The Devil's Work

I think ist a matter of time. I still got my own darkroom,
but I'm a fulltime worker. If I develop and print my film, I cant
go out shooting. Shure, I could collect the film, but after some weeks
it woud be a huge amount of film to develop.
 
Or does that make any sense at all?
Click to expand...

It makes very good sense to me.

The original question might have made more sense if it wasn't identical to discussions I read or heard in the mid 'sixties about the evils of TTL metering and automatic flash. They too were contributing to the demise of craftsmanship in photography.

Anyway, my local glassmakers have just sent me one hundred of their best float glass plates and I'm off to mix up that new orthochromatic coating Josef Eder has been touting.

I know, I know, real photographers use proper copper sheets to hold the silver but I'm having trouble finding the right grade of lampblack. I blame those miniature photographers with their "roll films".

:angel:
 
Bill Pierce said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think what you describe is a good thing. Digital and the internet have democratised photography. It is increasingly being used as a mode of communication, no different to writing. Like writing, most photographs today are temporary and do not require craft or skill; in fact, making any sort of effort other than simply pointing and shooting would be counterproductive, reducing the speed and number of photographs that can be taken.

I think many of us are far too precious about photography. Before digital, the lower volume of photographs allowed some photographers to self-aggrandise and gain undeserved attention. Today, mediocre photographs are far less likely to be noticed - which is as it should be.

Today, to be noticed as a "photographer", whether your interest is art, commercial, weddings or journalism, you need to be be far more dedicated and skilful than in pre-digital times - which is as it should be.

Do writers complain about widespread literacy, or the invention of the typewriter or the computer? Much writing requires minimal skill or longevity, and a bare minimum of "craft" - handwriting, grammar, spelling. We all make notes and send texts every day (aided by predictive software that chooses words for us) with the sole purpose of quick, instantaneous communication - and would quite rightly be considered obsessive and peculiar if we invested the same care in these quick scribbles as we would in, say, a job application. We should look at photography today in the same light.
 
rluka said:
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 :D
Click to expand...

No. Only extremely bad digital processing is automated. Careful, measured digital processing is very much an art, and requires an understanding of the process and desired results.

I use a mouse and Wacom digitizer to process my photos. Each photo is individually adjusted, using many layers, masks and tools. You need to have a clear sense of how to approach a photo and how big you want to print it to achieve optimal results, and much of that is experience. I press buttons (and use a digital pen and roll the clickwheel), but the entire workflow is much, much more - the same argument can be made for brushing around paint verses painting. Anyone can use a brush, but not all of them are artists.

Or was your comment tongue-in-cheek...?
 
I would agree it has cheapened photography as an art. All convenience past a certain point cheapens things. Simulacra & Simulation. I mean with google earth we don't even need to have real bodies or step into the original real world. We could just be put into a life sustaining chamber and travel the world.
 
I think it's unquestionable that digital has cheapened photography, except in the very high end. Simple fact is, anyone can use a DSLR, and they do. It takes a degree of know how to use a Hasselblad. That's not to say either user can take good pictures, but they can at least operate the camera. Wedding photography is now a fraction of what it used to cost, and the internet has made stock photos worth pennies.

That digital has cheapened photography financially is I think a matter of fact rather than opinion.

Whether it's cheapened it as an art, don't know, but it's made taking bad photos much easier than it was, and people will grab that opportunity with both hands.

In the hands of a good photographer, I doubt digital/film makes a huge difference, but the point with digital is that it's made it free and easy to take photos so the dross/quality ratio is skewed in the favour of the former.
 
thegman said:
I think it's unquestionable that digital has cheapened photography.
Click to expand...
And that's a problem why? See my post above as to why I think it's a good thing, in general*.

*gavinlg makes a valid point about the simulacram (anyone interested, look up Baudrillard), when a reproduction becomes reality. Summary: imagine Keanu Reaves in The Matrix looking out of a plane's window, and going, "Woah, this looks just like Google Earth...!" - which is a huge difference from "Woah, Google Earth looks just like this...!", which is what we used to do when we saw maps and photographs.
 
I think that the view advanced by Rich is correct.
They asked David Bailey much the same thing in a recent interview and he thought the proliferation of images was a good thing .
More interest more ideas and rejected the notion that everything was automatically better in the past.

I myself am never clear that there is always a direct connection be time spent / difficulty encountered and quality.

Maybe its just people not knowing what they are doing.

But as Vince suggests the arguments have been around for a long time.

In the same interview Bailey mentioned that the oral poets in Rome wrote to Michelangelo accusing him of not being a proper artist because he relied on mechanical aids such brushes and paint.

Where as they were the true artists because they only needed their minds.
 
