This comment was made during a conversation I had with another about photography: "The trouble with film is that you don't know what you have until it comes back from the developer several days later. With digital you see what you took right now." My response was that it does make it easier. Yet I know there are many accomplished photographers who used film and consistently turned out images exposed correctly and to their liking. Through practice they progressed from "nervous amateur" who waited anxiously for the results to "confident photographer" Is that skill being lost?
I still shoot film but I convert the transparencies to digital format by scanning them into my computer. My skill with PhotoShop is increasing. This has changed my photography. I have developed the attitude that I can always clone or crop it out later. Unwanted elements which could only be avoided with careful composing through the viewfinder can now be simply removed later. To me this invites less time developing your skill composing in the field. No need to check the edges of the frame for protruding branches, etc. It is so easy to settle for what you see than taking the time to find a better composition without the unwanted elements.
What are your thoughts on this? Is photography getting easier. But at a price?
I don't know if "easier" is the right word. With so much additional information available in the field, my standards have gone way up and I work that much harder to meet them.
There's also the "fix it later" syndrome, whether digital capture or film and scan. Given the choice of getting it right in the first place or "photoshopping it" later, I much prefer field time to computer time. I am no longer seduced by photoshop, rather I put in a lot more work in the field simply to avoid extra computer time making up for sloppy work.
Lots of things get easier with advances in technology, including brain surgery, space travel, and yes - photography. Easier still doesn't imply easy.
To me any creative process is mostly about cognitive skills rather than mechanical ones. Even if you take the mechanics out of the equation completely - good images still require skill, training, imagination, and creativity, same as the always have.
People must have said the same thing when EOSs and Fs came out. Still people with very old Leicas or simple cameras made fantastic images. Actually too much of technology could be hindrance too (IMO). Yes it has become easier but still the ratio of junk/keeper remains the same.
What Guy said! I offer a couple of relevant quotes:
Photography is a marvelous discovery, a science that has attracted the greatest intellects, an art that excites the most astute minds – and one that can be practiced by any imbecile….Photographic theory can be taught in an hour, the basic technique in a day. But what cannot be taught is the feeling for light. Nadar, 1856
Photography isn't about the Zone System or any other Ansel Adams nonsense. It's simply about seeing. You either see or you don't see, the rest is academic.
~ Elliot Erwitt ~
And for what it's worth, although I use film exclusively and will continue to do so, I always know what I "have" immediately after exposure. There is no guesswork. I consider it unfortunate that many begin photography with a digital camera and foresake basic photographic principles (like exposure). The LCD will never be a substitute for skill.
Technically easier - Yes
Artistically easier - Don't think so - that part is still in the brain. Bad news for me!
More expensive - Pretty soon we'll have 30 year mortgages on our cameras.
And for what it's worth, although I use film exclusively and will continue to do so, I always know what I "have" immediately after exposure. There is no guess work. I consider it unfortunate that many begin photography with a digital camera and foresake the basic photographic principles (like exposure). The LCD will never be a substitute for skill
Michael, that is exactly the point I am making in the first paragraph of my post. Has technology advanced in photography that novice photographers do not have to learn basic photographic principles like exposure? Is that skill being lost? With one less skill to learn, isn't photography getting easier?
There is also the "fix it later" syndrome, whether digital capture or film and scan.
Hank, I appreciate your feelings on this "fix it later" syndrome. And I think there are some photographers who have fallen prey to that syndrome. I believe the basic photographic principle of composition suffers because of it. Nowadays there is no need to carefully scrutinize the edges of the frame when composing through the viewfinder. And images that would have been rejected in the field because of a pesky element are now readily accepted because that pesky element can be removed later. To me that makes it easier. But it also takes away a challenge regarding composition.
Photography is about seeing. Is this "seeing" a natural thing like a talent? Or can it be learned? How can we really learn to "see" if technology does it for us?
I am having a hard time digesting the quote by Henri Cartier Bresson that you just added. Maybe its because I feel that photography has changed in many ways solely due to advances in technology. It is altogether a different matter whether all photographers find a need for these advancements in producing their work, but the role of technology in shaping the very nature of photography shouldn't be ignored or trivialized. After all photography is perhaps one of the most technically advanced mediums among the visual arts (except perhaps for modern day digital art that is produced using a computer).
Yes and No. I agree with alot of the comments people have made. The tech part is easier no one will really argue that. Being able to see the image in the first place will stay the same for the most part.
The only part of the tech side that drives me insane is when elements are added, removed, swapped, etc. That is just me opinion and I'm strong on it. Digital has brought introduced many people to the art of photography and that is not bad a thing. I do not currently shoot digital at all, but I can see certainly see why some choose to. The part that bothers me and I feel reflects on all of us are alot of the images I see on other photosites, photonet specifically. There are rarely any photographs posted that represent the real scene in the slightest. Having said that I have viewed some very outstanding digital composites on photonet. What bothers me about it is when they are not forthcoming. I read somewhere about a guy who goes out and shoots the skies of sunrise/set then uses them later in images that need a sky. If someone were to have a library of just sky images then most likely they will have one that has similiar enough light in it to be added in a completely different scene that has bland sky and the result will be unnoticeable to all,but the very trained eye.
