It's complicated...

[markbarendt]

Humans so love to form tribes. Then point out how the other tribe is inferior.

Yep. And that result is typical regardless of which tribe any individual might join.

 

[BrianShaw]

But my argument was that traditional photography isn't really that complicated, but saying you shoot film has an underlying implication that you have some special knowledge - and should be respected.
It's a universal fallacy that can make traditional photographers seem pretentious, even if they don't mean to be. Me: "I shoot film" (subtext: "I'm special"), Other Guy: "Ohhh, do you now?" (subtext: "swine")

I've found, however you say it, it's always a loaded statement.

Agree, but I always make sure I get the last word in, "... but it is mostly because I'm comfortable with my old gear,it still works fine, and I'm too cheap to buy new digital gear."

Isn't that a humble statement that balances the arrogant implications?

 

[DWThomas]

It's probably just my age leading me into curmudgeonly olde farthood, but I sense a general lack of curiosity about how things are made and how things work here in the 21st century. We've become so accustomed to appliances that think for us that we no longer consider what's going on inside the magic box. (Had a microwave oven years back that scrolled "Enjoy your meal" in its display after the cook cycle finished!) In another hobby activity, the ceramic arts, I hang around and work at my local community college art center. I wrote here several years ago about discovering a couple of twenty-somethings in the lounge area, one of whom was twiddling the agitator on a developing tank. Innocently I asked what film and developer the lass was using. "Kodak" and "dunno, they give it to us." I realize the goal of the class wasn't to create darkroom techs, but geeze!

I recall in my childhood, model airplanes were pre-marked balsa wood that had to be trimmed out with a knife, glued together and sometimes sanded a bit here and there. Now you snap together a plastic frame and heat-shrink plastic film instead of using tissue and dope -- there just isn't the same level of hands-on involvement. It seems to me very few people actually make things anymore. The upside of that is that for Christmas I can give a ceramic bowl to a relative, and even though I see it as being a little too thick and the glaze a bit messy, I get responses like "OH MY GOD, YOU MADE THIS??!!!!"

In theory, digit@l could be a good way to learn many aspects of photography, you have instant feedback (21st C Polaroid!), but many don't use it that way. I indeed shoot that evil technology for much of my travel shots these days, but I get the impression some folks shoot more in an hour than I shoot in a week. I assume that's because I am interested in getting the results by design, rather than plucking a couple of accidental good ones out of a bushel.

"The only thing constant is change!"

 

[Bill Burk]

... the depth of knowledge about what makes a photograph 'tick' has diminished so we now have a load of people who can make pictures but have no real grasp...

Hi BMbikerider,

I am surely taking this out of context, but I have been finding more people who know what makes a photograph 'tick', I am very encouraged by the beautiful photographs that contemporaries and local artists are producing.

 

[batwister]

I wrote here several years ago about discovering a couple of twenty-somethings in the lounge area, one of whom was twiddling the agitator on a developing tank. Innocently I asked what film and developer the lass was using. "Kodak" and "dunno, they give it to us." I realize the goal of the class wasn't to create darkroom techs, but geeze!

Being a twenty something, I'd say this has less to do with age, but film's modern status as an art material. This is the reason young creative types are drawn to it today.

I believe traditional photography can be as 'complicated' as you make it. There are some great and thorough technical books by 'photographers', with personal examples that leave you scratching your head - Edge of Darkness by Barry Thornton and Creative Elements by Eddie Ephraums being a couple I own. There's a connection to be made between the lack of depth in the imagery of those books and the pronounced technical virtuosity in the writing. I really believe most of us only have the capacity to be savants in one of these areas, but will forever struggle with the technical/creative balance. As a result, most will never be particularly great in either. There's a bit of a stigma with traditional photography when you don't know your stuff, which I think leads to technical self-consciousness. This has held me back at times and the quality of my work has suffered. It's been talked about a lot, but the left brain/right brain scales have to be precariously balanced to produce great photographs. With traditional photography especially, it doesn't take much of a tangent to tip them.

