Increase in Quality?

[kinell]

Has the quality of photographs increased during the last 40 years?<br>

If yes, why?

[Ed_Ingold]

Define "quality of photographs".

[tommyinca]

My 2 cents. properly not the quality of photographers. Cost of the prints and the time it take to make one definitely went down. Cheaper and faster always result in more quantity of quality photographs :-)

[Matt Laur]

The quality of <i>which</i> photoraphs? The ones that surgeons take of a tumor they're in the middle of removing? The ones that real estate agents take of the unfinished basement of the house they're trying to sell? The ones of someone's lips that are reproduced 72-inches-tall behind the cosmetics counter at a department store? Passport photos? Fine art landscapes?

<Br><br>

Or are you talking about the typical metering as seen in backlit vacation shots taken this year, as opposed to 40 years ago?

<br><br>

The better question is: "Has the quality of questions about the quality of photography in the last 40 years improved in the last several weeks?" Because vaguely provocative, context-less questions about an area of art a technology as widespread as photography... weren't helpful 40 years ago, and still aren't.

<br><Br>

So, what are you <I>actually</i> asking?

[ronald_moravec1]

No. Just more of them.

 

A few dedicated amateurs have learned the craft and they make some great photos.

[photo_dark]

I think the average quality of the average photographer has increased. The ability to learn without having to go to art school or the library has caused a massive jump in quality from the hobbyist to the advanced amateur to the semi-pro. It is now incredibly easy to progress quickly, unlike before where there were limited professionals and most learning was simple trial and error. Not exactly an efficient process. But look at sites like Strobist, and even P.net.... massive learning resources available at the touch of a button.

 

I'm sure some will want to point to people like Ansel Adams in conversations like this...Yes Ansel created timeless images. So did many painters in centuries previous, that doesn't mean there aren't fantastic and better painters today with the better and more consistent mediums available to them today.

 

However, on the other end of the stick, technology in the last 100 years has allowed photographers to truly take it to the next level... The ability to take a highly portable and versatile tool into dangerous, testing environments has allowed for the creation of images not necessarily possible before at the same quality in the past (Ie... images from the fast 1Ds or 5D rivaling clunky and limited medium or large format of the past).

 

With the advent of digital, things that were impossible, or just plain time consuming are now simple to accomplish in a short amount of time by just about anyone.

 

Summary? I think that photography as a whole has improved. People now have the ability to learn the basics almost immediately, and there are thousands of resources out there for anyone wanting to progress further. On the professional level, digital has revolutionized every industry from marketing to photojournalism, and I personally would like to think that the best is yet to come. In my opinion, I can't imagine a more exciting time in history to BE in photography.

[kinell]

Matt Laur: Clearly there is some average mean (while maybe of no importance). But feel free to answer to a specific section such as: "Surgeon photography has gotten much better while passport photos still are the same" or similar.

<p>

<i>"So, what are you actually asking?"</i>

<p>

I wonder if the quality of photographs has increased in your opinion. If you think yes, please explain why. Pick any field or category you want.

<p>

<i>"The better question is..."</i><p>

No, I don't think that's a better question.

[kinell]

David Bowens: Thanks for a valuable answer!

[kinell]

Edward: <i>"Define 'quality of photographs'."</i><p>

No, you define it :-)<p>

A short description of what quality is to you together with an explanation of why it has increased or decreased

would be great. No limitations.

[swilson]

I assume you are talking about the technical quality and not the aesthetics.

 

The quality of my photographs has increased over the last 40 years.

 

Over all there was a step back for many people as they switch from MF cameras to 35mm cameras, but for most people this switch happened more then 40 years ago. My fathers photo from the late 40s and early 50s were taken with B/W MF film, in the 60s he switched to color 35mm film and the quality dropped. Now he is shooting digital and the quality is back up again.

 

There are plenty of photos that were taken 40 years ago that technically, and aesthetically, are better then 99.9% of the photos being taken today, but I would say for the average photographer the technical quality has gone up.

[bobatkins]

No, it hasn't

[photo_dark]

care to elaborate your opinion Bob?