It seems to be that for the man or women who goes out and busts their butt to be in the right place at the right time in order take an outstanding image; their image is now in question as to whether it is real or a composite when viewed by alot of people. This is also drives me insane and is a result of the advances in technology.
Final answer is still yes and no. One is worthless without the other, but I do wonder what direction it is going.
You need to take Cartier-Bresson's comment in the context of his work. To him capturing the decisive moment was what it's all about. In fact he even said that the photograph itself doesn't interest him once the moment was captured. I interpret it to mean that the creative intent, whatever it is, is only assisted by technology rather than dependent on it - its essence doesn't change if the technology changes. It may become easier to accomplish a given task but the end result is still more about the artist than the tools.
Here's another from Cartier-Bresson:
"The photograph itself doesn't interest me. I want only to capture a minute part of reality."
Hmm... Technology makes it easier to obtain images with good (technical) quality - exposure, focus etc, but this doesn`t really say much about content. A snapshot of aunt Jenny and her cat is a snapshot of aunt Jenny and her cat even if you adjust perfect skin tones, add a catchlight to the cat`s eye in PS and interpolate the file so that you can print it billboard size.
I would like to see that anyone`s snapshots are of good quality. It might actually bring some life back into family albums - remember your grandpa`s B&W shots with some old rangefinder or TLR? I know i like to look at those and despise my own early snaps. I think cheap colour film and 1-hour development ruined most sunday shooters. Maybe some good digital camera technology and PS will bring some creativity back.
The other good thing. When anyone can get good quality images, it`s much harder to pretend that you`re a high artist just because you can get the shutter speed right. You have to go beyond the technicals to impress anybody. I`ve never cared much for the "big" fish in all these small ponds. ...Or maybe the technological advances just make more an more artists turn to Holga photography
I see no reason to worry too much about technology taking the fun or the art out of anything. You can write a novel on paper with ink or you could do the same with the latest $x000 laptop. Readers don`t care. They are interested in the content. You can take a photo with an ancient 11x14" view camera or the latest zillion MP Canon DSLR or a Holga and surprisingly few people would care (except photographers!).
The standard YOU set for your images` content is not built into any camera model nor is the way you `see`. It takes more discipline when it`s so easy to click away carelessly but nothing impossible about scrutinizing for the best result in the field. Most modern cameras have Full Auto exposure modes. Many serious photographers still prefer to use Manual on those cameras with no temptation to give up their control. Previsualisation of the expected result will remain as an essential element in the creation of a meaningful photograph, no matter if you see the result 3 sec. later on an LCD or a week later under a safelight (IMHO). Many people may not care about it, though. They might have different standards and goals. There is nothing wrong with that.
Photography is really very easy. And it continues to get easier and easier (which is a good thing IMO). Really, you could learn all the tecnical crap you ever need to know about photography in a matter of a few weeks. One-on-one I could teach someone all they need to know in a matter of days. The hard part is 'learning to see' and learning to see in your own voice. That involves immersing yourself in the moment and divorcing yourself from cluttering your brain with technique or the mundane stuff of everyday living. Great photography comes from the heart, not the head - it matters not if you use a Leica and TMAX or a 30D and Photoshop. The tools are just a means to the end - expression.
Oh yes, another thing, I used to use only manual exposure, incident light meters, be very precise about measuring exposre and filter factors and light colour and all that crap. Now literally, I just take my camera and set it on aperture priority and point-n-shoot. How liberating!! The more the camera does the technical garbage, the less I "think', and the better my photos become. Thank you to technology for taking all the know-how out of making a photo... I can now concentrate on content over technique. Photography is easier and more accesible than ever.
Thanks for the response. I understand where Cartier-Bresson is coming from and you have captured that sentiment very well in your last sentence - the end result is still more about the artist than the tools.
However, I also think it is naive (and perhaps in many ways egotistic) to say that tools don't help or hinder vision. I believe that the tools we use are in a large part responsible for the types of images we make - their limitations will often limit the end result, their capability will often help extend our creativity. Of course, this is a personal opinion and I don't expect others to agree with it.
Interesting thread and a very nice discussion. Thanks everyone.
Posted by Fred Stearns on May 16, 2006 at 10:02 PM
Very interesting thread. I will agree that there is the ability to take a higher quality picture today than ever before. However, a picture that was taken is still a snapshot. The people on this forum make pictures. The advances in technology all us to make better pictures (or do you prefer the term images?) than ever before. I believe that the new technology allows us to do things that were not possible before. I believe that this is true both of realistic nature photography and art photography. The new technology allows a new freedom, which makes life both easier and harder for us. What was a dynamite photograph 30 years ago, may be no more than a yawner today.
To continue Cindy's analogy, we have been on this photographic journey for varying lengths of time. We now have new tools to help us in our journey, much like the ancient mariner the first time he used a chronometer. More paths have opened. New horizons present themselves. Where will we go?
Guy said: You need to take Cartier-Bresson's comment in the context of his work. To him capturing the decisive moment was what it's all about. In fact he even said that the photograph itself doesn't interest him once the moment was captured.
