Is photography splitting into too many specialties?

<p>It seems to me that photography has split into so many specialties that it is very hard for one person to get a good knowledge of all the areas. In the past it wasn't as difficult, although hard. Eventually I feel I'll be a jack of all trades but a master of none.</p>

<p>The specialties are photographic hardware use and techniques, Lighting hardware and techniques, color management and theory (from computer control to printer management), post processing your images (i.e. Photoshop, NX2, etc.) and now video!</p>

<p>There are too may areas to be an expert in all of them. Yet if you want to be a good amateur with proper techniques, knowledge of post processing and the ability to print out a great print at home, you have to know all of these areas. Of course you had to know these things before digital to some extent, but it seems like the amount of knowledge you need has increased tenfold (more so on the photo processing side). If you are a pro who can afford assistants than things are easier I am sure, but most of us are part-time amateurs trying to produce a great photo and subsequent print.</p>

<p>I realize this is all part of the future and it may only get worse. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t frustrating. My brain isn’t getting any younger. Sometimes I just throw up my arms and think, "There is no way I'll ever get all of this!"</p>

<p>I'm just wondering if anyone else out there feels the amount of information to know is now almost overwhelmingly frustrating, to go from shot to print, and what area you find, for yourself, to be the most valuable to concentrate on, since there is no way to be an expert in all of them (unless you are some kind of sick genius)?</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5190018"><em>Mark Jordan</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Mar 16, 2010; 11:05 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>It seems to me that photography has split into so many specialties that it is very hard for one person to get a good knowledge of all the areas. In the past it wasn't as difficult, although hard....</em></p>

 

<p><em>....I'm just wondering if anyone else out there feels the amount of information to know is now almost overwhelmingly frustrating, to go from shot to print, and what area you find, for yourself, to be the most valuable to concentrate on, since there is no way to be an expert in all of them (unless you are some kind of sick genius)?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mark, you're right, but have no fear, just pick the areas you like and let the "experts" beat themselves senseless in their "specialties".<br>

Learn from them that which applies to you, and take it from there.<br>

Think of photography like any other craft, let's say boxing.<br>

Bottom line, the fundamentals are still the fundation for any craft. Learn them and learn them well.<br>

Are you a slugger? Then slug.<br>

Are you a counterpuncher, a "stick 'n' move" artist, a ring technician?<br>

You can't be all of them, but get the fundamentals down and enjoy the craft.<br>

My specialtise are unretouched photography, shooting cityscapes, street photography, and overall urban funk, or grit.<br>

What do you like to do?</p>

<p>Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom</p>

<p>I agree with Bill. Nobody can be an expert in everything.<br /> <br /> I think it depends a lot on how you look at it. From a professional standpoint, yes we do more these days compared to ten years ago. Well, maybe not exactly but things are done differently.<br /> <br /> 10 years ago coming home from a shoot I'd edit trannies on a lightbox after getting them back from the lab. The ones surviving the editing process would be given an individual image ID#. Caption info was put directly on the mounts using those impossibly small Avery labels. Then sort images and put them in the archive. Pull trannies as needed for image submissions, scans etc.<br /> <br /> Now I come home from a shoot and import images from my CF cards into Lightroom. Edit and select the keepers. Keepers are then getting an individual image ID# and caption info is entered. Then to archive (and back-up) to be pulled as needed. <br /> <br /> But, the only real differences I see are:<br /> - Continuous back-ups. Before you archived the trannies and that was pretty much that. Now we're talking multiple digital back-ups of every high-res images.<br /> - Before there was no need to be computer savvy as an editorial stock photographer. Now you have to be comfortable working in PS, Lightroom and/or other editing software.<br /> - Before I simply pulled trannies, jotted down the client's FedEx account # and shipped them off. Now I can't even remember the last time I actually sent anything tangible (aside from marketing pieces) to a client.<br /> <br /> As far as what to shoot, there hasn't been a change for me. But that's only because I'm specialized in a rather narrow field and only shoot images related to that - Law Enforcement and Prisons. But I certainly have to keep up with the times in my fields. I need to replace old images showing outdated techniques, equipment, etc with images showing contemporary techniques and equipment. A felony traffic stop looks a lot different today than 10 years ago for instance. So does the booking procedure for an inmate entering prison. Professionally there is absolutely a need to develop and keep up.<br /> <br /> I merrily ignore the photography related areas of expertise that I don't need. I don't need to know how to shoot food, light an expensive hotel suite, create a moody portrait, or very much beyond the very basics of studio shooting. The only things I shoot in studio are equipment and close-ups of things like drugs, bullets showing rifling marks etc.<br /> <br /> Had I been in a different field I'm sure I would have had to learn a lot of new things. I don't make prints for instance, aside from for personal use and to give away as gifts. So there's no need for me to know the finer points of digital printing.<br /> <br /> Essentially I don't think photography is different from any other job. The vast majority of jobs comes with a need to update your skill-set to use new equipment, software, ways to do your job etc. For the hobbyist I'm sure it is quite different though.</p>

