The lack of knowledge in new photographers

[Curt]

It's like elephants who paint.

 

[Doyle Thomas]

I am an old fart and want to know why this diatribe concerning the D--- camera usage is allowed to continue here.

It is allowed to continue because it bad mouths D------. if it said anything good it would be stopped. In point of fact, d------ is not the problem here. The problem is not the camera, it is the photographer.

Doyle

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

even with film it happens

A co-worker used to work in a local, now closed, camera store.

An irate customer was given a full refund on a $5400 Nikon package deal - he was upset at the garbage they gave him back when he had his film processed - out of focus, heads cut off, etc.

Lost sale, but obviously knew the pig would never learn to sing.

 

[Black Dog]

vorsprung durch tecknik (not).....

 

[roteague]

Lee,

There isn’t anything wrong with owning a digital camera - I have a DSLR myself. If you have a need of one, and can afford it, then buy one. It is better to have knowledge of something, and then reject it, then to have no knowledge, and reject it out of hand. I’ve used mine enough to come to the conclusion that my Nikon F5 still produces superior results, and now it just sits and collects dust (I had the F5 out just today).

Personally, it isn’t the camera that I object to – the camera is after all just a bunch of electronics and glass – it is the technology. You allude to this point with your reference to Photoshop. There was a time when people looked at an image and believed that it represented reality (although in an artistic way), no longer. Photography has long been a medium for social and political change (where would we be without William Henry Jackson’s famous images of Yellowstone), but if an image can’t be believed, how can it move another person emotionally.

One another forum I participate in, GM Inside News, there are always photos of various new cars shown, and invariably the consensus is that the images were “Photoshopped”. This is sad. The other thing that saddens me is the lack of quality images that are now acceptable for magazine photograpy. There was a time when that was something that most photographers aspired to - it meant you had arrived, photographically. Now most magazines publish crap - work that the majority of members of APUG can easily exceed.

Quality, and craftsmanship never go out of style.

 

[Jim Jones]

Technology can free the creative mind. Would Isaac Asimov have written several hundred books without a typewriter? This is the age of information. Would many of us be so well informed about photography if it weren't for APUG?

If ordinary people produce endles ordinary photos with d****** cameras, that's no concern of ours. Competent photographers must have howled when Eastman said, "You pull the string, we do the rest." However, many of them eventually used roll film. 35mm cameras were derided in the 1930s, but they did evolve into fine instruments, and they initiated a style of photojournalism nearly impossible with the excellent Speed Graphic. Much image correction and manipulation is better done on a c******* with P****S*** than in my darkroom.

Tools are just tools. When Jack London sat for a protrait by Arnold Genthe, he said something like, "I've long admired your photographs. You must have wonderful cameras." Genthe replied, "I like your writing. You must have a great typewriter." When the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 wiped out Genthe's studio, he rushed to a nearby store, bought a roll film camera, and recorded the catastrophe. It is not the tool as much as the craftsman or artist that really matters.

There is a certain joy in using photographic equipment and techniques from the days of meticulous workmanship. It brings photography into the arena of other performing arts such as dance, music, and drama. However, it is the photograph, not the means of getting it, that we can share.

 

[Nick Zentena]

The other thing that saddens me is the lack of quality images that are now acceptable for magazine photograpy.

But is that related to anything but the general decline in magazines? The web has made weekly magazines seem ancient and monthlies are even worse off. The few magazines that actually work well in print I guess are fine but how many magazines were little more then ads held together by the odd bit of information?

 

[Bob Carnie]

Occasionally the photo schools bring their students to our lab for a tour.
In my darkroom I have around 30 well known images by photographers I admire.
The first thing I do is ask the students to do is name the photographer responsible for each image.
To my great suprise, a young lady * no more than 20 years of age* knew over 80% , the other students were very aware as well.
I credit this to a good teacher and maybe we should be pointing the fingers at the old farts teaching rather than the young newbies.
I only became aware of the history of photography, because I had a great teacher. *thanks Don*
I have hired a 16 year old photo student to work here and he is by far the most consistant and willing worker I have.
Maybe some of us Old Farts should spend more time spreading the word of photography more and spend lest time on our high horses making fun of the Digital crowd. Jeesss.

Trying talking with photo students about famous photographers. It's a joke. I had an advanced photo student ask me if rodinal was a film developer.