To carry that thought even further, he so cared about the act of photographing that he quit doing it in the early 1970's and took up drawing and painting! He said: "All I care about these days is painting-—photography has never been more than a way into painting, a sort of instant drawing."
One of the hinderances I found in my work early on was the cerebral work that went on in my head with all the technicalities that it sometimes lead to missed photos. I noticed that as I got hold of the technical it became second nature and then the creativeness started to roll out what I thought were some great images. Today, using 35mm (film or digital) manual semi-auto or auto frees my mind and lets me get creative, like Darwin said. At the same time, exposing the film or exciting pixels is only half the game for me, I still need to complete it all via the print. What I find today though using a digital camera is that after viewing the LCD, it leaves me somewhat jilted as though it ends there, since the latent image that once was in the camera and only materialized in the tranny and print is now there on the LCD and I feel like once I see the image on the LCD its over. So in that sense, digital lets me down. It also, as Micheal said, is somewhat sad that most who begin photography today using digital never really understand what exposure is all about and how to nail it each and every time instead of chimping away at the LCD after each trip of the shutter to see if they got it. Today using the LF camera, hitting exposure right is not a matter of chance, you'd better get it otherwise it is a costly mistake. I know what I will get on my trannies now, and if I feel like I missed the exposure some, I always adjust for it in development, and 9 times out of 10, it comes out how I expected.
I'm just finishing teaching my last photo course for the season put on by my city rec department in basic photography. Many who attend have some impressive hardware. I lose about one third the class after the first lecture. About half finish.
At first this drop out rate alarmed me. Now I realize it has little to do with my teaching rather the students expectations. The basic course, three two hour classes is aimed at teaching better domestic shots for want of a better term. They seem to think they will be shooting like pros after six hours, largely due to their hardware investment.
Many have not read their manuals, understand the controls or even the concept of shooting vertically only horizontally. The first class deals with shutter speeds, ISO, etc. Those who are interested in taking better work come to appreciate that a better understanding of a tool called a camera, last. The others who believe the camera will take the photo for them don't.
A camera is but a means to an end. There are those who get caught up in the technology of photography, the latest everything. While I can appreciate that as an interest, even a vocation, they may not be photographers.
I studied under the English photographer John Blakemore. When I graduated he asked me what I had learned. When I replied that the camera was the least important part of photography, he said, "For three years, that isn't bad."
However, I also think it is naive (and perhaps in many ways egotistic) to say that tools don't help or hinder vision. >>>
I have seen many people who are taking poor pictures with their DSLRs because they think 'well, I paid $$$$s for this, it should give the pictures of pro quality by using that dial on the green square'. The very same people could make better pictures earlier. One of them is a friend of mine, he had a small Mue with fixed lense. It perhaps forced him to move. Ergo- Technically advanced tools could be hinderance (well, am not sure of that is the right word) in the case where people take it for granted. Good photographers will take any camera and make fantastic pictures. For some it will an easy job with a new camera and more use of delete button.
I think it is certainly much easier in the case of bird photography.The extra "reach" provided by teaming most digital bodies with a long lens makes it much easier to achieve good portrait shots of birds. There are other considerations: the extra disposable income many of us have now, and hence the ability to purchase lens that once only "pros" could justify, and the considerable improvements we have experienced in equipment in general making good gear accessible to all.
Is this a bad thing? Not at all. Maybe newcomers to our hobby don't have to master the same field skills in order to get a satisfactory image, but this increased "competition" makes the more experienced bird photographer strive that much harder to look for an action shot, or just strive that bit harder to perfect their own images, and that can't be bad, can it?
Technology is always changing and our lives, hopefully, improved by it. My argument is not against new technology, none of us here get up in the morning and prepare plates for the day's shooting, rather a reliance on technology as the end rather than the means.
You may recall when graphics software first came out, employers who would load Coreldraw on the secretary's computer to save the cost of a graphic designer. As a designer friend puts it, they got results that looked like 'ransom notes'. Technology is not a subsitute for either training or experience.
I'm currently doing a commercial shoot here. There is a host of difficulties to deal with. Subject, location, time, logistics, communication. While the digital camera means I don't have to wait two weeks to see film processed in the south, it doesn't make any of the other many photographic considerations of the shoot any easier.
I with you buddy! I'm over the camera operator syndrome. I'm not saying that a new photographer doesn't need to understand exposure, etc. because they do. I'm just stating that for me, I'm over it! I love my digital camera! It's soooooooooo easy and I love it.
I'm on my third compact digital camera of the new century, with my current camera a 7mp Nikon Coolpix 7900. Shooting is indeed easier than with any camera before. I don't tend to use the default and automatic settings but rather those that I've learned work best to fit specific situations. I'm very impressed with the uncanny consistency of the Nikon exposure function though some other functions get less than five stars. Considering the resolution results are certainly comparable to Kodachrome results I would get from the old 35mm work, each shot takes far less efffort. The largest problem of the LCD screen visibility for composing frames is not true of higher end DSLRs. Additionally the ability to take several shots and delete all but those one wants is a huge benefit. Often I can't exactly tell what I've shot especially with macros or how sharp it might be.