<p>Things sure are or can be complicated these days. But remember things weren't really all that simple 'way back when. I started out in black and white in the mid 1960's, had to figure out on my own how to properly develop film that I had pre-loaded into cassettes from a bulk loader. Then there was the actual print making, what grade and contrast paper to use, how to dodge and burn prints, time exposures, properly finish and dry on a ferrotype plate, etc. Things got better with resin coated multicontrast paper, but you still had to judge what filters to use, make test prints, and so on. </p>

<p>And I did much of this in temporary darkroom setups in our apartments - bathrooms or kitchens. Things got somewhat easier with a darkroom I made in our first house, had to do the plumbing, wiring, ventilation, and carpentry by myself. Did the same in our second and current home. Now the darkroom stuff is all gone, I use the room to store my "stuff".</p>

<p>I do like digital photography best!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with Bob B. that things aren't all that much more complex - just different.</p>

<p>Sure, shooting transparencies was simpler since what came back from the lab was what all you got (and you can get the same effect with a fixed set of post-processing steps applied automatically).</p>

<p>However, anyone making prints (and esp. color prints) had a whole raft of darkroom related skills to learn and apply to every image. Compared with that work-flow, digital is similar/easier (IMHO).</p>

<p>IMHO it is only as complicated as you want to make it. The vast majority of photographers in the old (film) days dropped off their films at the local camera store or drugstore and picked up their prints when ready. Today the vast majority of photographers drop off their memory cards/sticks or email them to a local camera shop or drugstore or online service a,d pick them up when ready, wait for them, or get them mailed or emailed back to them.</p>

<p>Having said that, there are then more advanced photographers, like many of those on this forum, who engage in post processing and production. In the old days they were the darkroom people. Similar but different tools...definitely less toxic today, and perhaps more addictive.</p>

<p>I remember back in 1855 when I had to formulate my own emulsions, formulate my own photographic chemicals, learn how to polish glass, coat the plates, and then print the final plate. Don't get me started on that. Finding the right paper, coating the paper with albumen, sensitizing the paper...exposing it outdoors ...formulating the developer...</p>

<p>How could you be expected to master all of that chemistry and manufacturing just to take a photograph? Not to mention that I only had 10 minutes from the time the plate was sensitized until development...do you know what I had to pack into the field just to make ONE photograph...?</p>

<p>The ends will justify the means.<br>

Huh?</p>

<p>The answer depends on your goals.</p>

<p>Look at the people necessary to make a major motion picture. Hundreds of people, many who specialize.<br>

The director (YOU) see all aspects and hopefully know somewthing about all the aspects; but that does not make you an expert in CGI, PP or sound editing. These are specialty areas; but the director can at least have a intelligent conversation with all depts involved in making the movie..and the director (YOU) have visualized the final outcome based on your knowledge in ALL areas needed to complete the task.</p>

<p>Do you NEED to specialize? No. Should you?..Onle you can answer that.</p>

<p>Steve,,, you're 155 year old... WOW<br>

:-) LOL (sorry can't help myself)</p>

<p>focus on what <strong><em>you</em></strong> like. you don't need to know much about any of that to take some good pictures. go with the basics of lighting and composition and a point and shoot camera can get some pretty good results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Not to mention that I only had 10 minutes from the time the plate was sensitized until development...do you know what I had to pack into the field just to make ONE photograph...?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Not to mention the difficulty of trying to get <a href="http://www.wikiwak.com/image/PinkertonLincolnMcClernand.jpg">President Lincoln</a> to quit toking reefer long enough to catch him standing still and with his eyes open.</em><br>