 

[jstraw]

Technology can free the creative mind. Would Isaac Asimov have written several hundred books without a typewriter? This is the age of information. Would many of us be so well informed about photography if it weren't for APUG?

If ordinary people produce endles ordinary photos with d****** cameras, that's no concern of ours. Competent photographers must have howled when Eastman said, "You pull the string, we do the rest." However, many of them eventually used roll film. 35mm cameras were derided in the 1930s, but they did evolve into fine instruments, and they initiated a style of photojournalism nearly impossible with the excellent Speed Graphic. Much image correction and manipulation is better done on a c******* with P****S*** than in my darkroom.

Tools are just tools. When Jack London sat for a protrait by Arnold Genthe, he said something like, "I've long admired your photographs. You must have wonderful cameras." Genthe replied, "I like your writing. You must have a great typewriter." When the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 wiped out Genthe's studio, he rushed to a nearby store, bought a roll film camera, and recorded the catastrophe. It is not the tool as much as the craftsman or artist that really matters.

There is a certain joy in using photographic equipment and techniques from the days of meticulous workmanship. It brings photography into the arena of other performing arts such as dance, music, and drama. However, it is the photograph, not the means of getting it, that we can share.

I hope EVERYONE reads this post. It's a breath of fresh air in what promuses to become another worthless digibashing party.

Thank you Jim.

 

[roteague]

But is that related to anything but the general decline in magazines? The web has made weekly magazines seem ancient and monthlies are even worse off. The few magazines that actually work well in print I guess are fine but how many magazines were little more then ads held together by the odd bit of information?

I suspect the two actually go hand in hand.

 

[removed account4]

I hope EVERYONE reads this post. It's a breath of fresh air in what promuses to become another worthless digibashing party.

Thank you Jim.

what he said ...

 

[CGross]

I too have pondered buying one of those d****** cameras, probably about 3-4 times a year. I still do not own one because every time I arrive at how much it will cost me I say: "I could buy a Hasselblad system, or an 8x10, or one of many beautiful film cameras". Or, I can save my money and continue to learn with the tools I have acquired already, which is what I have done so far.

Too me, there is no real difference between a film or a d------- point and shoot camera. At the end of the day, they both serve the same purpose, and they are both PHD(push here dummy) cameras. For many the Return on Investment is much more attractive with a d-camera and add in the fact you can see the image immediately, the decision is straight forward for a person who only desires to take snapshots; like my mom!!

I exclude these folks from what is being analyzed here, because they a very different set of data.

The data being analyzed here (I think), are those who desire to take photography more seriously. This is where I think the technology revolution has had some impact. And the impact is not just to photography. In my mind, computers, d----- cameras, etc., does assist people in becoming lazy or take an easier path.

What's scary is that all of this technology has been around just long enough that there are some professionals who know nothing else, and these folks are instructing and teaching only what they know....Yikes!!!

Thankfully, there are still inquisitive minds out there who like to know more and explore other options. And enough of us APUG'ers to have some influence into the equation.

I agree with Jim Jones who stated:

It is not the tool as much as the craftsman or artist that really matters.QUOTE]

What’s really exciting to me is the fact that there are many different tools that have been used throughout the last 100 years to create beautiful photographs. Our tool is film, let’s keep that as an option for every person who desires to replace their point and shoot device with a tool that will allow them to take photography a little more serious, by educating, shooting more film, and talking about it all the time!!! And we can do that without any bashing.

 

[jd callow]

There is a certain joy in using photographic equipment and techniques from the days of meticulous workmanship. It brings photography into the arena of other performing arts such as dance, music, and drama. However, it is the photograph, not the means of getting it, that we can share.

There is also the joy specific to a medium. The specifics speak to the type of work produced as well as impact the image itself. As photography creates another branch there is new joy to be found. I know there is joy to be found in the digital process, it just might not be our joy or as enticing and if it were this wouldn’t be the place to extol those joys. APUG's purpose is not to denigrate the new branch, but to explore the old.

There should be a bit of relief found in the advent of digital photography. The traditional photographer can now exalt in the uniqueness of the medium without apology. All the old demons: grain, contrast, diffusion, flare can or even should be used as components of the final product or at least exercising them from existence shouldn't be a primary concern. Just as a watercolourist uses the lack of opacity, and the limited time available to finish the painting (and all that that constrains) to his/her benefit the trad photog can and should use those things unique to film, paper and the various methods of dev. printing and finishing to differentiate their image.