Unlike the DSLR crowd, I haven't left the film world and won't anytime soon because I shoot large format. That keeps me absolutely grounded in basic photographic optical concepts and process. It is true mastering the skills to consistently do well with view cameras is difficult, and the process tedious, however the rewards are still well beyond the reach of other camera systems. As someone that rarely brackets using narrow exposure latitude slide film, and consistently has a large percentage of exact exposures, I'm amazed at how sensitive I've become to light levels. These days unless light is really dim, I almost always know where to set my exposure EV before checking it with my digital light meter.
Given your and Robert fix-it comments, you might look what I posted on this current Hot Topics post below. Simply by personal choice of style, I've not given up on keeping photographs essentially as they were taken. A recent landscape image that I had Tango scanned and Photoshop processed for a 30x38 inch Lightjet5k marketable print has a small jet streak in the sky. I don't like it there but left it in. That is what happened at that moment of time, what I captured, and what I'll present or market to the public. Choosing such a style means I won't be able to get some shots others might make, however I continue to do so well that I haven't any qualms on continuing to follow that path. ...David
Technology will never replace passion, desire, determination, and practice on the road to becoming an accomplished photographer. But is technology paving the road somewhat? Making the journey easier?
The only part of the tech side that drives me insane is when elements are added, removed, swapped, etc.
Robert, in a minor sense I have been guilty of doing that. Removing a distracting branch protruding into the frame for example. It was that kind of habit that motivated me to post this thread. It makes photography easier for me. But I doubt if it is a wise route to take. So I agree with your stance on that subject. It puts unaltered photos into question. And hence the creation of TrustImage. (I got to check the spelling of that)
Technology makes it easier to obtain images with good (technical) quality- exposure, focus etc, but this doesn't really say much about content.
Ott, I am with you on that one. Getting past the good technical quality and moving on to content is perhaps a major hurdle for many aspiring photographers and that is where the hard work begins.
I used to use only manual exposure, incident light meters, be very precise about measuring exposure and filter features and light colour and all that crap, now literally, I just take my camera and set it on aperture priority and point-n-shoot.
Darwin, could a novice by-pass the manual exposure, precise measuring, etc and go directly to the next stage that you are currently enjoying? If he could, and there is no need to learn the former, then apparently photography is getting easier. At least in the technical sense.
Like you say, great photography comes from the heart and perhaps there is no easy road to content.
Youssef, I am with you that technicalities can be a hindrance but once the techs become second nature, creativity rises to the fore. Technology can become mired down in technicalities. You write:
...somewhat sad that most who begin photography today using digital never really understand what exposure is all about and how to nail it each and every time instead of chimping away at the LCD after each trip of the shutter to see if they got it
I wonder about this. Could understanding exposure basics be by-passed nowadays. Providing one shuns the LF format?
they seem to think they will be shooting like pros after six hours, largely due to their hardware investment...Those who are interested in taking better work come to appreciate that a better understanding of a tool called a camera, last. The others who believe the camera will take the photo for them don't
David, that is because they have been "brainwashed" into thinking that way. That is the impression we are supposed to have when we look at the advertisements. Perhaps as an analogy, an artist needs to learn brush techniques ,colors, paints etc. but the work comes from the creative mind of the artist. Here again I am reminded of Ott's remark on content.
Thanks for all the great response to this post. I read and ponder each and every one.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Fred Stearns on May 17, 2006 at 10:25 PM
Jim, It seems that when I said, "What was a dynamite photograph 30 years ago, may be no more than a yawner today.", I seem to have struck a raw nerve. Thirty years ago, I was shooting Kodachrome. Don't you agree that modern films have surpassed the quailty of Kodachrome? The camera, lenses, electronics, etc. have all shown similar gains. This does not mean that any picture taken today will surpass those taken 30 years ago. However, the capabilities of the new equipment have allowed techniques not possible 30 years ago. The utilization of these new techniques, the better technology, and, in my opionion, the increased compitition between photographers has definately raised the bar as to what is considered a good photograph. It is my opinion that the improved photographic equipment available today together with a firm understanding of the technical aspects always present in photography allows for much more creative control over the end product then was available before.
I do believe that a great photograph is a great photograph, no matter when it was taken of with what equipment. The works of the Greats of Photography will stand as icons. The fact that they were first and led the way lends them an even greater importance in the history of photography. Like many of you, I have seen wonderful pictures taken with a point-n-shoot camera in the hands of a skilled photographer. Just look at some of the galleries on this site. Likewise, I have seen technically flawless snapshots taken on professional camera equipment in the hands, well what do I say, a snapshot shooter?
For my own part, the new generation of cameras, both film and digital, have allowed me to improve, my technique and, at least in my own mind, the quality of my images. My previous SLRs were an Olympus OM-1 and on OM-G. While good cameras, they had the limitations present in most, if not all, cameras of the time. Photographs that I won awards for in the late 1970s, elicit much deserved critism today. If this were not true, I would be dissappointed. I enjoy a moving target as it forces me to learn more and improve my skills.
