Erwin: "Photography does not exist anymore!"

who cares what this Putz-guy says or not?

"Tom...let me guess...you hang around a bunch of artsy/college types (and I admit I am quessing here)"

 

Sometimes. Other times I hang around a 'bunch of feisty guys wondering why a $5000 camera won't autmatically make a great photo' ;^) Professionally I shoot mainly corporate assignments, which involves everything from architecture, location, some product, to formal posed portraits. Most of the people I come in contact with are college-educated, that's true, but if I had to guess I'd say MBA's outnumber MFA's about 10,000 to 1. I take it from your comments that your contacts are of a different class completely. The difference between you and me is that I don't generalize about all of humanity based on the sampling of people I meet on the job.

Try reading this Tom (and others) http://www.pictureflow.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7538

 

Yeah, I guess they are Tom "MBA's outnumber MFA's about 10,000 to 1"...guess what Tom, even in North America the majority of people do not have a degree...it would seem in fact that it is you drawing conclusions from a limited statistical pool.

while i do think it's sad that film and silver based printing are slowly going away, i

definitely don't think that photography is dead. i think that as long as there are people

out there making images that are honest, insightful, and of course, good, photography will

continue to grow and evolve both as an artform and a medium for communication. i shoot

mostly film and will do so for as long as i can afford it and the materials are available for

me to use, but i have no problem with digital - i even use it sometimes when the job calls

for it. i think photography is fine. what i do think is kinda sad is that photography is one

of the only arts that you can earn a degree in without ever learning the history of the

medium. imagine going through an mfa program without ever taking an art history class,

or an english program without ever reading the classics. how can we go forward if we

don't know what came before?

"What I find amusing as well as distressing (and pretty sad, as well) is the number of people who portray themselves as photographers because they purchased a leica."

 

I agree, Brad.

 

But, at the very least, someone using a camera (any camera) to make photographs is vastly preferable to using software to make pictures.

<i>But, at the very least, someone using a camera (any camera) to make photographs is vastly preferable to using software to make pictures.</i><p>This seems naive and short-sighted.<p>For example, if I have an advertising campaign to run and I ask an agency to do some concepts, I am going to pick the one that works the best, not the one made with a specific medium. It's mostly on web forums where people think the medium is more important than the ability to convey emotion, sell something, whatever a photo can do, and say they would take something based on medium without actually thinking about it.

>>> But, at the very least, someone using a camera (any camera) to make photographs is

vastly preferable to using software to make pictures.

 

 

Don't think so. It's the end-result that counts. Is the image compelling or not.

 

From my

original related comment, I was referencing those

who believe camera ownership automatically bestows the ability to make good

photographs.

I would much rather see interesting and compelling photos that we're skillfully rendered in

post via "software."

"guess what Tom, even in North America the majority of people do not have a degree...it would seem in fact that it is you drawing conclusions from a limited statistical pool."

 

Where's I say the majority of people in N. America have a college degree? Where'd I say "most people" can tell a good photograph from a snap? I just pointed out the falsehood of your sweeping generalization, which appears based on the people that walk thru your store's front door, that "most people" can't.

"Don't think so. It's the end-result that counts. Is the image compelling or not."

 

Guess that kinda tosses out the whole concept of discussing photography, huh? Why bother to discuss photography on a photography forum? May as well discuss making woodcuts, blueprints, cave paintings and fecal smearings as long as the image is "compelling".

 

"Compelling" ain't necessarily good just as popularity ain't much of an indicator of quality.

 

I believe it is possible to make good photographs digitally. I do not think it is possible to make an image with software and it have any relationship to a photograph. Just my opinion.

>>> Guess that kinda tosses out the whole concept of discussing photography, huh?

 

Of course not. Why leap to such extreme cases? For most, though, photography is about

making... photographs.

 

>>> I do not think it is possible to make an image with software and it have any

relationship to a photograph. Just my opinion.

 

Where was that contention made (other than in your original post), or, who's doing that? A

non sequitur for the meat of this discussion about digital imaging and the contention

above that it's dumbing down photography as a whole ,,,

"I sure miss the good old days when I hand built my Altair 8800 computer and would enter the color dazzler program with the front panel switches. Now you just order a Dell and click on an icon. That's not real computing!"