I suspect this is what many people fear when they call it 'complicated'. Traditional photography requires a certain repression of the creative urge.

 

[Pioneer]

I really don't think it has anything to do with the photography, traditional or otherwise. If they ever really move past the "convenience factor" of digital, I think what people really fear about film is working with "chemicals." They are afraid to get their hands too close to some chemicals lest they get the black death or something. Everyone knows that chemicals are "dangerous" and computers are "green", they are safe.

When someone at a local gathering realized I was using a film camera they were interested, and several gathered around to look at my camera and ask questions. Eventually someone asked me where I had my developing done. When I said I did it at home, several asked me how I disposed of the hazardous chemicals! I didn't have the heart to tell them that they went down a rock-filled french drain behind the house. And printing...don't even go there. When I explained the idea of an enlarger and shining light through a negative onto paper they were totally out of their element. Someone even asked if the enlarger sent the image to the printer and what size ink jet I was using. Another wanted to know why I just didn't use the CD-Rom to print my pictures if I was developing my own.

I don't think its' complication...it is really the unknown.

 

[tkamiya]

Either can be as complicated or as simple as one would want to make it.

It is no more "complicated" or "difficult" to pop a film in, let it wind it to frame 1, point, shoot, shoot, shoot.... (repeat 36 times), let it rewind it, pop it out, take it to a lab, wait 1 hour, and pay for it to pick it up.

Or, one can spend hours on computer screen or in a darkroom to get the best out of images. "Film photography", or just "photography" as we called it were embraced by masses. Anything is "complicated" and "difficult" when one takes it to art form or to enthusiast level.

Yes, it is far easier to do a "head swap" on digital than film but how often do you do THAT?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I find it a never-ending source of amusement that anyone might think the making of a photograph using traditional film methods is complicated.

Every camera I own requires the adjustment of only four things, and only three of them on a per photograph basis. Speed (of the film, set once per roll or sheet), shutter, aperture, and focus. That's it. The end. No more to do. Or to worry about. Only four. Move along now. Nothing more to see here...

On the other hand, a friend once showed me the owner's manual for his DSLR. Good grief. A tome the size and weight of one of the single volumes of Encyclopaedia Brittanica. A dizzying, mind-numbing dissertation covering endless buttons, switches, modes, settings, menus, and advanced computer science. All designed to attempt the correct adjustment of... the speed, shutter, aperture, and focus.

When I asked how one would go about setting everything to simply allow the photographer himself to control only those four basic essentials, the earnest reply was, "Why would you want to do it the hard way? Using these settings is so much easier."

Easier than just those four?

Really??

I think the issue of perceived complexity in traditional photography is at least partly one of a marketing-conditioned response in an entirely new generation of practitioners who want desperately to simply be told what it is they should do. In photography as well as the other aspects of their lives. A corollary of the principle I don't want to know how it works, I just want the answer. Even if that answer is orders of magnitude more complicated than knowing how it works.

It's less a photographic issue, I think, and more a cultural one.

Ken

 

[rbultman]

Does it matter?

Most people, now with digital and in the past with film, just want to capture the blowing out of the candles, Dan in his graduation cap, etc. They aren't attempting to emulate some famous photographer. They are using the consumer-grade photographic instrument currently on the market in order to capture those images. It's not because they are lazy, its because they don't need and have no desire to know.

Most people have no idea what an ALU or FPU is nor why SATA is faster than PATA, yet they confidently surf the web and even create digital content on their computer. Most people probably have no idea that their smart phones may contain 4, 2-way radios that allow them to make phone calls, surf the web, listen to music, and make secure banking transactions yet they use these devices every day without know how cell phones actually work. Most people do not know how the underlying technology works in most of the products that they use because the technology has been effectively hidden from them, made easier to use by the companies marketing the products containing those technologies. Kodak did this with film, as has been stated in this thread. ("Just click the button and we will do the rest," or something like that.)

