The Devil's Work

[Bill Pierce]

I have a friend who is both a major gallery owner and a major collector. He thinks that digital has been a relatively negative influence on photography. He is not one of the “digital is the devil’s work” lot. Indeed, he has had major exhibits of digital work. His concern ts with high volume, both in the shooting and display of images - in essence, the disappearance of the care and effort that went into each individual image with earlier processes, whether it be wet plate or film, platinum or silver. I tend to agree with him. We are exposed to a lot of unexceptional images with the inference (sometimes the actual statement) that they are really exceptionally good.

But whenever we discuss this, I put the blame on automation. You don’t have to think; you just have to press the button. And printing, darkroom or digital, paper or screen, as an interpretive device… what’s that, “the picture came out.” I think in many cases we should not credit the photographer, but the camera. Why shouldn’t credit lines read, “Picture by Canon 5D Mark III #29475-0” or “Photo by Fuji X2 #7432983.”

Whose right?

 

[dovi]

Culture wide issue

Culture wide issue

Movies, books, politics, everywhere you look there is a general formulaic approach. A general absence of craftmanship, IMO

 

[Bill Clark]

Oh, my goodness, I still have to think. So should every one.

It's still about posing, lighting & composition.

 

[bonatto]

It's an interesting point, Bill. Rather than pure automation, it can be tied to the speed which just about everything is done. More, faster, quicker, easier, lower cost. The same can be said for art in general. Highly regarded paintings used to take years. Now some high ticket canvases gracing contemporary art gallery walls take days, if not hours to be completed.

When you say a "negative influence" what exactly does that mean? That the quality of the work is worse? Worse than what? There are plenty of contemporary photographers that are producing the very work that takes "care and effort" and should be recognised, but are perhaps drowned in an over saturated field that wants more, faster, quicker, easier.

 

[Shac]

While it is certainly true that the digital era has resulted in an unbeleivable proliferation of images by more and more people than in the analog age, I wonder how much of what concerns your friend (& yourself) "the disappearance of the care and effort that went into each individual image with earlier processes," is the result of digital imagery per se, or a result of the ease with which images are transmitted in the public realm (=internet, etc.)?

PS Bonatto just posted as I was writing mine - I have to agree with his last paragraph too

 

[Kwesi]

Great topic.
I think the major difference between the film age and the current digital one we are in is that publishing images on the internet is largely free and without financial cost to the publisher. Hence a vast majority of people dont bother to edit their work anymore. Rather they put everything out there with the hope that the images that receive the most "likes/views" are then their good ones. Essentially crow sourcing critiques.
In the past with film, each image that went beyond the negative or slide to become print had a financial cost associated with it and it gave you an opportunity to think about the image and how best to show it of through darkroom techniques before you presented it.

 

[YYV_146]

I won't argue that digital is not easier than film to create images. It is, and for the most part cheaper. But digital workflow is still a significant effort -people often choose to deny this, or do not fully understand the processes involved.

If I were working on a large-size color print for digital, it's not unusual to spend hours in processing tweaking the overall look of the image. Then you need to decide what paper to use, and proof the image without harming finer details. And to make good prints, time is involved in learning the software, preparing the monitor, making test prints.etc

And phtographers from the film days - pardon me for saying this - often do not have a good understanding of this process. I'm sure many do, and I admire their efforts, but I have also seen many excellent film photographers who tries out digital, then dismisses it because they don't want to face another steep learning curve.

One of the images I made for a Hong Kong street project. I have a printable version, but this one is both toned and sharpened for standard SRGB screen display.

 

[kshapero]

The Epson Digital rangefinder was a nice "in between". Hell you actually had to cock the advance lever for each shot.

 

[BlackXList]

When I'm using my Canon gear, I value the fact that I can switch between the EOS3 and the 5DmkIII, one takes film, one digital, but the dimensions and controls of the cameras are so similar that it's a seemless switch.

That being the case, how is one "easier" than the other?

 

[pieter]

Imagine that for some reason photography was one of few artistic endeavors that could not be done digitally. Imagine that after much research we would have come to the conclusion that there was no way to capture a still image.
Do you really believe that photography wouldn't have become more about "more, faster, easier, quicker and lower cost" if we would still all be shooting film? While every other artform makes the move towards automation and quantity above quality, somehow photography wouldn't because it would use film? As if "film" is some magical border beyond which the zeitgeist and general culture can not cross? Film makes people immune?

There are plenty of advances towards automation within the realm of film photography. Many of which started long before digital photography entered the arena. It seems weird to blame the digitalisation for carelessness and automation when those can be found within the realm of film photography. Film can be done quick and cheap and digital photography can be done with great care and as time consuming as one would want.

 

[helvetica]

Digital consumption would share just as much of the blame as digital content creation, I would think. We (as a culture) are not exactly willing to spend time and money contemplating one printed image when we can see thousands easily on our computer screen.

