The Modern Camera and the Dilution of Effort.

[b.e.wilson]

Press your monitor's degauss button while looking at Photo #317-4 and see if you get a headache.

[R.J

I mention in my article on Fisher Towers that the Cutler sandstone formation of the Towers has a high crystal content that has a remarkable ability to "glow" when the sun is directly behind you.

Take a good look at the sky and juniper/pinyon pine to determine whether the image is oversaturated beyond what you might normally see.

The sandstone is brick-red at noon, and neon orange at sunset. It's one of the cool aspects of the place. Another is walking along the trail at the base of a 600 foot tower, just like a big city sidewalk, only natural.

The Fisher Towers are 5 miles to the East along State highway 128, northeast of Moab, Utah. Very fun place to shoot and explore.

Bruce

 

[b.e.wilson]

I'll admit his collection is watered down with less than amazing material. . .but he has some really nice ones in there, too.

I thought it was interesting that ManGo, looking at a collection of mostly digicam shots, was not impressed at all, while AndyK liked the large-format exhibit. And you have specifically mentioned the difference.

I suspect that I use my digicam much the same way others do: as a snapshot camera. I don't recall ever using a deliberate technique with a Canon S30/S50. With that I do sketchpad photography, travellogs, quick grabs while on the trail, etc. With my 4x5 I do deliberate work. I'm pleased you recognize the difference in image quality that comes from the application of the methods in my essay.

Bruce

 

[John Camp]

One of the things that "old style" photographers seem to find very distressing is that technology sometimes results in people being hailed as "great photogaphers" who basically have just figured something out, acted on it, and then let the camera do the rest of the work. For example: you're shooting NASCAR, you pick the turn where you'll most likely get an accident, you pick the right lens, put the camera on "P" for Program or A for Aperture Priority, then sit down with a remote release in your hand, get a beer, and as soon as you see something shaping up, start banging away at 8 frames per second. If there's no wreck, no problem; delete the 8 frames or 16 frames and sit down again.

This as opposed to the guy who started with a non-motorized F3 and had to learn to anticipate, to learn about the cars and drivers and what was likely to happen in any given circumstance, who always had to watch exposure, etc. In other words, to work hard at it, stay alert, know the camera, etc.

And there's some truth to the ideas that technology sometimes helps bad photographers get good shots. There's also some truth to the phrase, "The harder I work the luckier I get." You don't see a lot of really good photographers who don't work hard at it; but you might see quite a few mediocre photographers who are also good businessmen, making a success of the job.

But for all those who work hard at it and get pretty good, to say that one way of working (contemplative as opposed to rapid-fire high-rate shooting) is silly. Although if you are a high-rate shooter, I don't think it would hurt to slow down sometimes. And for those who always shoot slow and big, I don't think walking around with a bang-bang point 'n shoot would hurt, either. But if it's not your style, it's not your style, and your style is, well, *yours.*.

JC

 

[b.e.wilson]

Hi,


While I appreciate a lot how Bruce reacted and I sincerely hope he is as mature now as his mail suggests (and I also hope his photography improved as dramatically), there's one bit I particularly dislike about this "essay" (except for the most obvious ones, like the tone and the lack of real information). It's the subtitle:

"The Philosophy of Landscape Photography".

Bruce then continues for two paragraphs about composition and then talks about camping on-site. As a philosophy student, I find this upsetting. Also, why would this be "the" philosophy and not "a" philosophy of landscape photography ? But I don't want to turn this post into a rant against Bruce, he's had to swallow enough already. As far as philosophy on this forum goes (and there's plenty of it), I prefer the following quotation:

Peter.

Yeah, truth is I've never been happy with that article. I have something to say on the matter, but havent' spent enough time to say it properly. It's intended for brand new photographers, but you're right, there isn't much philosophy in it. Still, if someone who happens across it finds something useful, it's fulfilled it's purpose.