"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson
Henri also said, "I care nothing for photography -- it is life that interests me."
His famous book "The decisive Moment" was originally titled "Photographs Taken on the Run" (In French). I'm sure he never used a tripod outside of the studio. Never used a lens longer than 85mm. He used a Leica with a 35 or 50mm lens handheld taking photographs (he sometimes called them snaps) on the run. He never made a single print in the darkroom (he called them enlargements) -- he left that to others because his time was precious.
Cartier-Bresson was the embodiment of vision. His eye was perfect. The rest was 'nonsense' he might have said. (Remember he was French!)
If he were 35 today what camera would he be using? Nothing bigger than a Leica IIIF, I'll bet!
Fred, the new generation of cameras has allowed you to improve because they are better tools. With the right tools you are freed of any limitations and the way is open to concentrate on your creativity. So in that sense I believe photography is getting easier. But at the same time do not give too much credit to the camera, Fred. Your improvement has to be from your hard work.
Frank, I decided to look up Henri Cartier Bresson to see what kind of work he did. He was a gifted man. Thanks for the tribute.
Digital has made it easier for those that don't want or desire to know exposure. I shoot with a handheld meter, incident and spot, I will frame my image the way I want and then work out the exposure for that shot. My exposure with my meter takes all of about 10 sec. I either use a ambient reading or I spot meter the scene. I also know what I have on film before I get it back and know my exposure is right, no if's or but's it's correct.
Now we have Digital if has taken the "nervousness" out of exposure for a lot of photographers, Has this made it easier? Well hell yes...but only for the exposure side of photography and good on it, if it helps those to get correct exposure in their images that's a plus to them.
Unfortunately though it has a down side, while professional photographers such as Darwin here can say he now leaves it on apertue priority and point and shoot's that doesn't work for those starting out in phototgraphy and Darwin is correct in saying
The hard part is 'learning to see' and learning to see in your own voice. That involves immersing yourself in the moment and divorcing yourself from cluttering your brain with technique or the mundane stuff of everyday living. Great photography comes from the heart, not the head - it matters not if you use a Leica and TMAX or a 30D and Photoshop. The tools are just a means to the end - expression.
This is the problem I see with digital..to many are skipping the art of seeing and happily snapping anything.
So while Digital has made it easy in one repect, getting up at 4am in the morning to chase morning light and catch special moments is not easy at all
Now we have Digital if has taken the "nervousness" out of exposure for a lot of photographers, Has this made it easier? Well hell yes...but only for the exposure side of photography and good on it, if it helps those to get correct exposure in their images that's a plus to them.
Auto-exposure may help people get the 'correct' exposure, but is the photographer actually learning anything from it?
Micheal I didn't say they were learning anything from it and I've had this argument with a few digital photographers, being they don't care about learning that side of it. The question was is photography getting easier and in the digital side yes it has got easier. People don't have to learn exposure they can, and many do just point and shoot and check the histogram. Of course that teches nothing to my way of thinking but if it works for them and their happy well good for them
I'm still a film shooter, tried digital and hated it, and I still think every photographer should learn the basics. Digital has made the basics a thing of the past. I will and still do teach the fundementals of photography.
Still looking a histogram or learning proper exposure still doesn't teach anyone the art of seeing. That to me is a lifelong process and we all see in different ways. That's to me is the part that still makes photography a challenge to me and why I keep doing it.
Discussion
33 repliesI still shoot film but I convert the transparencies to digital format by scanning them into my computer. My skill with PhotoShop is increasing. This has changed my photography. I have developed the attitude that I can always clone or crop it out later. Unwanted elements which could only be avoided with careful composing through the viewfinder can now be simply removed later. To me this invites less time developing your skill composing in the field. No need to check the edges of the frame for protruding branches, etc. It is so easy to settle for what you see than taking the time to find a better composition without the unwanted elements.
What are your thoughts on this? Is photography getting easier. But at a price?
I thank you for your replies.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
There's also the "fix it later" syndrome, whether digital capture or film and scan. Given the choice of getting it right in the first place or "photoshopping it" later, I much prefer field time to computer time. I am no longer seduced by photoshop, rather I put in a lot more work in the field simply to avoid extra computer time making up for sloppy work.
To me any creative process is mostly about cognitive skills rather than mechanical ones. Even if you take the mechanics out of the equation completely - good images still require skill, training, imagination, and creativity, same as the always have.
Guy
Photography is a marvelous discovery, a science that has attracted the greatest intellects, an art that excites the most astute minds – and one that can be practiced by any imbecile….Photographic theory can be taught in an hour, the basic technique in a day. But what cannot be taught is the feeling for light. Nadar, 1856
Photography isn't about the Zone System or any other Ansel Adams nonsense. It's simply about seeing. You either see or you don't see, the rest is academic.
~ Elliot Erwitt ~
And for what it's worth, although I use film exclusively and will continue to do so, I always know what I "have" immediately after exposure. There is no guesswork. I consider it unfortunate that many begin photography with a digital camera and foresake basic photographic principles (like exposure). The LCD will never be a substitute for skill.
The more machines do the work, the less people know how to think.
It doesn't matter how advanced photo technology gets, - - I will still manage to screw it up!
