2 conversations

I overheard a conversation recently between 2 docs at the hospital

where I'm a student. One was telling the other how, with the advent

of digital, the focus of photography has changed completely.

Composition is no longer important, because you can fix it with

photoshop. Learning to use photoshop is much more important than pre-

exposure techniques. <br>

2 days later, my friend saw a waterfall photo I had scanned from a

velvia slide, taken with my canon ae-1. He didnt like the bluish

cast from the evening light and the film's tone (which I intended),

so he told me I should have adjusted the "white balance on my camera"

(which was made in 1979). <br>

Do people view photography as largely graphic design now? It

depresses me that many people, even ones who view themselves as

photographers, don't care about lighting, focus, depth of field,

shutter speed, because they're going to fix all of these post-

exposure. I'm not really interested in snapping a frame and then

spending 6 hours screwing around with blurring filters and rgb

correction. I'd rather sit by the waterfall for hours and figure out

what weather, time of day, focal length, and shutter speed I want to

use.

It almost sounds as though you feel that your preference (sitting by the waterfall..) is more noble than the alternative (Spending 6 hours screwing around...). If that is what you think, why do you think so?

 

If you are just expressing a preference, it's a bit like saying that you don't understand all those people who like vanilla, when what you like is chocolate.

It is the craftsmanship that matters, not the time....

 

...and it is 'nobler', not 'more noble'...

What it boils down to is that there's not necessarily any virtue in doing things the difficult way. If it makes you happy, do it, but don't complain when someone does in 60 seconds what took you 6 hours.

 

Some people value "hand crafting", others value the final result and don't care how it was done.

 

Photography IS now integrated into graphic design. PhotoShop is a graphic design program which also happens to have a bunch of photography function built into it. Why else would it have a spell checker!

My intent is not to complain that people are doing things in photoshop, because it doesn't stop me from sitting around a waterfall. I'm saying I regret that modern photography is merging with graphic design, which makes the (fun) challenge of capturing a scene in the perfect light at the perfect moment somewhat obsolete. I'm not anti-digital; I'm anti-manipulation (for myself--I don't care what someone else does). The appeal of photography to me is trying to render a scene creatively yet faithfully. I agree that people who are ok with darkroom manipulation but not photoshop are hypocritical. I shoot film, but try to keep filter use and such to a minimum.

<i> What it boils down to is that there's not necessarily any virtue in doing things the

difficult way. If it makes you happy, do it, but don't complain when someone does in

60 seconds what took you 6 hours. </i><p>

 

It's a difficult lesson for some to learn. It was difficult for those who shot without

electronics in their cameras (even meters) to deal with tyros who had that gear; in

their minds it was somehow 'cheating' to have ease of use that they themselves were

denied (and for whom self-abnegation was now ingrained in their hobby). <p>

 

In a similar vein, I've seen mundane photos that were very difficult for someone to

get, but in his mind there was something that made the photos better because of the

trouble it took to get the shot, and he couldn't see the photo with the necessary

aesthetic distance to recognize the average from the superior. Same for plebian large

format photos, which entailed some photographer's carrying around a heavy

backpack with camera equipment and big tripod. Somehow, the resulting photos

seem to some to have gained some patina that automatically improved the images by

dint of the difficulty in making them.

<i> ...and it is 'nobler', not 'more noble'... </i><p>

 

Don't be pedantic. <p>

 

<b>'Tis more noble to forgive, and more manly to despise, than to revenge an

Injury. - Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard </b> <p>

 

Also: <p>

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=shakespeare+"more+noble"

Shakespeare used both - "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer..."

 

I'm sure Hans corrected "more noble" only to illustrate that in some cases two options are equally valid, as in edited digital vs. film photography.

I agree with you 100%, and I share with you a desire to get a

photograph as close to "right" as I can at the point of exposure.

Enjoyment of the process of photography is every bit as

important as the results you get and you should absolutely

continue to do it the way that gives you satisfaction.

 

Thing is that you're not the only person with this right, and other

people might make different choices. This shouldn't make you

depressed. If you were being forced to do things their way, then

you should be depressed.

�[� Z has opined:

 

"In a similar vein, I've seen mundane photos that were very difficult for someone to get, but in his mind there was something that made the photos better because of the trouble it took to get the shot, and he couldn't see the photo with the necessary aesthetic distance to recognize the average from the superior. Same for plebian large format photos, which entailed some photographer's carrying around a heavy backpack with camera equipment and big tripod. Somehow, the resulting photos seem to some to have gained some patina that automatically improved the images by dint of the difficulty in making them.

 

 

1. Photos are not graded on 'effort'. In fact, I have gotten wonderful shots simply by knowing someone who could get me into the place I wanted to go. And someone else lent me the huge lens I needed. So, I could have made all kinds of efforts and gotten zilch. I walked in and walked out. Made the pros mad as hell......