Off Topic: I think my calling it 'philosophy' has to do with the way I got my doctorate in philosophy: I did a bunch of chemistry research, and they gave me a Ph.D. I don't recall every sitting down with my advisor or colleagues to discuss the philosophy of what we were doing, it was just built into the process. We asked "why" a great many times, enough, presumably, to develop an understanding of the philosophy of chemistry without any direct instruction. Unfortunately, it seems I keep using the term "philosophy" the same way.

 

[b.e.wilson]

Hm, more likely is he was informed. Strange that somebody found that
necessary ?? Pomposity. 🙄 Well, some like that, they are born as "informer", to use a polite word. :angel:

bertram

Nope, not informed. I check the webstats of several sites I run pretty regularly. Turns out I checked them the day all the posts were made. When my photo site traffic jumps 10x in a day, it's pretty noticable.

The other site I check most is the UVSC Herbarium site, which I programmed for them. It does some pretty nifty stuff, and imaging there is done with a 48 MP scanning back on a 4x5 camera with an enlarger lens. Here's an example: Wollybase plantain. And the site does other things, like predict where species might be found now and in an assumed globally-warmed climate of 2050.

 

[fgianni]

I mention in my article on Fisher Towers that the Cutler sandstone formation of the Towers has a high crystal content that has a remarkable ability to "glow" when the sun is directly behind you.

Take a good look at the sky and juniper/pinyon pine to determine whether the image is oversaturated beyond what you might normally see.

The sandstone is brick-red at noon, and neon orange at sunset. It's one of the cool aspects of the place. Another is walking along the trail at the base of a 600 foot tower, just like a big city sidewalk, only natural.

The Fisher Towers are 5 miles to the East along State highway 128, northeast of Moab, Utah. Very fun place to shoot and explore.

Bruce

Bruce

The point is that you are making a photograph, and if it looks oversaturated, it does not matter if the colours are the real ones, the photograph still looks bad.
I am sure that seen in person those Fisher Towers are awe inspiring, but with pictures it is the end result that matters, and to a lot of people they really looked bad pictures.
After looking at those images I did not even bother to look at your other stuff, assuming (my fault) that it was going to be more of the same.
It is only after I read George's comment that I went back, and found that there are some really good photographs in your site.
Anyway just to hammer my point in, it does not matter if the colours are natural or crafted with photoshop, if they look bad, then they are bad.

 

[b.e.wilson]

The advent of digital and before that, fully automatic technologies, has had only the effect of making what was once a very difficult, time consuming art or craft into a mainstream hobby. It has made professional photography more efficient, more accurate, more effective. Surely Ansel Adams would have loved to have had a very fast AF medium format camera or a Linhof Technorama 617. How many times had he missed the perfect moment, when all the lighting and colors, the birds and clouds and wind were all perfect? Many times. He would have been a great user of large format digital cameras and photoshop too.

It has also - and this is where the illusion of loss occurs - simplified the process - made it accessible to the masses. It hasn't simplified the entire variety of tools, but has created a massive breed of simple cameras and their relative software and accessories that appeal to the larger portion of the market – those who aren’t into photography in the classic sense.
George Masters

George,

While I agree with many of your points, I think the ability to shoot faster isn't what's destroying craft, it's that we are relying on the camera to make very important photographic decisions, to the extent that many are oblivious they are there to be made. For example, spot metering is time consuming and rarely found on digicams (and even DSLRs). And when present it's rarely used, because it's a bit tricky to use. But not spotmetering means that the user is never made aware of the light values of, say, the semi-transparent leaves of cottonwoods and aspens, and not being aware of the light values, never figures out that they glow a little brighter when the sun is 45 degrees off the camera axis (obtuse or acute) (Example). I will say that the zone guys usually understand this, because it requires a spotmeter be used in every shot.

Another example: the use of exposure in contolling saturation--less exposure means greater saturation, as long as the camera does not compensate in some other way. The camera is probably trying only to get the entire scene represented, so it will compress the light values a bit to get the non-specular highlights about 250, and the black level about 30, regardless where it really was. But it's the middle that most people see, and the camera works in some mysterious way (mysterious to all except the programmers and the few who use it so much they figure it out) to get the photo to look overall 18% grey. But if the photographer wants one particular part of the image to be middle grey, or one partucular part of the image to have a particular color saturation, the only solution someone not aware of the saturation/exposure relationship if to bracket and hope for the best.

