It's Not Photography!

[ohenry]

Is his comparison really any different than the Instamatic 110 film cameras being developed at Walgreen's or the Polaroid cameras bringing photography to the masses? His comments seem relegated to the point and shoot cameras one buys at BestBuy (or wherever) and not at the dSLR's or digital back MF cameras out there. There are snapshots and there are photographs, not only in today's digital era but in the film world, as well. Personally, I see his comments as those of someone who is more knowledgeable of journalism than the subject written about.



I believe that there will still be "masters of photography" in the digital age, just as there were "masters of photography" in the film era. The process may have changed, but the skills to produce art still lie within the individual and not the format of his/her equipment.

[scoundrel1728]

If ohenry hadn't already said it, I would have.

[ukwanderer]

Where does the " photographers Eye " come into this statement ?

Just because you have a driving licence does not make you a racing driver.

I agree with Ohenry's comment There are snapshots and there are photographs


ukwanderer

[scoundrel1728]

Also, before claiming that snapshots are "not photography," it is important to keep straight what is meant by "photography" in this context. More important, the claimant is also obliged to make his case that this definition should apply to the world at large. In excluding snapshots from the word "photography," the claimant would assert the same kind of thing as the bumper sticker that reads, "If it ain't country, it ain't music." (Or substitute your own favorite genre.) Your typical snapshot doesn't aspire to be much if any more than a visual recording. It is therefore neither helpful nor fair to complain about a snapshot's lack of artistic merit; it wasn't necessarily intended to have any.

If you look back far enough, you will no doubt find much the same being said of the original Brownie film cameras that the customers had to send back to the factory to have their film changed. The one-time-use cameras of today are in much the same spirit, but the customer had to wait three weeks or so for the Brownie's prints and the reloaded camera to arrive in the mail. Each print also represented a substantially greater incremental cost than today's one-time-use prints; nevertheless, the basic idea was the same.

Tony Long's main agrument seems to be that the ease of creating technically good images is making people lazy, hence less likely to go for the artistic side of photography. I think he's all wet. Rather than making people lazy, the instant feedback, high technical quality, and low incremental cost of digital imagery today actually supplies motivation to improve and encourages the experimentation necessary to develop creative talent. Before I first went digital, I counted up the initial cost of digital versus the continuing cost of film. I eventually opted to go digital even though, based on my previous film usage, I wasn't expecting to reach the break-even point for several years. I had reached the break-even point about the one-year mark, even though I was being careful not to "waste" shots. I have also since read in U.S. News and World Report the factoid that digital photographers take about three times the number of shots that they did when shooting film. I don't know where the author got that figure, but it rings true. It is surprising how much more you shoot when freed from the cost and hassle of buying and processing film. The cost of film, in other words, made the cost of failed experiments high enough to inhibit the necessary experimentation.

I also believe my photography has improved much faster for having shot digital than when shooting film. The instant feedback helped greatly in that I found out quickly what worked and what did not. That is true both artistically and technically - and good photography demands mastery of both facets as does good art in any other form. Another nice feature of today's digital imagery is the automatic logging of camera settings. With film, this kind of logging had to be done manually or mentally, further reducing the fun and effectiveness of experimentation. I have also found that I am more willing to post-process digital images than I would be if I had to take the extra step to scan everything and am less willing to settle for "good enough." In other words, thanks to the ease of achieving the effects I want, my standards have gone up. I suspect the same is true of other digital photographers as well who have artistic aspirations.

[Paul Shields]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. There are many analogies where new technology is attacked as demeaning or belittling the art simply because it makes it more accessible. I personally don't care too much so long as the resulting image is worthy and interesting. I could give my eldest son (aged 2.7) a P&S camera and I'm sure there would be some merit in some of the pictures taken (in fact I think he'd do a better job than some I see - but not on this site! :P). I certainly wouldn't think less of it.

[Kevin Barrett]

My brother ( a pro chef) and I could start with the same ingrediants. In about an
hour he'll have a palatable masterpiece and I will have something that is anything
but palatable.