"There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper" John Ruskin ... but what would he know eh? ... pompous little twerp

Having said that I find digital really tricky to get exactly what I want
 
It comes down to "intention". Does the automatic transmission, push button dialing, electric/gas range, or the electric razor make the driving, telephoning, cooking, or shaving experience any less valid? For some, I am certain it does. For others, I am not so sure.
 
Bill Pierce said:
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.”
Click to expand...

Since when does a camera decide the content to photograph and the framing to use?

Technical concerns may have been automated (and it is stupid to equate digital to automation when there are many automated film cameras in use), but vision / framing and compelling content will never be.
 
Sparrow said:
"There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper" John Ruskin ... but what would he know eh? ... pompous little twerp

Having said that I find digital really tricky to get exactly what I want
Click to expand...

It all seems to coalesce around what you are accustomed to using and seeing.

The more deeply involved you`ve been the likely hood is the stronger your opinions are.

When you add in the opinions of those who are doing or have done this professionally as opposed to the enthusiastic amateur ,things really do get confusing.

There seems to be an understandable reluctance to forsake hard earned skills and to acknowledge that there may be a different way of doing and seeing.

In all the years which I`ve been reading these posts I`ve never detected much movement .

Opinions always seem to be entrenched.
 
jsrockit said:
Since when does a camera decide the content to photograph and the framing to use?

Technical concerns may have been automated (and it is stupid to equate digital to automation when there are many automate film cameras in use), but vision / framing and compelling content will never be.
Click to expand...

Exactly ... ever watched a photographer like Duffy work.
He sets the scene arranges the model or whatever and has his assistant deal with the camera and press the shutter.

Now that really is automation :)
 
willie_901 said:
...... 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. ......
Click to expand...

I see it differently where the ratio has changed dramatically, and for the worse. People are now taking something like 10X-20X the photos they did before (my guess, no facts) but the actual number of "good works" (however you define it) has not changed much. I see all those extra photos that people take now end up in the "less than good work" category. I see that in friends and family. I see that in serious photographers.

I simply do not see good work going away in actual numbers of photos as Bill Pierce's friend suggests in his original post. I do see there being overwhelmed by so many extra "less than good" photos. But the good stuff is still there.

I have not yet found that automated camera that Bill Pierce refers to that automatically delivers really good photos. I am still struggling to do it with my eyes and my brain.
 
Having taken photos both professionally and for enjoyment, and with nearly every kind of camera over 40 or so years, I don't place a huge distinction between film and digital mediums - digital certainly has allowed the working commercial photographer capabilities unseen with film....but I can understand how fine art photographers see the digital age of photography as "cheapening" the endeavor. No doubt, thousands of awful images are taken each day with DSLRS...and Point-and_shoots - and cell phones.

Here's the thing - the craft of a fine photo is still the craft - and as mentioned earlier, there are tons of bad photos taken with film - they seldom see the light of day - although I would argue most cell photos are never really viewed, either.

I wonder if the sales figures for DSLRs now differ greatly from sales of mid-line film slrs from the bygone era? I certainly recall Graflex press guys bemoaning the rollfilm cameras as "run and gun"...

An image is an image, and its value is in the eye of the viewer, whether made with a sharpened stick in the mud or a super-megapixel digital. For photojournalism, no doubt the craft has been superseded by the fact that everyone has a camera with them - the value is now even more than before about getting the shot as it happens.

But for other photography, I still think there is value in the careful consideration and creation of images, with any medium.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I see it differently where the ratio has changed dramatically, and for the worse. People are now taking something like 10X-20X the photos they did before (my guess, no facts) but the actual number of "good works" (however you define it) has not changed much. I see all those extra photos that people take now end up in the "less than good work" category. I see that in friends and family. I see that in serious photographers.
Click to expand...
And as I said before - why is that bad?

Photography has all kinds of uses, and the type of photography we like is a minority interest. Most photographs not only don't require craft but would be made pointless by a more considered approach. Most photographs are simply records - whether official (CCTV) or personal (snaps of your lunch), and many are not taken to be kept for long.

I think it's great, this democratisation of photography; that photographs are now easier than ever before to take, obtain and show to others, and that within a few years the majority of the world's population will always have a camera with them (their phone).

Why do you want to place yourself in an elite that looks down on the "less than good work", that labels only as "good" that photography which meets your prerequisites of craft and skill?

I personally value a certain type of photograph, and strive to apply craft and skill to my photography. But I also believe that photography is a broad church, and that most people take photographs for entirely different reasons, preferring automated cameras that capture images with the minimum of fuss and forethought. And who am I to judge which kind of photograph is "better"? They're just different.

You may as well say that forum posts are "worse" than novels, because the latter require more skill to create! But it would be a pointless comparison because a forum post does not require elegant prose and perfect grammar and spelling to fulfil its function!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom