The lack of knowledge in new photographers

haris · May 26, 2007

In my newspapers it is obvious that photographers don't know their job anymore. I am at work and I just had to use photograph of chessplayer. Photographer made photograph which contain table with piece of paper on which players name is written and above table is torso and head of player. Photographer was lower than table. So, photograph have perfectly exposed and focused piece of paper and player out of focus and in darkness. Not possibile to correct in PS.

Music... I have collegue who is music freak. He recently started to use MP3. Hi have really serious equipment, vinyl and everything, he even use specialised cables and else. But, he realised that all potential of his equipment can be heard only in specialied music room, without furniture, curtains, etc... He can not afford room like that, so for him MP3, CD and vinyl sounds almost the same. And as MP3 here is cheaper, more easy to get, listening equipment is cheaper, occupied less space, etc... he went to MP3. Sad, but c'est la vie...

jstraw · May 26, 2007

Thanks to the disposability of digital music, downloads, etc. I have recently added to my music library, such things as a fan-generated nine CD set spanning all of Gene Autry's career, the complete set of every single song that appeared anywhere on the Billboard 100 chart for so much as a single week during the period spanning 1960 to 1963, a large anthology of Ames Bothers songs, Mills Brothers songs, Betty Hutton, Georgie Fame...the list goes on and on.

Almost all of this music has been abandoned by the labels that own the copyrights. It languishes because there's insufficicent economic motivation to make or keep it available. There was basically no way to hear or acquire much of it before this technology became popular.

As with digital imaging, the technology itself is value-neutral. It's value acrues from its implementation.

jovo · May 26, 2007

Lee Shively said:
I've since come to realize it's not digital photography, it's Photoshop that I actually despise. And not even Photoshop itself, since it's also a tool that has its place. It's the dependence on this silly software as if it were a narcotic.

Actually, in the hands of a really first rate user of that software, PS is an amazing tool. My wife scans film negatives and then, using a Wacom Tablet, works on them in Photoshop as a painter (which she is by professional training and a lifetime of experience) would work on a canvas. The results become digital negatives which are contact printed onto photopolymer plates, inked (she's also a printmaker) and run through an intaglio press to make gravures, which are etchings. The results are simply gorgeous, and in some respects, beyond what is possible by any other means.

I am a dyed in the cloth traditional photographer (and unassailably loyal 'pugger), but I have developed an immense regard for the value of digital technology through my wife's work with a process that combines 17th, 19th, 20th and 21st century techniques.

With every innovation since Eastman's "you push the button, we do the rest" slogan made photography the 'artistic' tool of everyman, the vast majority have done little more than do just that...push the button and not entertain the least concern about why or much of anything else. (It is said that the most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity, and there's no lack of the latter using digicams as well as film cameras.) It aint' Photoshop that's to blame...it's some of us!

jd callow · May 26, 2007

A hundred years ago an educated individual could draw, probably paint, play an instrument, sing, and write in long hand script. They could do these things partly because they had to and because there were few if any typewriters, telephones, cameras, radios etc... the act of doing these things on a daily basis made them skilled by today standards. I'm hoping and expecting that the same occurs with digital photography. I think many here are selling their digitally enamored brethren short. If nothing else peer reinforcement will raise the quality, but I have faith in an individual's drive to improve. The fact that they don't know the reciprocal relationship between aperture, light and shutter speed or many of the other items we take for granted or that they require or rely upon software is simply the nature of the beast.

For my part I'll take pleasure in the uniqueness of film and hope/wait for ubiquitous d-capture to teach others the power of photography.

kjsphoto · May 26, 2007

It is weird. The more I read from responses around this site, I am starting to see that people care more about the technical aspect than about the actual artistic vision of the artist.

The bottom line is that if it is digital as far as I am concerned it is not art and I dont care who is going to flame me or the names I am going to be called.

Personally, I am really tired of it. If more people would work on the art side and have less concern about the technical crap, then maybe and only then, would we start seeing beautiful images instead of the so called crap I keep hearing being used throughout this thread.