Both results could be considered food, however my brother's would be considered
cuisine.

I see the author's point.

[Fish36990]

Well Hell.....I would spend more money on equipment if it would guarentee that my photos would turn out as good as Mr. Pickles, DC2, OHenry, and countless others I've begged for knowledge from on this site (Honestly not trying to kiss butt here either) but that just isn't the case.

I may not have a $4000 camera but my KM 5D isn't just some point & shoot either. What I can guarantee is that 99.9% of the people posting on this site could take my camera directly out of my hands and take much better pictures with it on their first try. I've bought books and read and read and posted and tested and I'm still no where near you guys.

Most of you have forgotten more than I've learn in photography and maybe you've don't appreciate how much you have learned. As a newb working my butt off taking pictures, fumbling around in PS, filling my hard drive with crappy photos and still worrying that every pic I post isn't worthy to be on here with your pictures.....there is way more involved in getting great photos than great gear.

If it was a matter just throwing money at it to be great then I would be great....and I'm not. I've learned so much here so far and I feel like I'm improving but you guys should go back and look at your shots when you started (digital or not) and see if that improvement came from a nicer camera/lense or experience/skill.

Just two cents from a newb,

Josh

(I also realize that being this green at photography, I really shouldn't post here but I just had to)

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Fish36990

I may not have a $4000 camera but my KM 5D isn't just some point & shoot either. What I can guarantee is that 99.9% of the people posting on this site could take my camera directly out of my hands and take much better pictures with it on their first try. I've bought books and read and read and posted and tested and I'm still no where near you guys.

Most of you have forgotten more than I've learn in photography and maybe you've don't appreciate how much you have learned. As a newb working my butt off taking pictures, fumbling around in PS, filling my hard drive with crappy photos and still worrying that every pic I post isn't worthy to be on here with your pictures.....there is way more involved in getting great photos than great gear.

I haven't forgotten what it was like to be a beginner, nor do I think that most of the others here have either. Indeed, more often than I would like to admit, I still take a shot that I think is great while in the field, only to display it on the screen and say, "Blecch! What possessed me to shoot it like that?" That is actually a good sign; if we fall too much in love with our own work, we stop improving. It is also good that it motivates you to "work your butt off" to improve. If NIH is to be believed, most of us have too much butt anyway.

You needn't apologize for your K-M 5D; it is a very good camera capable of taking pro quality photos, but I think you already know that. I am not sure about your being in the lowest percentile of able photographers here, but I understand your remark about others being able to take better shots with your equipment than you can.

I also understand the stuff about the photographer's skill and experience being the most important part of a truly good photo. I doubt that you could find anyone here on Photocamel to seriously dispute that. I would say that even the majority of the general population understands that. It seems pointless to argue a position about which there is so little real dispute.

Nevertheless, proper and appropriate equipment does make a difference in producing good art. Can you imagine Ansel Adams producing memorable landscapes with a Holga? How successful could any news photographer be with a pinhole camera? Or a wedding photographer with an Instamatic? Granted, a good photographer can do better with inferior or inappropriate equipment than a mediocre one could; nevertheless, it isn't really a question of either/or, but of having both. Perhaps even the good but not great photographer can produce better results with good hardware than the superlative photographer working with the wrong gear for what they are trying to do. Yes, I already know about good photographers who deliberately choose Holgas and pinhole cameras for some of their work; but for the kinds of shots they are looking for, perhaps that is the right equipment, poor and limited as it may be for other kinds of photography.

Originally Posted by Fish36990

(I also realize that being this green at photography, I really shouldn't post here but I just had to)

A bit of editing in Photoshop ought to take care of that green cast.

[Fish36990]

Originally Posted by scoundrel1728

A bit of editing in Photoshop ought to take care of that green cast.

Is that what that slidebar is for? dang it!!!

I know I can't argue/dispute anyone's opinions but I've become very passionate about the abilities of true photgraphers that's I've met on here.