[photo_dark]

Further to my post above.... My overriding opinion of the subject is that the medium is irrelevant. However, as a whole, I think that more people are able to take better pictures these days.... But like I said in my post... it's not the medium that facilitates this (except at the highest level) but rather the ability to learn faster and easier than ever before.

[tonmestrom]

given your other recent threads I know what you're driving at. It's just rephrasing the same question. Still, I'll answer

your question.

 

Yes, great improvements have been made, especcialy in the medical field where real breakthroughs have been

accomplished which lead to better and faster diagnosis. I know because it's part of my job to edit them almost every

single day. Part of that is hardware, mostly software. But that was not what you were referring too was it?

 

No, because despite the fact that accessible technology for the consumer suggests that virtually everyone can

achieve professional results it simply doesn't happen. It's still a relative few that are able to produce good photowork

or maybe I should say consistently good photowork. It's still a relatively few that have the talent, creativity, vision,

passion and perseverance to become good photographers. They've grown in numbers sure but that's mostly because

of more leisure time, more money and access to good training.

[kinell]

Scott: <i>"I assume you are talking about the technical quality and not the aesthetics. "</i><p>

We could very well include aesthetics too. For example, one could argue that art in general is making progress or that education in photography has gotten better.

<p>

Of course I also have in mind that the learning curve is very different with digital photos available. They way we are able to discuss photography over the internet instead of elite closed circles has an influence too, in my opinion.

[kinell]

Ton Mestrom:<p>

I'm not sure I agree with the second part of your post. Well, in fact, I would only replace the first word "No"

with a "Yes" and leave the rest as it is :-)<p>

My idea is that professionals always have to distinguish themselves from the average. As the average catches up,

the pros have to reach new levels in order to justify charging money for their work. The access to good training

that you mention is most important. Probably the percentage of people with talent remains about the same. But if

it was one percent of the population, we still would have close to 70 millions of potentially excellent

photographers. As they gain access to good education, quality must boost just statistically.

[tonmestrom]

"As the average catches up, the pros have to reach new levels in order to justify charging money for their work"

 

First of all not every professional is a good photographer, more importantly however a good pro is a good craftsman who does what he does with a certain amount of skill. The "average"as you call them revert for the most part to filter programms to achieve something similar. A good pro gets paid because he delivers what's asked each and every time and that's what I meant with consistency. There's not a lot of "average"that can do that.

 

"As they gain access to good education, quality must boost just statistically" You should read more carefully. It takes a lot more than talent and access to schooling as was clearly stated. And now I'm off to bed.

[fullmetalphotograper]

I think every person can take at least one great photo, but a good and great photographer can take great photos consistently.

 

If you get a chance go into a downtown club or elks lodge or any club that has been around 80 plus years and look at the

portraits of the past presidents to the present. Look at the dates of the photos. It is an interesting way to view course of photo

history. You can see very noticeable change when 35mm SLR came into play and latter digital. What tends to come into play is

lack of attention to the detail in posing and lighting. Here is basic take on it when in the past you only had a few frames to work

with and no photoshop you were forced to get as much as possible correct in the capture. I think today's focus tends to be lots

of images and post production.

 

I do not think the magic lies in the medium but in the process and the care the photographer was forced to do during the

capture. We live in great age for photography with the tools at our finger tips. It has also been of time of redefining the art. In

many ways we can capture images our forefathers could only dream of.

 

I feel we are getting back to a time in which the technique has caught up to the technology. So to answer your question the

quality of the tech and mecha have improved.

 

The quality of photographer has not.

[James G. Dainis]

Certainly the quality of photographs has increased in the last 40 years. With T grain and 4th emulsion layers, etc. even today's 400 ISO film is far less grainy than old 100 ASA film. People had to use medium format to get the same quality results that today's 35mm film gets.

[kinell]

Ralph: <i>"the quality of the tech and mecha have improved. The quality of photographer has not."</i><p>

Now that's really interesting. If we were talking about medical doctors or athletes I'm sure we would all agree that with improved tools come better professionals. Only thanks to great advances in educational and training methods such things as heart surgery or 100m in 9.69 have become possible.<br>

Yet you believe that the quality of the photographer has not improved. If that is the case, we are doing something really wrong. What is the answer to that downfall? How would you bring back into focus the process and the care you mention?

