The world of photography has changed, but why should we?

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

THIS is the kind of attitude that IMHO will destroy photography. The opinion of ignorant people who think that only the final result is what counts, so they would be ready to switch to digital as soon as it gives the result they are expecting. Why don't painters say similar things about digital imaging and the possibility to create images with the help of programs like Adobe Illustrator ? Because they are too smart and they DONT WANT to degrade the value of their work by accepting that it could be done in an easier, faster way by a less skilled person... not like photoraphers, sadly...

IT'S THE PROCESS THAT COUNTS, NOT (ONLY) THE FINAL RESULT... THIS IS ABOUT ARTISTIC EXPRESSION, NOT COMMERCIAL WORK...

George, take a deep breath. Commercial work has already switched en masse to digital. Many artists are doing digital work. "Painters" is a foil, an imaginary bunch of people who are supposedly more honest, more dedicated to their craft, who never talk about brushes, who only care about the image....

Yes I know that the process matters, but so many people LIKE the digital process. Are you going to hate them for that?

Photography is a tool. Sometimes it's an art, too.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I think you all should read the article "Is Photography Dead?" in the December 10, 2007 edition of NEWSWEEK. You can go to a local Barnes & Noble or Borders, etc book store and stand there and read it for free if you don't like/don't want to buy the magazine. The article is on page 94.
Jed

Jed, thanks for pointing the obvious, but...
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

It's a crappy article if I can smell one.

 

[walter23]

Heh, people get so passionate about this. There is a threat that film will disappear and that's why I think we see these guttural reactions (yeah, I'm stating the obvious). Take heart though; we can coat our own emulsions when the time comes. I think there will always be a niche for traditional film though, and some small supplier will always provide it. I mean, the Civil War reenactment weirdos are still doing their wet plates. We'll still be doing film when we're in our 90s. It just might cost us a lot of money to do it.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Painters who are doing well on gallery sales of original works and books aren't going digital, but "Tru Giclée" is all the rage if you look a bit downmarket. If one is the sort of painter who sells originals for under $5000 and infrequently at that (i.e., without enough of a reputation to sell work steadily for $15K or more), then inkjet prints for under $100, mousepads, refrigerator magnets, coffee mugs, and such are another income stream.

I know one painter who has mostly worked in encaustic, which is a very traditional and fairly difficult process to master, but has also experimented with video, photography, digital imaging, and installations involving complicated fabrication. To him they are all valid creative media, and one can see how it is all by the same artist.

 

[jovo]

Painters who are doing well on gallery sales of original works and books aren't going digital, but "Tru Giclée" is all the rage if you look a bit downmarket. If one is the sort of painter who sells originals for under $5000 and infrequently at that (i.e., without enough of a reputation to sell work steadily for $15K or more), then inkjet prints for under $100, mousepads, refrigerator magnets, coffee mugs, and such are another income stream.

In the smaller (which is, I guess what you mean by 'downmarket') galleries, painters are filling the bins with giclees of their work while several of their 'original' works may be hanging on the wall just above. In fact, in one gallery I've visited nearly all the 'paintings' on the walls were giclees on canvas with a few daubs of actual paint added. These are very large works, and probably cost the artist quite a bit to have made. As these artists are seeking to make as much of a living from their art as possible, they've embraced technology to the extent that it can enhance their earnings.

And yet, the original work is made of paint on panel, or canvas. None of these artists think of themselves as any less worthy for having gotten more mileage from each painted piece they create. In their view, they've made a worthwhile leap from a purist tradition to an acceptance of contemporary practicality.

If you're going to look for artistic 'virgins', there are a helluva lot of painters who are not quite pure enough to qualify any longer.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Well, sorry you didn't like the article.
Not like it's anything we didn't already know, but I thought it was interesting to see the argument published in "main-stream" print media. It's one thing when a forum that is dedicated to the topic, such as this site has discussions about it...
...quite another when a few million people in the U.S. and elsewhere read it in print, even if the magazine might be mostly liberal media.
Exposure...I guarantee that article, for better or worse, got a couple hundred thousand times more exposure than either you or I discussing something on a photography forum. That's something we analog fellows ought to think about these days. Maybe you could write the next article for them? That would be awesome!
Sincerely,
Jed

 

[Ed Sukach]

What were the original questions...?

"Have we changed?" - Yes.

"Should we change?" - I don't think there is a choice. We have, we must - all within the original "mission". I think we have matured and mellowed - subtley. The one certain way for us to "die" is to stagnate.