I struggle >....I cry ....I post/ramble. I'm sure this won't be the last ya'll will have to endure.

Sorry and thanks,

Josh

[ohenry]

Josh...they have medication for that

[Fish36990]

Two questions OHenry....

Do I need a perscription? and will it effect my security clearances? :-\

Josh

[ohenry]

Originally Posted by Fish36990

Two questions OHenry....

Do I need a perscription? and will it effect my security clearances? :-\

Josh

no, and probably

[CI Photography]

Originally Posted by bauerman

What are your thoughts on this section of an article from Wired Magazine regarding digital photography:

"[b]With their proliferation, the world is awash in digital snapshots, and the art of photography dies a little more each day. These cameras are technological marvels, to be sure. But because they do virtually everything for you and require no effort beyond pointing and shooting, pointing and shooting is all that most people do.]


* * * * * * * Another idiot talking about a subject they have no clue about. That's what I think!!
* * * * * * *( pointing and shooting is all that most people do) Well no joke, that's why we have point and shoot cameras. *People that only own or shoot, point and shoot cameras, are just every day people that like to take pictures. ( The art of photography dies a little more each day ) I know better !!! Digital helps us Photographers, and even ( the snap shooters ) to become better. This Jerk is comparing snap shooters to photographer's, and I've worked to hard to be compared to snap shooters and tell me the art of photography dies a little more each day. I just love these people that talk with their fingers in their ear so they know not what they say. *

[ukwanderer]

Originally Posted by Fish36990

will it effect my security clearances?* * *:-\

Er, will a bus token do ! :

ukwanderer

[dc2]

I once saw a famous film photog waste 8 rolls of film to get one shot that pleased him He was regarded as a master and I think if that sort of practice was good enough for him [being seriously loaded ] It should be good enough for the dslr owners of today.
Though I would like to think we would not delete that many shots

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by dc2

I think if that sort of practice was good enough for him [being seriously loaded ] It should be good enough for the dslr owners of today.

Pray tell, which was seriously loaded: the camera, the photographer, or you?

Even in this case, I betcha that the potential yield was more than that single shot; he probably could have used any of several, and even the semi-finalists had only trifling faults. However, he had to ensure that he got at least one. It also sounds like he would be a very good candidate for digital so his misses wouldn't cost as much.

Assuming that the photographer will average S good shots out of a large enough number in a project, then the chances of getting zero good shots (assuming a Poisson distribution for the good shots) will go something like this:

Average Chance of failing to get a good shot
number
of good
shots S
1.0 0.368
2.0 0.136
3.0 0.050
4.0 0.018
5.0 0.007
6.0 0.002
8.0 <0.0005

So even if the photographer averaged three good shots out of such a project, he would still fall on his face, professionally speaking, one time out of twenty. For him, shooting a lot is cheap insurance.

I don't like to use the scattergun statistical approach myself, but sometimes the limitations of my equipment or the shooting situation force me into it.

By the way, that is another reason your own average may seem so much lower than those on Photocamel - you see only the good stuff from the others, but you see everything - the good, the bad, and the ugly - of your own.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by scoundrel1728

By the way, that is another reason your own average may seem so much lower than those on Photocamel - you see only the good stuff from the others, but you see everything - the good, the bad, and the ugly - of your own.

Ahh, a pearl of wisdom. I like that quote and will try to remember to use it as one of my own in the future .

[ukwanderer]

A great quote

Beat me to it Paul. I was getting ready to post when I was informed that you already had.

ukwanderer

[dc2]

Originally Posted by scoundrel1728

Pray tell, which was seriously loaded: the camera, the photographer, or you?
quote
He was seriously loaded and I saw him complain bitterly about being given the name Royal photographer
I wonder how much that name earned him $$$.
BTW eventually he turned to digital but don't tell Paul* he used an oly dslr
He died shortly after this I always olys were dodgy

[badpickev]

2 things:

first wired is not the end all on culture, so to quote my english mates, bugger off.

second, i submit this, proof that wired is somking. http://www.terragalleria.com/index.html