The impact of new technology upon historical techniques

[michaelachan]

We all know there's the battle between digital and chemical processing of images.

We also know that it is easier to rectify an image on a computer than in a darkroom, however probably not as fun.
Have you noticed at all that almost every image in the magazines and banners are no longer just photographs, since it is now becoming more and more so popular to tweak and graphically import 2d objects and designs. Rarely are photographs ever presented without a digital manipulation, this includes a drastic alteration of curves or colours.

Well what I am getting to is this, I have been feeling so low about my photography of late, as Im constantly comparing my work to those of modern manipulations. Im not usually one to manipulate, and when I do, I manipulate something radically. But what Im trying to say is that I no longer feel capable of taking a good picture without thrashing it for not being as 'interesting' as a manipulated graphics piece. Maybe I just don't have the artistic nack :-/

What do you think of modern technology and all that it is capable of? Do you think it is ruining the tradition of photography and the techniques behind it? Upon answering this question, remember that camera's are becomming cheaper and cheaper, not many will require photographers in the future.

[sean_mcr]

Upon answering this question, remember that camera's are becomming cheaper and cheaper, not many will require photographers in the future.

That implies that the only thing special about a photographer is that he/she has a camera

That's far too simplistic

A good photograph is a good photograph and if it's not there, it's not there.

There's alot of myths about film. The fact is that the hole world shot film before digital, from granmothers to granddaughters. There was not a household that didn't have a camera with some film loaded in it, Photography has always been practiced by the masses.

[michaelachan]

That wasn't what I meant. I didn't mean that there isnt art behind photography, but more so that those who do not practice photography have easier access to cf cameras. Sorry :[

[sean_mcr]

photography has always been accessible. It's part of its history

[michaelachan]

okay :/ then I'll take that all back and I will drop the subject.

[sean_mcr]

There's no need to drop the subject. I'm sorry for the short replies, ive not got a lot of time to reply right now.

But i do not think the problem you're facing has anything to do with photoshop or the price of a camera.

[jellophoto]

Michaela,

This topic has been discussed on pbase many times and probably on many other photo web sites. In my opinion the battle is well and truly over. The chemical age has almost passed and who knows where the digital future will take us. Personally I think we live in very exciting times and I am an enthusiastic convert to the world of digital editing. I do not understand this idea that a photograph must come out of the camera untouched to be valid.

The technology is not ruining the tradition of photography, quite the opposite. It is simply adding some new colours and brushes to the paint box!

The digital toolbox is just that, a tool box and nothing more. It is a learning experience along with other important aspects of the subject, such as composition.

Do not be despondant about your work I think you have produced some very worthwhile material and you will continue to develop your style as you are exposed to different influences. Keep it up.

Regards John

[sean_mcr]

Michaela,

I think the problem you're facing is a theoretical one. Are my pictures saying what i want them to, what are they lacking and why.


Since photographys invention it's faced and adpated to changing technology; but the essence of what makes a good photo has changed little. It's far eaiser to ruin a good photo in photoshop then it is to salvage a bad one. Films was once what digital is now, film put the camera in the hands of the masses. Photography was onced discribed as "arts mortal enemy". For decades it was frowned upon, looked down on.

Yes you should know your medium, you should know how to print and how to show your images in their best light. But a bad photo is not like humpty dumpty, nothing is going to put it back together again

Digital is not so cheap. Canon' flag ship film slr the EOS-1V HS is every bit as good if not better then the EOS-1Ds Mark II, the difference in price is astounding. Film is pretty cheap, provia 100F can be had for £2, cheaper still if you buy in bulk. Digital does not end with a camera, the lenses are no cheaper, you need more and more storage space, faster and faster pc's. Canon and Nikons marketing boys have so many people jumping through hoops its unreal. Upgraditis is no joke, i've seen people buy a £1000 lens before they even knew how aperture and shutter speed relate to each other. Digital is not cheap; films not dead, it's just being practised by people with different needs and requirements.

I'll say again that a good photograph is a good photograph. If you don't have a good beginning you're not going to have a good ending; and that transends format


Keep shooting

Sean

[pikkabbu]

Maybe if someone can give me a definitive definition of what is a good photography, I'll be able to answer your initial question about chemical or digital.

I mean that we people use to discuss a lot about whether digital ara true/false or good/bad photography, but I'm still waiting to find what makes a photo to be good.

Or should I say : I've too many different definitions.


As people have different opinions about what's the port, they've different ideas about which is the right way to go.


People who reach a master level in anythink dislike very much seing that other people can do the same without the need of time and technique they needed to convert into a master.

Now that again: what's a good photo and what's a good photographer ?

cheers

pik

[sean_mcr]

A good photograph starts in camera and if its essense is not there at the point of capture no contirvance will make it otherwise. That's same for the dark room as it is for Photoshop

[jellophoto]

Sean,

Surely a good photograph starts in the mind of the person taking it. Composition is the key in any photograph. The essence of the shot may be in the capture, but I do not agree that a photograph cannot be improved on once it has left the camera. I am often pleasantly surprised by the result of my own processing of what at first sight is disappointing source material, or perhaps I just couldn't see the potential!

Regards John

[sean_mcr]

You're right, it does start in the mind but also in the heart. A camera is an extention of both those things, it's the tool that we use to express those thoughts and feelings. You can not put those two things in print if you you did not capture them to begin with, thats the essence of the photograph. Digtial or chemical darkrooms are to enable us to fully realize our vision.
If you do not have something at the point of capture, there is little that that photoshop can do for you


My point is that photoshop does not make photography easy, that's a myth;

Keep shooting

Sean

[jellophoto]

I couldn't agree more with your last post Sean. Photshop does not make photography easy, it just speeds up the workflow and gives another dimension to explore. I do think a sort of snobbery has developed among some who dismiss digital editing as somehow being akin to cheating. They couldn't be more wrong. Every day is an adventure with something new to learn.

Regards John

[madlights]

I do agree that a good photograph begins with a good photograph. I suppose there are cases of very seriously manipulated images, where bits and pieces are brought in etc. etc. that are sheer creations in photoshop where this might not be quite the case...but I think it's generally true. The effect that I think digital has moreso as compared to film is that for some people it changes ever so slowly the way in which they shoot. For some people who have an intuitive ability to compose on the fly, sort of a feel for composition, it makes it easier to fire off the camera like a machine gun and edit later and get some good results in that style. I seriously don't know if digital benefits those as much who like planning and contemplating shots before taking them...since the feeling of "if I don't get this one...I'll get the next" CAN creep in...also for this type of shooter.. I don't know if digital would be so "cost effective " as film. Not saying I think that digital always changes these things for better or worse...just that I think it can...and something maybe to be aware of.

[simplephotography]

Sure enough it all depends on what the intent of the photograph is.

In product photography, a good photograph is technically perfect. Composition and lighting, as well as correct colors are key.

In expressive street photography (I take this example as it's my field of photography), a photograph is good to one eye, and bad to the other. Sometimes I only see if a photograph is good when I see it on my screen. Lots of decisions are made when you are processing the image, and only after that, it's good or bad. It often happens that I post an image that I would throw away, but still I want to know what others think of it, and mostly, they are wildly enthusiastic. At other times, I post images that I really really like, and others don't.

So a simple answer is just not possible here.

To me, a photograph is good if I like it. 'Good' is not just 'technically good'. I know of photos that are crap, technically spoken (like clipped highlights, bad composition and stuff), but still there's a story to be seen. Well, then to me it's a good photograph.

Here's one that technically s*cks, but I like it, which is what counts.