[kinell]

James: Many in here seem to acknowledge the technical advancements but doubt that photographers have made progress artistically (while I myself am trying to construct an opinion on the subject). Read Ralphs concerns regarding lack of attention since the introduction of 35mm cameras for example.

[Matt Laur]

<i>I'm sure we would all agree that with improved tools come better professionals</i>

<br><Br>

I'm sure we would <i>not</i> all agree on that. Professionalism is a state of mind and a way of being, not a set of

skills or a familiarity with or use of a particular tool or technique. This is true for all professions. Otherwise the only

qualification for "professional" would be the ability to get a loan large enough to procure the kitchen for the chef, the

tools for the auto mechanic, the camera gear for the photographer, or the imaging equipment for the radiologist. You

can own all of that stuff, and still be the antithesis of a professional. You can also progress from using a Nikon D40

to the newest generation digital 'blad and not improve your photography one bit.

<br><Br>

Photography is a technical craft, of course, But it's mostly a form of communication. That requires the presence of

something to communicate, and a photographer who understands that. I'm very comfortable saying that, as a culture,

the last 40 years have seen us far less capable as communicators generally. Thoughtful, deliberate communication

(whether written, spoken, or visual) requires an attention span, a plan, and enough critical thinking skills to know if

it's likely to be and ultimately was effective. Have you talked to a typical high school student, lately? Have you

<i>corresponded</i> with one? Those are our future photographers and other communicators.

[kinell]

Matt: Please do not cite me out of context. You completely turned my words around.

<p>

I explicitly referred to medical doctors and athletes. The correct citation should read:<p>

<i>"If we were talking about medical doctors or athletes I'm sure we would all agree that with improved tools

come better professionals"</i><p>

Meaning: A 100 years ago without proper tools and training methods, nobody would have been able to run 100 meters

in 9.69. A good soccer team today would easily outplay any good soccer team from 50 years ago. That's just

because athletes have advanced so much in the way they practice and with all the tools they have available such

as a whole team of coaches, video analysis, psychological training etc.<p>

The definition of a professional by the way is someone who does something for a living.<p>

 

Regarding communication, I agree with you. It still would be nice though, if you corrected the misleading

citation, since that also is bad communication.

[richterjw]

Let's see: How can I ask a vague but loaded question and then proceed to get irrationally chippy when people ask me to define my terms? Oh yes, "Has the quality of photographs increased during the last 40 years?" Then maybe I'll argue with everyone who has a different perspective. JR

[Matt Laur]

It's not about the context (professional sports people vs. professional photographers, for example). It's about the use

of the word "professional" <i>in the sense that it's generally used</i>. Which is to say, "someone who does

something for a living, and is understood to know what they're doing." My point is that better autofocus may indeed

mean that we have higher standards for what an in-focus image should look like, and how often we expect to see

one... but that has nothing to do with a bettering of <i>professional people</i>, who must carry on in a professional

way. As others have mentioned above, this is about work ethic, consistency, attention to details, communication

skills, and the rest - not about the availability of YouTube tutorials on how to use Pocket Wizard flash triggers, or a

shelf full of Zone System books that might not have been handy forty years ago.

<br><br>

Availability of information (like this fine web site, and many others) doesn't instill a professional work ethic or

appreciation for the value of communication skills. Work ethics and an embrace of clear, nuanced communication of

all kinds has suffered over the last forty years. I'm suggesting that that impacts <i>every</i> profession, and all the

more so affects professions that are all <i>about</i> communication (i.e., photography).

<br><br>

So, I don't think I'm citing you out of context - I'm making an observation about the relationship between

professionalism and the intellectual rigor that I think has, in many ways, eroded in the last forty years. There are

fresh new things to know, and fresh new tools to put to work ... but our <i>culture</i> of professionalism has

regressed throughout the timeframe you mention, and better tools or new training/coaching techniques don't make up

for that.