Kodak hid the processing. Film IS more difficult, or at least more involved, than digital. It IS easier to plug the camera into a computer, download the pictures, and then view them that to develop the film and then scan or print it. To some, film may be overwhelmingly more difficult, at least from the perspective of self developing and printing. My mom never made the leap do digital, but that is because she could not use a computer to save her life. (Not saying Mac or PC, don't want to start a flame war.)

Photography is not about the tools, it is about the resulting image and the intended impact on the viewer.

I started with film in the 70's, switched to digital for a few years, and now use both as the mood and needs require. I started developing B&W last year, having used labs previously, and am fascinated with the range of effects and control (and potential for disaster!) that are possible. Developing ended up being much easier than I assumed it should be. I scan now and don't have the facilities to make my own darkroom prints. I'd like to make my own prints in a darkroom some day, but my desire to do so is the same that led me to rebuild car engines, build decks, and make beef bourginon (sp?). I'd like say I did it my self.

-Rob

 

[ME Super]

Exactly. I don't have the facilities to develop my own film right now. I would like to at some point. And with my SLR I can pretty easily change the four things.

This past October I was in a state park about an hour from where I live and was quite pleased when a gentleman handed me his DSLR (I noticed it was a Pentax) and when I looked at how it was set, he had it on aperture priority mode. I even commented, "Finally, someone with a camera that isn't set on full auto!" He said "Yeah, my wife says it's more complicated."

I respectfully disagree with his wife. I prefer the ability to choose either the aperture or the shutter speed (or both in full manual!), I get more control over the end result that way. Having said that, I do use auto-exposure 99% of the time, but always in either aperture-priority or shutter-priority modes. Remarkably easy to change between the two, even on an AF Pentax without traditional controls.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If one arbitrarily marks the beginning of photography with View from the Window at Le Gras in 1826 then the medium has been in use for 187 years. If one arbitrarily marks the beginning of electronically automated photography (or at least the beginning of the real electronic automation arms race) with the arrival of the Canon AE-1 in 1976, then the age of highly complicated cameras has been around for 37 years.

The question that then goes begging is,

How in God's name did anyone ever manage to produce any photographs of value—or for that matter any photographs at all—during those first 150 years by using only speed, shutter, aperture and focus?

Given the hideous complexities that everyone is so conditioned to believe are part of non-computerized film photography, I suppose their success must be due to passing through one of those boxes in a process flow chart that says "a miracle happens here"...



Ken

 

[benjiboy]

I used to belong to a club in UK where every one shot black and white and colour was kept to the realms of slides, then it changed gradually and colour prints came to the fore, or at least were looked upon as being on the same level as B&W. People who belonged to the club were knowledgeable about developers, papers, lighting, film, and almost anything else connected with the craft. They were always glad to give advice and to pass this knowledge on to those who were just getting interested. not in a complicated sort of way, but on a level even a child of 10 could grasp easily.

Gradually digital reared it's ugly head, more and more people gave up on darkroom work, some because it released another room in the house for normal purposes, some because they were after something that they could not produce in the darkroom. It may be easy to some, but so is driving but we won't all become skilled drivers.

I have found after perhaps 13-14 years of people using digital to make pictures the depth of knowledge about what makes a photograph 'tick' has diminished so we now have a load of people who can make pictures but have no real grasp on how it happens nor do they much care. I have always understood that knowing about the tools you are using is fundamental in getting the best results. Is it lazyness? I tend to think so.

So currently, I am the only member of my present club who uses a dark room, makes slides, and surprisingly, one of only a few who print there own. I listen to them speaking as if they were all professors in computer sciences and think what has this got to do with photography. I say nothing and go on my own way. What I will say is I am few up with seeing badly composed, over saturated, over sharpened photographs accepted as 'perfect' when submitted for competitions. Again I keep my own council.

