Can people appreciate subtly and imperfection in a digital age

[Diapositivo]

I had never really thought about this, but I guess the daguerreotype is the only form of photography with complete integrity.

Instant film? (When not lacking of visual integrity by design, I mean). No enlarging, no manipulation.

 

[cliveh]

Instant film? (When not lacking of visual integrity by design, I mean). No enlarging, no manipulation.

How true, as I hadn't thought about that. There are probably many others.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Instant film? (When not lacking of visual integrity by design, I mean). No enlarging, no manipulation.

It seems to me that there was a fair amount of manipulation done to SX-70 prints.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I hope so. I don't plan on striving for perfect sharpness in everything I do.

 

[removed account4]

Just not the hand-tinted ones! No one ever said being a purist was easy.

there were other manipulated dags, they manipulated them as soon as they could ...

 

[removed account4]

there is nothing pure in photography,
no integrity. shutter speed
fstop, exposure control, development
post processing, printing, post printing
its all a big LIE.

there is NO DIFFERENCE between A + D.
just believe is all photographers ask.

 

[ntenny]

I'm not a fan of the hipster Instagram thing, but it does seem to argue that there's an audience for aesthetics other than "oversharpened and oversaturated". Like most cultural norms, the oversaturated flowers and sunsets seem to create a certain amount of backlash. So I think there's hope in the broadest aesthetic sense, though how many of those people will come to appreciate the specific characteristics of *film*, as opposed to lo-fi digital capture, is anybody's guess.

Commercial work distorts our sense of people's aesthetics, I think. Bright colors and flash and bling capture people's attention and sell products, so they're kind of self-reinforcing. There's an exactly analogous problem in music, where mainstream popular music has gotten more and more "compressed" in volume and "scooped" in frequency, both of which are good attention-grabbers on the radio but terrible for longer-term attentive listening. But I'm not sure that either case really represents What People Like, so much as What Works To Move Money Around.

-NT

 

[blansky]

This is what I wrote on another thread:

The manipulation of an image is the artists vision of the scene when he came upon it. What the potential it had to him when he first saw it.

To judge an image as over manipulated is strictly in the eye of the viewer. You like it or you don't. The term over manipulated is a value judgement that the viewer makes when he decides to agree or disagree with the intent of the photographer. Neither the photographers nor the viewer's opinion is correct, they are merely judgements of what they like.

Nobody ever said that photography or paintings for that matter had to be an exact replica of what a scene actually looked like. (except maybe photojournalists)

As for color saturation, we all see things in nature differently. If we wear sunglasses the scene looks different than if we don't.

If we shoot during magic hour color saturation is far different.

If we print darker color saturation is different.

There is no right or wrong here, only our opinions of what we like. If you get off on being the recorder of a scene that's great, if you're a pictorialist that's great too. If your a surrealists, great too.

Why is there so much angst about what other people do or like.

Of course too much HDR or saturation can affect your opinion of a print but too much burning and dodging can too. Or not enough.

On this site through the years I've seen a lot of prints that bored me simply because they were not contrasty enough, snappy enough or looked like anything more than a scene captured at noon on a cloudy day. They had no impact and drew from me no emotional response.

But that just me. I like contrast and impact.

 

[batwister]

I'm not a fan of the hipster Instagram thing, but it does seem to argue that there's an audience for aesthetics other than "oversharpened and oversaturated". Like most cultural norms, the oversaturated flowers and sunsets seem to create a certain amount of backlash. So I think there's hope in the broadest aesthetic sense, though how many of those people will come to appreciate the specific characteristics of *film*, as opposed to lo-fi digital capture, is anybody's guess.

Commercial work distorts our sense of people's aesthetics, I think. Bright colors and flash and bling capture people's attention and sell products, so they're kind of self-reinforcing. There's an exactly analogous problem in music, where mainstream popular music has gotten more and more "compressed" in volume and "scooped" in frequency, both of which are good attention-grabbers on the radio but terrible for longer-term attentive listening. But I'm not sure that either case really represents What People Like, so much as What Works To Move Money Around.

