noooooooooo!
Didn't Hank B. have something to say about fiddle playin' vs picture takin'? lol
WW is a photographer. Or at least I think he is. My definition of photographer includes the words 'demonstrated history' when referring to an individual who has managed to produce quality images, over time, in their chosen field.
That old saw, 'everyone thinks they're a photographer'. Personally I have no problem with this. The day to dread is the day 'everyone thinks they're a musician!' Egad! Noooooooooo!
Didn't Hank B. have something to say about fiddle playin' vs picture takin'? lol
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Dear JSRocket
An interesting observation from friend. Photographs are like coin tosses. Not in the sense of luck. Not at all.
Rather, in the sense that any photograph has no bearing on any other photograph except in the influence of a photographer who sees the photograph.
No matter how thought-out, how deliberate, the sheer number of photographs has no bearing on any photograph taken.
A good photograph, unseen because of the sheer number of photographs, has no bearing on a subsequent photograph by a different photographer. A bad photograph has no bearing on any other photograph by a different photographer for the same reason.
You can toss a coin 10,000 times and come up with 50/50 heads vs tails. But each coin toss has no bearing on the next.
Good visual communicators will make good photographs regardless of the number of bad photographs taken.
Cordialmente,
Mme. O
PKR
Veteran
That's what I got from him.
Instagram:
"Around 95 million photos are uploaded each day"
"More than 40 billion photos have been shared so far"
That's just Instagram.
https://www.socialpilot.co/blog/social-media-statistics
"According to estimates by InfoTrends, a total of 1.2 trillion digital photos will be taken worldwide this year, that is roughly 160 pictures for every one of the roughly 7.5 billion people inhabiting planet earth. "
Snip
"According to InfoTrends’ estimates, 85 percent of all pictures taken this year will be captured on smartphones."
https://www.statista.com/chart/10913/number-of-photos-taken-worldwide/
Similar threads
