The ART of photography,,,, is it dead?????
In an attempt to better understand digital photography and the process getting to what would be considered professional final results, this past weekend I down loaded the current trial version of Lightroom. I started to listen to the the videos on how it can be use it to improve the final product. After just a little while it became painfully obvious {to me anyway} that the real talent lies in understanding how to use a computer and using software programs to come up with the final " stunning desired look". ( Oh but the computers can do so much more and so much better[:P]) Yea right, foowee on that.
I personally come from the old school of transparencies, along with the appropriate equipment to manipulate the effects of final product in the field and most of all,, time. Taking the time,, often waiting for as much of the desired natural shot that mother nature cared to give us at the "moment" of truth. Now I find that it still does take some of these in the field practices to create a "masterpiece",,, but,,,,,,,but so much can now be done artificially at home warm and safe in front of the computer.
So I am beginning to believe that they True Art of Photography is dieing. I would like to hear from people that have shot in both mediums as to what your opinion is of this. Those that have only shot digital please feel free to chime in also. However if you fall into that category and you want to voice your feelings on this subject,, that your telling how great the digital world is over analog please take into account that is about the same as someone that has never had children trying to tell people that have children how to raise them.
Yea it is like that.
Personally I am of the belief that newer is not always better, and just because something can be done does not mean that it has to be done. I have maintained for nearly twenty years now that the best use of a computer is to fill it with cement and use it for a boat anchor. The only reason I have one is because we have three business to run and to promote them in this day and age is the cause for you of need to have one.
In any event I'm really looking forward to see how I and my opinion get chewed up with this one.
May we all let our lord bless us with his grace and good fortune.
Thanks Much
Wayne
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"]</input><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden" />
<div id="refHTML"]</div>
Re: The ART of photography,,,, is it dead?????
Hey Wayne,
Interesting premise. IMO, "Art" with a capital "A" is really in the eye of the beholder. To extend your logic into the realm of music, do you listen to classical music only? Did the "True Art of Music" die with the composers of the 1800s? Personally, I derive as much enjoyment from Billie Holiday and Blink-182 as I do from Beethoven, from Snow Patrol and Santana as I do from Strauss.
From a purely convenience standpoint, speaking as one who developed negative film by hand and made prints with an enlarger, dodging and burning in, etc., followed by developing the prints with trays and tongs...I can say that I find the digital process much, much easier.
--John
Re: The ART of photography,,,, is it dead?????
Good Morning, Wayne!
When I first got into photography as a hobby not too many months ago I pretty much felt the same as you do. It took me awhile to accept that post-processing in Photoshop was indeed a strong part of photography (especially since I suck at it)! I was disheartened by this realization. You would think that with acouple thousand spent on a camera and lens, post-processing wouldn't even be needed!But as in many fields today, computers have changed EVERYTHING, whether it be for the good or not so good of all hobbies and careers. I can come up with a hundred examples where it has effected how we reach a final product today.
Many, many years ago my dad would go out fishing all day and maybe not get a bite ...then came along his new son-in-law w/ his fish locating scanner and showed him where the schools of fish were when they'd go out on the boat. Took him awhile to accept this as truly fishing!
I work for a Civil Engineering and Survey firm and today land development is done alot differently with the help of advanced scanners, CAD and Civil 3D computer programs than they were when our bosses first started out in the field.
The art of photography isn't dead, it has just changed ...as everything has!
Denise
Re: The ART of photography,,,, is it dead?????
Change is inevitable; accepting it isn't.
I picked up SLR photography after the digital revolution--the Rebel XTi was my first. To be honest, I don't usually do much post processing on my images as I tend to get [very clost to] what I want in camera. Everyone I show my portfolio to underestimates how much work goes into capturing those images--and I'm ok with that. It still takes time to create a masterpiece...the fact that we have better technology now than we did a decade (or two) ago shouldn't be held against us. There are still masters creating captivating works today just as they were back then.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/...5e842d53d3.jpg
People often reference masters like Ansel Adams when they contrast the ways of yester year with the post-processing of today. But few people know that Ansel Adams was a master in the darkroom--he dodged and burned his images quite heavily before the public ever saw them. Therefore, he was a pioneer and master of the latest and greatest post processing techniques of his era.
Interesting, don't you think?
Re: The ART of photography,,,, is it dead?????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
People often reference masters like Ansel Adams when they contrast the ways of yester year with the post-processing of today. But few people know that Ansel Adams was a master in the darkroom--he dodged and burned his images quite heavily before the public ever saw them. Therefore, he was a pioneer and master of the latest and greatest post processing techniques of his era.
Interesting, don't you think?
