The impact of new technology upon historical techniques

[sean_mcr]

One of the great joys of not shooting for money is that you can take what you like when you like.

But once you decide to make your living at it, it's not so easy to say "as long as i like it, it's fine". This problem has led many a photographer to question what he does

I wonder if anybody can really get anything out of shooting a packet of frozen peas or the CEO of Walmart. Some people will make money out of photography at any cost, for others the cost is simply too high


When i think of good photographs, it's the ones that stand up to the test of time, the ones that reminds me of lifes value and of its fragility. How many product shots are remembered? Even fashion photography is not often remembered as it does not describe a world that most people know or understand or can connect with, yes some stunning images can be found but for how long are they remembered?


With all the technology we have at our disposal, why is it rare to see a photographer that can match the street photography of Bresson or Robert Frank? Technology can only do so much, a good photograph never begins in photoshop or in a darkroom

[andrys]

I wonder if anybody can really get anything out of shooting a packet of frozen peas or the CEO of Walmart. Some people will make money out of photography at any cost, for others the cost is simply too high

Sean,

Most do work they'd rather not do in order to make a "living" -- to
stay alive.

It's not an either/or situation.

If shooting commercially and meeting the challenge of producing an
image that works for the person paying, there's no reason a person
can't take photographs they like to take, for themselves at any time.

[sean_mcr]

I wonder if anybody can really get anything out of shooting a packet of frozen peas or the CEO of Walmart. Some people will make money out of photography at any cost, for others the cost is simply too high

Sean,

Most do work they'd rather not do in order to make a "living" -- to
stay alive.

It's not an either/or situation.

If shooting commercially and meeting the challenge of producing an
image that works for the person paying, there's no reason a person
can't take photographs they like to take, for themselves at any time.

Well how about the times, they're running back and forth trying to get the job shooting those frozen peas or going to see some stiff shirt at walmart? Or you're stuck in the middle of some soulless mall squeaking a toy in a child's crying face who's known you for Five minutes? a conveyor belt of photography, the challenge in that is not loosing the will to live.

Andrys, trust me, nobody leaves art school wanting to be the next big name in shooting serving suggestions for TV dinner boxes.

[madlights]

I wonder if anybody can really get anything out of shooting a packet of frozen peas or the CEO of Walmart. Some people will make money out of photography at any cost, for others the cost is simply too high

Sean,

Most do work they'd rather not do in order to make a "living" -- to
stay alive.

It's not an either/or situation.

If shooting commercially and meeting the challenge of producing an
image that works for the person paying, there's no reason a person
can't take photographs they like to take, for themselves at any time.

Well how about the times, they're running back and forth trying to get the job shooting those frozen peas or going to see some stiff shirt at walmart? Or you're stuck in the middle of some soulless mall squeaking a toy in a child's crying face who's known you for Five minutes? a conveyor belt of photography, the challenge in that is not loosing the will to live.

Andrys, trust me, nobody leaves art school wanting to be the next big name in shooting serving suggestions for TV dinner boxes.

Think I agree with Andrys on this one. People leave art school full of ideals...but when they get hungry and sick of cleaning up the vomit of people in back of the cab they're driving... so to make enough money to eat... shooting frozen peas might not seem so bad...and you can still keep ideals or what your life's passion is for when you can use it (if you don't forget it ) I've seen some commercial shots that are very creative...and I mean most movies were made with commercial ends in mind...most books have some commercial goals etc. Sean I know you aren't saying money is wrong...I think that what's wrong to me anyway is when we let money corrupt our vision...both literally and figuratively. We can always keep that no matter what we 'have' to do...knowing this sounds bit contradictory but life is full of contradictions.

[jypsee]

I've been sorting and scanning old negatives and polaroids lately. The oldest one I have are from 1963, when I was photographing with a 127 Brownie camera. Fixed lens, fixed aperture (but it changed for black and white or color). The negatives are BIG and the colors rich and the film pretty stable. Since I was fairly poor at the time, the photos are limited to holidays and special occasions. I didn't go out and photograph just for the heck of it. It cost money to buy film and have it developed and printed.
In 1966 I got a predecessor to the 126 Autofocus type camera, a Minolta Rapid 24 which loaded from one canister to the next across the film plane; the negative was 24by24mm and whatever film I used, it has not aged well. The colors are now "off" and big yellow blobs have appeared. So, here's what I got when I scanned the negatives


but, thanks to photoshop, I can manipulate the photo and get this



In 1966 when I first made the photo, I would have thrown out the unstable negative because it wouldn't have been acceptable to use it; today, however, I like it and so do other folks...here's another example of what's "good" now and what would have been a big boo-boo in 1966

now that the multi layered look is "in" this triple exposure has "meaning" and it's "interesting" (it sure is getting the page views)...I bet it didn't even get printed in 1966.

I've taken up digital photography wholeheartedly because I can make as many exposures as I want and mess with them to my heart's content. I don't reserve my photo making to the times when I have an "occasion" to record, because I'm not bound by economics. Even when I had my own darkroom and developed and printed my own BW photos, I still didn't do photography the way I do now. In those days I was also raising three sons and getting my education and maintaining a household, so that played a part in how and when I photographed (read the biography of Diane Arbus for a different look at a woman in the 60's who was a mother and a photographer)

Photography is not tied to a canon any more than any other form of expression/art. The process has been looked upon with skepticism and disbelief by many changing audiences and practitioners. If you, the maker, are unsatisfied by what you're producing, then try something else, or something new or something different. Or, wait 40 years and see if you like it better once it ages

[madlights]

Hahaha the old polaroids that you had to coat with that solution stuff! Those didn't age too well. And that certain batch(a few years worth) of Kodak color prints that turned colors alright...the wrong colors. Maybe this technology stuff isn't so bad. I agree the photograph, or the artwork is valid mostly in the end to the person making it...or above all else is.