Truly sad.

My thought and my opinions and I am not talking them back.

Tom Duffy · May 26, 2007

I don't have any problems with people saying, "I'll fix it in Photoshop." When I absolutely have to get the shot, I use color negative film instead of color slide film because I know I can depend on the film's latitude and dynamic range if I screw up.

Raw is equivalent to negative film and jpeg is equivalent to slides.

Problem is that the photoshop aestethic goes way beyond fixing. So much of what I see on photo net is more like Thomas Kincaid pictures - really over the top in terms of saturation, sharpness and tonal scales. Most of it really looks striking, but it's not photography.

I think Lee is getting at the lack of basic technical knowledge about how cameras and lenses work. Many of these people never used a manual camera or know how taking the picture at f1.4 is going to be different from taking the same shot at f11. Set it on green zone or "P" and let the camera decide how the shot is going to come out. Many of these photographers will get beyond this and pick up the basics. Those who don't will get a number of good pictures based on the volume of pictures they take and the sophistication of their cameras. Some of those who don't will take take great pictures because they have a good eye and technique is always secondary to that.

jstraw · May 26, 2007

kjsphoto said:
The more I read from responses around this site, I am starting to see that people care more about the technical aspect than about the actual artistic vision of the artist.

I agree wholeheartedly. Whether I find a work of art compelling has little or nothing to do with the technology used to create it (work where the medium is the message, notwithstanding).

kjsphoto said:
The bottom line is that if it is digital as far as I am concerned it is not art...

Ummm....what? I thought you just derided people for being more concerned with the tools than the results. That's a pretty rapid fire act of self-contradiction!

kjsphoto said:
If more people would work on the art side and have less concern about the technical crap, then maybe and only then, would we start seeing beautiful images...

Ouch! I have whiplash!

removed account4 · May 26, 2007

Tom Duffy said:
I think Lee is getting at the lack of basic technical knowledge about how cameras and lenses work. Many of these people never used a manual camera or know how taking the picture at f1.4 is going to be different from taking the same shot at f11. Set it on green zone or "P" and let the camera decide how the shot is going to come out. Many of these photographers will get beyond this and pick up the basics. Those who don't will get a number of good pictures based on the volume of pictures they take and the sophistication of their cameras. Some of those who don't will take take great pictures because they have a good eye and technique is always secondary to that.

tom

i think this can be said about the vast majority of people who use a camera,
any kind of camera. most people just want to take snapshots, and they
don't care much about anything else. p/s using fill flash instead of strobe,
hold the shutter button 1/2 way to compose and hold focus ... most people
even with film cameras don't know about that ... and a lot of folks
who use/d manual cameras just pick a shtter speed and fstop depending
on what the light meter says ... not much more than that ... they are just
having fun, and there isn't anything wrong with that
-- seeing we all had fun, before we decided to go beyond that and figure things out a bit more.

i don't have any problem with people using a d-cam, or p/s or a point and shoot
film camera, the more they shoot, the better they will get, and as jdcallow said better than i,
they will eventually see the power in using a device ...at least they
are learning to see a little better ...

Michel Hardy-Vallée · May 26, 2007

kjsphoto said:
The bottom line is that if it is digital as far as I am concerned it is not art and I don’t care who is going to flame me or the names I am going to be called. .....
My thought and my opinions and I am not talking them back.

Yeah, if I were you too, I wouldn't bother trying to support that argument with any substance. It's not worth it.

kjsphoto · May 26, 2007

I can support it with reason and logic, but it doesn't matter as most wont understand in any case. I am in no mood for a flame war, which is exactly what will come out of this.

Just because you own a piano does not make you a piano player.

There are photographers, which I am not, and there are artist, which I am striving to become. Big difference.

Nuff said.

reub2000 · May 26, 2007

I resent any comment that technology has made people bad photographers. It's only allowed people to be bad and get an acceptable photograph. If someone wants a picture to prove that they visited the grand canyon than what's the harm?