Artistically easier - Don't think so - that part is still in the brain. Bad news for me!
More expensive - Pretty soon we'll have 30 year mortgages on our cameras.
"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson
Guy
Michael, that is exactly the point I am making in the first paragraph of my post. Has technology advanced in photography that novice photographers do not have to learn basic photographic principles like exposure? Is that skill being lost? With one less skill to learn, isn't photography getting easier?
Hank, I appreciate your feelings on this "fix it later" syndrome. And I think there are some photographers who have fallen prey to that syndrome. I believe the basic photographic principle of composition suffers because of it. Nowadays there is no need to carefully scrutinize the edges of the frame when composing through the viewfinder. And images that would have been rejected in the field because of a pesky element are now readily accepted because that pesky element can be removed later. To me that makes it easier. But it also takes away a challenge regarding composition.
Photography is about seeing. Is this "seeing" a natural thing like a talent? Or can it be learned? How can we really learn to "see" if technology does it for us?
Thank you for all the response.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
I am having a hard time digesting the quote by Henri Cartier Bresson that you just added. Maybe its because I feel that photography has changed in many ways solely due to advances in technology. It is altogether a different matter whether all photographers find a need for these advancements in producing their work, but the role of technology in shaping the very nature of photography shouldn't be ignored or trivialized. After all photography is perhaps one of the most technically advanced mediums among the visual arts (except perhaps for modern day digital art that is produced using a computer).
The only part of the tech side that drives me insane is when elements are added, removed, swapped, etc. That is just me opinion and I'm strong on it. Digital has brought introduced many people to the art of photography and that is not bad a thing. I do not currently shoot digital at all, but I can see certainly see why some choose to. The part that bothers me and I feel reflects on all of us are alot of the images I see on other photosites, photonet specifically. There are rarely any photographs posted that represent the real scene in the slightest. Having said that I have viewed some very outstanding digital composites on photonet. What bothers me about it is when they are not forthcoming. I read somewhere about a guy who goes out and shoots the skies of sunrise/set then uses them later in images that need a sky. If someone were to have a library of just sky images then most likely they will have one that has similiar enough light in it to be added in a completely different scene that has bland sky and the result will be unnoticeable to all,but the very trained eye.
It seems to be that for the man or women who goes out and busts their butt to be in the right place at the right time in order take an outstanding image; their image is now in question as to whether it is real or a composite when viewed by alot of people. This is also drives me insane and is a result of the advances in technology.
Final answer is still yes and no. One is worthless without the other, but I do wonder what direction it is going.
Ramble over.
You need to take Cartier-Bresson's comment in the context of his work. To him capturing the decisive moment was what it's all about. In fact he even said that the photograph itself doesn't interest him once the moment was captured. I interpret it to mean that the creative intent, whatever it is, is only assisted by technology rather than dependent on it - its essence doesn't change if the technology changes. It may become easier to accomplish a given task but the end result is still more about the artist than the tools.
Here's another from Cartier-Bresson:
"The photograph itself doesn't interest me. I want only to capture a minute part of reality."
Guy
I would like to see that anyone`s snapshots are of good quality. It might actually bring some life back into family albums - remember your grandpa`s B&W shots with some old rangefinder or TLR? I know i like to look at those and despise my own early snaps. I think cheap colour film and 1-hour development ruined most sunday shooters. Maybe some good digital camera technology and PS will bring some creativity back.
The other good thing. When anyone can get good quality images, it`s much harder to pretend that you`re a high artist just because you can get the shutter speed right. You have to go beyond the technicals to impress anybody. I`ve never cared much for the "big" fish in all these small ponds. ...Or maybe the technological advances just make more an more artists turn to Holga photography
I see no reason to worry too much about technology taking the fun or the art out of anything. You can write a novel on paper with ink or you could do the same with the latest $x000 laptop. Readers don`t care. They are interested in the content. You can take a photo with an ancient 11x14" view camera or the latest zillion MP Canon DSLR or a Holga and surprisingly few people would care (except photographers!).
The standard YOU set for your images` content is not built into any camera model nor is the way you `see`. It takes more discipline when it`s so easy to click away carelessly but nothing impossible about scrutinizing for the best result in the field. Most modern cameras have Full Auto exposure modes. Many serious photographers still prefer to use Manual on those cameras with no temptation to give up their control. Previsualisation of the expected result will remain as an essential element in the creation of a meaningful photograph, no matter if you see the result 3 sec. later on an LCD or a week later under a safelight (IMHO). Many people may not care about it, though. They might have different standards and goals. There is nothing wrong with that.
(sorry for the lengthy post)
Thanks for the response. I understand where Cartier-Bresson is coming from and you have captured that sentiment very well in your last sentence - the end result is still more about the artist than the tools.
However, I also think it is naive (and perhaps in many ways egotistic) to say that tools don't help or hinder vision. I believe that the tools we use are in a large part responsible for the types of images we make - their limitations will often limit the end result, their capability will often help extend our creativity. Of course, this is a personal opinion and I don't expect others to agree with it.
Interesting thread and a very nice discussion. Thanks everyone.