As Pieter pointed out, this is a cultural shift.

 

[Pioneer]

Speed is the key. Most of the young culture now taking pictures does not want to take the time to sit and contemplate anything. Blog entries have to be short, as do forum posts, or no one will read them. Keep it short, keep it simple, don't force people to think too much.

See it, photograph it, use an Apple I-App to dress it up so your friends will look at it, post it on-line and move on to the next photo opportunity. No planning, very little thought, just keep moving.

The digital revolution is only really starting to take hold. It will be a VERY destructive process and film being marginalized in the market, or journalists being fired from newspapers or magazines they have worked with for years, is only the beginning. What it will look like when we finally come out the other end is tough to predict.

 

[willie_901]

Still photography continues to evolve. I don't mean the media or equipment, I mean how people use it.

My hypothesis is the ratio of sloppy unedited work to careful work really hasn't changed very much for decades. After all the fundamental behavior of people hasn't changed, or can't change in the time frame it took digital or even automated photography to reach it's current state.

Instead of filling closets of slide projector trays, photo albums and shoe boxes full of unedited photographs we share them on-line for everyone to see. It just appears there's more unfinished, gratuitous work.

 

[JoeV]

Following this logic, we'd have to include all the post-production software and individualized settings in the image description, such as "Photo by Leica Monochrom, Lightroom version whatever and Silver Efex Pro Tri-X setting with S-curve and localized burn/dodge via Photoshop version whatever." Which gets back to the photographer, who had to choose amongst a myriad of software choices, settings and combinations.

I don't think the problem with contemporary photography is digital workflow, but rather that we haven't sufficiently raised the bar on our expectations. Think of cinema: I can shoot the technical equivalent of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" using an iPhone and iMovie. But that doesn't make me an auteur. With access to increased technical capability should come higher expectations.

~Joe

 

[Pioneer]

Still photography continues to evolve. I don't mean the media or equipment, I mean how people use it.

My hypothesis is the ratio of sloppy unedited work to careful work really hasn't changed very much for decades. After all the fundamental behavior of people hasn't changed, or can't change in the time frame it took digital or even automated photography to reach it's current state.

Instead of filling closets of slide projector trays, photo albums and shoe boxes full of unedited photographs we share them on-line for everyone to see. It just appears there's more unfinished, gratuitous work.

I think this is a neglected point. Where in the film days only a few were subjected to slide shows and photo albums of sloppy, unedited work. Now, there is much more of it due to the ease and negligible cost of creating it, and everyone is exposed to it because it is so easy to put it on-line. Of course, not everyone is posting there snapshots expecting everyone to be exposed, but only so their friends and relatives can see it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Many of my pictures at home walls are from digital cameras. So, I would go to exhibition where it is going to be the same.
I'm interested to see it on different media. I prefer oil paintings and gelatin silver prints, not only because it is art, but also something I can't do.

As for credit lines, it is visible at the end of each movie and in the still image file it is called EXIF.
In my digital images not only camera and lens name is included by my name also.

 

[rluka]

Too much of something really dulls the senses.
There's only so much you can chew before feeling "been there, done that"

As for the quantity and hurried nature, I put consumptive culture as the scapegoat.
It's not just like camera company want you to buy the latest model every year. There's simply so much things that peoples nowadays want, as if life is too short and they have to experience it all. That doesn't leave time to stand and see one picture for long time (or talk gossips for hours in the phone rather than one short & concise message) because it's still a big world they need to get their hands on out there.

I won't argue that digital is not easier than film to create images. It is, and for the most part cheaper. But digital workflow is still a significant effort -people often choose to deny this, or do not fully understand the processes involved.

Because doing digital post processing makes you an operator, not an artist.
Not even an "craftsman" because digital workflow is all automated and all you need is a press of the button 😀

 

[Darthfeeble]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the internet, rather than the digital media is the culprit? Social sharing sites (this being one) put a horrendous amount of mediocre art out to be seen. I thing it's the preponderance, not the medium.

 

[Kevcaster]

This applies to me. I was shocked at the amount of manipulation that some digital photographers applied and the time it took. I am also underwhelmed by the visual quality of the majority of digital prints that I see.

One of the reference points that I have found useful is the response my children have to images, they do not care about the image quality just the image. In addition they are fleeting in their appraisal wanting to skip on to the next rather than enjoy the image as an image. They are, all three, visually literate, clever people and treat photography as 'show and tell'.
The gap is widening between the two media and digital has created it's own sector and style. In some ways I am pleased about this, it frees analogue photography to be itself and not have to compete in the same space.

Kevin

 

[rybolt]

I guess that in my heart I agree with almost all of the above comments but I'd add that no work done today has any bearing on work done in the past. And that nothing done in the future will have any bearing on work done today. It's like rolling the dice. Every work of art is it's own occurrence and needs to be judged on it's own merit.
Or does that make any sense at all?