<em>--<a href="http://www.wikiwak.com/wak/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/War">Alexander Gardner</a> , 1862</em></p>

<p>

<p>"I remember back in 1855 when I had to formulate my own emulsions, formulate my own photographic chemicals, learn how to polish glass, coat the plates, and then print the final plate. Don't get me started on that. Finding the right paper, coating the paper with albumen, sensitizing the paper...exposing it outdoors ...formulating the developer...<br>

How could you be expected to master all of that chemistry and manufacturing just to take a photograph? Not to mention that I only had 10 minutes from the time the plate was sensitized until development...do you know what I had to pack into the field just to make ONE photograph...?"</p>

</p>

<p>Steve, this sounds like my weekend, only I do platinum prints instead of albumen. These techno-geeks are such wimps. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have found myself as exasperated as you, Mark, with the camera itself, lighting, color and post processing, monitor calibration, printing. How much there is to learn in each area: it is both wide and deep. I made some decisions to reduce my frustration. I would eventually like to be able to make a capture and control it down through to the printer. But at this point: I had to ask myself why. I decided to not buy Photoshop and to not print. Those two may come later. I did decide to calibrate my monitor (Eye-One Display 2), deficient though my monitor is. I bought 6K florescent lights for my celing floresent light fixtues beneath which my monitor sits. What do I know about color? Not a lot, but I am slowly learning. My thinking is that I will concentrate on the capture: composition and exposure in ambient light, playing some with flash. I shoot in RAW and 'develop' to TIFF with the software that came with the camera, minimal post processing. Too much noise? Oh well! I've read there are tools as a remedy, but at this point, its enough to know there are remedies. As to printing: my girlfriend took some of my files to Costco and had some prints made and also bought me some frames. The quality was good enough, not exhibition quality, color problems, brightness variances compared to the monitor: but popping something into a frame, I could clearly see that some shots that worked well on screen didn't cut it at all when framed. And vice versa, some shots looked bland on the monitor; but in a frame, they popped. Which did add to my perceptions about composition and exposure, and which nevertheless didn't tempt me to try and do it all right now. Which is more broadly my point about what helped decrease my frustration: to not try and do it all right now, to leave more for later. Once compositon and exposure are closer to second nature, then I might invest the 6 months to a year it would take to work with Photoshop and take it through to the print. </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4890042"><em>Charles Wood</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Mar 17, 2010; 05:24 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>I would eventually like to be able to make a capture and control it down through to the printer. But at this point: I had to ask myself why. </em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, I'd ask myself "Why not?"</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I decided to not buy Photoshop and to not print. Once compositon and exposure are closer to second nature, then I might invest the 6 months to a year it would take to work with Photoshop and take it through to the print.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, once composition and exposure are closer to second nature, you'll be shooting like I do, unretouched and proud of it. You won't need photoshop or all the other gimmicks you read about.<br>

That's the fakeout. It's assumed by most people that you can't do proper photography without all the "tools".<br>

You have all the tools you need. Learn the craft and amaze yourself at how good you can become.<br>

Check out my little portfolio here on P/N and see what can be done with a camera and passion.<br>

<em></em><br>

Regards,</p>

<p>Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom</p>

<p>I don't feel that there was that much difference in switching from film to digital imaging.</p>

<p>You still have to understand your capture device whether it be a small format camera or a large format camera with movements. You have to understand exposure. With film you had such a difference in mediums with B&W and color print films and slide film. You had to make drastic changes in capturing image with these different films.</p>

<p>Lighting techniques are similar. With film you had to use tungsten film under certain lighting conditions. It is so much easier to shoot RAW and make an adjustment in post.</p>

<p>I find it much easier to do color management in the digital darkroom. I use a Color Spyder and calibrate my system every month. It was much harder using a color analyzer in the film darkroom.</p>