Giving Photoshop to people who don't understand the basics of the craft and what's considered good taste in a photograph I.M.O. is like giving an electronic calculator to a person who doesn't know what addition, subtraction , multiplication and division is, and instead of improving their work they make it worse, because the skills and knowledge required to be proficient in Photoshop are as stringent as that of darkroom work.

 

[markbarendt]

Giving Photoshop to people who don't understand the basics of the craft and what's considered good taste in a photograph I.M.O. is like giving an electronic calculator to a person who doesn't know what addition, subtraction , multiplication and division is, and instead of improving their work they make it worse, because the skills and knowledge required to be proficient in Photoshop are as stringent as that of darkroom work.

So take crayons away from kids because they don't know how to draw?

 

[sehrgut]

So take crayons away from kids because they don't know how to draw?

Not at all. Take Wacom tablets away from kids because they don't know how to draw, and give them crayons. I'm a software engineer, and this holds true for any type of software.

Computer programs always work in metaphors, and those unfamiliar with the metaphor are not going to benefit from it. Mechanical engineers will tell you that those who haven't hand-drafted in school have much less facility with CAD packages, which use many drafting metaphors.

Much of Photoshop is built on darkroom and other physical photographic metaphors, and the same type of connections apply.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's like anything else - the basic principles of silver halide photography, from a user standpoint, are very uncomplicated. But it's like chess - a minute to learn, and a lifetime to master.

When people come to forums like APUG, they all have varying degrees of skill, anticipation, and expectation. People already on here have varying degrees of skill, anticipation, and expectation. When a novice has access to all that was ever written on APUG, where very serious darkroom users argue about minutiae, of course it's going to seem difficult. How is a novice going to be able to distinguish between what's 'beginner stuff' and what's for 'really freaking advanced darkroom work'? That's right - they can not.

So, access to information, and people with information is infinitely easier today than it was 20 or 50 years ago. It's good that we can all hang out online and discuss things, but it's bad because for a beginner it is simply information overload.

Film photography is no more difficult now than it was 20 years ago. It is basically the same. If we gave a student access only to a couple of beginner's publications from Ilford or Kodak, gave them a camera and equipment, and some time to go through the process with a little bit of aid in showing basic things like loading film, operating the enlarger, etc - we would see people realizing that getting the basics is not difficult at all. That is how people would learn.

Today they expect results too quickly, and don't have the patience to learn something from the bottom up. Combined with the absolutely ridiculous amount of information that is available out there, and the intimidation that may impose on a beginner, is anybody really surprised that people consider it difficult?

 

[markbarendt]

Not at all. Take Wacom tablets away from kids because they don't know how to draw, and give them crayons. I'm a software engineer, and this holds true for any type of software.

Computer programs always work in metaphors, and those unfamiliar with the metaphor are not going to benefit from it. Mechanical engineers will tell you that those who haven't hand-drafted in school have much less facility with CAD packages, which use many drafting metaphors.

Much of Photoshop is built on darkroom and other physical photographic metaphors, and the same type of connections apply.

The metaphor only works when an expected outcome is defined. I.e. "what's considered in good taste" as Benji Boy said.

Without someone defining what's in good taste it doesn't matter.

 

[JBrunner]

Maybe you are Comic Book Guy?

I shoot digital almost every day, in addition to my film work. Most people who shoot film and turn their nose up at digital don't realize that digital carries with it its own set of complications and difficulties, if you are to do it properly. Saying "digital is easier" is like saying that it's easier to run ten miles than to swim ten miles. They are both difficult. It is not any easier to make a significant photograph in the digital age than it was 40 years ago. The method of making the image may have changed, and perhaps sped up the process of knowing that the resulting image either is or isn't of significance, but it certainly hasn't made it any easier.

This sort of snooty bias cuts both ways. There are plenty of digital photographers who are "incredibly serious" about their work, yet anyone can make a digital photo today. 100 years ago, Kodak said "you push the button, we do the rest." What's the difference?

