Something Important

But this is after all the rangefinder forum, not the iPhone camera forum --

and yet we have a section for camera phones...
 
not everyone wants to bring a pee-shooter to the gunfight…

and yet..auto manufacturers are telling us that the young are more interested in how the new cars are hooked up with gizmos m0re than the horsepower of a car.

mp3 is a better selling audio format than vinyl or even cds…
it is no longer about quality for many...
 
I found the article interesting and quite readable. I will seek out more of Mr. Tuck's observations.

Regards,
BV
 
j j said:
When someone as talented and interesting as Kirk drops in to RFF it would be nice if they were made to feel welcome. I'm guessing he will not be back – who would when greeted like this? – and RFF is much the poorer for it.
Click to expand...

I want to reinforce this opinion. I've been traveling and some of the time have been out of web contact. It's sad to log on and see a good person who has attacked no one on this site be attacked here because he has reported what he has observed and drawn some rather logical conclusions on something that is of interest to many folks who are involved with photography. I don't think it speaks well of us. I hope it will not be repeated.
 
From what I observed in France, where I know some good professional photographers, Kirk's remarks are totally relevant and are not at all tainted by any provincialism - Austin Texas What is this hole? You understand me fine I hope? :)

What seems extremely rewarding in Kirk approach is at first that he is passionate about his craft. His blog is ethically flawless and reflects his experience in-depth and in real time, without hiding his doubts and questions. It is a burgeoning flow, far from the hubris of a manipulator demiurge.

And Kirk is not at all affected - or infected - by the hardware fetishism. This is apparently an unforgivable crime for some.
 
Bill Pierce said:
I want to reinforce this opinion. I've been traveling and some of the time have been out of web contact. It's sad to log on and see a good person who has attacked no one on this site be attacked here because he has reported what he has observed and drawn some rather logical conclusions on something that is of interest to many folks who are involved with photography. I don't think it speaks well of us. I hope it will not be repeated.
Click to expand...


Amen. I agree.
 
Bill Pierce said:
I want to reinforce this opinion. I've been traveling and some of the time have been out of web contact. It's sad to log on and see a good person who has attacked no one on this site be attacked here because he has reported what he has observed and drawn some rather logical conclusions on something that is of interest to many folks who are involved with photography. I don't think it speaks well of us. I hope it will not be repeated.
Click to expand...

Glad you said this, sadly I think it is a portrayal of a larger problem in societies that spend too much time on the web. I read the article, it was long as Kirk can be, but we all can take or leave what he says in individual ways. I just don't care about the gear race anymore, I solved that with going back to and making a living in shooting and printing black and white film.

Kirk, if you are reading this, I figure some of us pros can go one of two ways, either embrace the hybrid stills/video thing or go totally retro, the latter is the route I am taking although I just upgraded the snot out of my computers because I feel it is still a good move.

I hope passion, vision and talent always wins out over trends.
 
Almost as a postscript to Mr Tuck's remarks, yesterday's LA Times in the Arts section had an article about a collection of iPhone pictures taken by 20 veteran pros and networked during Hurricane Sandy and the aftermath. Shown at Foley Gallery in NYC and now published in a book. Show raised $19K for relief. Pictures accompanying the Times article were good and interesting.
 
pluton said:
They will if they decide to make prints bigger than six inches on the short side.
Click to expand...
Most have no desire or need to print. For them, the only place for a photo is the web.

Cameras now have built-in wifi and social media, so you can upload your photo straight to Facebook or tweet it. Prints are becoming a niche interest.

Kirk's right.

Some have mentioned Arles or that this is gear fetishism. But you miss the point. This is where mainstream phtography is heading.

It is we who are out of step. Photography aimed at making prints and cameras suited to this will remain, but we have to accept that we are fast becoming a minority: most people will consider how we take photographs to be old fashioned and irrelevant to them - many of the internet generation already think so...
 
RichC said:
Most have no desire or need to print. For them, the only place for a photo is the web.

Cameras now have built-in wifi and social media, so you can upload your photo straight to Facebook or tweet it. Prints are becoming a niche interest.

Kirk's right.

Some have mentioned Arles or that this is gear fetishism. But you miss the point. This is where mainstream phtography is heading.

It is we who are out of step. Photography aimed at making prints and cameras suited to this will remain, but we have to accept that we are fast becoming a minority: most people will consider how we take photographs to be old fashioned and irrelevant to them - many of the internet generation already think so...
Click to expand...

But everybody in the internet generations takes - and posts - pictures. Being a photographer has no meaning, simply because it is so ubiquitous. The tools used to make images does not matter. Usually it's a phone. Or a helmet, or other device.

