The Modern Camera and the Dilution of Effort.

[Bertram2]

As the technology advances, the craft recedes. Manufacturers and processing services take over more and more of the work and the picture decisions, while photographers get lazier and less competent. While technology holds out to us more possibilites than photographers have ever known, we use them less and less resourcefully. We have, on the whole, no idea how much we could achieve, and it doesn't occur to us to find out by trying. Too often we are content with sloppy, mediocre work. The one thing we've gained is spontaneity – useless without perception.

Thinking back to the times I started with a VF fixed lens camera and a Gossen meter, mostly used for incident metering, I can't find all this progress since the 70s overwhelming.
Not speaking about pros, just about us, the amateurs I have to realize that It HAS offered new possibilties for working more precisely under certain circumstances,
but it has not made it easier to get more good results, as the promise was.
In former times we controlled the camera, nowadys we control automated systems
which tend to fail if it gets too difficult, AE, AF etc.
Maybe allauto has accelerated the process of taking pictures, in a limited way tho. And if so, what have we gained now with that acceleration ? Not too much I think, tho the technical effort was enormous. Would not miss much if it wasn't there.
I just would have to take (only sometimes) some more time for a shot, as I did it in former times.
One of the elder gentlemen at the CVUG once asked: "Why does progress always mean a loss of quality ?"
I would ask : "Why is acceleration always understood as progress, and why does it mean always a loss of quality ?"

bertram

 

[bmattock]

I see no insults in this thread.

Must be a time-zone thing. I thought a person with the nerve to get shirty would have the stones to admit it. Please disregard.

I also do not see where the author speaks of hard and fast rules. They basically say 'think' or to use another word 'deliberate' before tripping the shutter.

That's not what I took away from the article. I understood him to be speaking in terms of either being contemplative or of just snapping madly away. I did not see a middle ground in his premise.

You said "I did not find myself in agreement with the author" and in your very next sentence you say "I would agree that deliberation is a good thing in general terms."

Yes, and I do.

You either agree or disagree Bill. Which is it?

Not at all. One can both agree and disagree when more than one point is made. I agree, as I said, that deliberation is a good thing in general terms. I disagree with his apparent belief about what deliberation is. I stand by my words.

The whole essay is about deliberation, thinking about what you want to convey in your photograph before tripping the shutter, instead of just snapping away in the hope of eventually getting something worthwhile.

I just went back and re-read the article for the third time in your honor. I thought that perhaps I had read too quickly.

It was not to be. I am still underwhelmed, though I tried vainly, it seems, to avoid being blunt about it.

In my re-reading, I found these passages:

"WE HAVE SOMETHING TO GAIN by taking our time. Instead of shooting three rolls an hour, spend three hours on one photograph."

I agree with the statement, and disagree with the suggestion made. I realize that this perplexes you, yet there it is.

"We spend fifteen seconds or less and what do we create? Cascades of snapshots! Piles of photographs that even our mothers won't hang on the wall. Yep, we are creating nothing more nor less than snapshots, created in an instant, and just as interesting as those Aunt Josephine shot when the family went to that Jersey beach last summer. Shooting fast is diluting our efforts, spreading one hour of our talent into dozens of worthless shots."

I do not read in the above statement any general feeling that the author thinks the important thing is deliberation. Rather, he seems to me to quite clearly state that what is important is how much time the photographer devotes to the composition of a single photograph.

I'm sorry we do not agree - but we do not. I did not appreciate your back-handed remark to the effect that some of us didn't bother to read the article before commenting. I did, as a courtesy to you, and I gave it some reflection before posting a response, which I tried to keep polite and upbeat.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ywenz]

<<cat snarl noise>> + <<scratching action with right hand and forearm>>

 

[ErnestoJL]

I don´t feel photography automation is bad in itself, as well as that digital photography isn´t bad too.
The advances in technology helped some people taking the decision from the photographer to the camera.
For people whose only interest is to have a picture of the place they have visited or the birthday of a relative without any other interest, this (IMHO) is valid and beneficial.