<p>How much time have you spent in the film darkroom testing different film and developer combinations. I use to keep a notebook with the results. </p>

<p>I made my prints in the film darkroom and could see no reason to change when I went mostly digital. I have always liked to have control of the process. Software like Photoshop can seem daunting at first. With so many different options it can seem confusing. You can ask ten different Photoshop users how to do a task and get ten different answers. But how different is that from the film darkroom? If you ask ten different B&W photographers for the best B&W film and developers you can get ten different answers.</p>

<p>Formal training can make the difference. Taking a course in Photoshop is not that different that taking a B&W film workshop. It can help you to understand the process as a whole. From that you can add experience and the learning of new techniques.</p>

<p>Becoming competent or becoming an expert takes time and effort with whatever medium you use. You have to ask yourself whether it is worth it. Some people like to capture what they see. Some of us like to capture what we feel.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Why don't you pick one?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Charles, once composition and exposure are closer to second nature, you'll be shooting like I do, unretouched and proud of it. You won't need photoshop or all the other gimmicks you read about.<br />That's the fakeout.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No more of a "fakeout" than working in a darkroom...it's all just tools - it's what you do with the tools not what tools you use.</p>

<p>Ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a hamster. Your *right* answer will bring you peace.</p>

<p>http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/pdf/Hamster_Wheel.pdf</p>

There are as many specialties in photography as there are categories on this Forum. Not to mention things like forensic, food, and equestrian photography. it's good to know a little about everything, but you can be expert at everything. Everybody thinks the CEO of a company knows everything, no way that is why he hires people.

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=86165"><em>Steve Swinehart</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Mar 17, 2010; 04:12 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Charles, once composition and exposure are closer to second nature, you'll be shooting like I do, unretouched and proud of it. You won't need photoshop or all the other gimmicks you read about.<br />That's the fakeout.</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p><em>No more of a "fakeout" than working in a darkroom...it's all just tools - it's what you do with the tools not what tools you use.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So true. It's like going back to that bunch of trays, enlarger and craft.<br>

Nothing more.<br>

I got the greatset joy out of that, too.</p>

<p>Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=981510"><em>Robert K</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Mar 18, 2010; 07:50 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a hamster. Your *right* answer will bring you peace.</em></p>

 

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/pdf/Hamster_Wheel.pdf" target="_blank"><em>http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/pdf/Hamster_Wheel.pdf</em></a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting article, worth the time it took to read it.<br>

Forget the hamster stuff.<br>

Go outside and do some great phtography !</p>

<p>Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So true. It's like going back to that bunch of trays, enlarger and craft.<br />Nothing more.<br />I got the greatset joy out of that, too. Bill P.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So why label photoshop as <em>a gimmick</em> or <em>the fakeout</em> if it can serve the same single purpose as a tool as those bunch of trays and enlarger in the process of creating the image.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=934135"><em>Phylo Dayrin</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Mar 18, 2010; 02:11 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>So true. It's like going back to that bunch of trays, enlarger and craft.<br />Nothing more.<br />I got the greatset joy out of that, too. Bill P.</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p><em>So why label photoshop as a gimmick or the fakeout if it can serve the same single purpose as a tool as those bunch of trays and enlarger in the process of creating the image.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very simple.<br>

Photoshop these days is the same as having a full retouching lab way back when.....<br>

That retouching lab "could" just process a straight print, but why bother?<br>

I didn't need that stuff then, and I don't now.</p>

<p>Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom</p>

<p>I use photoshop to resize, retouch dustspot if there are any from scanning, dodge&burn,... to do pretty much the same darkroom stuff as old, and many photographers use it in the same way. I don't <em>need</em> it, I use it. Very simple. </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=934135"><em>Phylo Dayrin</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Mar 18, 2010; 03:32 p.m.</em><br>

<em>I use photoshop to resize, retouch dustspot if there are any from scanning, dodge&burn,... to do pretty much the same darkroom stuff as old, and many photographers use it in the same way. I don't need it, I use it. Very simple.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's right, very simple.<br>

Overkill, but that's your choice.<br>

You prove my point, which is that photographers don't NEED photoshop.</p>

<p>Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom </p>