 

2. Likewise, I have seen innumerable photographs made under very difficult conditions, pushed 14 stops, of.....guitar players and other such trivia. They still lack gravitas...

 

3. The dreck and dross that is churned out of rocks and trees by so-called 'fine-art' Zonite photographers is another case in point. The John Sextons of the world must think that properly exposed, large-format photographs taken at perfect right angles somehow hold us spellbound.

 

http://www.puc.edu/Faculty/Cliff_Rusch/gdportfolio/jscalendar/jspop.html

Don't lump everyone who uses Photoshop into the same group as your friend who saw your Velvia slide. If he knew about photography, more specifically *your* photography, he would not have said that. He simply assumed that all photographs should be neutral. Forgive him, for he knows not of what he says.

 

To repeat what other people have already said: do what makes you happy. You spend six hours waiting to get a shot. When a digital artists spends that kind of time, you can be certain it involves little waiting. So, is it really easier ... and does it matter?

Weasel, I think the importance of the traditional photographic processes depend on the context.

 

In an artistic context, I dont think the medium used is as important as the image created. Paint, gelatin, or mouse doesnt change the affect of a thought-provoking or emotionally inspiring image. So what is someone uses PS to blur the background of a portrait. So what if multiple images are layered to create extra depth of field.

Here's the contradiction in what you say.

 

You got a bluish cast in your image from the reaction of the film to the light. It's worth pointing out that with different film, you might have had a different color cast. I'm willing to guess that your photo also had smoothed water from a long exposure of the waterfall.

 

Then you talk about rendering a scene "faithfully."

 

This doesn't work. You are accepting fundamental distortions of reality from a choice of film and shutter speed, but not from anything after the shot. The scene is not "faithful" if it has as blue cast - that's a reaction of the film that has nothing to do with faithful. And if you have blurred water, that is also not faithful.

 

The problem with dogmatic arguments is that they are dogma because they allow for fundamental contradictions. They don't make sense except as dogma, religious arguments.

I`m in photography for only six years - i used (in order):

Canon EOS 500N, EOS 50E, Canon Av-1, Yashica 635, Mamiya RB67, and Canon Powershot G3.

 

In the end i learned, that the tools don`t mean NOTHING to 99% of people (assuming the 1% remaining are serious photographers).

 

I learned also, that what matters is the final picture and nothing else, and i learned that only uninspiring images tend to discussions of tiime/aperture, what film, blur filters, etc, etc.

 

So if U create an image that makes people WOW no one will question the tools that were used.

 

Oh and by the way i`ll trade six hours waiting near a fall even for two hours in front of a computer monitor!

 

Happy shooting and peace of mind!

Actually, adjusting white balance is something you do when you make a print, ditto exposure to a small extent, and adjusting contrast (in Black and white).

 

If you had shown your freind a hand printed Cibachrome which was faithful the slide, you might still have got the message that the colour balance should have been adjusted on the enlarger.

 

Photoshop can change those characteristics, but who cares. An under or over exposed picture loses some of its range even if you fix it, print film has way more lattitude to the point most people don't even realise its there. You can crop a digital pic like you can film (with quality consequences), but photoshop can't extrapolate what's outside the frame so you still have to compose and choose focal length.

Photoshop won't move objects relative to each other in the image - a function of focal legth and viewpoint. So you have to do those.

Software can't put a badly out of focus picture into focus, or add depth of field. Compact digital cameras have lots of depth of field (result of having a small sensor) and sometimes the only way to reduce it is in software.

Software is also great for removing the powerline that spoils a beautiful view.

I'm carrying my digital compact around today because we have snow and great winter sunshine. I only get a choice of 2 appertures (D.o.f = Lots and D.o.f= almost infinite) and 2 corresponding shutter speeds (fast, and very fast). There's a fountain outside my office and if I want that to blur that, it has to be software.

 

The conversation you overheard has one correct part to it. Digital can encourage people to lazy, if you have a fully auto camera and you don't have to think about film, developing and printing costs you can bang off 500 shots in an afternoon (I plead guilty) and hope to get 9-10 decent ones. I'd want to get 9-10 decent ones out of a roll of 36 shots. So I've gone from accepting a hit rate of 1 in 4 to a rate of 1 in 50. The extra 464 presses of the shutter button are "free".

From time to time I go back to using medium format cameras which are 50-80 yeas old (I need a tape measure to set the focus distance). I do it for the discipline.

Jeff has a point up there. Lots of people seem to love dogmas in photography, see threads like "breaking the rule" or about sharpness issues.