-NT

There was an article in the Guardian the other day about realism fad in film, how Nolan's films in particular have created a new trend for a facade of depth. I think our culture is happy enough with the impression of substance. A quote from Will Self in the article - "There are so many potential cultural sources that all levels of brow can be happily accommodated, including those that deceive themselves that they're higher than they really are."

I think people generally don't have the time of day to invest in deep work, to appreciate aesthetic, and certainly any nuances of craft - unless it's painting, in which technique (or application of paint) has more immediacy. Photographs, more than ever, provide a function - as the OP says, fast food. Rapid 'cultural expansion' and excessive production of work means people want a bit of everything, but don't have the patience to invest in just one thing, especially photography which "has problems" as it is. The article also mentions that "information is the new currency". Instagram happens to be attractive, immediate information. There is potential for real communication of ideas in that fact.

 

[blansky]

I realize that very very few people here are in the business of family portrait photography or studio photography so they have no real understanding of its progression or evolution in today's world.

I also realize that most here are probably scenic photographers who may or may not sell their work. The fine art crowd here probably think that selling photography is tied up in galleries and in art shows and that is the sphere they inhabit.

In that world I guess that there is a lot of navel pondering about digital, analog and the changes that are, and have been taking place in photography.

But if you were to step out of your world and into mine you would see that there are almost zero people involved in analog photography anymore. The clients could not care less. They are buying what it on the paper/canvas and not how it was made. They are buying pictures of their loved ones and the emotional impact is built in. In my little world of hundreds of thousands of photographers, we are putting hundreds of thousands of portraits on the walls of people homes. We have no angst, and we have no major concern for process per se. We want the best we can get and we now have it.

So when most of you spend your days in deep concern for all things photographic, be aware that all those "portrait types" are happily using the newest tools and newest toys and having fun making images for people who actually buy them. Granted some are a little over done but as all things new that will settle itself out. We also run the gammit of lousy photographers all the way to great photographers, but we never are too concerned about process, we concern ourselves with results.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I do understand. You have to create a style and products that will bring you business. The world of art photography is very different. Artist usually do work in their own voice while commercial and portrait photographers have to supply what is in demand. And there are some photographers that work somewhere in the middle.

 

[ntenny]

But if you were to step out of your world and into mine you would see that there are almost zero people involved in analog photography anymore. The clients could not care less. They are buying what it on the paper/canvas and not how it was made. They are buying pictures of their loved ones and the emotional impact is built in. In my little world of hundreds of thousands of photographers, we are putting hundreds of thousands of portraits on the walls of people homes. We have no angst, and we have no major concern for process per se. We want the best we can get and we now have it.

Sure, and I think just about everyone on APUG agrees with all of that, except for quibbling about the definition of "best" in that last sentence. That's a photographic world we aren't talking about here, precisely *because* it's gone almost entirely digital, but I think much of the OP's question would apply there too: Can people appreciate family portraits that have some damn CHARACTER in them, that say something about the people they show, rather than just documenting an image of the person and relying on the viewer to supply the emotional content? I think statistically the answer is "kinda but not very much", and that's not a new thing having to do with any particular medium, it's just that human beings tend to be kind of lazy viewers.

Let me ask you this: Do you do portraiture out of a profound artistic attachment to portraiture as well as for the paycheck, or is it a "just a job" kind of photography for you?

I ask because, if you picked door #1, I'd expect that you might feel some frustration about those philistine customers and how they can't tell a good portrait from a mediocre one, as long as it's in focus and of the right person and the skin isn't green. That's not film vs. digital, I don't think it's even a purely relative aesthetic judgement, it's "investigative viewer" vs. "passive viewer". And I think it's quite understandable that in a crowd like APUG, where people are intentionally taking a particular and somewhat challenging route to a final image, many of us wish we could get a world of more investigative viewers, who notice and care about the details that motivate our choices of process.

-NT

 

[blansky]

I do understand. You have to create a style and products that will bring you business. The world of art photography is very different. Artist usually do work in their own voice while commercial and portrait photographers have to supply what is in demand. And there are some photographers that work somewhere in the middle.