Its time to praise grain damnit!

 

[Donald Miller]

I don't understand what all the flap is about digital versus film...for the true purists out there, I suggest that you shoot only ULF and contact print every negative without burning and dodging.

I think that the real concern is that a bunch of us are truly old farts who have invested a sizeable amount of money in film cameras and the related bells and whistles that support them...now we see our investment rapidly riding off into the sunset...and to top that off there is a whole new methodology to learn if we want to keep up with the new whipper snappers and who the hell wants to learn something new at this point in life?...I have my narrow point of view and I will fight to the death to maintain it...did someone say there was a train coming? Can't be true...they went away before film.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

I don't think new photographer should only be applied to younger photographers. This shows a bias that does not always reflect reality. There is a local D*gital Artists Guild, of which probably 90% are the baby boomer generation or older. The reality is that these older people have the disposable income for all these new toys, and all this expensive software. People in their twenties often don't have the money to throw at this stuff; sure they probably have a cameraphone, or maybe a cheap P&S, but doubtful they own PhotoShop (unless it is a pirated copy).

If you want to bash people, you might as well throw in anyone using a disposable one-time-use film camera, an automatic film P&S, or any SLR on Program mode settings. These people want ease of use. Most here at APUG are enthusiasts, and want to know, or already know, the relationships of aperture, shutter, and ISO. Maybe it does not make sense that some people simply want to record moments of their personal history, and not express anything creatively.

Just as owning a film camera does not mean you have to use your own darkroom, owning a D-SLR does not mean you have to use PhotoShop. The same approach of taking the shot, using a lab, and showing prints to others can be used with either approach. As someone else put it, these are simply tools.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I'm not sure that the ability to cheaply take lots of shots is anything new:

[The new technology has] "created an army of photographers who run rampant over the globe, photographing objects of all sorts, sizes and shapes, under almost every condition, without ever pausing to ask themselves, is this or that artistic? …They spy a view, it seems to please, the camera is focused, the shot taken! There is no pause, why should there be? For art may err but nature cannot miss, says the poet, and they listen to the dictum. To them, composition, light, shade, form and texture are so many catch phrases…"
​

And what is this evil technology in the quote (that I probably found here on APUG)?

Dry plates.

This quote should be used to liberally bludgeon any people who complain that digital or polaroid or 3D holographic super-extra-high-definition video at 128 fps is killing art.

It's always the same story: photographer wishes he had faster films, faster lenses, faster focussing, lighter equipment, better meters. When he gets faster films, faster lenses, faster focussing, lighter equipment, and better meters, he suddenly complains that all that easiness is killing art. So he clamours for slower cameras, slower lenses, slower films, heavier equipment and no meter to teach the whizz kids a lesson.

When the now lowly Spotmatic was the acme of technology, people were still taking crappy pictures. There are crappy daguerreotypes. There are crappy wet-plate collodion on albumen paper prints.

And there are still people taking crappy pictures with the vintage equipment that should supposedly teach them about better composition, slower and more accurate manual focussing, manual metering etc.

So when someone is blaming TTL-auto-everything people for taking crappy picture, let's have a look at the supposedly inherently greater pictures he take with his Leica M3. I've seen many a lousy shot in the galleries of manual gear fetishists in photo forums.

 

[wfe]

Occasionally the photo schools bring their students to our lab for a tour.
In my darkroom I have around 30 well known images by photographers I admire.
The first thing I do is ask the students to do is name the photographer responsible for each image.
To my great suprise, a young lady * no more than 20 years of age* knew over 80% , the other students were very aware as well.
I credit this to a good teacher and maybe we should be pointing the fingers at the old farts teaching rather than the young newbies.
I only became aware of the history of photography, because I had a great teacher. *thanks Don*
I have hired a 16 year old photo student to work here and he is by far the most consistant and willing worker I have.
Maybe some of us Old Farts should spend more time spreading the word of photography more and spend lest time on our high horses making fun of the Digital crowd. Jeesss.

Thank you Bob.....

 

[f/stopblues]

I don't understand what all the flap is about digital versus film...for the true purists out there, I suggest that you shoot only ULF and contact print every negative without burning and dodging.

I think that the real concern is that a bunch of us are truly old farts who have invested a sizeable amount of money in film cameras and the related bells and whistles that support them...now we see our investment rapidly riding off into the sunset...and to top that off there is a whole new methodology to learn if we want to keep up with the new whipper snappers and who the hell wants to learn something new at this point in life?...I have my narrow point of view and I will fight to the death to maintain it...did someone say there was a train coming? Can't be true...they went away before film.

I'm 26 and have less than $1000 tied up in cameras/lenses. Everything is film and the related processing junk. I enjoy the quality. That's about as simple as it gets!

 

[Lee Shively]

Ol' fart back again...

I suppose much of my dismay is due to the fact that the internet now gives everyone a forum. It's highly democratic, which is both good and bad. It's good that people's opinions are heard, it's bad that bad information carries the same weight as the good information. The digital photo forums I visited for opinions really don't represent all photographers using DSLRs, I'm very sure. I guess I painted the entire field with a wide stroke. There are apparently many photographers doing excellent work with digiblasters and doing so with minimum or no Photoshopping involved.

What drew me into this was a recent desire to do color again. I learned to shoot color with 35mm Kodachrome II and later on with 4x5 Ektachrome 64. Both films had narrow latitudes and the Ektachrome would shift colors on you if you sneezed while pulling out the dark slide. I learned to expose properly, compose well and to use color compensating filters when necessary. In other words, the film went in the camera and what came out was the final picture and you had damn well better know how to make the film do what you wanted while it was in the camera 'cause there was no monkeying around with the transparency.

Looking at some of the features on some DSLRs--like Picture Mode (I think it's called that) in Canons--indicate it is possible to make adjustments to mimic film characteristics. If that's possible and given my limited need and desire to mess with image manipulation, why would Photoshop be necessary? Let the camera process the image just like it does with film. Sounds reasonable to me but when I asked this question all I got was how you have to use Photoshop to really do it right. Well, maybe so--if you're definition of doing it right is the over-manipulated and grossly unrealistic examples displayed in those forum galleries.

Bottom line is that I'm really not here to dis digicams. Hell, I'll probably buy one within the year! I used to tell people that I thought digital photography was the work of the Anti-Christ. 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.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I suppose much of my dismay is due to the fact that the internet now gives everyone a forum. It's highly democratic, which is both good and bad. It's good that people's opinions are heard, it's bad that bad information carries the same weight as the good information.

No it does not: if you are uncritical towards what people say, then yes you might end up believing a lot of wrong words. But in the real world, when you talk to someone, do you believe what they say by mere virtue of their presence in front of you?

You know what's the problem with the real world? It's highly democratic, and the bad information carries the same weight as the good information. When I talk to person A or person B, they both tell me their information, but how should I know which one is good?

If that's possible and given my limited need and desire to mess with image manipulation, why would Photoshop be necessary? Let the camera process the image just like it does with film. Sounds reasonable to me but when I asked this question all I got was how you have to use Photoshop to really do it right. Well, maybe so--if you're definition of doing it right is the over-manipulated and grossly unrealistic examples displayed in those forum galleries.

Grossly manipulated prints can be ugly, either analogue or digital. There is a profusion of bad PS dodging and burning, but you can also use PS to make it right. And why would the chrome you exposed in camera inherently better than the dupe one you did with some color balancing filters, or the print on Cibachrome with masking?

If you want the purest image, then don't use a lens, don't use film, and don't use a camera. Just take a wire frame finder, and put it on a tripod at the proper distance from your subject. That way you'll never lie.

 

[Richard Mendales]

D***l does have some real uses. For press photographers, for example, there's no faster way to get your image in to your publisher, and the ability to manipulate images has some real advantages for commercial photographers. Those images will be printed in media where differences in quality between d***l and analog photos are not visible. What does puzzle and depress me, though, is the way in which d***l has replaced analog photography across the board--even driving out MF cameras that still produce clearly superior images. I think part of it is that it's easier to get an acceptable image with d***l, even though it's harder to get a really good one. Another part is more general--not just a reluctance by people to learn their way around photography, but a decline in the ability to appreciate quality generally, especially in the arts. That's certainly true for music--how many people take the trouble to learn to play the piano these days? All the US piano manufacturers except Steinway are gone--and yet it's not so long since pianos were common in living rooms. It's also true for writing--I'm grading graduate level papers now, and the quality of writing is truly appalling, even for intelligent students. While there are many factors that go into a general loss of appreciation for quality, I suspect that the ultimate culprit is television, which has shortened people's attention spans and taught them to accept mediocrity.