But for those like Us, who want something different and want to be in control of the camera and of the results too, this may not be the best. (I´m sure it´s not!).

I still want to do everything by myself, with help of some tools but those which are unable to decide.
That means a manual camera and a handheld meter.

Even cameras like those with shutter or aperture preferred automation would be considered manual as the photographer retains control of almost everything.

The decision of how to take the picture is something different.
It depends on photographer needs or wishes, the available light, or anything else that´s inside the photographer mind.
The pictures in the article should be "the perfect pictures" as there were technical reasons which forced the photographer to do his best all the time.
The only difference is that we have instead of one chance of getting "the picture", at least 36 chances of getting one good enough.
Then I think to myself, why can´t I get a few good pictures out of a 36 exp. roll?

The only answer is that I didn´t take the time to analize what is and what´s what I want, decide if it´s possible and how.

I agree with Bertram´s question, Why acceleration means progress and why it allways means loss of quality?

Is there any real need or reason to do everything quickly?

And then: What´s "quality" meaning?

Perhaps we should define exactly the meaning of "quality" and if it´s a different concept for other people not related to photography the way we do.

Ernesto

 

[amateriat]

There was someone (damned if I can remember who) who said "Think fast, but think first". (Emphasis mine...maybe).

Then there was Miles Davis, who said "I'll play it first and tell you what it is later". (Or words to that effect, some of them quite colorful.) He also said "Sometimes you have to play a long time to be able to play like yourself." Take your pick.

And there was yet someone else who said "Learn the rules before you break them." That's the one that does it for me: know the map before you tear it up and nail the throttle. At least as much as you can. This one has been a bit harder to live by, but I try to do more than pay lip service to it.


- Barrett (at too late an hour and perhaps not all that alert)

 

[Duncan Ross]

I'm rubbish at taking pictures quickly but I see that as a failing, not a benefit.

 

[payasam]

Sparrow McBride, I said "a form of deliberation"; besides which there was a bit more in that sentence. You could read either that or, better, what Bill Mattock said a little earlier.

 

[Sparrow]

Sparrow McBride, I said "a form of deliberation"; besides which there was a bit more in that sentence. You could read either that or, better, what Bill Mattock said a little earlier.

Apologies, it was not a criticism, I was just questioning the validity of using deliberate to describe an automatic response, not the validity of the statement, sorry

 

[Andy K]

"Reasoned and calculated," yes. But it can be done ahead of time for certain situations, I believe.

Which is exactly what the author was saying. Yet you still say you disagree.

I did not appreciate your back-handed remark to the effect that some of us didn't bother to read the article before commenting

The author said "Okay, there are times when you need to take a lot of images in a very short amount of time.". Which to my mind says he understands that not every situation permits a photographer much time to arrange their photograph. Several in this thread are responding as if the author had said taking your time was the only way to work, which he did not. What I said was not at all 'backhanded'.

Must be a time-zone thing. I thought a person with the nerve to get shirty would have the stones to admit it. Please disregard.

Instead of making accusations and vague inferences, please specify exactly where you think I have insulted you in this thread.

 

[jonasv]

The author said "Okay, there are times when you need to take a lot of images in a very short amount of time.". Which to my mind says he understands that not every situation permits a photographer much time to arrange their photograph. Several in this thread are responding as if the author had said taking your time was the only way to work, which he did not.

It's obviously what he implies.

It's titled "An Essay on the Loss of Craft in Photography"

Photography - not particular kinds of photography. All along he speaks about "photography", "we photographers" - without any specification.

His short disclaimer "Okay, there are times when you need to take a lot of images in a very short amount of time. Fires, parades, and weddings come to mind" is not worth much when he goes on about photography in general during the whole essay.
Firstly it would imply that he thinks landscape photography etc is the only true photography and the rest are just unimportant variations not worth mentioning, and secondly he immediately negates his own disclaimer by adding "But good shots are created", implying that he believes what he said applies to "fires, parades and weddings" as well.