 

On the other hand, generally people are overflooded with the big words from the commercials, like megapixel, zoom, white balance, although mostly without knowing what they are. My 135mm prime was several times called "zoom" by some friends, just because of its magnification. I was several times asked (even with a real zoom lens on my slr), "how does it zoom" and people were looking for the up-down button desperately (not even thinking about going closer). Bottom line: when my friend looked over the WL finder of my yashica tlr, he busted out" Man, this looks like the coolest digital camera i've seen!"

 

It's not only in photography, it's everywhere around us. People (me too) use terms they don't fully understand, without any problem. It's the consumer society, i guess.

Unless you are a commercial photographer, who must satisfy his client, the ONLY thing that matters is if you are pleased with what you have done. That includes the process of making the picture, as well as producing the final print, whether you spend hours in the darkroom or droping it off at Wal-Mart.

Weasel,

 

You wrote: "I'm saying I regret that modern photography is merging with graphic

design, which makes the (fun) challenge of capturing a scene in the perfect light at

the perfect moment somewhat obsolete."

 

Even if it were true or meaningful to say "Modern photography is merging with

graphic design", you would be making a statement about "them", i.e. those who

comprise modern photography. But surely the "fun challenge of capturing a scene" is

all about you.. i.e., it's your fun, and your challenge.

 

How is it that what "they" do makes what you do obsolete? Aren't you free to make

images however you please? Why do you care how someone else does it?

A photographer friend gave me his impression of digital users the other day and I think it's true to a certain extent. With digital you do not take responsibility for what you have taken. If you don't like the image you just erase it from the face of the earth. With film this is not as easy. There is physical evidence that you can destroy, but it's much harder and there will always be a blank. This may breed laziness.

 

I'm a film user and am not a fan of digital because for me it's a colossal waste of money for something that is not as good as what I have now - especially considering that you have to keep buying new equipment every couple of years. I also see alot more in-camera graphic effects being used, that to me serves no purpose but to jazz up something that sucks in the first place. Alot of digital users have said that it 'increases their creativity' yet their results seem more pointless than before. I agree with the commentor above that it's unfortunate that photography, in the digital age, is melding with the commercial graphic art world. Fortunately the photographic arts world still seems to be using film.

Some do believe that it doesnt matter which tools you use to achieve a result, because the result is what counts.

 

Not so, definitly not.

The tools are forming us and vice versa. There are only VERY FEW MASTERS which act indepently and to whom it really doesnt matter which tools they will be using.

 

I would say that the progress in the process is what counts and the result is secondary, unless you are earning you livelyhood with it.

 

Someone climbing a mountain by feet or someone going there with a helicopter gives the same result. But look into the face of each one and tell me who is the winner.

 

People tend to think today that by imitating circumstances, elements and surroundings through machinery (in our case photoshop) the result will be the same as done narurally. But that is a tricky path.

 

Just be careful and dont get lazy with PS convenience, coz in the end consciousness will always win.

Andy: "With digital you do not take responsibility for what you have taken. If you don't like the image you just erase it from the face of the earth. With film this is not as easy. There is physical evidence that you can destroy, but it's much harder and there will always be a blank. This may breed laziness."

 

Absolutly true. I saw a friend of mine taking pics with a new D10 of a particular scene pushing the shutter each third second. 95% got erased shortly after. He actually was so busy tripping the shutter without interruption that he didnt get much of what really was happening there.

I regard those high who observe and identify first and then take their tools with measure and intensity.

<blockquote>Someone climbing a mountain by feet or someone going there with a helicopter gives the same result. But look into the face of each one and tell me who is the winner.</blockquote>

Interesting analogy... do you extend this philosophy to all art forms? For example, must books be written by typewriter, because word processors make people lazy? Do you ever think about this when you pick up a book?

<p>

<blockquote>Just be careful and dont get lazy with PS convenience...</blockquote>

The question is: does it make the quality of <b>your</b> art suffer? Mine does noton the contraryso I will keep on using it.

Emre: "Interesting analogy... do you extend this philosophy to all art forms? For example, must books be written by typewriter, because word processors make people lazy? Do you ever think about this when you pick up a book?"

 

No, here the quality of the thought/experience is important.

I will note (sooner or later) if the book is authentic thought/ feeling or just rephrased.

To take my example again, someone climbing the mountain can source his consciousness from the real experience and then write about it. The one flying up the mountain wont have the same resources.

Emre:"The question is: does it make the quality of your art suffer? Mine does not�on the contrary�so I will keep on using it."

 

Fortunatly we have friends who can judge about the quality of our work.

<blockquote>No, here the quality of the thought/experience is important</blockquote>

Why do apply you a different criteria to photography then? At any rate, why is your criteria better than anyone else's? In the end, every artist must personally decide what matters. This is what many people have been trying to explain.