 

[Uncle Goose]

Servers all around the world get filled with crappy snappies, but that's just the way it goes. Back in the times of film only it happend too (well, not the server thing but rather the cubboard thing). People will continue to make crap, no matter how you want it. But that's of no concern too us. What strikes me most is that people who use film are more and more seen as paria's. The other day I was walking in my city with my Flexaret VI and some young people started to have fun with me and even dare to ask if my grandfather did die, because, why should I otherwise walk around with "such an old piece of junk" (their words). I of course defended myself. One of them held a digital camera and the conversation went like this:

Me: well, would your digital crap hold out as long as my flexaret??
Them: Probably not, but hey, we can always buy another one.
Me: So, you don't like your camera, since you think of it that way??
Them: Nah, it's just a piece of shit that's obsolete in a year or so. (open goal here)
Me: Ahh, so you tell me my flex is an old piece of junk after 40 years but your digicrap is old crap in less than a year.
Them: errr, mhhhh,....
Me: Well, it's always nice too know that my 40 year old crap as you call it still take nicer photographs than your less than a year old camera.
Them: errr, well, nice talking to you but we have a bus to catch.

So, for the younger generation it seems that digital camera's are nothing more than something like dvd player, when it's old it gets tossed out. Gone are the days that they want it to last over 40 years. Consumer products all the way.

 

[gr82bart]

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.

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

Regards, Art.

 

[Eric Mac]

No soul

I was talking to my cousin last week about the whole digital music revolution. We are both old school still trying to find vintage vinyl for our listening enjoyment. We were lamenting how disposable music has become with downloading and ipods. You pay your money (maybe) and download a song and if you don't like it you delete it and poof it is gone. Back in the day we would buy a record, read the liner notes and absorb the music. The main thing is we owned the music physically. It didn't exist in some nebulous place such as my harddrive or in a little box. If my stereo setup served as the body of the music then the vinyl itself is the soul. And digital photography has no soul. There are no negatives to hold onto, in most cases no prints to look at- the images are stored on a medium that is sure to be obsolete some time soon. It too is disposable, just hit the delete button and poof it is gone into that ethos of 1's and 0's. My collection of vinyl from the 60's 70's etc is just as enjoyable as my parents prints and negatives from the same time period. And just as accessable.

Will we able to say this about all our digital photos and music in 50 years?

Eric

 

[Jim Jones]

The music of generations ago was a treasure. Consider the price. One 78 record might have cost a few hour's wages for some, and for just a few minutes of low fidelity music. A top quality [?] record player might have cost a month's wages, or even as much as a Model T Ford. For those who didn't have a player, there was always the ubiquitous piano with its seat stuffed with sheet music. Much practice was invested in converting those relatively expensive scores into enjoyable music. Even the LP records were costly when compared to today's downloads.

Those without any record player could always listen to a limited variety of music on an AM radio. If we liked classical music, networks provided the Firestone Hour, the Bell Telephone Hour, and in season the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts. Some universities aired classical music, and perhaps even then there were a few classical music stations somewhere in the country. In most areas of the country few stations could be heard in daytime, and interference from too many stations plagued night listening. Thunderstorms or electrical interference could ruin reception at any time. Eventually the plethora of FM stations gave us an all-weather source of a variety of music. Once we treasured the rare available music, Now it is more like the air (or smog) that we breathe.

I was talking to my cousin last week about the whole digital music revolution. We are both old school still trying to find vintage vinyl for our listening enjoyment. We were lamonting how disposable music has become with downloading and ipods. You pay your money (maybe) and download a song and if you don't like it you delete it and poof it is gone. Back in the day we would buy a record, read the liner notes and absorb the music. The main thing is we owned the music physically. It didn't exist in some nebulous place such as my harddrive or in a little box. If my stereo setup served as the body of the music than the vinyl itself is the soul. And digital photography has no soul. There are no negatives to hold onto, in most cases no prints to look at and it is stored on a medium that is sure to be obsolete some time soon. It too is disposable, just hit the delete button and poof it is gone into that ethos of 1's and 0's. My collection of vinyl from the 60's 70's etc is just as enjoyable as my parents prints and negatives from the same time period. And just as accessable.

Will we able to say this about all our digital photos and music in 50 years?

Eric