Just my .02

 

[Pherdinand]

The poor bastards in the 19th century had no other way than carrying 50 pound cameras and spending hours to produce a photograph.
Noone can say for sure what frame--er-second camera they would use today, and how much time they would spend on one single frame.
Except some prophets on internet, of course.

Nevertheless, the main idea of the article as I see it - spend more time on composing, building the photograph - is good. But i'd find it plain stupid to spend 5 hours to prepare a shot and then take only one damn frame. Think about Murphy's laws.

 

[Pherdinand]

By the way his photographs I find a little bit kitschy and waaay oversaturated. It's not more than the average postcard one can buy. I don't see any real contribution from the photographer; the great locations, the nature itself saves the images.

 

[varjag]

Critics in most fields cannot do what they comment on.

Not sure if that statement is true. And in the essay, the author does use his personal experience to validate his approach. I haven't seen his shots before he arrived at the conclusion, but those presented by link above are fairly mediocre. Maybe he should cut down to one exposure per month.

 

[Toby]

There seems to be a trend here. I don't subscribe to this idea that the method and the medium are as important as the end result. It the picture that counts and there is no inherent virtue in one method over another. A stalker paparazzi doesn't become more ethical if he shoots film instead of digital or if he thinks long and hard before shooting topless celebs on the beach. The choice of medium and method are relevent only to the photographer, mainly for the pleasure they give to him -the viewer in the gallery only thinks of the final picture

 

[Pherdinand]

-the viewer in the gallery only thinks of the final picture

unless he's a RF forum addict; then i'm sure he will check the camera, the lens, the film, even the camera strap used!

 

[Andy K]

. A stalker paparazzi doesn't become more ethical if he shoots film instead of digital or if he thinks long and hard before shooting topless celebs on the beach.

Isn't that exactly what paparazzi do? They don't get those pictures of the rich and famous in flagrante by accident. What they do may not be ethical, but they get their best results by being methodical, knowing the lay of the land and by planning ahead.

 

[fgianni]

It is quite funny actually, his pictures are average at best, I wonder if he understood anything of what he wrote in his site.

 

[Buze]

If I go to one particular place/time to make landscapes, I hurry along, because there aren't 6 hours of sunrise/sunset light to start with. I'll be careful of the framing and settings, but I won't even carry a tripod, I'd rather cover ground and do a good 12/8 frames in the time I have.

 

[bmattock]

Which is exactly what the author was saying. Yet you still say you disagree.

And I have quoted his piece to show why.

The author said "Okay, there are times when you need to take a lot of images in a very short amount of time.". Which to my mind says he understands that not every situation permits a photographer much time to arrange their photograph. Several in this thread are responding as if the author had said taking your time was the only way to work, which he did not.

As I quoted from him, he did indeed say that if one does NOT take a longish period of time to reflect, one was simply engaging in happy-snapping, and he stated that such efforts are worthless. He gave three examples where speed might be of the essence. On reflection, I disagree with that premise.

What I said was not at all 'backhanded'.

Permit me to quote you in that post:

Sounds to me like most of those disagreeing did not read as far as this:

"Okay, there are times when you need to take a lot of images in a very short amount of time. Fires, parades, and weddings come to mind"

I read it. I think most here read it. We did not take away from it what you did. That's simple disagreement over what we think the author said. No need to accuse us (or me) of not bothering to read it.

Originally Posted by bmattock
''I did not find myself in agreement with the author. ''

Gosh. What a surprise.

Instead of making accusations and vague inferences, please specify exactly where you think I have insulted you in this thread.

See above. Don't worry, I ain't gonna cry over it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Andy K]

I can't believe that is it! Someone expressing their lack of surprise at your reaction? THAT is the terrible insult? I thought you had a thicker skin than that Bill.

Bill, I want you to state specifically where I have actually insulted you in this thread. So far you shy away from doing so and have pointed out a nothing comment as a supposed 'insult'. If you cannot be specific about a real insult, then please desist from making false accusations.