To continue Cindy's analogy, we have been on this photographic journey for varying lengths of time. We now have new tools to help us in our journey, much like the ancient mariner the first time he used a chronometer. More paths have opened. New horizons present themselves. Where will we go?
Now, if only I could master Photoshop!!!!
To carry that thought even further, he so cared about the act of photographing that he quit doing it in the early 1970's and took up drawing and painting! He said: "All I care about these days is painting-—photography has never been more than a way into painting, a sort of instant drawing."
At first this drop out rate alarmed me. Now I realize it has little to do with my teaching rather the students expectations. The basic course, three two hour classes is aimed at teaching better domestic shots for want of a better term. They seem to think they will be shooting like pros after six hours, largely due to their hardware investment.
Many have not read their manuals, understand the controls or even the concept of shooting vertically only horizontally. The first class deals with shutter speeds, ISO, etc. Those who are interested in taking better work come to appreciate that a better understanding of a tool called a camera, last. The others who believe the camera will take the photo for them don't.
A camera is but a means to an end. There are those who get caught up in the technology of photography, the latest everything. While I can appreciate that as an interest, even a vocation, they may not be photographers.
I studied under the English photographer John Blakemore. When I graduated he asked me what I had learned. When I replied that the camera was the least important part of photography, he said, "For three years, that isn't bad."
Dave
I have seen many people who are taking poor pictures with their DSLRs because they think 'well, I paid $$$$s for this, it should give the pictures of pro quality by using that dial on the green square'. The very same people could make better pictures earlier. One of them is a friend of mine, he had a small Mue with fixed lense. It perhaps forced him to move. Ergo- Technically advanced tools could be hinderance (well, am not sure of that is the right word) in the case where people take it for granted. Good photographers will take any camera and make fantastic pictures. For some it will an easy job with a new camera and more use of delete button.
Is this a bad thing? Not at all. Maybe newcomers to our hobby don't have to master the same field skills in order to get a satisfactory image, but this increased "competition" makes the more experienced bird photographer strive that much harder to look for an action shot, or just strive that bit harder to perfect their own images, and that can't be bad, can it?
Colin
Technology is always changing and our lives, hopefully, improved by it. My argument is not against new technology, none of us here get up in the morning and prepare plates for the day's shooting, rather a reliance on technology as the end rather than the means.
You may recall when graphics software first came out, employers who would load Coreldraw on the secretary's computer to save the cost of a graphic designer. As a designer friend puts it, they got results that looked like 'ransom notes'. Technology is not a subsitute for either training or experience.
I'm currently doing a commercial shoot here. There is a host of difficulties to deal with. Subject, location, time, logistics, communication. While the digital camera means I don't have to wait two weeks to see film processed in the south, it doesn't make any of the other many photographic considerations of the shoot any easier.
Cheers,
Dave
Why? This may be the most questionable comment that I ever have seen.
Do you think that any image made today with modern equipment will be heads and shoulders above anything made in the past?
I with you buddy! I'm over the camera operator syndrome. I'm not saying that a new photographer doesn't need to understand exposure, etc. because they do. I'm just stating that for me, I'm over it! I love my digital camera! It's soooooooooo easy and I love it.
I'm on my third compact digital camera of the new century, with my current camera a 7mp Nikon Coolpix 7900. Shooting is indeed easier than with any camera before. I don't tend to use the default and automatic settings but rather those that I've learned work best to fit specific situations. I'm very impressed with the uncanny consistency of the Nikon exposure function though some other functions get less than five stars. Considering the resolution results are certainly comparable to Kodachrome results I would get from the old 35mm work, each shot takes far less efffort. The largest problem of the LCD screen visibility for composing frames is not true of higher end DSLRs. Additionally the ability to take several shots and delete all but those one wants is a huge benefit. Often I can't exactly tell what I've shot especially with macros or how sharp it might be.
Unlike the DSLR crowd, I haven't left the film world and won't anytime soon because I shoot large format. That keeps me absolutely grounded in basic photographic optical concepts and process. It is true mastering the skills to consistently do well with view cameras is difficult, and the process tedious, however the rewards are still well beyond the reach of other camera systems. As someone that rarely brackets using narrow exposure latitude slide film, and consistently has a large percentage of exact exposures, I'm amazed at how sensitive I've become to light levels. These days unless light is really dim, I almost always know where to set my exposure EV before checking it with my digital light meter.
Given your and Robert fix-it comments, you might look what I posted on this current Hot Topics post below. Simply by personal choice of style, I've not given up on keeping photographs essentially as they were taken. A recent landscape image that I had Tango scanned and Photoshop processed for a 30x38 inch Lightjet5k marketable print has a small jet streak in the sky. I don't like it there but left it in. That is what happened at that moment of time, what I captured, and what I'll present or market to the public. Choosing such a style means I won't be able to get some shots others might make, however I continue to do so well that I haven't any qualms on continuing to follow that path. ...David
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=3196&b=vf27&st=0&la=42&ph=3&sid=4787&u=4787
The only part of the tech side that drives me insane is when elements are added, removed, swapped, etc.