 

Yes, even typing PR#6 in order to load the floppy bootstrap for slot 6 (where my in my old Apple // was too easy, not REAL computing. Now programming with the switches of an IMSAI 8080: now that was REAL computing.

"What I find amusing as well as distressing (and pretty sad, as well) is the number of people who portray themselves as photographers because they know Photoshop and computer use."

 

What I find amusing as well as distressing is people who show disdain for the unwashed masses coming in and daring to make photos (even bad ones) and crowding out the longtime hobbyists who preferred when photography was a more rarified club.

"William Eugene Smith photographed the 'Minimata' essay using a Minolta SRT-101 and lenses (especially a 16mm f/2.8) and not a Leica. Even his (Leitz) Enlarger used a Minolta lens."

 

I'd read that Smith's Leica gear was stolen and he got loaner rangefinder equipment from Canon.

Lee said "I agree, Brad." Brad never came up with the "number" that bothers him. Since Lee agrees, now he has to say what number he is agreeing to. The number who think they're good photographers because they own Leicas. I don't care if some collectors do put untouched Leica cameras in vaults, I would still guess that the number of people who by expensive Canon and Nikon SLR kits who think that makes them a good photographer is much much higher than those who do it with Leicas. How about the $30,000 Hazelblad digital camera. That would make you a truly great photographer. I personally think it's okay for people to do that. I don't think that this has anything to do with photography or the topic of film photography dying. I also don't see how film photography could possibly die before View Camera photography and oil painting dies, and I cannot see that happening any time soon. So, why does this unfounded fear keep coming up?

Bob Todrick's biases are well established, as a few years ago he wrote that digital was good for 4x6 prints but that "for pro, or serious amateur use film will be the "best way to do so for quite some time." (He also wrote, "it is another misconception that pros are switching to digital in droves.")

 

So when he complains about the ignorance of someone using (or liking) digital, I cannot help but believe it's just a staling horse for his pro-film, pro-Leica predilections.

>>> Brad never came up with the "number" that bothers him.

 

Jeez, get a clue. It doesn't bother me. I was merely mimicking the absurdity of the statement

: ""What I find amusing as well as distressing (and pretty sad, as well) is the number of

people who portray themselves as photographers because they know Photoshop and

computer use."

Guys, time to dip your SD cards in rodinal.

Leica cannot stay in business making film camera's. They have to adapt or fade away. They are making changes to stay in business and time will tell how they make out. I hope they stay afloat myself.

Digital vs Film. It's been beat to death. If you are a hobby shooter then just do what is fun to you. If you are a professional then do what you need in order to earn your pay.

If digital came first before film-based photography, then "photography is finally here!"?

Can Leica be blamed for managing business in a sane manner ?

 

The core values , hey Leica is a business first and foremost. I can see no wrong in Leica doing what it does today. People might complain and wane about it, but come real.

 

" There are indeed a few uses of the digital camera and its software manipulations that are close to the essence of the classical film-based photography. It is possible to select a number of products and to adopt a certain workflow that is close to the heart of what constitutes the classical film-related photography style, exemplified by the Magnum photos, but not restricted to that approach. "

 

So do mr. Puts think only Classical Film capture aka Leica RF manner is photography, and nothing else are, if so I can only but say " sorry the world is more diverse than this "

>>> What I find amusing as well as distressing is people who show disdain for the unwashed

masses coming in and daring to make photos (even bad ones) and crowding out the longtime

hobbyists who preferred when photography was a more rarified club.

 

 

Bingo! Seems quite a few are suffering pangs of irrelevancy...

If photography does not exist anymore, why do my cameras still work?

Hi every one,

 

Photography will be dead when no one understands the mystery and the art behind a negative or a print. On the analog side chemistry is reacting to light, is nature acting by itself. On the digital side a software piece is "intrepreting" the information from the sensor, according to a programmer's instructions based on his (her) ability to "understand" nature.

 

Thanks,

 

Jorge Saravia

Because it's only ERWIN'S photography that does not exist any more...

Digigraphy is not the same as photography