I think your understanding of portrait photography is pretty limited. Coming up with new and different styles is a constant.

As for the world of art photography and using your own voice, I see very little that is any different than anyone else's.

 

[blansky]

Sure, and I think just about everyone on APUG agrees with all of that, except for quibbling about the definition of "best" in that last sentence. That's a photographic world we aren't talking about here, precisely *because* it's gone almost entirely digital, but I think much of the OP's question would apply there too: Can people appreciate family portraits that have some damn CHARACTER in them, that say something about the people they show, rather than just documenting an image of the person and relying on the viewer to supply the emotional content? I think statistically the answer is "kinda but not very much", and that's not a new thing having to do with any particular medium, it's just that human beings tend to be kind of lazy viewers.

Let me ask you this: Do you do portraiture out of a profound artistic attachment to portraiture as well as for the paycheck, or is it a "just a job" kind of photography for you?

I ask because, if you picked door #1, I'd expect that you might feel some frustration about those philistine customers and how they can't tell a good portrait from a mediocre one, as long as it's in focus and of the right person and the skin isn't green. That's not film vs. digital, I don't think it's even a purely relative aesthetic judgement, it's "investigative viewer" vs. "passive viewer". And I think it's quite understandable that in a crowd like APUG, where people are intentionally taking a particular and somewhat challenging route to a final image, many of us wish we could get a world of more investigative viewers, who notice and care about the details that motivate our choices of process.

-NT

Do I do photography for a paycheck? No never have. The only process that interests me is the process of working with people. That's the enjoyment. The craftmanship part is also a major part of it. From day one, I loved skin and how to light it and make it glow. Then came expression and how to capture it. Then came how to set up bodies to enhance the beauty and relationships.

I used analog day in and day out for 30 years. Medium format, develop and print my own work. Retouch negatives and retouch prints. Then came digital and I was one of the last to adopt it, because I wasn't convinced of longevity. The process of what makes that final image on the wall is only a relevant to me in that is has to be a productive process.

I often get the feeling here that there is so much concern about process because there is so little being sold. So people obsess with trivia and fiddle with instruments.

99.99% of people don't care what is under the hood of their car. As long as it get the results they want. A lot of people here are like a bunch of mechanics obsessing over the engines and wondering why people don't care. Sorry they don't. They just want their car to do what a car is supposed to do.

My clients just want what a portrait is supposed to do. How I achieve it is not interesting to them. As for people that can't tell the difference between my work and someone else's, is why we have price lists and why we have carriage trade and we have Sears. It all works out.

 

[batwister]

And I think it's quite understandable that in a crowd like APUG, where people are intentionally taking a particular and somewhat challenging route to a final image, many of us wish we could get a world of more investigative viewers, who notice and care about the details that motivate our choices of process.

This just sounds like seeking the viewers validation to me. Painters don't ask the viewers to have any knowledge of how they mix paints or the brushes they use. This self-consciousness feels like the root of 'the photographic problem' and it's definitely not the viewers fault. If it's there, it's there. It's incidental in the end. Don't burden other people with your fetishes - this is why we have APUG.

 

[ntenny]

I often get the feeling here that there is so much concern about process because there is so little being sold. So people obsess with trivia and fiddle with instruments.

I think the causality might go the other way too. Fiddly eccentric activities (which I think we all gotta admit describes much of analog photography) are probably mostly attractive to people who aren't trying to make money at them. I'm not sure how many of the APUG folks would want to shoot film as a day job---I know I wouldn't, because for me it would spoil the fun...

99.99% of people don't care what is under the hood of their car. As long as it get the results they want. A lot of people here are like a bunch of mechanics obsessing over the engines and wondering why people don't care. Sorry they don't. They just want their car to do what a car is supposed to do.

My clients just want what a portrait is supposed to do.

The thing is, I respectfully differ with a lot of people about what a portrait is "supposed" to do, and I think it's possible that you do too. As a dedicated portrait photographer, don't you feel like there's a certain slippery "something" that some portraits have and others don't, that makes them seem inhabited by the character of the subject rather than just being another photo with a person in it?