Robert, in a minor sense I have been guilty of doing that. Removing a distracting branch protruding into the frame for example. It was that kind of habit that motivated me to post this thread. It makes photography easier for me. But I doubt if it is a wise route to take. So I agree with your stance on that subject. It puts unaltered photos into question. And hence the creation of TrustImage. (I got to check the spelling of that)
Technology makes it easier to obtain images with good (technical) quality- exposure, focus etc, but this doesn't really say much about content.
Ott, I am with you on that one. Getting past the good technical quality and moving on to content is perhaps a major hurdle for many aspiring photographers and that is where the hard work begins.
I used to use only manual exposure, incident light meters, be very precise about measuring exposure and filter features and light colour and all that crap, now literally, I just take my camera and set it on aperture priority and point-n-shoot.
Darwin, could a novice by-pass the manual exposure, precise measuring, etc and go directly to the next stage that you are currently enjoying? If he could, and there is no need to learn the former, then apparently photography is getting easier. At least in the technical sense.
Like you say, great photography comes from the heart and perhaps there is no easy road to content.
Youssef, I am with you that technicalities can be a hindrance but once the techs become second nature, creativity rises to the fore. Technology can become mired down in technicalities. You write:
...somewhat sad that most who begin photography today using digital never really understand what exposure is all about and how to nail it each and every time instead of chimping away at the LCD after each trip of the shutter to see if they got it
I wonder about this. Could understanding exposure basics be by-passed nowadays. Providing one shuns the LF format?
they seem to think they will be shooting like pros after six hours, largely due to their hardware investment...Those who are interested in taking better work come to appreciate that a better understanding of a tool called a camera, last. The others who believe the camera will take the photo for them don't
David, that is because they have been "brainwashed" into thinking that way. That is the impression we are supposed to have when we look at the advertisements. Perhaps as an analogy, an artist needs to learn brush techniques ,colors, paints etc. but the work comes from the creative mind of the artist. Here again I am reminded of Ott's remark on content.
Thanks for all the great response to this post. I read and ponder each and every one.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
I do believe that a great photograph is a great photograph, no matter when it was taken of with what equipment. The works of the Greats of Photography will stand as icons. The fact that they were first and led the way lends them an even greater importance in the history of photography. Like many of you, I have seen wonderful pictures taken with a point-n-shoot camera in the hands of a skilled photographer. Just look at some of the galleries on this site. Likewise, I have seen technically flawless snapshots taken on professional camera equipment in the hands, well what do I say, a snapshot shooter?
For my own part, the new generation of cameras, both film and digital, have allowed me to improve, my technique and, at least in my own mind, the quality of my images. My previous SLRs were an Olympus OM-1 and on OM-G. While good cameras, they had the limitations present in most, if not all, cameras of the time. Photographs that I won awards for in the late 1970s, elicit much deserved critism today. If this were not true, I would be dissappointed. I enjoy a moving target as it forces me to learn more and improve my skills.
Henri also said, "I care nothing for photography -- it is life that interests me."
His famous book "The decisive Moment" was originally titled "Photographs Taken on the Run" (In French). I'm sure he never used a tripod outside of the studio. Never used a lens longer than 85mm. He used a Leica with a 35 or 50mm lens handheld taking photographs (he sometimes called them snaps) on the run. He never made a single print in the darkroom (he called them enlargements) -- he left that to others because his time was precious.
Cartier-Bresson was the embodiment of vision. His eye was perfect. The rest was 'nonsense' he might have said. (Remember he was French!)
If he were 35 today what camera would he be using? Nothing bigger than a Leica IIIF, I'll bet!
Frank, I decided to look up Henri Cartier Bresson to see what kind of work he did. He was a gifted man. Thanks for the tribute.
Again, thank you to all.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Digital has made it easier for those that don't want or desire to know exposure. I shoot with a handheld meter, incident and spot, I will frame my image the way I want and then work out the exposure for that shot. My exposure with my meter takes all of about 10 sec. I either use a ambient reading or I spot meter the scene. I also know what I have on film before I get it back and know my exposure is right, no if's or but's it's correct.
Now we have Digital if has taken the "nervousness" out of exposure for a lot of photographers, Has this made it easier? Well hell yes...but only for the exposure side of photography and good on it, if it helps those to get correct exposure in their images that's a plus to them.
Unfortunately though it has a down side, while professional photographers such as Darwin here can say he now leaves it on apertue priority and point and shoot's that doesn't work for those starting out in phototgraphy and Darwin is correct in saying
This is the problem I see with digital..to many are skipping the art of seeing and happily snapping anything.
So while Digital has made it easy in one repect, getting up at 4am in the morning to chase morning light and catch special moments is not easy at all
Auto-exposure may help people get the 'correct' exposure, but is the photographer actually learning anything from it?
I'm still a film shooter, tried digital and hated it, and I still think every photographer should learn the basics. Digital has made the basics a thing of the past. I will and still do teach the fundementals of photography.
Still looking a histogram or learning proper exposure still doesn't teach anyone the art of seeing. That to me is a lifelong process and we all see in different ways. That's to me is the part that still makes photography a challenge to me and why I keep doing it.