Is photography becoming too complicated ?

From photoshop, to HDR, to Curves, to pixels and megapixels, hard-drives. Is photography becoming too technical ?

I always saw this field as an extension to Art, an endeavor where your mind and vision play the biggest part, but now

it seems that technology is playing a much bigger part. For thousands of years Art has not changed, it is still the

same. Contrast, lighting, shadows, composition, story etc.

 

Photography on the other hand has become a virtual Hi-Tech playground where those who have the latest gadgets

and scientific know-how seem to be on top. There is always another gadget another, software package, another

camera with more mega pixels another technical rule. It's hard to relax and enjoy what you are doing under those

conditions.

 

The average person would say "hey that's a nice picture and leave it at that", but photography have a whole list of

technical requirements that need to be checked off before a picture can be judged really "nice". Maybe I am barking

up the wrong tree, or maybe I might just be burnt-out from trying to learn photoshop. What are your thoughts on

this ?

LOL......and just where did you ever get the idea that ART isn't complicated?

Forget learning PS. Learn to see....feel.....compose.....learn the art, and you will find the tools come more

easily......Cheers, Robert

....but photography have a whole list of technical requirements that need to be checked off before a picture can be

judged really "nice".

 

To my mind a pohoto has no great list of technical requirements but only the same list of requirements you quote for

art -

 

.....Contrast, lighting, shadows, composition, story etc...

 

I suggest you don't worry about technical developments and just concentrate on taking the photos you want to see

using whatever technology you are comfortable with, whether that be the latest digital, or classic film,

Yes and no. Yes, if you want it to be that way, no, much simpler and easier than a wet darkroom. At least for me it is. I shoot raw, take the files home, run them through Silkypix, just a few minor adjustments, done. If I have a challenging shot, I fire up Lightzone to dodge and burn and remove spots, but soon all of that will be possible in Silkypix. Thats it, simple.

It's a matter of what you are used to doing, is it not? Appreciating art is never the same as making it. A competent artist should be able to describe far more detail than a layperson would ever imagine going into the actual practice of carving a stone or laying paint on a canvas. I bet it would make your head spin! And this is just the mechanics. Many people want the whole story. They want the artist to share his/her vision for the subject and purpose for the work as well.

 

Art does change with the times. There have been many artistic movements and schools of thought intended to describe what is good about art over the years. And artistic tools, techniques and methods have changed as well. This is a good excuse to find and visit the art museums closest to you.

 

You do not have to bust your buns keeping up with the rapid change in technology in photography particularly if you are a serious amateur or hobbyist. Take time to get good with your stuff. You can perfect your skill with the equipment you have with a clear conscience. Apply the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" to your own kit. If you don't see the reason for something new you probably don't have to buy it for a while.

Not for me.

nop

 

rather on the contrary

At the beginning, photography was indeed very complicated, the photographers knew everything about their

chemicals, it was not simple to get a good print: No lightmeter, for example. Nowadays, you don't need to know

much about all these things, you may simply point and shoot. Darkrooms are much easier to use too. For digital, if

you really want to have a good control, you need to know about some of those things you just mention (and I don't

know much about these personally, and I can still take photos) but I wouldn't call it "photography", it's the

processing. You're actually free to know about these or not according to the pictures you want

But is there really anything both easy and interesting out there ? Art, history, sports... It's more interesting when it's

"complicated."

"It's hard to relax and enjoy what you are doing under those conditions."

 

Harry, obviously it's hard for YOU to relax and enjoy. I am quite relaxed myself though I gotta admit, the learning curve for PS was/is a bit daunting. But then, I remember that my b&w darkroom skills weren't that great either in the beginning.

 

Of course technology is changing rapidly in photography but guess what, it is changing quickly in all fields. My year old puter is easily yesterday's technology but I am not going to whine because there is something better out there now that others have bought.

 

I actually feel sorry for people who believe they are falling behind because they don't have the newest technology. They are tools, Harry. Nothing more, nothing less. Some use new tools, others pull their stuff out of an old cabinet. Make the best with what you have and work to improve the skills you feel you need to work on. Most important, relax and enjoy your photography.

Turn your camera on automatic (either the GREEN setting or P) and enjoy your camera.

The "simple photography" of 20, 50 years ago still exists, at least as long as film and printing paper are available. It's only when you try to introduce it into electronics that it can get complicated.

Too complicated? There are many on this site that think photography has become too SIMPLE. Auto focus, auto exposure, zoom lenses, LCDs to immediately see your results rather than wait for film to develop.

 

Photography is what you make of it. Every friend of mine has a digital point and shoot. Almost none of them have ever heard of HDR. None of them know what curves are and most of them think more megapixels is better. It would be nice if they understood some of these things but they are doctors, teachers, business owners, financial analysts. They just want the camera to make a decent picture of their kids on the full auto setting.

