Photographers Philosophy... the mindset?

[Sebastian]

Hi Sean,

I know exactly what you are expierencing, one of the best periods of my photographic life was when I bought an old Rollieflex twin lens reflex camera, which takes 21/4 square negatives, which allowed for 12 shots on a roll. I used to feel I could not "waste" shots because of the super high quality these negatives or slides produce. So I used to be very frugal with the shots I took, I learnt so much from composition & from NOT taking pictures, but being able to look at the ground glass screen & arrange the shot or walk away.

My theory on 35mm with 36 exposure rolls were that film was cheap & just blast through the rolls, with nothing really to show for it, (like casino gambling every now & then you get lucky). Digital has now taken that 35mm feeling & times it by a million so people can take a 1000 pictures a month, but invariabley & I include myself we are producing mostly "snapshots". Digital produces well exposed shots that anyone can take a picture that is ok, so now you have to learn the craft of photography.

Look at Waltericks picture on this board "Wierd night shot", this is where you make digital work for you & not the other way around.

Sorry for the rant I need to do this every now & then.

Norman,

Digital is the equivalent of you framing shots in the ground glass, only this time they are permanent, one can take them home, study them at length, maybe even work with them. I kind of see your post as bitter, not sure why. I see the exact opposite thanks to digital, my work and many others' has gone way beyond snap shooting. The ability to shoot anything for the sake of experimentation has really gotten the creativity flowing. And there is no reason in the world to not use the digital camera like film. Don't take the shot if you don't want.to. Don't look at the screen if you don't want to. Shoot only 30 frames and never look at one to check exposure or focus, treat it just like you did film, but with all the freedom of choice that digital provides you.

I think that's my favorite thing about digital, the freedom it provides. I am no longer forced into a cycle of shoot and hope for the best, hand it off to the developer and hope for the best, scan and hope for the best...I now can take total control over an important image, or I can still hand off the card to a lab for snapshots, I get to choose how I work, and most impotantly how my images look. I know, with a darkroom I would have all those things. Yes, but with less control, and I'd pretty much be forced into strictly B&W, not much freedom IMO. I always wanted a darkroom for B&W work, but my parents' house didn't have the room, and now I'm renting an apartment, and that just makes it impossible. Someday I'll have one for the sake of it, probably when I retire...

I think digital does not increase the amount of snapshots, it just records the ideas that before you didn't want to risk film on. That has nothing to do with digital vs. film, it's just that you now have a physical record of all the failed ideas that before you would just forget about... And that can also be a good thing, as sometimes when we come back to a failed idea (barring that we didn't delete it, I keep EVERYTHING I shoot) and through a burst of creativity see something in it that we didn't before. Then we go back and reshoot it with the new vision in mind.

The only problem I have with digital is that I have 60 gigs of images to organize.

[megan]

The only problem I have with digital is that I have 60 gigs of images to organize.

*groan*
I just organized 6 binders full of contact sheets.
And I still have a fat envelope to go.
I feel for you....

Megan

[Sebastian]

*groan*
I just organized 6 binders full of contact sheets.
And I still have a fat envelope to go.
I feel for you....

Megan

One thing you won't have to deal with is DUPLICATES...luckily ACDSee has a duplicate file finder, otherwise can you imagine opening folder after folder and compaing files in them...?

This of course is also a benefit of digital, the ability to even have an exact duplicate makes true backup of images a reality.

As always, a double-edged sword...

[megan]

I'm so unorganized that the negs are in my envelope marked "for contact" while the contact sheet is in another envelope... and I order another contact. Drat. Fortunately, that only happened once!

No matter what you use, there's always that organization monkey. Ah well.

Megan

[Sebastian]

I'm so unorganized that the negs are in my envelope marked "for contact" while the contact sheet is in another envelope... and I order another contact. Drat. Fortunately, that only happened once!

No matter what you use, there's always that organization monkey. Ah well.

Megan

I never did like monkeys...

[Norman]

Norman,

Digital is the equivalent of you framing shots in the ground glass, only this time they are permanent, one can take them home, study them at length, maybe even work with them. I kind of see your post as bitter, not sure why. I see the exact opposite thanks to digital, my work and many others' has gone way beyond snap shooting. The ability to shoot anything for the sake of experimentation has really gotten the creativity flowing. And there is no reason in the world to not use the digital camera like film. Don't take the shot if you don't want.to. Don't look at the screen if you don't want to. Shoot only 30 frames and never look at one to check exposure or focus, treat it just like you did film, but with all the freedom of choice that digital provides you.

