Increase in Quality?

[kinell]

Jeremy: I don't get your point? Are you referring to my response to Edward? I'm really just trying to hear different views and so far, I succeeded quite well. There have been several good contributions.

[kinell]

Matt: OK, they way you cited me just gave me a feeling that people could think I was talking about photographers when I clearly wasn't.. But let's forget that for now.<p>

If I get your last post right, you believe there are two groups of skills that make a good photographer.<br>

One group like understanding the technical aspects of a camera or applying the Zone System can be taught and there is freely available information about it. Therefore, skills have probably increased.<br>

The other group includes skills such as good communication and solid work ethic. This group is harder to teach and in fact, skills have decreased.<p>

If I got this right, do you have any solution to your observed decrease in culture of professionalism? How would you teach it, or how should people learn it?

[Matt Laur]

<i>do you have any solution to your observed decrease in culture of professionalism</i>

<br><br>

A culture of professionalism is a by-product - a subset - of a culture of critical thinking, appreciation (rather than avoidance) of complex realities, and an embrace of causality. Meaning: kids should learn to actually - comprehendingly - read and write, learn (real!) science, and develop an attention span longer than 30 seconds. They need to be more connected to cause and effect... to consequence. That's what inspires one to act more rationally. And a rational engagement with the world around you has happy side effects: unmuddied ethics, cheerful productivity, and <i>creativity</i> that's rooted in reason.

<br><br>

Photography is just a way to communicate. But if the things you want to communicate (product stills? escapist flights of fantasy? sober finger pointing? primal passion?) are contemplated through the lens of reason, the communicating photographer will have a clear personal investment in communicating <i>well</i>. And that compels a photographer to be throughtful about her work, and to be masterful with her tools. So? Kids grow up to be better thinkers (and thus better communicators) when they are required to be thus. Better thinkers - when they turn to art - make better artists.

<br><br>

On the other hand, a culture that dismisses hard work as quaint, and encourages self-esteem for the act of breathing ... hatches out petulant, lazy thinkers and artists with a sense of entitlement. A photographer with a sense of entitlement expects his tools to do the heavy lifting for him, and expects his audience to praise him regardless of his actual merit. Lazy people make lazy photographers, and the fruit of their minimal labors doesn't hold up under scrutiny - though they may get lucky here and there.

[fullmetalphotograper]

Andreas, You brought up an interesting point. Lets look at doctors for a second. for a second. Are you talking quality of care or

quality of the doctor. There is a difference. To me a quality doctor is someone who uses the techniques and technology of their

time to do the best they can for their patient, that is timeless. You will have to forgive me but, I have been a journalist a lot of

years, and I have seen a lot of doctors with the best tech and knowledge base make horrific mistakes, because they did not care

enough or listen to their patients.

 

Lets look at athletics for a second. As great as Michael Phelps olympic feats were does that lessen the accomplishments Jesse

Owens? I would argue that Jesse Owens face greater obstacles challenges in his era than Phelps.

 

Has Ansel Adam's work diminished because change in tech. I would say no. Yes more people can take good photos but how many

can take great photos consistently?

[mohir_ali]

Increase in quality?

 

Film, definately

 

Cameras and lenses, not that much

 

Photographers, probably not

 

Commercial printers, definately not

[grodis]

I would say the Quantity of Quality photographs has gone up. We did have some lows there for awhile with the 110's, Chinese 35mm's, and the 2 MP digitals. When people mention "Quality Photographs" the first thing that comes to mind is Large Format Film which is hard to improve on lately. But, I guess LF lens and film are better but it's really hard to see the quality increase with the unaided, untrained human eye.

[kinell]

Ralph: I see your point. There is an equally reasonable view however that a doctors quality can be measured in numbers of lives saved and a running athlete shall be measured in seconds.<p>

And no, that is not the equivalent of measuring a photographer in numbers of pictures taken :-)<p>

Doctors have always been making mistakes. And although maybe giving the best, they made much more mistakes in earlier days. Check out the great discovery of Ignác Semmelweis.<p>

<i>"As great as Michael Phelps olympic feats were does that lessen the accomplishments Jesse Owens?"</i>"<p>

Yes it does. A new world record always lessens the value of the old one.

[photo_dark]

Mohir: "Commercial printers, definately not"

 

Oh touche! I completely agree with that. Just because a company has a top end wide format printer doesn't mean they have a frigging clue how to use it.

 

Dear printing company,

Please profile your printer so the colors end up correct.

Thanks.

the photographer & graphic designing community

[fullmetalphotograper]

Andreas, your argument comes down to talent is created by technology. I would say talent exploits of the day technology. I

think there is many a historian who would question logic. So your saying Jesse Owens an african-american (great grandson

of a slave) who won 4 gold medals in 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany in front of Adolf Hitler and debunked the whole Aryan

superiority, is less of an achievement?

 

I think you need to relook at history and understand context. Knowledge and technology does not create talent. Talent

exploits knowledge and technology.