I was in graduate school when digital imaging was coming into vogue in science. The photomicrographs for my dissertation were shot on 35mm negative film and printed manually in a darkroom (I have photographic plates and manually-mounted composite figures in my dissertation). My postdoctoral lab had the 'latest and greatest' digital microscopes (primitive by today's standards). At the time, there were concerns in science about digital image editing and the potential to use it to inappropriately manipulate data. While those concerns did and do have validity, they were mostly put to rest by the simple fact that such manipulations are equally possible either at the source (the experiment itself, or in photographic terms, capturing the best lighting, composition, etc.), or in the physical darkroom (via selective cropping, dodge/burn, negative superimposition, etc.).
To take a modernist viewpoint, what digital image editing does is make such manipulations accessible and relatively simple for the general public - you no longer need a lifetime of skill to get a 'textbook' image, Photoshop's Auto Smart Fix will correct a range of mis-exposures, cropping is as simple as drag-and-click, etc.
In the 'old days' Joe Public with his 110-format instamatic camera took pretty bad pics, and Suzie Pro with her 35mm SLR or medium format camera and the services of a professional photo lab created technically correct photos with artistic impact. Today, Joe Public has a P&S or a dSLR in green square mode, and easily and reliably takes technically correct (exposure-wise) pictures. Composition is made easier - in iPhoto on a Mac, for example, activating the cropping tool automatically overlays a 'rule-of'thirds' grid on the image being cropped. Since there are now so many technically correct photographers out there, thanks to technology, Suzie Pro needs some other differentiator - often, that's composition, lighting, etc., combined with the computer expertise to make the most of the digital format.
Re: The ART of photography,,,, is it dead?????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iguide
( Oh but the computers can do so much more and so much better[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]) Yea right, foowee on that.
If you're don't find things easier with a computer, you don't have to use one. But many people do a lot of good work with computers, and some of it I would call true art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iguide
I have maintained for nearly twenty years now that the best use of a computer is to fill it with cement and use it for a boat anchor.
Perhaps that is the best thing you can think of to do with a computer, and that's fine. Others have found better uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iguide
However if you fall into that category and you want to voice your feelings on this subject,, that your telling how great the digital world is over analog please take into account that is about the same as someone that has never had children trying to tell people that have children how to raise them.
If I raise my children differently than you raise yours, it doesn't mean I don't have children, nor does it mean I'm telling you how to raise yours. Shoot with film all you like. But to say that art is dead just because you don't like digital seems like a rather egotistical and myopic point of view.
I think the digital world is great. My opinion is that it allows much
more flexibility and creative freedom than film. If most people agree
with me, does that mean art is dead?
Re: The ART of photography,,,, is it dead?????
I startedshooting when digital was becoming popular and film was starting to fade away. My first camera was a Canon EOS 35mm film camera. I eventually got into digital and really like it. The biggest thing I noticed is what people expect from the digital picture vs the film. The "Art" of photography really hasn't changed. We still want to have the best pictures possible. Taking good or great pictures does take experience and practice. I think average photographers can appear to be better than they are because of the use ofdigital processing, Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. We can create just about anything we want. To me, it is like movie making. CGI has become popular the past few years with movies like Avatar. Some like it, some don't. But to me, nothing is quite like building little models and filming that ( like George Lucas in the older Star Wars movies).
I think we need to give a little more props to those that came before and had to hone their skills with practice, practice, practice. I'm not saying those of us that use digital are bad or not as good. But it was different. I acknowledge that. I wouldn't be any good if it weren't for digital. I also don't like to do much post processing and try to capture the shot more "naturally."
I wouldn't say that the "art of photography" is dying. It is a different style and has advanced. Some say good, some bad. What I find funny is when I'm too old am I gonna say the same thing?! HAHA
Re: The ART of photography,,,, is it dead?????
Hi John
Point well made with the music thing. Although I tend to listen to the sounds I grew up with, like the Dead, Hot Tuna, Airplane, Fleetwood Mack, Cream. I don't like to much of what is being composed today. Some yes, Enya, Jana, most of what is produced today I would not consider music, which is exactly the argument my grandfather used with me when he and I used to discuss music. I have had this discussion with my own children in the past, and as I open my mouth I hear the same words that were spoken to me more that four decades earlier. So somethings change and somethings change but remain the same. Good point about the darkroom though.
Hi Denise:
"Many, many years ago my dad would go out fishing all day and maybe not
get a bite ...then came along his new son-in-law w/ his fish locating
scanner and showed him where the schools of fish were when they'd go
out on the boat. Took him awhile to accept this as truly fishing!"
My grandfather felt the same way. He did not consider all the new fangled gear as fishing. He felt that it took the place of actually being able to read natures signs to be able to catch fish. You know what,, he happened to be right about that,, whats more is he proved it on a regular bases as for an old codger he usually out fished everyone of those "smarty pants" youngsters... None of them could ever figure out how he did it either, because they relied on technology rather than their own brains and always acted like they were so much more enlightened. They shut up though when he would pull in with some behemoth mossyback of a fish that they never found with their fish finders.
Other than that you make a very compelling argument for the newer technology of the digital world of Photography, and it effects of changing the Art of Photography in a positive way..