I think it is a grave error to label ourselves as "Isolationists". It is far more accurate to assume the mantle of "Specialists". Our interests lie primarily and and relatively intensely in the area of traditional, "wet", analog photography - but I have no animosity against the "di****l crowd, either; nor painters, sculptors, ...

Why should I?

 

[Sean]

I can't see myself ever believing that 'the end result is all that matters' because the traditional process is a major part of the experience and enjoyment for me. I can see myself accepting that this is how some folks operate and there is no point in hurling judgment on them anymore (back to the us vs. them waste of energy argument). If that is what they care about and they want to use whatever methods to do it then that's their prerogative, I know what works for me and am sticking to it so will focus on that. I love the process and find you can love the process and the final result equally, that's how it should be. I'm on a computer all day so the last thing I want to do is use computers to create art, but I can see the appeal that some find in it (more than I used to be able to). What others choose to do should not affect my own personal goals and enjoyment. I still firmly believe people should be honest and open about their final product if someone enquires how it was created.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Well, sorry you didn't like the article.
Not like it's anything we didn't already know, but I thought it was interesting to see the argument published in "main-stream" print media. It's one thing when a forum that is dedicated to the topic, such as this site has discussions about it...
...quite another when a few million people in the U.S. and elsewhere read it in print, even if the magazine might be mostly liberal media.
Exposure...I guarantee that article, for better or worse, got a couple hundred thousand times more exposure than either you or I discussing something on a photography forum. That's something we analog fellows ought to think about these days. Maybe you could write the next article for them? That would be awesome!
Sincerely,
Jed

LIBERAL MEDIA? What rag were you reading? Newsweek is a bastion of corproate media. Far from liberal. But more to the point, what the heck does the politics of the media, if it has any, have to do with the article or its audience? The big gripe with the article in Newsweek was the presence of a number of glaring factual errors. This is of considerable importance, because those factual errors are the foundation upon which a highly flawed thesis for the article is built. "Illliberal media" can be just as factually flawed.

 

[BWGirl]

Hm.... Since Sean's Original Post was 11 pages ago, maybe it would be good to repost the main point...

I've been thinking (hey no jokes!) about the current state of photography and how my views on photography are starting to evolve. Years ago my stance was quite defensive and one of keeping traditionalists into a cohesive unit. I still believe this is a good thing and we have basically proven that we are here to stay. We've established we are here to stay so now what?

I guess what I am seeing here is that Sean is asking what we think on a very valid topic... what should our role be as traditional photographers in an increasingly digital world? Do we stick our head in the sand, move into some walled-off compound in the middle of nowhere, or do we stand proud with our cameras-without-preview-windows and cheerfully explain the wonders of film to those who ask.

I have to tell you that after 11 pages of responses, if I were a totally DigiGirl (as one poster put it), there are a few of you here that would scare the hell out of me & keep me from ever asking you about your film camera! Frankly... I think I'd go to great lengths to avoid a few of you all together!

There are others here who I would happily approach with my questions. Because they give the impression that they would be happy as clams to answer them & maybe just maybe lure me into film!

So how about it... how would you answer the question Sean originally posted??

 

[symmar_man]

Hey folks,

I wish I had time to post more but I just don't between editing View Camera, moderating the LF Forum and running a photography business.

When did Ted Harris become the editor of View Camera Magazine? I thought Steve Simmons was the editor? Did I miss something?

B. Dalton

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Well, seems like I stepped on some toes, (rather inadvertently, I might add), with my last post about the article. Didn't mean anything by it, and certainly didn't realize I was going to add to the digression of the thread with it. I apologize about that.

To answer the question at hand, I think it's obvious that we can't hideout and just do our thing anymore. The analog world is still somewhat crashing down around us, and we've got to be vocal about what products we use and want to continue to be produced - and then vote with our wallets. For example, they could yank Kodak Max 400 and I could care less. However, if they yank Portra 160VC, I'd be a little more peeved. (And it could be the other way around for someone else).

So - I think yes, we do need to get our opinions and such out there - but most of all, our work has to stand on its own. If an analog print is not as good as a comparable digital print, then who are you going to persuade to start using analog products? Now, I know that some of us do darkroom work for fun, (myself included), and could care less if a session didn't produce our best print ever.
But, it's not going to be that way for those looking on. All that work had better have a payoff - that's what they're going to tell you. When I show someone (non-photographer friends for example) one of my B&W prints, they can't believe I did that in my garage. The public needs to be educated. It's like that in all professions, and analog photography is no exception. The only "education" they're getting right now is how many MP the newest digital camera has that's on sale at XYZ store.

With all that in mind, though, should we have three or four different websites that we need to check in on every day to get our message out there? Maybe. Not sure I'd have time for that. I've only checked this single thread on this whole website today because I only had time in between work to keep up on one conversation.
Maybe for those with a lot more time to "donate" to getting analog photography out there, they could have about 10 simultaneous conversations going on with three or four different websites...or, just put a link to a digital forum - what is that going to hurt, honestly? Keep the film "APUG" forums for film, and have a digital forum where people can ask questions, etc. Photo.net has done that from the beginning. No need for multiple domains, multiple servers, etc...but I suppose the old guard might not like that for various reasons.
Jed

 

[papagene]

Thank you Jeanette for bringing us back around to Sean's original post. And I stand by my statement in an earlier post here... I choose to go out into the world with my film cameras to photograph and hang my traditional darkroom prints next to all that digi-stuff.
Get out there and be enthusiastic about your analog choice!!!

gene

 

[ilya1963]

When you in the darkroom - nothing matters , nothing exists ...

When you outside it makes you see , your MINDS EYE is alert and sensitive, it is irritated to the point that your brain hurts .

There are times when your spine shivers, your skin get goosbumps, your whole being is sensitive to light

The problem is that the medium of analog has not been explored fully by me and I am not ready to be finished with it and pick up other tools , matter of fact I do not think that I will ever be ready, it just has to many doors that I need to open and walk thru and look at every light, every shadow ...

If analog disappears , how much of us would it take with it?

Something so precious would disappear


There were masters of craft in the past that took their secrets and tools to grave , today people wonder how they did it

People here saying to help digital users to understand our side- OK , I am asking them to PLEASE, PLEASE give me something from your side that would replace this burning feeling I have inside for analog , so I could join your crowd, I am begging you , because your numbers are bigger and you will win and I want to join you but I can not feel you and as a human I have to feel -TEACH ME ,SHOW ME -WHERE IS IT?


Can someone here please point me to an artist who's work in digital I could admire and want to do what he does , I mean BLACK AND WHITE that has beautiful scale with rich endless blacks , with shades of gray that make you see color and white that is so pure that you can be blinded

I am sorry fro rambling , I am very passionate about what I do is there anybody out there ?


How does this work any way ?

I mean how does one go from digital to analog what makes one want to do analog after doing digital ?

What would motivate a young one to come to the dark room , one would want to create and not just simply click and look

I got to go , I really don't have a lot of time , they may stop making something analog that I use and I need to get some work out ....or I would bust.

Greeting,

ILYA

 

[jovo]

I guess what I am seeing here is that Sean is asking what we think on a very valid topic... what should our role be as traditional photographers in an increasingly digital world? Do we stick our head in the sand, move into some walled-off compound in the middle of nowhere, or do we stand proud with our cameras-without-preview-windows and cheerfully explain the wonders of film to those who ask......
So how about it... how would you answer the question Sean originally posted??

Well....my role will be to pursue traditional photography far less defensively and without hostility to any who would challenge the fact that I'm doing it. And that applies to both the real world and the on-line world. I wrote earlier that the initial 'gee-wiz' era of digital has pretty much ended. It's a bit easier now to be a friendly, informative and non-combative ambassador of tradition. Perhaps it has taken a while to become comfortable in our own skins again, but now that it has for me, I look forward to presenting what I love to those who will listen and take the time to look more closely.

 

[Chuck_P]

Well....my role will be to pursue traditional photography far less defensively and without hostility to any who would challenge the fact that I'm doing it. And that applies to both the real world and the on-line world. I wrote earlier that the initial 'gee-wiz' era of digital has pretty much ended. It's a bit easier now to be a friendly, informative and non-combative ambassador of tradition. Perhaps it has taken a while to become comfortable in our own skins again, but now that it has for me, I look forward to presenting what I love to those who will listen and take the time to look more closely.

I agree with all this.

But, you know , it still just erks me when I hear a digital advocate say those ever abrasive words.........."the end result is all that matters". It's not just those words, but it's the dismissiveness and body language that was used to convey them. I don't react to it like I used to, but I still react. The problem is reacting in a more positive way like your sentiments speak to, or I guess, showing no reaction at all. I see how Sean's tank can be empty when it comes to that effort.

Chuck

 

[Paul_C]

I can't see myself ever believing that 'the end result is all that matters' because the traditional process is a major part of the experience and enjoyment for me.

I agree. The process totally matters. For me. Sometimes that process happens to be digital or hybrid, and it's great fun. For me. How anyone feels about that process shouldn't matter at all, however. Being derided for using a hybrid or often all digital process is ridiculous, exclusionary, and bigoted.

None of this means I expect you all to convert to digital because I like it, or that I expect you to discuss topics specific to digital photography on this forum. That'd be off topic and outside the realm of most of your expertise anyway. It's not what I come here for. There's other outlets for that. More often than not when I see digital photography even brought up around here it's by some prick who just feels like bashing on it. This has been a big turn-off for me and I'm sure a lot of others who would otherwise love to be a part of this forum discussing traditional film- (and plate-, or whatever) based photography.

The only reason I've bothered sticking around and participating even in a limited manner is that it seems there's a momentum for more mature heads to prevail and welcome people who might do things a little differently. (Thanks to those for this, you know who you are.)

I have to tell you that after 11 pages of responses, if I were a totally DigiGirl (as one poster put it), there are a few of you here that would scare the hell out of me & keep me from ever asking you about your film camera! Frankly... I think I'd go to great lengths to avoid a few of you all together!

There are others here who I would happily approach with my questions. Because they give the impression that they would be happy as clams to answer them & maybe just maybe lure me into film!

Amen. I first came here some time ago and saw a great deal of hate and derogatory remarks aimed at digital photography and practitioners thereof. It took a *lot* of effort to come back and cut through all that noise to get at the real signal here, which is something really worthwhile.

 

[Paul_C]

Well....my role will be to pursue traditional photography far less defensively and without hostility to any who would challenge the fact that I'm doing it.

Funny, around here there's much more challenge to those who pursue digital and hybrid photography.

Come to think of it I've never been challenged in the real world, here, or anywhere else online for shooting film. And the only place I've felt challenged for shooting digital has been here - nowhere else.

But, you know , it still just erks me when I hear a digital advocate say those ever abrasive words.........."the end result is all that matters".

What do you care how they feel about the process? Just because it doesn't matter to them doesn't mean it can't matter to you. And just because it matters to you doesn't mean it should matter to them.

What erks me are petty preachers telling people that their lifestyle is wrong just because it differs from their own.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That sort of dismissive "the end result is all that matters" discounts the fact that the end result of a different process is a different result. In some ways, I also think that the end result is more important than the process, but that the two are inseparable. You can't get something that looks like a contact print from a camera negative from anything but a contact print from a camera negative. You might get something nice or that appeals to you just as much or more, but it's a different thing.

 

[Chuck_P]

That sort of dismissive "the end result is all that matters" discounts the fact that the end result of a different process is a different result. In some ways, I also think that the end result is more important than the process, but that the two are inseparable. You can't get something that looks like a contact print from a camera negative from anything but a contact print from a camera negative. You might get something nice or that appeals to you just as much or more, but it's a different thing.

David,
Well said. The end result is inseparable from the process.


I'm sure this is not well said but it is what comes to mind:

The process lends definition to the end result...........the end result is ultimately user defined............. and thus is irrelevant to all those not involved in the process.

The end result matters not.....to all those not involved in the process.

I can't believe I'm hitting the "Submit Reply" button on this one, but what the hell.

 

[Sean]

I've heard some chatter elsewhere that basically puts me in a 'traitor' camp because I am not looking to take the militant road. The question for me is do I waste energy being militant which is proven by now accomplishes nothing and is actually counter productive, or do I take that energy and use it to pump up traditional photography -which might actually make a difference?.. If someone wants to argue for a militant stance then let's hear it, why and how does it improve things for traditional photography?

 

[Chuck_P]

or do I take that energy and use it to pump up traditional photography -which might actually make a difference?.. If someone wants to argue for a militant stance then let's hear it, why and how does it improve things for traditional photography?

Sean,

You should do what makes a difference. IMO, good strategy is knowing when to change how you fight.

 

[thebanana]

I think Sean's point is that the "fight" is a ridiculous waste of time and energy, which could be channeled into something more productive.

 

[Chuck_P]

I think Sean's point is that the "fight" is a ridiculous waste of time and energy, which could be channeled into something more productive.

Absolutely agree. But IMHO, I think film is in a fight of sorts and so the word is not necessarily misplaced. It is meant to be all encompassing word for the continued existance of film based photography. The fight, or the effort, can be carried out in different ways.

Chuck

 

[removed account4]

the fight to me is that using film and analog processes
works for me better than any other means.
and i have more FUN doing it.
the other fight is useless ...