Too Many Photographers

[mwtroxell]

Too many photographers? Not really. There are just too many people with cameras. Theres a big difference. Unfortunately, everyone who can afford a $50 digital camera thinks that they are now a photographer.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I will say that Photoshop/digital has allowed a new group of photographers to enter the realm, and that is women mainly, who photograph their children, and then branch off to become children's photographers. I think the ease of photoshop has given them an opportunity to enhance their work, doing it all inhouse, and starting a small business doing it. The beauty of this type of spontaneous work speaks for itself. Before photoshop, I doubt that they would have had the opportunity or the perhaps confidence to do this. Cheryl can probably address this better than I can.

To a certain extent, I would agree. Digital and PS can help make a technically poor shot into a technically not too bad shot -- but it (almost) never turns it into a great one. Fortunately, when shown the difference, most people "get it." I charge very high fees compared to most portrait photogs and I have no trouble getting what I ask. Again, it still comes down to the skill and eye of the person behind the camera. I don't feel remotely threatened by beginning photogs who can fix some mistakes digitally and print it out at home.

- CJ

 

[David R Munson]

How many people own cheap guitars? And how many can play like Jimmy Rosenberg or Eric Johnson?

Point being that no matter how many people doing any particular thing, the cream will rise to the top. Most of those languishing in obscurity will always be talentless hacks and the uninspired, though admittedly there are always a few great ones that slip through the cracks.

I'm not worried.

 

[lee]

here is a web site for the guy that worked on Eric's guitars in the 80's.


www.stevensguitars.com

michael is a pretty fair builder also.


lee\c

 

[Graeme Hird]

I see no problem with digital cameras being everywhere - as Cheryl so rightly said: "It's the photographer that makes the image, not the camera." I know my camera is a lazy bugger - not once has it gone out at 4.00am and taken photo!

My print sales are increasing with the proliferation of digital cameras, not decreasing. I work mainly in landscapes, selling the prints in my gallery. People see a huge print and know they can NEVER make something so good with their little P&S digicams. When they add that to the fact they don't even SEE the things I'm showing, I know my niche is safe and my sales will continue.

Digicams are no threat - they are in fact a marketing opportunity for good photographers, a chance to show your quality by direct comparison. Embrace them rather than fear them.

Graeme

 

[Graeme Hird]

And Jorge's sign-out line also puts it succinctly - carrying a camera doesn't make someone a photographer. They're probably just another camera operator.

Graeme

 

[kjsphoto]

One thing I do mourn, however, is that so many PJs think that mashing the shutter down and getting 8 images a second on your Canon 1D amounts to anything more than snapshots.

This I agree with you completely. I am also a journalist and one thing that irratates the hell out of me is when I see a guy/gal holdign the button down whipping out 8 frames poer sec. The only problem with this is that they do not capture peak action as they have no idea how to.

I am from teh old shool and came fro the all manual cameras and I learned how to anticipate and capture the moment. Sure I like the FPS sec for sequences but every image is not a sequence.

And chimmping. This really ticks me off. There have been so many times I am covering events and I see the press with there eye in the LCD gocking over their images instead of keeping the eye in the view finder. Yes for journalism work (sports mainly ) I do use digital as it is easy and fast to transmit and it is the tool to use. But too often alot of these guys/gals are missing the best shots beause they do not stick to the action.

One of the most instructional things I've experienced is the rare occasion when a good film PJ publishes their contact sheet.

These are the guys that seperate the pros from the hacks. I remember when I started these guys used to show me their contacts and I tell they way they shot was just impressive and their images all were powerful. If people woudl only stop with teh digital hype and learn to study images and see why they work and do not work maybe we would start seeing once again really good PJ images.

Another thing I miss seeing in papers is photoessays. It is a shame.


Sorry for ranting but it hit a nerve.

 

[kjsphoto]

It is no guarantee that using a 4x5 or 5x7 or 8x10 or 11x14 or 12x20 will result in fine photographic prints. I have seen these cameras put to use no better than a digital phone camera. A snapshot is a snapshot whatever the format or medium. Vision is in the heart of the person and not the equipment.

Well said.

 

[Ole]

The local paper had a long photo-essay this weekend. And all the photos were quite obviously shot with - a Holga! It's good to see that at least one newspaper photographer still knows how to load a film!

 

[Ed Sukach]

"I know not what path others may take ... but as for me..."

I will not get hung up over titles or what others may call themselves. If a rank beginner playing a harmonica wishes to call himself a "Musician" ... I honestly DO NOT CARE. If someone using a newly-bought "disposable" to take snapshots of the wife and kids on vacation calls himself a "Photographer" (I hate to shock everyone, but..) that will do very little harm, nor cause any appreciable grief to me. I have many other things to concern myself with - like not ending sentences with prepositions.