[sean_mcr]

Barri

Earning a living in photography is no bad thing. But i think the visit from our friend Ajack just shown how jaded doing it for the money can make you.

I know some people that will shoot anything for money. But they are bottom feeders and they scrape rather then make a living, jack of all trades masters of nothing, i've seen what it's done to them.

Somebody has to shoot frozen peas i guess, but i wouldn't wish that on Michaela.

[jypsee]

than the negatives or the prints from 1966, and so on. Here's a black and white polaroid from October, 1964, and it is wonderful... rich and full of beautiful tones

even the color polaroids are looking better than the old prints. I'm reproducing those polaroids as big prints for framing. I wish I had more of them cuz scanning 126 negatives is very time consuming...but, thank goodness I can do it!

Hahaha the old polaroids that you had to coat with that solution stuff! Those didn't age too well. And that certain batch(a few years worth) of Kodak color prints that turned colors alright...the wrong colors. Maybe this technology stuff isn't so bad. I agree the photograph, or the artwork is valid mostly in the end to the person making it...or above all else is.

[andrys]

I wonder if anybody can really get anything out of shooting a packet of frozen peas or the CEO of Walmart. Some people will make money out of photography at any cost, for others the cost is simply too high

Sean,

Most do work they'd rather not do in order to make a "living" -- to
stay alive.

It's not an either/or situation.

If shooting commercially and meeting the challenge of producing an
image that works for the person paying, there's no reason a person
can't take photographs they like to take, for themselves at any time.

Well how about the times, they're running back and forth trying to get the job shooting those frozen peas or going to see some stiff shirt at walmart? Or you're stuck in the middle of some soulless mall squeaking a toy in a child's crying face who's known you for Five minutes? a conveyor belt of photography, the challenge in that is not loosing the will to live.

Most are stuck in 8 hour desk jobs and then long commutes to and from
work. Many of those would like the opportunity to suffer the way that
you describe and have more free time in which they can take pictures
of their own.

Andrys, trust me, nobody leaves art school wanting to be the next big name in shooting serving suggestions for TV dinner boxes.

Of course not. But some realize they have to work to make money to
have a place to live and some food to eat (not to mention supporting
families) while making art. Most in art school will never be heard of
in any way associated with photography or painting or sculpture at all.

Same way with music or any art. Life usually has its compromises and
you make good use of what you do have, in time, in opportunity, in good
health, in just being alive and WELL and able to capture moments, though
not 16 hours a day or whatever. The exceptions are those already with
money or in jobs they do like.

[madlights]

Yeah if a person got a good coat of the "fixer" on them and didn't streak or try to use a 1/2 dried one...then the Polaroids seemed pretty good. Seemed my Kodak B+W prints from way back when hold up a lot better than the color Kodaks (the color slides are still fine). Some of my B+W from 25 years ago seems just like when I took it.
Sean...I do think no matter what we have to do to survive...that it is important to keep that inner vision. That's something nothing or nobody can take away unless a person lets it be taken away. I think pikkabbu brought up a good point too. To me any work of art is something that satisfies the artist firstly. I can't judge another persons vision (maybe they like frozen peas ....) but seriously I think that any work of art or creative endeavor has got to satisfy the person doing it...to the degree that they soon become dissatisfied with it and do another one...

[akjack]

I think the future of photography is that is has no future as we know it ! Robitic digital viritual battlefields are almost there...no need for blood and soldiers...same for many fields of human endevor....In cities video cameras will be everywhere....some places already....hopefully we can get rid of parasite politicans and lawyers too....pretty dark world !!!!

[madlights]

I think the future of photography is that is has no future as we know it ! Robitic digital viritual battlefields are almost there...no need for blood and soldiers...same for many fields of human endevor....In cities video cameras will be everywhere....some places already....hopefully we can get rid of parasite politicans and lawyers too....pretty dark world !!!!

Might not be a bad trade off to get rid of some of those politicians eh?

[jypsee]

has an article/interview with Jerry Uelsmann
http://www.uelsmann.net/
who has been making "layered" or merged photos from negatives in the darkroom for over 25 years. He's not changing his technique and he predates photoshop.
So, he's had an impact on the future of photography by using historical methods and he did all this before there was a glimmer of the digital age in any photographer's eye.
In the article he mentions that Szarkowski gave him a one-person show at MoMA and then moved on to the "new realists" like Arbus, Winogrand, and Friedlander.
Shutterbug magazine still insists that any submissions be in the form of a paper print or slide transparency. Hmmmm....

[madlights]

jypsee

Shutterbug magazine still insists that any submissions be in the form of a paper print or slide transparency. Hmmmm...

Most art fair and exhibition juries still require slides...whether it's an application from a painter, photographer, sculptor...etc. A very few have changed allowing digital submissions, but not many at all.

[sean_mcr]

I'm going to play devils advocate here.

Anbody that's interested should follow this discussion, step by step.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... y-doe.html

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... e-by-.html (Jypsee, Jerry Uelsmann is spoken of in this section)


http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... t-on-.html

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... hind-.html

I've since discussed a few issues with the OP and don't believe PP of any kind has anything to do with the questions she's asking of herself.