There is a difference. If there weren't, digital wouldn't have been a runaway success, supplanting a dominant and entrenched technology in just a few short years. How much cheaper it is may be debatable. Quality and qualities may be subjective. Shooting both for a living, I am very familiar with both. From an ease of use, and efficiency standpoint there is no contest. If you know what you are doing in the first place, digital is far easier, no matter how much our little egos want it to be difiificult. If it were, I'd still get to shoot film exclusively.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

film is because they are too damn lazy!
They would spend just as much time sitting in front of their computer screen, twiddling digits, as they might spend in the darkroom making real photographs, all the while complaining about how much less work it is to make digi-photos. No! They're just too lazy to get up off their fat asses and go down to the darkroom!

That's the way I see it and, if that means I'm smug then, so be it! :finger:

that'sexactly why.everything has to be done right now, and learning is for the poorunderprivilaged,not able to afford the necessary technology
Photography is 90% sheer, brutal drudgery. The other 10% is inspiration.
— Brett Weston
Compensating for lack of skill with technology is progress toward mediocrity. As technology advances, craftsmanship recedes. As technology increases our possibilities, we use them less resourcefully. The one thing we’ve gained is spontaneity, which is useless without perception.
— David Vestal

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

that'sexactly why.everything has to be done right now, and learning is for the poorunderprivilaged,not able to afford the necessary technology
Photography is 90% sheer, brutal drudgery. The other 10% is inspiration.
— Brett Weston
Compensating for lack of skill with technology is progress toward mediocrity. As technology advances, craftsmanship recedes. As technology increases our possibilities, we use them less resourcefully. The one thing we’ve gained is spontaneity, which is useless without perception.
— David Vestal

That quote from Vestal is profound. Applies to everything. Thanks.

 

[batwister]

When people come to forums like APUG, they all have varying degrees of skill, anticipation, and expectation. People already on here have varying degrees of skill, anticipation, and expectation. When a novice has access to all that was ever written on APUG, where very serious darkroom users argue about minutiae, of course it's going to seem difficult. How is a novice going to be able to distinguish between what's 'beginner stuff' and what's for 'really freaking advanced darkroom work'? That's right - they can not.

A difficulty rating indication on threads would be a really, really useful addition to APUG. Each member could rate after posting a reply perhaps - less work for the mods.
The Ethics and Philosophy section could be rated from 'Neanderthal' to 'Socrates' - 1. 2. 3. :confused: 4. 5.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

A difficulty rating indication on threads would be a really, really useful addition to APUG. Each member could rate after posting a reply perhaps - less work for the mods.
The Ethics and Philosophy section could be rated from 'Neanderthal' to 'Socrates' - 1. 2. 3. :confused: 4. 5.

Brilliant!

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

There is a difference. If there weren't, digital wouldn't have been a runaway success, supplanting a dominant and entrenched technology in just a few short years.

The entire history of photography is a story of "dominant and entrenched technolog[ies]" being replaced in the space of a few years. Read Beaumont Newhall if you need a refresher on this.

And every single advancement made it easier to make photographs, which is the whole point of technology. While I greatly admire many of the photographers who have sounded in here, by much of the logic we should have stopped at wet plates. "Dry plates? That's sissy stuff!"

There is certainly a great deal of craft in making a fine pigment print on watercolor paper. I've made pure carbon pigment prints on hot press paper that have a higher Dmax (yes, on a matt paper) than any silver print. You know what? It's a bitch! If you are going to do it well, it's a complete bitch.

You might by the same arguments say "anyone can make a photogravure!" Yeah, anyone can smear some ink on a plate, and anyone can create a blog and call themselves a "writer," anyone can grab a DSLR and call themselves a photographer, and anyone can "play piano" however crude it may be. None of this changes the fact that in any enterprise done very well there is craft.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Compensating for lack of skill with technology is progress toward mediocrity. As technology advances, craftsmanship recedes. As technology increases our possibilities, we use them less resourcefully. The one thing we’ve gained is spontaneity, which is useless without perception.
— David Vestal

If you have a copy of "The Keepers of Light" be sure to reread the introductory essay on photographic syntax. In short, as the medium evolved through its dominant technologies, what we could create with those technologies changed.