Hi Sean:
Developing the in camera techniques is one of the things that I seem to be having trouble learning and probably the basis of most of my frustrations. As my much smarter and younger wife keeps telling me "take your time and practice and learn". Perhaps take some courses so I'm not always learning by trial & error. Somehow it does not seem to be as simple learning"new tricks as an old dog", rather than a young one.
I strictly shot transparency on my Pentax K1000 and sent them to Fugi to process. Never
had the skill or desire to do the darkroom thing. I learned most of
what I know from my grandfather. He was a senior engineer at Polaroid
and when Dr. Land hired Ansel Adams to teach Polaroids engineers more about the in front of camera art photography, it was
my grandfather's responsibility to be the <span>liaison
if you will and spent a pretty fair piece of time working with Adams
personally. Then he and Adams worked together teaching the other
engineers.
He never mentioned to me about Adams darkroom work probably because with Polaroid and the fact he shot transparencies he did not have the occasional need to do so. Interesting information though.
Hi John:
A very real, insightful and thought provoking comparison between the two different methods of post processing. Your point of view encourages me to take a more open minded and accepting view of digital.
Hi Jon:
Interesting points of view from on your part part. After thinking about them I can see the value of their applications. However you missed several of the points that I was trying to make. That is very easy to do with the written word because you can not hear the tonal inflections to know if someone is saying something seriously or with tong in cheek. Unfortunately you picked up on just about every instance that I did things tong in cheek. I would venture that is because those seemed the most provocatively closed minded when in fact I was just interjecting a bit of old yankee humor.
The child rearing thing,,,, you got completely wrong, not even close I'm afraid. I never compared two people having children and the different ways that they could/would raise them. I did make it I thought extremely clear I was talking about a person that has no experience at a given task telling someone that had a lot of experience at the same task what they are doing incorrectly and how to do it the correct way. When I was raising my children I always got a good chuckle out of those that thought they were so intellectually superior that they had to expound their vast knowledge of the task when in fact they had no knowledge or very little if at all.
I value your opinions and the generosity that you had enough of to be willing to share them with me. So if you are going to quote me in the future and then going to make your own point please do it accurately. Thank you Jon
I would like to extend my gratitude to all that have taken their time to give their personal insight into the subject at hand.
Thanks Much:
Wayne
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"]</input><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden" />
<div id="refHTML"]</div>
Re: The ART of photography,,,, is it dead?????
Hey Wayne,
just 1,5 years ago I started taking photos. As a child I shot some on film, but not really thinking about it. I think you are getting some words mixed up. Sometimes I look at some footage of my dads super 8 camera. And I think it looks great, but it's probably more the nostalgic feeling I get than lets say "art".
I think there's nostalgic, the art of photographing AND the art of post-processing, also called digital-art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iguide
After just a little while it became painfully obvious {to me anyway} that the real talent lies in understanding how to use a computer and using software program[;)]s to come up with the final " stunning desired look".
I think you're wrong here. I think the art of photography still is: taking a good composition, looking at angles, shadows, backgrounds etc etc. This doesn't change. If you want to achieve good end-results, you need to work with a solid basis. Yes you can tweak some colors and push some sliders here and there, but that's also about it for 9/10 people using programs like photoshop, lightroom, aperture etc.
In my idea there's only that 1/10 people that really know how to use photshop for instance to manipulate a "bad" shot photo to a great looking photo. Those people are digital artists. 9/10 people only know the basics. And those exact basics are pretty much the same basics as the "old days" analogue shooters had. There hasn't been a lot of change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iguide
Now I find that it still does take some of these in the field practices to create a "masterpiece",,, but,,,,,,,but so much can now be done artificially at home warm and safe in front of the computer.
So I disagree with you on this one. Like I can remember that a lot of people weren't convinced when internet or cellphones came around. To be honest, I don't think we can live without them anymore. The ways of communication didn't really change, postal mail vs digital mail etc. The drive is just different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iguide
I have maintained for nearly twenty years now that the best use of a computer is to fill it with cement and use it for a boat anchor
I'd like to see a photo of that, that would be digital art.
In the end, if you're really against the digital art which came with technological breakthrough, you probably also think wireless flash-photography isn't real photography?? [A] (At least I think they had no such option in analogue-days)
By the way: real "art" is also something very abstract. A lot of true artists didn't get the true artist tag while bringing out their work for the first time, but often they became "real artists" after like 10 years or even after their deaths. It's just a matter of taste for a lot of things.
I think to become a real artist, you need to be creative in a way no-one has been before. You need to show your own style with for instance your own sort of pose/lighting/angle etc etc. And I think it's getting much much harder to find an original feature like that to put behind your name.
The idea of photography is to capture a specific moment and in the end no digital post-processing can create such a moment and story for you, so I guess the art of photography definitely isn't dying and you should see post-processing as a mean to finish(not to make!!!) and publish your work.
-Jan