But a lot of viewers don't make that distinction, right? They're the ones happily patronizing the low-end "good enough" portrait studios. And more power to them for being happy, I guess, but if you really have the equanimity not to wish there were more people who wanted to really *look* at the portraits, you're doing better at equanimity than I am. To your credit, probably.

The cars are a good analogy, I think. Most people consider that what a car is "supposed to do" is get you and your stuff from point A to point B. Some people think it should be fun to drive while it's doing it, and they go around wondering why so many people are happy with their Camrys, and starting threads with titles like "Can people appreciate drivability and road feedback in an automatic transmission age?", I suppose.

-NT

 

[ntenny]

(in response to my desire for viewers "who notice and care about the details that motivate our choices of process")

This just sounds like seeking the viewers validation to me. Painters don't ask the viewers to have any knowledge of how they mix paints or the brushes they use. This self-consciousness feels like the root of 'the photographic problem' and it's definitely not the viewers fault. If it's there, it's there. It's incidental in the end. Don't burden other people with your fetishes - this is why we have APUG.

I'm not sure I get your point. I'm talking about the details of the result that *motivate* us to use film, not the self-conscious fact of using film. I don't care if a viewer knows or cares that the way I got the grain to look like that involved Tri-X and Diafine, or whatever, but I'd like them to see and appreciate the sense of grittiness that showed up in the image at the end of the day.

Which I suppose is "seeking the viewer's validation", in the sense that wishing people would see and like one's work is *always* seeking validation. Is it really desirable to be a photographer (resp. painter, writer, musician, whatever) who really doesn't care one little bit if they manage to communicate to anyone?

-NT

 

[blansky]

I think the causality might go the other way too. Fiddly eccentric activities (which I think we all gotta admit describes much of analog photography) are probably mostly attractive to people who aren't trying to make money at them. I'm not sure how many of the APUG folks would want to shoot film as a day job---I know I wouldn't, because for me it would spoil the fun...



The thing is, I respectfully differ with a lot of people about what a portrait is "supposed" to do, and I think it's possible that you do too. As a dedicated portrait photographer, don't you feel like there's a certain slippery "something" that some portraits have and others don't, that makes them seem inhabited by the character of the subject rather than just being another photo with a person in it?

But a lot of viewers don't make that distinction, right? They're the ones happily patronizing the low-end "good enough" portrait studios. And more power to them for being happy, I guess, but if you really have the equanimity not to wish there were more people who wanted to really *look* at the portraits, you're doing better at equanimity than I am. To your credit, probably.

The cars are a good analogy, I think. Most people consider that what a car is "supposed to do" is get you and your stuff from point A to point B. Some people think it should be fun to drive while it's doing it, and they go around wondering why so many people are happy with their Camrys, and starting threads with titles like "Can people appreciate drivability and road feedback in an automatic transmission age?", I suppose.

-NT

For me personally, my life would be far less fun without being a professional photographer. I get literally high from a sitting.

One thing I didn't mention in my last post was for me the best and most creative photographers are usually commercial/product photographers. A lot of prep time, a lot of brainstorming and pretty big budgets results in a lot of unleashed creativity.

As for the whole "portrait" genre and the problem with language and definitions. What I do, is family portraiture. This is not the same as what say some of the greats did for life magazine which was still called a portrait. They often were hired by someone to do a portrait ( or a portrayal) of an individual. The end result was usually a pretty intriguing capture of a part of the subjects personality or what other people believed was his personality. The subject usually did not pay for the portrait and he/she may or may not have even liked it. It was turned over to editors.

What my "types" do is a picture of family members that flatters the subjects and gives a representative impression of their life or lifestyle. Actually much like the commissioned portrait painters of old. We don't delve too deeply into the pimples of the various relationships or the fact that mom is a drunk and dads a philanderer. That is someone else's job.

I guess much like a scenic photographer coming upon a scene and photographs it to look beautiful, majestic, pastoral etc but rarely is it in his psyche to try to make it ugly or even too unbeautiful. We are usually all optimists. That doesn't mean however that while he's out there and witnesses a plane crash that he would not document it and show it as the tragedy that it is. He just does not search out that kind of uglyness or reality.

Personally I try to photograph beauty and even enhance it. I'm not looking for blemishes. The beauty of the mother as she ages to middle age, the beauty and innocence of children etc etc. So I guess I have an optimistic view of a family in the way I portray them. Eisenstadt, maybe not so much. Karsh was much like my aesthetic, beautify and try to show character. But Karsh was a studio portrait photographer in the same mode as me, but would venture out to make the occasional "celebrity" portrait as well from time to time, and it's these that he is actually know for outside of Ottawa, but for which he was often unpaid and could not earn a living from. Book sales came far later.

And as for "portraying" someone and the so called definitive portrait. That is merely a myth. We are all multifaceted. We all have moods. We all have depressions, anxieties, loves and joys. We all have good days and bad days and can show both love and meanness. So a so called definitive portrait may just be in the eye of the beholder and the "capturing of someone's essence" is usually just a reflection of the viewer. I just choose to capture the good side, usually. Not always but usually.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

That's why I'm a subscriber of APUG!

I think your understanding of portrait photography is pretty limited. Coming up with new and different styles is a constant.

My knowledge of photography is limited. That's why I like to partake in the knowledge of APUGers.

 

[batwister]

(in response to my desire for viewers "who notice and care about the details that motivate our choices of process")



I'm not sure I get your point. I'm talking about the details of the result that *motivate* us to use film, not the self-conscious fact of using film. I don't care if a viewer knows or cares that the way I got the grain to look like that involved Tri-X and Diafine, or whatever, but I'd like them to see and appreciate the sense of grittiness that showed up in the image at the end of the day.

Which I suppose is "seeking the viewer's validation", in the sense that wishing people would see and like one's work is *always* seeking validation. Is it really desirable to be a photographer (resp. painter, writer, musician, whatever) who really doesn't care one little bit if they manage to communicate to anyone?

-NT

Being motivated to shoot film for me is purely about presentation, a sense of future proofing my work. But I'm motivated to *make photographs* for other reasons.

We're ultimately talking about presentation here, in regard to nuance, which is incidental when it comes to the insight required to make photographs. In crusading for film and trying to win people over for its gritty characteristics, it should be emphasised that it only has value in the context of art making, which is quite an involved undertaking; emotionally, intellectually and only last, technically. And we are talking about art photography by the way (or fine art to some ) since when non artistically inclined people make 'gritty' pictures, they usually come here for technical advice - "Why are my pix grainy at 6400!?". I agree that gritty (grainy) pictures might have more of a visual pull (texture) but they should pull people in for a reason. In short, viewers won't appreciate the grittiness alone, because they can get an efficient emulation with Instagram. What's really lacking on Instagram is strong pictures.

Just imagine, if there was a television advert or billboards for Kodak film, the grain structure probably wouldn't be mentioned or illustrated once. There would be lots of pretty pictures shown though (if conventional) and it would get more people shooting the stuff than any emphasis APUG users put on nuance, tonality, etc.

This is ultimately another discussion that misses the 'bigger picture'.

 

[Diapositivo]

I find this intervention of Blansky about his "market" very interesting.

I think the question of the OP could be slightly twisted in saying he asked whether the average user understands subtleties, cares for details, looks with a "choosy" attitude at photographic works, or whether he's only satisfied with the first impression, good enough. High saturation - fake skin etc. usually satisfy the viewer at first glance, but gives him after a short while an aftertaste of fake and unnatural.

I think this question could have applied to both film and to digital but, ultimately, the thread shifted toward the old same and beloved "analogue vs digital" debate, under this assumption: oversaturated = digital, subtle nuances and quality work = analogue.

Blansky reconducted this I think to a more interesting ground: clients do look for quality, and subtle nuances, but they don't care about the process, just like - I would say - the average woman wouldn't care about the engine under the hood.