[Matt Laur]

Andreas: A good doctor isn't measured by how many lives she saves, relative to a doctor using last year's, or last

century's medical technology. "Good," in this sense, is a measure of how well the doctor uses the tools at her

disposal <i>now</i>. Better tools <i>used well</i> will render better results. The results that a new technology can

render don't make the doctor better, they make the overall system (which includes doctors) better. So, fancy MRI

machines provide better images than old flim-based x-ray devices from 40 years ago. But a dedicated, skilled

radiologist is still a dedicated, skilled radiologist, just like he was 40 years ago. His tools can do new tricks, and so

the services offered by his practice are more useful. But that's not the measure of the man.

<br><br>

A bored, poor-attention-to-detail radiologist without the discipline to get a good night's sleep before coming to the

office in the morning and using a $1M MRI machine is NOT as good a professional from 40 years ago who had poorer

tools but the right work ethic. You're confusing professionalism with tools.

<br><br>

The accomplishments of the past have to be seen in context. Otherwise you're just playing an empty numbers game.

Is arrival of open wooden Viking long boats in North America a thousand years ago any less impressive now that you

can hop on a Virgin Atlantic flight and enjoy a movie <i>about</i> Vikings, and just barely get in some sleep in the

time it takes to make the same trip today? Context, man, context.

[tonmestrom]

"There is an equally reasonable view however that a doctors quality can be measured in numbers of lives saved"

 

no that's a view born from ignorance, and to be fair on you I would advise you not to go there because you've clearly no idea what you're talking about. Making comparisons is one thing but stick to that what you know and can substantiate.

[DickArnold]

To take just a limited slice of your question and the prominence photography had during WWII and the succeeding

years thereafter, I would say no. The reason for that is that when I was growing up during that period, outside of

movie news, the American public recieved most to their visual information from photos both in newspapers and

magazines before TV became widespread. It was more important then and had much greater impact. The pictures

in Life, Look and other like magazines were virtually devoured each week as they came out. The photographers,

considering their equipment at the time, were marvelous and became celebrities in their own right. Now our primary

visual source is TV. Having taken pictures just post WWII I know the equipment is much easier to use today and

produces images that are better in most cases than those done in mostly B&W in old darkrooms. But in that period, I

had to know what ASA, f stop, and shutter speed did as well as knowing how to focus. Even in the weddings I did in

the nineties I used manual focus, hand held light meters etc. I used a darkroom even then. My digital product today

is easier, faster, much more automatic and much easier to print. That doesn't make it better artistically or from a

standpoint of being interesting to the viewer. Styles have changed with portraits as well as other formal work. Does

that make new stuff better? hell, I don't know. Some of those earlier Life photographers were amazing at their craft.

How good are 200 paparazzi all trying to take the same picture for millions of dollars? Not as good as those Life men

and women, IMHO. I am a lot better technically than I used to be but my photos contain the same mediocrity that

they did forty years ago. You question is much too broad to generate effective and informative answers. As in any

intelligent search for answers there have to be some definitions, i.e. what do you define as better? what area are you

talking about? Is it technical, artistic, etc.? What kind of photography, i.e. medical, wedding, fine art etc?

[kinell]

Ton Mestrom: <br>

>> <i>""There is an equally reasonable view..."</i><br>

> <i>"no that's a view born from ignorance...</i>"

<p>

Ignorance is not to accept another view.<p>

To elaborate somewhat: If you have two doctors treating the same amount of patients for the same sickness, the

one who saves more is better. Simplified yet true.

[kinell]

Matt: <i>"Is arrival of open wooden Viking long boats in North America a thousand years ago any less impressive

now that you can hop on a Virgin Atlantic flight "</i><p>

To me it is definitely less impressive.<br>

The first is a bunch of bold sailors who somehow managed to reach America in a primitive boat. Maybe they did

some great sailing and surely they were very brave.<br>

The other is the convergence of the work of thousands of engineers using the latest technology and research in

order to construct such a fantastic thing as a Boing-747. Being able to fly is the greater achievement for me.

[kinell]

Ralph: <i>"your argument comes down to talent is created by technology."</i><p>

No, that is completely wrong. I believe talent has been constant over the ages. Nowadays, we just exploit

it better than ever. In order to exploit it better, we need technology. By applying it, we raise the absolute

level.<p>

<i>"I think there is many a historian who would question [your] logic. So your saying Jesse Owens [...]who won 4

gold medals [..] is less of an achievement? "</i><p>

Regarding athletics, yes, that's what I'm saying. 8 gold medals is just better than 4.<br>

Just ask yourself: In a 100 meter run, who is considered the all-time best? It's the one who ran the distance

fastest.<br>

Who has made the greater historic achievement is another question though. I'd say Jesse Owens.<p>

But to get back to photography: A photographer's quality is not judged by how well he performs in another field.

And I see nothing wrong with judging photographers on an absolute scale without considering some historical

context. Just like 100 meter runners.