These are examples of the photography craft that's being lost, and I think it's mostly because the modern camera makes it very easy to ignore the decisions, and make it difficult to implement them if you wanted to. I suppose speed has something to do with it, but it's certainly not new. Kodak's Brownie concept was where it started, but there it was saved by some very good printing by professionals (recall that the Brownies came with film which you shot, then sent the entire camera to Rochester for processing, where a professional developed the latent image, floated the emulsion off the paper backing onto a glass plate by hand, shot it onto printing paper, and sent you the resulting image). As long as there was someone making good decisions some pretty good photographs result.
But the really good work came from photographers who understood the mechanics of the shutter (so they could make the best use of motion in the shot), by understanding all the ramifications of exposure (Ansel Adams was a master of this), including the color effects of putting light values near the shoulder and toe, and the vast library of effects obtainable by using the various filters available. All this is craft, the nuts and bolts of making an image, useful in doing your art, but not artistic in itself.

Here's what I think now: craft happens in the camera, art happens in the darkroom (analog or digital). If you've compromised the latent image, you've hobbled the art you can do with it. The more darkroom craft you know the better the odds of getting art out of the image, but a craftily-taken image is much easier to work with. That's why I think craft is important.

Bruce

 

[b.e.wilson]

Bruce

The point is that you are making a photograph, and if it looks oversaturated, it does not matter if the colours are the real ones, the photograph still looks bad.
I am sure that seen in person those Fisher Towers are awe inspiring, but with pictures it is the end result that matters, and to a lot of people they really looked bad pictures.
Anyway just to hammer my point in, it does not matter if the colours are natural or crafted with photoshop, if they look bad, then they are bad.

True, if a picture doesn't meet expectations, if someone thinks is should look duller than it is, they'll think it's a bad picture. I've never had a good sence of what folks will like. I've had people buy images of mine that I thought were crap while I was trying to push images on them that I thought were really very good. I've never understood why they wanted the ones I didn't like all that much.

Another problem with expectations is more severe: I've only rarely gotten a scan of a transparency to look like it does when printed. There is always a difference. Especially when printing on different stocks. Kodak's reversal paper looks and prints differently from Fuji's, and both are very different from Cibachrome. So what's a guy to do, take a picture of a print and post that, or just explain that the real picture will look different in some undescribable way than the web image? For me the solution was not to advertize selling at all, which shifts the responsibility in a small way to the purchaser, but does rather cut into the revenue stream. I don't need the revenue, so it's a solution that works for me.

But in the case of this particular image, it does print beautifully on Fuji Type 35 Printing Material (the pearlescent polyester backing).

Bruce

 

[sf]

I was thinking about this thread while looking at a Konica Hexar AF on the auction site.

I thought about why I wanted the Hexar, why I hesitate to buy anything that might replace my RF645 part of the time, and whether buying the Hexar would simply be an act of laziness.

I thought about the shortcoming of the RF645 : slower lenses and not AF. AF is rarely a shortcoming but for when things are happening too quickly to manually focus, and you don't want to be really obvious. The quiet nature of the Hexar might be nice for shooting weddings or funerals or in art galleries. . . but I never shoot in any of those places (maybe an art gallery once a year). I might consider shooting in church, but that makes me kind of squeamish because that is somewhat irreverent.

I really find the silent mode and AF attractive, regardless of the above. I like that I could be slightly more stealthy on the bus or at a bar.

So that raises the point that matters : is an interest in stealthiness really just laziness in disguise? I don't think so. Sometimes, technology is really a boon to artistic interest. It opens doors that would have been closed.

I doubt that stealthily captured bar scenes were ever a possibility before much that we call modern technology came along. I draw the line at "modern" about where cameras became hand holdable and didn't require scale or ground glass focusing.