None of this means anything to someone who creates art with a camera though. Artists have existed throughout history, but in a parallel timeline to the pop culture of the day. The present is no exception. I don't mean the craft of making fine art prints, but creating something new and interesting. It could be done with an iPhone, or a Leica, or a Red One.
 
I have finally read through it. Interesting opinions, and as he states they are only his opinions. Luckily we are all entitled to our own.
I did find some of the generalizations grating, but, that isn't really important.
For some of us it may change the way we think, others it may reinforce our already strong views, but most importantly, it keeps us focused on this wonderful passion we all share. Photography.
 
I have finally read through it. Interesting opinions, and as he states they are only his opinions. Luckily we are all entitled to our own.
Click to expand...

Your comment persuaded me to take another run at it. I still think it's too long and contains too much "colour" for my taste but, yes, my first impression was not accurate.

What it now makes me think is that there are so many different approaches to everything these days, that none of us can understand all that is happening. A man of the late nineteenth century could still be a polymath with a deep understanding of many subjects and skills in many fields of endeavour. This is simply not true any longer.

On the other hand, our technology can now make us into something new, specialist generalists, if you like. We can get a quick understanding of anything, by pressing a few keys. Having done that, we can decide to go further or stop at that point. The new generations are growing up with this. It's us oldies, who invested a lot in one or two skill sets, that are made very uncomfortable by the huge waves of information that wash over us and the enormous diversity of our world.

I recommend that everyone who responded negatively to the post read John Brunner's science fiction novel "The Shockwave Rider". It is a good guide to the world we now inhabit. Of course, the details are wrong (it was written in 1974) but the overall picture seems to me very accurate indeed and corresponds well to Mr Tuck's appraisal.
 
pluton said:
They will if they decide to make prints bigger than six inches on the short side.
Click to expand...

That's part of the trend Tuck is suggesting: the new generation doesn't see that need. I give my kids large prints, but none of them has ever printed their own pictures large. My guess is that with a few exceptions, that's representative of their wired generation.

John
 
The story of how crappy photos that carry an important message seems to be short circuited somewhat by the lead-off pic of a beautiful model perfectly posed and perfectly exposed.

But more to the point, I don't care what the present trend in photography is. I, as a serious amateur, work to please myself. I happen to believe that the process of creating an image is not complete until there is a print, and a damn good one at that.

And yes, as one about to enter his 80th year, I am of that old-fart generation that the author relegates to the dust bin of history.

Sorry, don't have time to read all the comments. Busy printing archival B&W (as you might have'd guessed, right?) prints.

HFL
 
hlockwood, thank you for your compliment of my photograph on the article lead in. I relegated no one to the dust bin. I merely said that my generation isn't able to wrap their minds around a profound generational shift in any meaningful way because of their tenure and momentum in the craft.
 
I think this is getting a bit silly. Kirk has expressed an opinion and some of us agree while others disagree. I am not trying to defend his conclusions, but I'm not sure how his writing style is applicable to the discussion. I understood his point, and most of the rest of you did as well. He is not writing a book, he is writing a blog. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have the luxury of weeks or months of edits and re-writes before each blog post hits the screen. I for one would be far more interested in which one of his points or conclusions were questionable than whether or not he rambled.
 
Pioneer said:
I think this is getting a bit silly. Kirk has expressed an opinion and some of us agree while others disagree. I am not trying to defend his conclusions, but I'm not sure how his writing style is applicable to the discussion. I understood his point, and most of the rest of you did as well. He is not writing a book, he is writing a blog. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have the luxury of weeks or months of edits and re-writes before each blog post hits the screen. I for one would be far more interested in which one of his points or conclusions were questionable than whether or not he rambled.
Click to expand...

Boy, is this on target. Nor do I have much patience for those few folks who flavor their disagreement with discourteous personal attacks. I’m especially don’t admire those essentially unidentifiable folk when they attack people who so love photography that they make it what they do, those working stiffs or professionals of the world. This is the world my heroes come from and, when I’m very lucky, my friends come from. Almost every day I log onto Kirk’s website. Except for our love of theatre, we are very different. Different gear, different interests and, I imagine, different worlds. But, every few days, I learn something from him.
 
kirktuck said:
hlockwood, thank you for your compliment of my photograph on the article lead in. I relegated no one to the dust bin. I merely said that my generation isn't able to wrap their minds around a profound generational shift in any meaningful way because of their tenure and momentum in the craft.
Click to expand...

ON EDIT... sorry about the length of this. I know that forum etiquette demands sound-bite short posts, but I think Kirk's article is interesting and the points he raises in the opinion piece bear discussion.

Kirk, I'm pleased to see that you've checked back in on this thread. I read your piece, and read all of the comments here as well. I find the comments in your piece a little disingenuous in light of the gorgeous opening photo and the ads for learning how to make "perfect" portraits; "perfection" or technical excellence being apparently the very thing you're suggesting that the new generation of "photographers" eschews, and that our generation can't seem to wrap our heads around.