The average man, though, does care about the engine under the hood!
An aspect of appreciations of objects is in the mind. A nice article about a luxury watch I read once talked about how a rich watch collector one day opened a certain woman watch (there is people who actually opens them to look at them with a loupe, just like we do with slides, and observe the accurate craftsmanship of each cod etc.).
Well, the man found that the quartz movement was kept, inside the case, by a horribile dictu plastic support. When he reassembled the watch, and since that moment on, even if the plastic was not visible inside the case (no sapphire back), the mind knew the plastic was inside there and that made that watch somehow ugly. Every time he looked at the watch he saw the plastic with his mind.

I understand him. Most of us do not stop at what we see because we cannot ignore what the mind knows. The most perfectly imitated synthetic pearl will not have breathed on the sea bed. The most perfectly imitated synthetic diamond will not have been forged into perfection by unimaginable heat, pressure and time. We simply cannot afford to ignore our mind.

This goes back to Blansky observation: 99.99% of people don't care about film or digital. I understand that.

But I think that is also because their mind doesn't see the difference. For some people, rightly or wrongly, analogue means "handmade" and digital means "machine forged" in a sense. Our question is: why the people who would appreciate "handmade" in let's say marble work would not care about it in a family portrait?

I don't have an answer.

Maybe really there is no difference to see and all the "handmade" thinking can be reduced to mental masturbation by a few Luddites who have a bad relationship with death (us).

But on the other hand maybe our culture is beginning just now to discover "handmade" qualities in photography, just like what happened in watchmaking during the Quartz revolution: for a few years quartz movements completely obliterated mechanical ones, and it took several years before the mind of people would begin again being attracted by the tiny cogs dancing in a metal case.

Quartz watches are more precise. But most of those portrait buyers would learn to love a mechanical watch if they were somehow introduced to its magic. "Under the hood" counts a lot to some people.

Possibly, those same portrait buyers would learn to love and understand "the process", and not just the result, if they were somehow introduced to the world of analogue photography and its "magic", "craftmanship", "handmade" flair. Maybe one day somebody will make a TV documentary showing enlarging in the dark and suddenly portrait photographers will begin having to use film again

I have an anecdote. The wife of a friend of my sister is a professional photographer, IIRC a portraitist. He told me that around 10% (IIRC) of her clients ask them specifically for analogue work. That was in Paris last year.

Europe, more than the US, is "tied" to analogue photography, and probably to analogue watches as well. And I imagine that in Europe, broadly speaking, what "the mind" sees is probably culturally more important than in the US. That might explain the 99.99% vs 90.00% of digital portrait in the two cases (not that I think this can be defined a statistically significant sample).

* by the way, watchmaking has its hybrids, the electro-mechanical movements.

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

I am always surprised by advertising in photography periodicals for software, and overnight services, that retouch portraits, including not just blemish removal, but something more akin to a Botox after a major plastic surgery. What surprises me in those ads is that a pretty and a kind face, usually a handsome lady, is always turned by the advertised product into a soulless plastic doll, rather than just a subtly improved face.

I suppose people want this.

 

[blansky]

I find this intervention of Blansky about his "market" very interesting.

I think the question of the OP could be slightly twisted in saying he asked whether the average user understands subtleties, cares for details, looks with a "choosy" attitude at photographic works, or whether he's only satisfied with the first impression, good enough. High saturation - fake skin etc. usually satisfy the viewer at first glance, but gives him after a short while an aftertaste of fake and unnatural.

I think this question could have applied to both film and to digital but, ultimately, the thread shifted toward the old same and beloved "analogue vs digital" debate, under this assumption: oversaturated = digital, subtle nuances and quality work = analogue.

Blansky reconducted this I think to a more interesting ground: clients do look for quality, and subtle nuances, but they don't care about the process, just like - I would say - the average woman wouldn't care about the engine under the hood.