"Now I know that this heresy. I know that this is proof positive that I'm rather lowbrow or airy-fairy or anti-intellectual. That's all right with me. I am an artist, and I am the one who defines myself that way. It's a little like Rumpelstilskin: if we wait for someone else to come along and wave a magic wand naming us an artist ("Ah-hah! You there! You are an artist!), we may wait a terribly long time.
I am a writer. Writers write. Painters paint. Sculptors sculpt. It is the act of engaging in an art form that names us potter, poet, actor. Of course it is only human to yearn to be a published writer, a galleried painter, an employed actor, but if we are writing, painting, acting, that act validates us as an artist, and despite the mythology to the contrary, that act will give us joy."

Julia Cameron - "The Vein of Gold", p.142.

 

[sparx]

I will not get hung up over titles or what others may call themselves. If a rank beginner playing a harmonica wishes to call himself a "Musician" ... I honestly DO NOT CARE. If someone using a newly-bought "disposable" to take snapshots of the wife and kids on vacation calls himself a "Photographer" (I hate to shock everyone, but..) that will do very little harm, nor cause any appreciable grief to me.

I couldn't agree more, At the end of the day, a genuine ability defines a skill, not the equipment owned.

 

[Andy K]

Hi, I'm new to APUG but here's my take on it.

There is an ongoing problem in education regarding digital techniques, in all fields. The youth of today are consistently taught with digital methods, computers, CDs, digicams, photoshop, megapixels, text phones etc. etc. Unfortunately no-one is teaching them that, while it may be slower and less convenient, analogue is almost without exception superior to digital in every field. Apart from photography (and I do not even consider myself an amateur I'm just a guy with a couple of cameras who enjoys taking photographs, as my gallery here will testify!) I also greatly enjoy listening to music, and I will swear to the death that vinyl sounds 100% better than CD, mp3 or whatever.
So maybe the youth need to be taught the analogue methods alongside the digital methods. At least then they would have a balanced grounding in their chosen field.
I have been berated on another forum (seven whole pages worth!) for my objection to photoshopped images. The people berating me were without exception in their late teens to mid twenties. They simply could not accept that digital was inferior because they had only been taught digital methods.

Anyway, to sum up, the accessibility of good cameras (digital or otherwise) to the masses is no threat to pro photogs. Pretty much everyone has a car but very few could challenge Michael Schumacher. The same goes for cameras.

Well, thats my take on it! Sorry if I rambled on a bit, but the analogue/digital thing irritates me!

 

[doughowk]

One on the arguments I've heard for d------l photography is that the output can be closer to perfection - none of that shoddy, human craftsmanship in the darkroom. In all our aspects of life, computers & automation are touted as avoiding human error. But it depends on your perspective - one man's error is another man's work of art. The flaws in the universe are where life ( & art ) begins.

 

[Les McLean]

There is an ongoing problem in education regarding digital techniques, in all fields. The youth of today are consistently taught with digital methods, computers, CDs, digicams, photoshop, megapixels, text phones etc. etc. Unfortunately no-one is teaching them that, while it may be slower and less convenient, analogue is almost without exception superior to digital in every field.


I think you are spot on Andy. I teach masterclasses in several art colleges and universities throughout the UK and think that lack of funding is part of the problem. Many of the heads of the photographic departments wish to give students a better grounding the analogue but are denied the money to employ full time tutors in the skills. I find it interesting that the students in most of the colleges I go too are extremely enthusiatic about analogue photography. Just a few weeks ago I was in a university in the Midlands teaching both digital and analogue and the trtaditional skills seminars were much better attended that digital so there is still hope.

Having said that I do believe that there is great potential in the digital field and I am very upbeat about it as many here know but lets not go there as it has been well debated in the past few months.

Certainly my big grumble about the way digital is used and taught is that those new to image making who are starting with digital seem to be happy to make an exposure and just delete it if the result is not correct and them make a second, third or many more exposures until they get it right. Following this road simply means that they never get to understand how to calculate exposure and IMO, run the risk of never really understanding how light and exposure work together.

 

[jovo]

"Following this road simply means that they never get to understand how to calculate exposure and IMO, run the risk of never really understanding how light and exposure work together."


It may be ironical (and I am by no means an authority on this*) that digital cameras have been designed to emulate the way one thinks using analog equipment...even to the emulation of iso/asa numbers and such. It makes a much easier transition for traditional photographers to begin to use the equipment, but it still poses the same learning curve on the initiate that was present all along. Therefore, if there is no grounding in the basics of light and exposure, the emulation is futile. I wonder if, in later incarnations, digital equipment will impose a unique and utterly different way of thinking, bypassing what has gone before in favor of a 'rubric' that is unique to that medium.

*(My only exposure (no pun intended) to a digital camera is with our OlyC5050 which is more or less a point and shoot. Perhaps this line of thinking makes no sense to one actually knowledgeable about digital photograpy.)