[kinell]

Dick: <i>"Some of those earlier Life photographers were amazing at their craft. How good are 200 paparazzi all trying to take the same picture for millions of dollars?"</i><p>

The paparazzi are probably much worse. Of course one has to consider the tools someone uses to judge that persons skill. One probably has a hard time trying to compare photographers using different formats. That doesn't mean the historic time needs to be considered too. A question to be asked could be: "How well did the photographer handle the light with the tools he had?" or "How well did he compose?"

<p>

<i>"what do you define as better?"</i><p>

Others have asked me to define it too. But I left it open on purpose to allow different metrics and quality attributes. Just in the discussion with Ralph historic quality was weighed against technical quality.

[DickArnold]

Start with National Geographic in the thirties and use their photographs through the years to the present if you want to set a reference standard on a time based continuum. Good work transcends formats and equipment and hangs in museums in color, black and white, giclee, large format, medium format, digital and, of course, film. Edward Weston and many others are timeless.

[kinell]

Dick: <i>"Start with National Geographic"</i><p>

And do you feel National Geographic pictures have improved over the years? In mathematics, physics or painting (all very old fields) so much progress has been made in the last half of the century (stretch that a little to include Picasso and Monet...). Photography however is a very young field compared to the others. I couldn't believe it's already stagnating.

[DickArnold]

The technology of photography is advancing and improving at a pace where it is financially difficult to keep up if you

are a techie. History is the only judge as to whether the practicioners are advancing as well. I have to emphatically

say that I do not know that answer. Socially, I don't think phtography has the universal impact that it had before

television and talking heads. I do realize that television cannot permanently capture things in the same way as you can

freeze a moment in a picture. That is as far as I am willing to go. History will be the judge about the art and impact of

current efforts, not me.

[lovcom_photo]

Composition aside, yes, in the last few years, the quality if photographs, in regard to image quality, yes that has improved massively. I repeat, I'm not talking composition here, but rather image quality in regard to sharpness, contrast, the revelation of details, nuances, and other visual sublties.

 

Just look at any number of magazines from the 70's and before that, be it Life, Look, National Geographic, and you too will see LOTS of pictures too soft in focus, so-so colors even when accounting for fade.

 

To summarize, yes, in the last few years image quality has never beeen better and this is thanks to digital means, the ability to pixel peep and the fast, cheap ways we can post process ala Ansel our images per the computer.

 

Back to composition...no this has not improved in the last 100 years...

[cheryl_jacobs]

I would agree with those who have said that the technology has improved, but photographers have not. Absolutely.

 

I think truly artistic work is generally overlooked in favor of the flashy, the kitschy, the cutesy, and the fads. Subtlety is

a rare art these days, and yet it's where I think the true beauty of photography lies. (Please note that that's my opinion

only; no need to send me hate mail.)

 

Please also note that I am not specifically referring to digital and photoshop. IMO the artistic side of photography has

been declining for decades.

 

- CJ

[ilkka_nissila]

The best photographs haven't improved that much, but the average quality of photographs and the conditions in which good photos can be made have dramatically improved.

 

In the old days you would get the best color photos from Kodachrome II (ISO 25), and 64 was already clearly inferior in terms of the final technical quality, although many still liked it. Making prints from slides was difficult and expensive. Today you can shoot ISO 400 film which is comparable with the quality of ISO 25 of old, and digital at ISO 1600-3200 (Nikon D3/D700) is at the same quality level, overall speaking, if not better. This is a remarkable advancement in the ease of making photos in low light.

 

But as far as the memorability of the images, the best photos of 40 years ago are probably just as good as the best pics taken today. It's not so dependent on the technical quality or ease of photography in a technical sense.

 

So it has become easier to make good images in more varied conditions, and the quantity of good photos is much greater, but in as far as the very top images and their significance, you could also do great things in photography 40 years ago. YMMV.

[fullmetalphotograper]

Andreas, I see your point if I were to take a 1980's Nuclear Aircraft Carrier the USS Nimitz, with Kirk Douglas commanding,

back to 12/06/41 he could have stopped the bombing of Pearl Harbor and defeated the Japanese Fleet in a day. And Kirk

Douglas would be the superior naval tactician to Isoroku Yamamoto, because he had F-14 Tomcats and radar. Speaking

theoretically of course. :)

 

The next question is what if I take a Ansel Adams and give the same tech and knowledge of today, to use. Does he

become a better photographer or just more prolific?

[kinell]

Ralph: If all other variables remain unchanged, "more prolific" could be seen as "better". Regarding Ansel Adams: My personal belief is that he probably could have been even better with todays possibilities. Just because we have much more knowledge today (thanks to people like Ansel Adams!).<br>

Most people would agree that we get better at whatever we do over time. Also, many would agree that we are able to learn more and faster due to better educational methods. If we take those two statements as facts, it is safe to conclude he would have reached his level in less time, leaving more time for further improvement.