I confess that I'm a nobody... I'm not a published author, nor a world-renowned photographer. I have, however, successfully made a living from my photography skills for the better part of forty years for whatever that's worth, and have been a part of or watched many different trends develop and fall from favor in that time. It's not that I can't wrap my head around what's happening. It's that I've seen enough happen over the years that I just can't get too excited about moving off with the herd when they don't really know yet where they're heading.

Everyone ( me included) has an opinion, and the internet being the great social democracy that it is, I'll share mine. I'll agree that the imaging industry is changing and that some of the practitioners in our generation (we who started in the 1970s) are not. That's neither good nor bad, it's merely the way of the world, of art, and of photography. Pictorialsm and its adherents gave way to Modernism and its adherents which gave way to Post-Modernism which... you know the history. The idea of succession of "isms" is pretty clear. Each became passe in its own time. At some point the direction some camera makers are taking today will also become passe. We've seen that repeatedly since 1970, and that cycle becomes ever shorter. Some of us just don't care; and I'd challenge you to come up with a good reason we should. As a matter of fact, I'd argue that you've come up with a really good set of reasons that being individualistic in one's approach to art or photography is more important than ever... that following the latest trend(s) is probably more foolish today because trends are so transitory now.

You mentioned the cycle of the distribution of music. I am fond of many genres, and I consume my music in any number of formats including MP-3s, CDs, vinyl and live. I appreciate the convenience of MP3 downloads and the compact storage. I also appreciate the sound quality of good vinyl played on decent equipment. Each has its place, and those places are very different.

Call me a dinosaur if you will, but I'm one who is done dancing with the auto-wonder cameras. Fortunately, I'm still competent to make images the "old way" and I find that the buttons, menus and dials on the new equipment just get in the way. I shoot both digital and film; I just don't want to fight with the equipment any more. I also shoot with a forty-five year old Norman studio lighting set. The new studio lighting stuff is wonderful! It doesn't make any better light than my Normans though. My phone is a phone. It's convenient, and I do take an occasional snapshot with it, but it's not a camera.

It's not that I can't learn what all of those buttons, dials, and menus do. It's not that I can't tailor my whiz-bang digi SLR into what I want it to be. I can and I have. I just don't want to, and I'm not going to do it any more. And I'm not suffering for it at all. As a matter of fact, I find that not having to fight with my whiz-bang digi SLR to make an image is cathartic. I'm enjoying making images again! I don't have to fight my gear to make it do what I want, and I'm actually making the images I want... not what the programmer thought I should have! What a concept. And frankly, I can wrap my head around the trends, but I don't care about them. I'm just not a herd kind of guy.

If someone else wants to try to make his or her living using their iPhone as an imaging device, more power to them, but their success or failure doesn't necessarily affect me and my direction.

The availability of equipment and new technologies takes imaging in new directions every day. That doesn't mean that practitioners of the 'old' ways (meaning only the most recent epoch that has now fallen out of favor) are wrong... merely that they are comfortable in the genre in which they work. I presume that you, for example, will not do serious studio portraiture with a cell phone for a variety of reasons. Aerial photography is still better suited to manual cameras. Scientific work has niche equipment. And it's all photography that doesn't necessarily fall easily to the latest equipment fad.

Flickr, Instagram, GoPro, and whatever the next 'big deal' is aren't materially changing the physics of capturing light and shadow, or the artistry of seeing and capturing composition and color. The internet has changing the distribution of some materials, and the immediacy with which clients tend to want their materials delivered. We do need to cater to those "wants" because they're the "wants" of the folks who pay the bills. I don't feel the need to be on the cusp of what the "next generation" of practitioners may think to be important, though. It may be important one day or it may not, but whether I choose to pursue it really is a choice in personal growth. I have to say that I think maturity as a photographer has a great deal to do with whether you're comfortable in your world or not.

It follows, then, that I don't care what any other photographer carries and uses. I think that the world you describe at shows is pretty ludicrous, frankly. I would more liken those folks to people who arrive in costume at Comic-Con rather than consider them "serious photographers," or being influential in the world of photography.

Photography as an art and craft will continue on in one form or another. Some start-up pros will succeed and some will be a flash in the pan. A few will become famous, most will ultimately find careers in other fields. Good and bad ideas and this style or that method will come and go; most re-hashes of some past fad. The fact is that a photo-practitioner who understands the properties of light and who understands how to record light with technical excellence on some medium to the specifications of his client will continue to be employable regardless of the current fads in equipment or styles. Cell phone and auto-camera practitioners will be the current Brownie and Instamatic 104 heroes of the masses.

I don't think our generation is in quite the dire position your piece might lead us to believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom