While a friend and I were hanging an exhibition yesterday which forms part the local library's contribution to Citryread month, I had a brief conversation with a young man who was not impressed that all the images had been produced digitally. Apparently a "proper photographer" shoots with a 1930s camera and digital technology makes it too easy to get a good result.
I would agree that modern cameras are easier to use than their wholly mechanical forebears and digital imaging removes a lot of the inconvenience associated with film. Does this mean that technology has deskilled photography? Yes, it is easier to get an image that is well exposed and in focus, but there is more to photography than that as a quick trawl through websites like flickr will demonstrate. Finding really good photographs can be very time consuming.
Photographers of the past certainly faced significant challenges and needed both the ability to see what would make a good photograph and the technical skills to make it a reality. Is everything so different today? Automation at the taking stage makes life easier, especially for those fleeting moments, and a computer is a lot less hassle to than a darkroom. What has really happened is that proficiency in one area has been supplanted by another and a different set of knowledge is required.
The RPS will tell you that digital technology has meant that more people are pursuing photography and standards are getting higher to achieve their distinctions. I would suggest that technology has made some of the more mechanical aspects easier, but the more important aesthetic expression remains as difficult as ever.
Of course, the young man in question will never see this article. Even if he knows about this forum, what need would a proper photographer have for a computer and the Internet?
That is an interesting viewpoint from the young man. I have been a keen photographer for many years and enjoyed the days of the 35mm film camera. On reflection though I think that the digital age has made it more enjoyable for me. You can see the result instantly(well if the bi focals work), cost of developing has gone. My concern is perhaps how much the image is changed or can be changed once you have taken it, althought some adjustments could be done in developing 35mm film.
Overall it is a good step forward and I am sure more people have got into photography than they would have with 35mm film. Perhaps that is the real issue the competition is to much!!!!!
I grew up on film, shot it for decades. Always loved it. I made the switch to digital 10 years ago, have not missed film once since then. And no matter how many technical advances, digital will never compensate for poor composition. So in my opinion, the art of composition is the number one factor in determining if one is a good photographer or not.
I guess painters aren't "real" if they buy paint in tubes instead of grinding the colors themselves. Such a specious argument. Let's write it off as the thoughts of a brash young man who is still finding his way in the world.
I believe you have those who literally fell in love with the art, and with the means they have chosen to achieve their finished products. I admire those who have mastered the use of the film camera and have created some beautiful masterpieces. I was never able to grasp all the manual settings, so it was a real pain for me, and expensive. The world of digital photography has allowed me so much more freedom, and opportunity for creating pieces that I enjoy. I too ran into a man once at an art walk where I had several pieces on display. He went on and on about how people today really do not understand that you cannot get photos like this with a digital camera, and he thought it was a shame that film is being used less and less. Then he asked me which camera I use, and I said, "A Canon Rebel DSLR" and he artfully slipped into asking me some questions about editing, etc. Photography is such a vast art, no different than the art of sculpting, or painting. There are so many tools to use. Just because one doesn't use the tools you particularly like using, doesn't make them less an artist. A true artist shines when they demonstrate their ability to create a masterpiece, period. Whether the tools are the expensive knives and brushes or simply their hands. For someone to make such a limiting statement like that only demonstrates
their narrow and limited way of interpreting the world of art.
It's all relevent to the options available to us. My son often reminds me there is 'an artist' who regurtitates stuff and then blows it around on paper with a straw to sell. He gets a lot of money because it's wierd and different. People are always looking for different. Some will argue that is not art at all yet people are buying it.
It's easier for everyone to take photos but not everyone knows how to take decent phots. I know because I am working on improving that aspect daily. Lots of professional photographers are feeling threatened knowing they are competing with amateurs who can't match their level, who are giving their work away for free. The truth is though, they don't survive. Not everyone who picks up a camera has the fortitude to really learn how to use it and develop their skills. Those who do will rise above the masses. It's just how it works.
Like musicians, there are those who create and there are those who can play or sing really well. It's the difference between a chef and a cook. It is the same for photographers. Everyone know the music trends change, food trends change, clothing styles change, decorating changes, .... Why then would photography be any different? If a photographer refuses to see the value in what is happening on any given day then they are deluding themselves. Sure, there are up and coming photographers but really most of us just take photos. A 'proper photographer' knows the equpment and plays it well. A 'proper photographer' sets the bar and the trends.
Those who came before us are the only ones we have to compare against. In a hundred years it will be a whole different group who will be considered pioneers. These will be photographers of our time. These will be people who created new ways to interpret and manipulate the equipment. Does that mean there are no longer 'proper photographers'? No, it means a new generation is leading the pack and that is us. That is anyone willing to develop and grow and create. We will take the teachings of those before us apply it to today's world. Much like this project, some will drop out, some will finish a year and drop out, and others will keep pushing forward. Those who push forward will become the 'proper photographers' of tomorrow.
I find it funny that a young man is anti technology. It is usually older people that feel that way about computers and technology. One of my jobs at work is to photograph all of the new cars and post those photos to our website. It is a large company and there are several other people that do the same thing I do at other locations. My boss knows very little about photography but he can see the difference in my pictures and is happy with the job I am doing. Most of the other pictures are just atrocious! Really bad composition! A fancy camera and computer do not make a good photographer!
This is a debate that has been around since the dawn of digital. It's a shame that these people can't just see photography as subjective like it is. I love the beauty of film photography, maybe because it is more "pure" than digital that can be altered and edited beyond recognition, maybe because on film you take pictures intentionally because you know that you are going to have to develop that one, there's no delete button. But I'm also amazed at some of the editing people are capable of. I don't understand these people who feel like there can't be room for both.
I can take a bad picture in digital just as well I can take a bad picture with film. It seems your friend is missing some vital information regarding post-processing. In the darkroom with film they also manipulated the images to make a better picture, ask Ansel Adams. Today with digital, manipulating the image is available to more people and can be done without the chemicals. No matter what medium you use to get the image, it is still the challenge to get the best image you can in camera.
Does he wash his clothes by beating them on rocks, make every single meal he eats from scratch, ride a horse to work?
Although...did anyone else see the basketball game where the kid came down wrong and broke his leg? Yea I saw that in 55 inches of high definition. It made me miss the fuzzy rabbit ear days because some things you just can't unsee
Digital killed the Kodachrome star. Oh yes, this old chestnut. Some of you may know, I shoot film; lots of it on many different frames. I do this because I feel it keeps me grounded in the "art" of my own vision of what photography is. While I have two pretty good digital cameras (Canon 5DMKII and Leica M9), which can do in an instant what takes me much longer on film; and usually with results more in line with today's consumer expectations, it is film that gives me real pleasure. For me, a success on film FAR outweighs success on digital. What used to be spectacular on film now only gets a passing glance because so many people can get the same results (or better) from their point-and-shoot in a second. Having to think about every aspect of a photo (focus, aperture, shutter speed, framing, lighting, water temperature, development time, etc.) gives me a lot more pleasure with the end result than shooting digital; even though the digital image might be more popular. I feel digital has raised expectations beyond what is capable with film, and PhotoShop has raised expectations beyond the capabilities of digital. And it is this public expectation that keeps film mired in the arcane; only truly appreciated by those who have realized how limited and rare a great film photograph can be. Take pinhole photography for example. Hours of prep for a single shot, which usually turns out like a foggy disaster around the edges and drunken stag night in the middle; easily thrown out if found on your memory card. But understanding the effort and mechanics that went into a single pinhole shot is what really gives it value; and if you don't understand these details, the image has no worth. Many argue in favor of digital and poo-poo film purists, but I would wager the vast majority of those people have never developed their own film shot from an old pocket folder. Sure, film can be dodged, burned, layered, spliced, etc; but that is an art in itself and takes hours and days to do; and usually with results FAR inferior to PhotoShop. I will almost always choose a great film shot over a perfect digital shot; even though it will be the digital that makes the magazine cover. But hey, I'm weird that way :)
@aponi I was watching when that happened. We were at my in-laws and despite the fact we were all "watching" the game I was the only one who saw it when it occurred. It was so shocking that I lost my language filter and the words that came out of my mouth caught everyone's attention. I'm glad the TV we were watching on wasn't that large, it was big enough.
@angelamarie1437@soren Photographers have been manipulating images from the time the medium was invented. Early film did not have much latitude, so it was common to take two exposures, one for the foreground and the other for the sky, then combine them in the darkroom afterwards.
More recently a friend showed me a book of images that looked for all the world as if they had been created in Photoshop. Until he showed me the publication date - 1960!
But I do agree that digital makes it all much easier these days.
I have to say I am working on maximizing the quality of my results SOOC. I do not want to be dependent upon post-processing and editing to make my images look good. If we had the space in our house I could see where I'd want to have a darkroom and start shooting film.
Photography is an interest I've always had, even back in the film days. I used to drive my parents nuts with all the film I'd use, but none of us knew anything about cameras or what sort of capabilities they had. I think I'm going to see if my sister will trade me her "old" Canon Rebel SLR for my "old" Canon xsi DSLR.... I'll be dependent upon commercial developing but I'd like to "play" with film now that I am starting to have some idea of what I'm doing with manual settings.
@grizzlysghost@dmortega there have been several threads that have pursued this notion trying create a contestation and/ or controversy between film and digital, on the basis of a passing comment that one is better than the other. I think neither is the case and hence my question about what is improper. Is it photography that breaks the rules, or discards conventions to break boundaries, or create new visions of art, rather than taking pictures that do not communicate or express the vision of the photographer?
I work in both and film and digital. I agree with Aaron that successes in film can be a lot harder to achieve and therefore an outcome is perhaps treasured more. However many viewers of photographs are unaware that many calendars and other images used in advertising are mostly still made with film. This is because a 4x5 inch negative contains much more information than many digital image and has better resolving power. While digital at 35mm is relatively cheap, in medium format at $10,000 entry level for a digital back it is decidedly not.
In the end we though we use the either medium to create improper images and hope that this is communicates or expresses our art.
BTW whatever happened to breaking the rules challenges? What is improper that breaks the rules? Does using film break the rules? Does digital break the rules?
I came into photography in the plate camera era, monochrome only, with no focusing aids or exposure meter, and had to calculate and set the camera manually for every shot and learn to mix chemicals to develop the negatives, and then make the prints in a conventional darkroom. Next came roll film cameras (Rolleiflexand its clones) still fully manual, and finally 35m (Leica, Pentax and Nikon) with increasing levels of helpful manual controls, until the digital age made high quality photography available to everybody at the touch of a button.
I welcomed the new technology which brought new possibilities hitherto undreamed of, but am gratetul for having had to learn the basics step by step, and still apply those principles to every shot I take and process, whether with a compact p&s or dslr.
In the right hands, digital photography is every bit as good as "proper" photography as long as the operator is prepared to put a bit of thought into it instead of just clicking the button and accepting an image predetermined by the camera maufacturer, with the triumphant cry of "SOOC" which in many cases seems to imply that he was either too lazy or didn't know how to post-process to perfection. I do accept that it is possible (but only rarely) to produce perfection without human intervention, but we should remember that "proper photographers" have always learned to use whatever techniques were available and considered necessary to produce a result they could truly call their own and not simply an automatically produced image. It's not the technology that produces the optimum image, but the way it is used.
I work for one of the major photo manufacturers (I won't say which one). We still manufacture film, but will only continue to do so whilst it makes money. Once it becomes unprofitable...no more film. Most of the other manufacturers have already stopped making film because the process is so expensive. We can knock out maybe 100 memory cards for the money it takes to make a roll of film. Film processing also generates some nasty by-products that are difficult and costly to dispose of properly. I'll give film maybe...5 years, although it may continue as a niche product. Film users need to start looking at alternatives.
I've been digital since about 2001. The only thing I miss about film photography is the fact that you could buy a decent film camera and keep it for many years. I was given a second-hand Pentax when I was an art student in the 1970's and used it for 30 years. You can't do that with digital. Manufacturers have caught on to the fact that if they release the technology in a trickle, photographers have to continuously upgrade, and they sell zillions more cameras that way. It's very similar to the mobile phone market. The technology developments already exist out there, but manufacturers will release them over period of many years to maintain sales.
Personally I don't think digital should be compared to film at all. It's a completely different thing, so what's the point of comparing it? It's like comparing a horse with a car.
I have just joined this interesting site after discovering it by accident looking for a theme on opposites that I am assigned in my advanced course, I am just moving around the pages to see what is what. If I someone could guide me to the introduction page to start me off and I can introduce myself.
While I am here I would also like to comment on the young persons point of view of photography, one of my photography teachers from a college I attended would shoot only in 35mm, and also only in B&W. He believed that the quality of 35mm far surpasses that of digital and it would not ever be it's equal, the instructor no longer works at the college as attendance numbers or lack there of forced him out of a job.I shot 35mm for 40 years and loved it but like everything else advancement in all areas TVs, cars, thinking in general has changed for most of us. The best camera I have ever owned is the one I have now and I don't believe I would go back to film, oh! I do own a box brownie I bought from a second hand dealer, but it sits on a cupboard. Retro still has a place in time and my heart. The work of many who still use 35mm should not let their ideals be forsaken if they feel strong enough about it. I would liked to have known if he still drives a 1930's car?
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Overall it is a good step forward and I am sure more people have got into photography than they would have with 35mm film. Perhaps that is the real issue the competition is to much!!!!!
Haha!!!
their narrow and limited way of interpreting the world of art.
It's all relevent to the options available to us. My son often reminds me there is 'an artist' who regurtitates stuff and then blows it around on paper with a straw to sell. He gets a lot of money because it's wierd and different. People are always looking for different. Some will argue that is not art at all yet people are buying it.
It's easier for everyone to take photos but not everyone knows how to take decent phots. I know because I am working on improving that aspect daily. Lots of professional photographers are feeling threatened knowing they are competing with amateurs who can't match their level, who are giving their work away for free. The truth is though, they don't survive. Not everyone who picks up a camera has the fortitude to really learn how to use it and develop their skills. Those who do will rise above the masses. It's just how it works.
Like musicians, there are those who create and there are those who can play or sing really well. It's the difference between a chef and a cook. It is the same for photographers. Everyone know the music trends change, food trends change, clothing styles change, decorating changes, .... Why then would photography be any different? If a photographer refuses to see the value in what is happening on any given day then they are deluding themselves. Sure, there are up and coming photographers but really most of us just take photos. A 'proper photographer' knows the equpment and plays it well. A 'proper photographer' sets the bar and the trends.
Those who came before us are the only ones we have to compare against. In a hundred years it will be a whole different group who will be considered pioneers. These will be photographers of our time. These will be people who created new ways to interpret and manipulate the equipment. Does that mean there are no longer 'proper photographers'? No, it means a new generation is leading the pack and that is us. That is anyone willing to develop and grow and create. We will take the teachings of those before us apply it to today's world. Much like this project, some will drop out, some will finish a year and drop out, and others will keep pushing forward. Those who push forward will become the 'proper photographers' of tomorrow.
Does he wash his clothes by beating them on rocks, make every single meal he eats from scratch, ride a horse to work?
Although...did anyone else see the basketball game where the kid came down wrong and broke his leg? Yea I saw that in 55 inches of high definition. It made me miss the fuzzy rabbit ear days because some things you just can't unsee
as far a film being more "pure" than digital because digital can be altered and edited beyond recognition, you should check out Jerry Uelsmann. His work is all film and developed in a traditional darkroom. http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/jerry-uelsmanns-analog-dreams/
Very well-said Rick and Dorrena! @digitalrn @dmortega
Oh, and FILM LIVES! http://365project.org/tags/film-lives
Your comment cracks me up :-)
More recently a friend showed me a book of images that looked for all the world as if they had been created in Photoshop. Until he showed me the publication date - 1960!
But I do agree that digital makes it all much easier these days.
Photography is an interest I've always had, even back in the film days. I used to drive my parents nuts with all the film I'd use, but none of us knew anything about cameras or what sort of capabilities they had. I think I'm going to see if my sister will trade me her "old" Canon Rebel SLR for my "old" Canon xsi DSLR.... I'll be dependent upon commercial developing but I'd like to "play" with film now that I am starting to have some idea of what I'm doing with manual settings.
I work in both and film and digital. I agree with Aaron that successes in film can be a lot harder to achieve and therefore an outcome is perhaps treasured more. However many viewers of photographs are unaware that many calendars and other images used in advertising are mostly still made with film. This is because a 4x5 inch negative contains much more information than many digital image and has better resolving power. While digital at 35mm is relatively cheap, in medium format at $10,000 entry level for a digital back it is decidedly not.
In the end we though we use the either medium to create improper images and hope that this is communicates or expresses our art.
I welcomed the new technology which brought new possibilities hitherto undreamed of, but am gratetul for having had to learn the basics step by step, and still apply those principles to every shot I take and process, whether with a compact p&s or dslr.
In the right hands, digital photography is every bit as good as "proper" photography as long as the operator is prepared to put a bit of thought into it instead of just clicking the button and accepting an image predetermined by the camera maufacturer, with the triumphant cry of "SOOC" which in many cases seems to imply that he was either too lazy or didn't know how to post-process to perfection. I do accept that it is possible (but only rarely) to produce perfection without human intervention, but we should remember that "proper photographers" have always learned to use whatever techniques were available and considered necessary to produce a result they could truly call their own and not simply an automatically produced image. It's not the technology that produces the optimum image, but the way it is used.
I've been digital since about 2001. The only thing I miss about film photography is the fact that you could buy a decent film camera and keep it for many years. I was given a second-hand Pentax when I was an art student in the 1970's and used it for 30 years. You can't do that with digital. Manufacturers have caught on to the fact that if they release the technology in a trickle, photographers have to continuously upgrade, and they sell zillions more cameras that way. It's very similar to the mobile phone market. The technology developments already exist out there, but manufacturers will release them over period of many years to maintain sales.
Personally I don't think digital should be compared to film at all. It's a completely different thing, so what's the point of comparing it? It's like comparing a horse with a car.
While I am here I would also like to comment on the young persons point of view of photography, one of my photography teachers from a college I attended would shoot only in 35mm, and also only in B&W. He believed that the quality of 35mm far surpasses that of digital and it would not ever be it's equal, the instructor no longer works at the college as attendance numbers or lack there of forced him out of a job.I shot 35mm for 40 years and loved it but like everything else advancement in all areas TVs, cars, thinking in general has changed for most of us. The best camera I have ever owned is the one I have now and I don't believe I would go back to film, oh! I do own a box brownie I bought from a second hand dealer, but it sits on a cupboard. Retro still has a place in time and my heart. The work of many who still use 35mm should not let their ideals be forsaken if they feel strong enough about it. I would liked to have known if he still drives a 1930's car?