I'd also like to see an ISO1600 film that can produce acceptable results.

wheelygirl · May 26, 2007

Lack of Knowledge. . .

Well, folks, here I go into the fray . . .

I am a relative newbie to photography, and I'm creeping very close to the half-century mark in age, plus I use a manual wheel-chair to get around. With that being said, there have countless times of people telling me."Ohh, dear, you should use a power chair [meaning a motorized wheel-chair]!!" The point to me using a manual 'chair is to keep my muscles functioning. I know myself very weell: I'd get way too lazy.
The same for me about film cameras: I, personally do not want to become lazy with d*****l. This is not to imply those who use "that other type" are lazy!! There is a use for those cameras, just not in my camera bag!!

Curt · May 27, 2007

Well, folks, here I go into the fray . . .

I am a relative newbie to photography, and I'm creeping very close to the half-century mark in age, plus I use a manual wheel-chair to get around. With that being said, there have countless times of people telling me."Ohh, dear, you should use a power chair [meaning a motorized wheel-chair]!!" The point to me using a manual 'chair is to keep my muscles functioning. I know myself very weell: I'd get way too lazy.
The same for me about film cameras: I, personally do not want to become lazy with d*****l. This is not to imply those who use "that other type" are lazy!! There is a use for those cameras, just not in my camera bag!!

I once heard a person say "I don't want to think, I just want a picture". I guess that's true for a vast number of people. I'm past the half way mark and it would be easier to put a card in the printer then sit and watch TV while it prints. I tried the new technologies but the meaningful print was not one that a computer and printer produced. I am more like Freida Kahlo, I have days were I don't leave the bed and other days where I want to photograph the planet. Nearly every day I wake up and don't feel like going on with it but I know that if I give up that's it.

I think the fact that you can wheel yourself is fantastic. My step father was told to avoid the stairs because he had bad hips. He just had them both replaced but he said that all of the years he took the stairs he kept his muscles in condition and probably prolonged his life in general.

Back to the "lack of knowledge in new photographers", it's so true. I have made a special effort these days to increase my knowledge of the history of photographers, their art and the times they lived in. It's history and art and society, political movements and lots of people interacting.

I think it's great to do photography but including its history in the practice expands a persons perspective and how they view themselves and how they fit into the world. About anyone who can see and hold a book can read about the rich history of photography then ask questions and share their knowledge.

bjorke · May 27, 2007

These young whippersnappers can't work a slide rule to save their lives. Shameful.

(Note Kodak's parenthetical caveat)

The bizarre absurdity of the "if it's digi then it's not art" statement starts with the paradox that it is in itself a digitally-expressed sentiment. Should it therefore not be taken seriously?

Such a statement assumes that you know a priori how a picture was made. If you love a pic, but later find out it was produced using the Wrong Process, I'm curious about the conversion from art to not-art. What does that feel like?

I have never met a sculptor who declares particular materials to be art-proof. Nor a painter. Gee, photographers must be a powerful lot! No other material yet devised has been able to resist.

Chris Ofili, She, 1997, acrylic, oil, resin, paper collage, glitter, map pins, and elephant dung on canvas, 8 ft. 3 7/8 in. x 6 ft. (installation view)

Curt · May 27, 2007

Yes, that's right the process does matter. Want me to respond by telegraph or smoke signals. By the way all of the petroglyphs in the Southwest were done recently by graffiti artists.

fschifano · May 27, 2007

gr82bart said:
That's it in a nutshell. "You can can fix it in Photoshop" has become the unfortunate new workflow. Sad really.

Regards, Art.

Yeah, but back in the day the phrase was, " I'll fix it later in the darkroom."

roteague · May 27, 2007

fschifano said:
Yeah, but back in the day the phrase was, " I'll fix it later in the darkroom."