 

[kaishowing]

In February this year I bought my first camera. It was a cheap digital 3MP machine, and I found myself enjoying using it. In my opinion, I produced results that far exceeded my hopes or anything I could have dreamed of. For the cash that I paid, it was a fantastic little machine.
12 weeks later I bought my 1st analogue camera, and now exclusively use that.
Why did I buy my out of date Zenit-E when I was getting more than adequate results from the digicam??
Because there was no feeling of accomplishment when getting a nice picture on the digital camera.
It was far too easy to produce an image of such a standard in which I felt no entitlement to.
Now I find that I produce less polished images, but there is a feeling of satisfaction when I get the prints back from the shop and I see a couple of shots among my mistakes that come close to what I saw when I pressed the shutter.
As long as analogue gives that feeling of success(no matter how small), digital will never replace it.

 

[dr bob]

some editing here,,,,
Now I find that I produce less polished images, but there is a feeling of satisfaction when I get the prints back from the shop and I see a couple of shots among my mistakes that come close to what I saw when I pressed the shutter.
As long as analogue gives that feeling of success(no matter how small), digital will never replace it.

Just you wait! Sooner than you may believe you will be getting "polished" prints which you have more control than you ever would with "modern technology". If you are getting satisfaction now, it will go off the chart as you learn and experiment.

 

[Alex Hawley]

As pointed out by our esteemed collegues, education is the key. If the education establishment is preaching the D**al Gospel, one can logically assume an entire generation of Digitalees is being spawned, wholly unaware of what they are not learning.

The only formal photography course I've had was during a previous career and was about surveillance photography. Shocked I was to learn that B&W was highly favorable over color for that work because more detail was captured due to variations in local contrast. Even though the cameras were nearly fully automatic and had rapid burst capability and automatic target tracking, we were still encouraged to use those features only when absolutely necessary. High emphasis was placed on proper framing, best subject aspects, and trying to get good contrast variation rather than low or high contrast. Amazing how those principles still hold true in pictorial photography.

What goads me the most about the digitali movement is the blind assumption that digital is automatically better just because its digital. I have a few 8x10 contact prints hanging in the office cube; and a Digitali co-worker who is always e-mailing me his snapshots and starting a discussion on how WELL his digital camera works and how wonderful it is. I always politely listen, nod my head, and end the meeting with a short comment on how much fun the 1950 8x10 Deardorff is.

 

[papagene]

In regards to what Doug said about the digitalitists' belief in the superiority of digital output because it is closer to perfection as opposed to the shoddy human hand-craftmanship:
If my old brain cells can remember correctly, it was Picasso that said that artistic style came from learning what mistakes an artist routinely makes and taking advantage of and using those mistakes to create one's own style. If everyone drew perfectly, everyone's drawings would look exactly alike.
In photographic terms, if we didn't all have our own little foibles, we would all produce perfect imitations of (name your all time favorite photographer here).
Personally, I prefer a well crafted analog print vs a perfect replica.
That being said and to agree somewhat with Les, I have begun seeing a few digital photographers who's artistic vision help them create interesting work. But they are really few and far between and are almost drowning in a sea of digital junk.
That's my Friday night offbeat $0.02 worth.
gene

 

[Robert Kennedy]

If the education establishment is preaching the D**al Gospel, one can logically assume an entire generation of Digitalees is being spawned, wholly unaware of what they are not learning.

Well, that is where we are headed in many places.

At the UofA, a program with a now dubious lifespan, the photo program is seriously talking about ripping out the color processor and replacing it with a "digital lab."

I may be one of the last to take a color course there that is analog.

Of course this is wholly nuts for a couple of reasons.

1 - They have HUNDREDS of PCs with full imaging software sets on them. We have multiple labs in the art department, a multimedia lab with 42" inkjet printer, and a brand new "Multimedia Zone" with, again, computers out the wazoo. And then there is the budget priced service bureau for all your output needs.

But THAT ain't enough. Need to pull out the color darkrooms and do away with analog color....

And they wonder why every year they get a crappier rating....

 

[Chuckiesinluv]

Buying a set of mechanics tools does not make one a mechanic in most cases. Soit is with camera and all the many gadgets available. I took my first photos in 1969 and still feel like a beginner at times. My failing health has not helped me in last 18 months, but I still study it just about every day. Oh well, I have 1000's of images that I could put on internet eventually if worse comes to worse..

 

[jantman]

As to the "art" side of things, one of the main artistic facets of photography is the hand-crafted print, where each one is unique. This isn't true with digital.

As to technical qualities - you can put a Hasselblad or an 8x10 in the hands of an amateur and show them how to use it. Will they (when they finally get it right) produce sharp, grain-free shots? Probably. What makes someone a photographer is their artistic eye. We're a long way from cameras that can find and compose a great shot for you.