Too complicated...no way. Put your camera on auto run the pics through Silkypix and wowfactor.plus, put your photos on P.net and sue the manufacturers of all three if you don't get 7/7.

I find LF photography and the ensuing development process to be more cumbersome and step-laden than anything that appears on a monitor. And it hasn't gotten any simpler over the last 50 years. JR

Is photography becoming too complicated ? No. I don't mean to be mean, but the idea is quite funny really.<BR><BR>

 

Check out the data sheet for an ordinary roll of film, or a developer like ID-11.

Ilford, Kodak and Fujifilm have lots of these with graphs and curves and temperature charts, on their websites.<BR>

 

Try working out the best exposure with a hand held lightmeter, then adjust for a close up photo using a 15cm lens

with 250mm of bellows extension. <BR>

Better yet, try a 7 inch lens in the same situation. One that has stops labelled 1,2,3,4 instead of f/stops.<BR>

And for film, substitute glass plates that you think are ISO 6.<BR><BR>

 

Photography isn't at any more technical than it used to be, and I'm inclined to think although there is a lot of

technology involved now, a lot of it is software in packages designed to enable creativity.

As George Eastman proclaimed, once film was introduced photography became "So easy any school boy or girl can be a photographer."

 

But HCB had it right to my mind; "Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important."

At the inception of photography it was extremely difficult as you had to know chemistry and literally make all of your own materials. I fail to see how the digital workflow is harder than that. Maybe you can tell me?

I think this is a really good issue we can, and should, consider.

 

Once I realized that upgrade-chasing was just satisfying gadget lust, and not changing my vision of the world around me, I reverted back to

a film SLR and slide film. Take a walk (better yet, travel), shoot your vision, project on a wall, and *voila!* bore or entertain your critics.

 

I STILL fight the urge to buy a D700 every day, though, even though I have been commercially shooting a D2X for two years. But my

desire to create "art" can be satisfied more simply now, and my wallet thanks me. Even before the tax write-off.

it is as complicated/simple as one makes it. personally, i make it simple--one camera, one lens, one light meter--no batteries required--now, if i could only take a decent picture or two.

I believe the answer to your question will reflect each poster's own perceptions. It's possible to just point, click, slide the

media card into a portable printer and have really decent photos in your hand in a short time. It's also possible to shoot

RAW with a very complex camera system, invest concentrated time in many steps of post processing, and produce output

that literally represents your whole life of working with images. The ultimate question is not how much technology you

could afford to buy and use to its fullest, but the effect that viewing your images has on you and others. If I view an image

you've made and see the world we all share in a new way, we're both richer as human beings.

While it certainly has changed with the transition to digital, it is no more complicated than you want to make it. It was just as complicated in the film era, but a wet darkroom was used in lieu of digital. Oh yes, you could turn your film over to the guy at the drugstore for a package of prints to share with family and friends, and you can still do that today with digital - just hand him your memory card/stick. Or you could engage in the black arts of the darkroom to produce your art prints...today you do it on the computer. I think you're just seeing the trees and missing the forest...it is no more complicated than you choose to make it.

It's not that it's more complicated, it's that more mom and pop newbies are buying SLR's and considering themselves "Photographer".

 

There's a thread I'm reading on this site where someone is asking how to set the exposure on a D300. Now unless money is no factor or you get the camera from someone else...that's the last camera you should have to start off with.

Actually, I feel photography is rather simple. It can be made complicated by trying to absorb too much knowledge too quickly. I've often said, "I can teach the basics of photography in 2 hours." I do believe this to be true, since I've done it.

 

Mind you I said basics; exposure, camera operation and light theory. The learning curve for PS or darkroom is about the same, and both take a great deal of time to master or even be competent. It's taken me most of my life to absorb what I know about photography, painting, drawing, design and sculpture.

 

I don't try to create "art." For me art is a happy accident created by practicing a craft well. Besides, I'm not the one to define whether I'm an artist or photographer. That is left to the viewers of what I produce.

Is photography too complicated?

 

Compared to an horse-drawn wagon which served as a darkroom, heavy glass (or tin) plates, the on-going need for fresh eggs (albumin), and exposure to silver nitrate and mercury fumes, I'd say we have it pretty soft. Is it more involved than when I was a child (we actually had film by then)? Perhaps, but only in my perception of things over time. I do more now with less effort and greater output.

No, I don't think so. The camera's and photoshop are fairly easy to learn. Mostly people already own the required

items such as computer, editing program of some kind. I think an average teenager can pick up a DSLR and figure

out in a few minutes how to take snapshots and photoshop is probably about a 10minute exercise to get down the

basics. How long would a teenager need to figure out how to use a darkroom if they walked into one with a roll of

black and white film in there hand.