I think primarily of Paul Strand (and, by influence, Walker Evans), when newer, faster film technology allowed him to take his camera into the streets and make portraits like "Blind," the likes of which had never been seen before. He created what we consider modern photography, and was gifted with extraordinary perception. At the end of his life, when it was too difficult for him to use his 5x7 and 8x10 cameras, he switched to the "easier" technology of 120 roll film and still made magnificent photographs.

The technology of fast film and small cameras gave us Cartier Bresson. The Leica, that's as easy as it gets, except it isn't. Vestal obviously spent his days toting around a 35mm, which I'm sured raised certain eyebrows among "real photographers" who wouldn't be caught dead with anything smaller than a 20x24 view camera loaded with hand poured glass plates.

You see, you can play the game to absurd lengths. You can always rewind the clock and find some point of purity, some line which you would not cross, fearing banishment from the kingdom of "real photographers." It's a silly game.

Photography has room enough for all of us, the Atgets and the Winogrands, Walker Evans and Frederick Evans. Good photography is good photography. Don't get caught up in the "how" when you should be focused on the "what."

 

[eddie]

Digital just continues the democratization of photography which Kodak began. There are 250 million photos uploaded to Facebook every day.... Vestal was right. The technological advances have lowered the bar. There are now more "professional photographers" than there were 20 years ago, but the percentage of quality ones has gone way down.

As for the "difficulty", analog isn't hard. What's changed is the commitment required. When I began (early 70's), there was a local camera shop I could go to for supplies, and answers to questions, with someone behind the counter who knew his stuff. While the internet can provide more information, it's not always the needed information. When a beginner comes here, wanting to know how to expose film, the answer should be simple. Too often the thread devolves into toe and shoulder, expansion/contraction type discussions. In reality, we should just say, "your meter will tell you what f-stop/ shutter speed to use to get a middle gray tone. Metering off a white sheet of paper (and shooting at the meters recommendation) will give you the same tone as metering off a black sheet of paper (and shooting at the meters recommendation). Both will give you a middle gray. Now, go shoot a few rolls, develop them, and ask more questions once you're comfortable with this concept."

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Digital just continues the democratization of photography which Kodak began. There are 250 million photos uploaded to Facebook every day.... Vestal was right. The technological advances have lowered the bar.

How is some random person making a digital snapshot any different than some random person making a Brownie snapshot? There isn't the slightest difference, as I noted in my first post. It's easier and faster for people to make snapshots now than it was 100 years ago, with instant gratification, but so what? None of that affects the spirits of a Paul Strand circa 1920, or a Roger Ballen circa 2013. They are going to use photography to do their thing regardless of how many photos are uploaded to Facebook every second. Do you think Salgado really gives a crap? Why would he? Why should you? Why should David Vestal?

I'm in the trenches here. I feed my family with my photography, so I'm sure I feel the digital crunch far more acutely than most. There are a million "moms with cameras" shooting portraits for a $25 session fee. And everyone has 8MP right on their iPhone. It's brutal. But people still come and pay me to do it. Just like 100 years ago, and probably just like 100 years from now.

There are now more "professional photographers" than there were 20 years ago, but the percentage of quality ones has gone way down.

Digital has spawned an incredible amount of creative photographers. The feedback loop is just tremendously powerful, the learning curve so much faster. You may perceive a lower percentage of quality simply because every dingle with a digital now has a website to show their work, for what it is or isn't worth.

That being said I think most of what's happening in the consumer market (tacky filters on every image, flare) as well as the fine art market (all the Alec Soth clones) will look horribly dated in ten years. I think the whole "pump and dump" 40x60 micro-editions from the photographer du jour selling for $40,000 each is going to pop. People are going to come back down to earth and say "Is this image really in the same league as Brett Weston? Is this really worth what I could spend on a vintage Strand?"