The average man, though, does care about the engine under the hood!
An aspect of appreciations of objects is in the mind. A nice article about a luxury watch I read once talked about how a rich watch collector one day opened a certain woman watch (there is people who actually opens them to look at them with a loupe, just like we do with slides, and observe the accurate craftsmanship of each cod etc.).
Well, the man found that the quartz movement was kept, inside the case, by a horribile dictu plastic support. When he reassembled the watch, and since that moment on, even if the plastic was not visible inside the case (no sapphire back), the mind knew the plastic was inside there and that made that watch somehow ugly. Every time he looked at the watch he saw the plastic with his mind.

I understand him. Most of us do not stop at what we see because we cannot ignore what the mind knows. The most perfectly imitated synthetic pearl will not have breathed on the sea bed. The most perfectly imitated synthetic diamond will not have been forged into perfection by unimaginable heat, pressure and time. We simply cannot afford to ignore our mind.

This goes back to Blansky observation: 99.99% of people don't care about film or digital. I understand that.

But I think that is also because their mind doesn't see the difference. For some people, rightly or wrongly, analogue means "handmade" and digital means "machine forged" in a sense. Our question is: why the people who would appreciate "handmade" in let's say marble work would not care about it in a family portrait?

I don't have an answer.

Maybe really there is no difference to see and all the "handmade" thinking can be reduced to mental masturbation by a few Luddites who have a bad relationship with death (us).

But on the other hand maybe our culture is beginning just now to discover "handmade" qualities in photography, just like what happened in watchmaking during the Quartz revolution: for a few years quartz movements completely obliterated mechanical ones, and it took several years before the mind of people would begin again being attracted by the tiny cogs dancing in a metal case.

Quartz watches are more precise. But most of those portrait buyers would learn to love a mechanical watch if they were somehow introduced to its magic. "Under the hood" counts a lot to some people.

Possibly, those same portrait buyers would learn to love and understand "the process", and not just the result, if they were somehow introduced to the world of analogue photography and its "magic", "craftmanship", "handmade" flair. Maybe one day somebody will make a TV documentary showing enlarging in the dark and suddenly portrait photographers will begin having to use film again

I have an anecdote. The wife of a friend of my sister is a professional photographer, IIRC a portraitist. He told me that around 10% (IIRC) of her clients ask them specifically for analogue work. That was in Paris last year.

Europe, more than the US, is "tied" to analogue photography, and probably to analogue watches as well. And I imagine that in Europe, broadly speaking, what "the mind" sees is probably culturally more important than in the US. That might explain the 99.99% vs 90.00% of digital portrait in the two cases (not that I think this can be defined a statistically significant sample).

* by the way, watchmaking has its hybrids, the electro-mechanical movements.

As usual I agree with most of what you say. And I too am a collector of mechanical watches and appreciate the tiny internal engines that power them. However, the fact that some people own and love them is still probably less than 10 percent of the buying male public. Don't forget that a large percentage of buyers of mechanical watches buy because of the cachet and name like Patek Philippe, Jaeger LeCoultre, Vacheron Constantin, Ulysse Nardin etc and on down the line to Rolex and are just a status symbol to them. The actual number of real watch lovers is a very very small part of the public.

As for men and cars, granted men probably appreciate engines more than women but these days most men couldn't even find the dipstick. (not sure what it's called in Italy) but both men and women car enthusiasts DO appreciate a gutsy sounding engine even if they know nothing why it sounds that way.

I agree that if educated that a larger proportion of the public would appreciate "hand made" if they knew or understood the process but I have a feeling that that percentage would still be very small and much like the lover of horology (fine watchmakinig), a status symbol more than anything.

The age of the connoisseur probably left us the same time as the gilded age died and masses of new money entered the equation. A lot of people want things for reasons they don't really know but since rich people have them, they want them too. Look at the massive buying of mechanical watches going on in China.

I would also agree that Europe is far more of an advanced culture and appreciator of things for the right reasons than in the US.

 

[lxdude]

We don't delve too deeply into the pimples of the various relationships or the fact that mom is a drunk and dads a philanderer. That is someone else's job.

Now if Dad's a drunk and Mom's a philanderer...