Nonsense. We got it right in the camera. We didn't have to rely on trickery to get something.

reub2000 · May 27, 2007

Well I've had much more luck fixing things in the darkroom than I've had fixing things in photoshop.

walter23 · May 27, 2007

Lee Shively said:
But some of the things I read are plumb scary! On one thread concerning shooting RAW vs JPG (see, I'm learnin' this stuff--I can talk digital now!), almost all the posters came across as believing it is less desirable to produce a finished photograph in the camera alone. They promote shooting RAW so they can use the computer to manipulate the image. It's as if actually making a photograph is not enough--it has to be Photoshopped into existence or it's somehow unhip.

Well, an analogy is that shooting JPEG is like shooting a polaroid or slide film, and raw is like getting a negative. You have more lattitude with the latter, and photoshop is kind of like your darkroom (vs. looking at the slides on the light table or projector = jpeg). Nothing to get excited about.

Photography *is* technologically driven. A lot of photographic techniques are a result of the fact that most cameras can't capture the dynamic range a human eye is capable of recognizing. This will change - at some point, I'm sure you'll be able to point a digital camera at a scene and have all highlight & shadow information perfectly preserved and well presented. It's a matter of semiconductor technology & software.

But people still shoot wet plates and make their own emulsions. People still print traditionally, some use really old processes like kallytype, van dyke, cyanotype, platinum/palladium, etc, - there's an intrinsic value to any artistic bent that can't be superceded by technology. People still paint. Don't feel threatened by the inevitable digital improvements.

removed account4 · May 27, 2007

roteague said:
Nonsense. We got it right in the camera. We didn't have to rely on trickery to get something.

there has been trickery since people started using a camera ...

Andy K · May 27, 2007

gr82bart said:
That's it in a nutshell. "You can can fix it in Photoshop" has become the unfortunate new workflow. Sad really.

Regards, Art.

I think the current term is 'I'll fix it in post'. Whatever happened to getting it right in the camera? :rolleyes:

Lee Shively · May 27, 2007

But it appears these days that the last thing being considered is the possibility of getting it right in the camera.

My mind is more open to digital photography these days than it was a year ago. The cameras, the software, all this "stuff" are only tools. It's good that we have tools, right? Makes the job easier and, sometimes, allows us to do the job better. I guess my main point is that the first tool in the process--the camera--is not well understood anymore. Because of that, that primary tool is not being utilized very well. If it were, the post production tools would be less necessary.

jstraw · May 27, 2007

Lee Shively said:
But it appears these days that the last thing being considered is the possibility of getting it right in the camera.

My mind is more open to digital photography these days than it was a year ago. The cameras, the software, all this "stuff" are only tools. It's good that we have tools, right? Makes the job easier and, sometimes, allows us to do the job better. I guess my main point is that the first tool in the process--the camera--is not well understood anymore. Because of that, that primary tool is not being utilized very well. If it were, the post production tools would be less necessary.

Measured scene contrast is four stops...desired print tonal rang is seven. Get it right in the camera...or "fix it in post?"

And Kevin, if you can logically support a statement that is illogical on it's very face then you've untied the gordian knot. I'd be curious to know your definitions for "photographer" and for "artist."

Bob Carnie · May 27, 2007

Take an egg in your hand outside, hold it in the air, look at the highlights and look at the shadow. Understand the lighting ratio.
Photography is the process of recording this light on paper.
The tools you use to achieve this is secondary.

jstraw · May 27, 2007

Bob Carnie said:
Take an egg in your hand outside, hold it in the air, look at the highlights and look at the shadow. Understand the lighting ratio.
Photography is the process of recording this light on paper.
The tools you use to achieve this is secondary.

While I agree with your point, enthusiastically, I'd observe that interpreting that light is just as legitimate as recording it.

The lack of knowledge in new photographers

haris

jstraw

jovo

Membership Council

jd callow

Moderator

kjsphoto

Tom Duffy

jstraw

removed account4

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

kjsphoto

reub2000

wheelygirl

Curt

bjorke

Curt

fschifano

roteague

reub2000

walter23

removed account4

Andy K

Lee Shively

jstraw

Bob Carnie

jstraw

The lack of knowledge in new photographers

haris

Membership Council

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency