Photography section divided in two

[Daniel_OB]

Here in Toronto are several among world the biggest book stores: Chapters and World Biggest Bookstore. They all have large section on photography. What got my eyes is that the section is cut in two.
- One part is books on photographers (did not count but sure more than hundred) and non is digital “photog”.
- The second part is on learning “photography” and at that point all photoshop books (more than hundred in each store) with just several exceptions.

I just sometimes wander are that guys practicing digital imaging and buying that books, from learning half, really so (sorry) defected or stupid to believe that they really learn photography from such books.
One of that book has a picture, at the cover page, of alive pie on the plate with teeth like in shark (it is “a photograph”). Another teach about “digital darkroom” (hex what is this? digital darkroom before even and open the book. Are they taking a printer into darkness?)…
I just cannot get it.

I have computer, scanner, printer, photoshop, I know C++, and even use the most complicated software ever produced for computer like Catia, Nastran, Unigraphic,… but I still cannot explain such things. Or might be is the best leave alone that guys.

 

[roteague]

I've noticed that trend here as well. Photography books in one section, digital photography books in another section and not even near one another. The digital photography book section is mainly books on entry level photography, while the photography book section has the standard books you would expect to see. On one hand it is nice, not to have to wade through a bunch of digi oriented books, on the other hand, many digi photographers may never go further than what they see in "their" section.

 

[Les McLean]

Another teach about “digital darkroom” (hex what is this? digital darkroom before even and open the book. Are they taking a printer into darkness?)…
I just cannot get it


Daniel, In addition to lots of silver printing in my darkroom I do a lot of digital imaging and work in complete darkness while manipulating the images on screen and then switch on a small desk lamp to set up my printer. I do this simply to reduce flare on the screen from ambient light which reduces the screen contrast in much the same way that flare does when light hits a camera lens. This enables me to correctly judge the contrast of the image.

 

[david b]

Here in Albuquerque, the Barnes and Noble has the photography section upstairs in the art section and the digital photography/imaging books are in the computer section downstairs.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Well, not to belittle beginning photographers, either digital or film, but it can often seem like technology is the barrier to overcome in the path to great images. Books on creativity have rarely ever sold well, because too many beginners probably just don't get it. The unfortunate thing currently is that digital imaging has thrown a whole new level of complication over the practice of photography.

That current books of photographers images are largely film photographers of the past has more to do with levels of success. There are prominent photographers now shooting mostly digital images, but they don't put out nearly as many books as photographers of the past. It seems to take quite a long time to attract the attention of a publisher, and get distribution in the major stores. Anyone with images from more than five years ago probably only used film, and anyone getting notoriety within the last five years is probably too busy to be working on putting out books of images.

There is an entire industry that has appeared and been fueled by digital imaging. Take a look at most workshops advertised, the NAPP, or even some big name fine art photographers. Many are generating more income from workshops than from photography. To these people, the gear is the emphasis, and creativity is assumed (or apparantly ignored in some cases). In my opinion, this over-emphasis on gear and technology has trivialized photography, and in some aspects is pushing commercial imaging into a commodity status.

Take a look at any magazine or book from over ten years ago. It would be rare that we know the camera or film, or much else about the images, whether fine art, photojournalism, or advertising. The image was the emphasis. Seems we are at a point when that simple concept is elusive, but I hope things balance out and it goes back to that.

Just wanted to also mention that your posting is similar to a few other recent discussions. Over the past few months, I have been speaking to many photographers, commercial or fine art, about creativity and why there is too much emphasis on technology. This same issue has been a recent discussion (actually a few) over at PDN Forums; so even amongst professionals this is becoming an issue.

Photography is often about magic, and when too much is known about process the magic has less impact. In a similar way, I think when too much emphasis goes towards process, then the magic of creativity can suffer. Obviously some people are into photography as much for the process as for the results, but my opinion is that when creative vision is your emphasis, process needs to be intuitive.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
Dead Link Removed

 

[roteague]

Interesting thoughts on the subject, Gordon ....