I think that's my favorite thing about digital, the freedom it provides. I am no longer forced into a cycle of shoot and hope for the best, hand it off to the developer and hope for the best, scan and hope for the best...I now can take total control over an important image, or I can still hand off the card to a lab for snapshots, I get to choose how I work, and most impotantly how my images look. I know, with a darkroom I would have all those things. Yes, but with less control, and I'd pretty much be forced into strictly B&W, not much freedom IMO. I always wanted a darkroom for B&W work, but my parents' house didn't have the room, and now I'm renting an apartment, and that just makes it impossible. Someday I'll have one for the sake of it, probably when I retire...

I think digital does not increase the amount of snapshots, it just records the ideas that before you didn't want to risk film on. That has nothing to do with digital vs. film, it's just that you now have a physical record of all the failed ideas that before you would just forget about... And that can also be a good thing, as sometimes when we come back to a failed idea (barring that we didn't delete it, I keep EVERYTHING I shoot) and through a burst of creativity see something in it that we didn't before. Then we go back and reshoot it with the new vision in mind.

The only problem I have with digital is that I have 60 gigs of images to organize.

With all the technology and ease of making images, are the images being made today anywhere near the quality of the early pioneeers of the art, or are we getting technically very sterile photographs? I do like like digital, it has resparked the flame of my interest, but I have seen too many photoshoped models made into winged faireys.Sorry if it sounds synical.

[Sebastian]

With all the technology and ease of making images, are the images being made today anywhere near the quality of the early pioneeers of the art, or are we getting technically very sterile photographs? I do like like digital, it has resparked the flame of my interest, but I have seen too many photoshoped models made into winged faireys.Sorry if it sounds synical.

I tend to agree with you, however, you are blending illustration and photography together, to me they are two seperate things. Yes, many people load an image into PS and start messing with filters and effects. But how many stick with it? Or go beyond applying the same stupid filter? I'm sure not many photographers do, but the ones that do become illustrators. They become different than you and I. A photograph might be the starting point for their final vision. Can we call that photography? Not really IMO, it's illustration, but that only means it's different, not better or worse. And digital photography didn't make this possible, scanner have been around forever, as well as PS. No, instead digital photography has made it more widespread, easier to get into. Yes, the amount of garbage being posted and printed goes up, but with that so does the amount of quality images. Is it proportional? I'm sure not. Like I said, all those ideas that you didn't want to waste film on before are now photos for everyone to see. You still make the same amount of quality work, maybe even more, but the amount of trash pictures has skyrocketed. This is not in any way representative of how digital has affected the art of photography, instead it is just a physical record of all those ideas we used to discard.

Are we getting technically sterile photographs? I don't think so. I think we used to with film. Only the ones that really could afford to do it experimented enough to get those truely masterful, artistic images. The rest of us couldn't risk it, we took the "safe" route. Well-exposed, technically great images, using safe compositions. Overall, not to exciting except from the group of really excellent photogs, who could allow themselves the risky frames, just to see how they come out. I think digital has allowed many more people the freedom to experiment and learn so much faster that I think in some areas the bar is being raised. I think the ones that will truely push the envelope will be the ones that succeed with digital, the ones that stand out from the rest. I don't think it's a bad thing, just a transition period. I don't think we can really compare today's images to the ones of old. We can learn from the past, but I think the current situation is one where we will have to see what these new tools will let our new artists create.

Do you sound cynical? Maybe...but I tend to lean your way as well, I agree with what you say, I have seen too many dabblers put out garbage. I think I'm not looking hard enough for the ones that are really pushing the medium, maybe you should try looking harder as well?

The problem is, the internet is homogenizing art. Groups like ours here are wonderful, but how often do you see orignal, truely different work? And when you do, the posters tend to get few remarks, simply because it's so strange to us we just don't know how to respond. Forums such as these are basically like cliques in high school. We all dress the same, we all listen to the same music, you get the point. It becomes easy to sit inside one or two of these groups and make a statement about the world as a whole. I feel you are frustrated, and I am in many ways as well. I suggest we both search out really brilliant photographers and see what they are doing with the medium in the digital age. I think your views might change, and I hope my idealistic banter will have been worth it.

We need to start ignoring the masses and start looking for the rare gems.

Jesus, I hope any of this makes any sense, but I will post it anyway.

[Sean Dempsey]

I don't think Digital limited us at all. The capacity to do the "Great art" of ages ago is still here, most people just add too many lens flares.

Digital didn't hurt photos just like typewriters didn't hurt writing. We still have amazing books, and we'll still have amazing digital pictures. Can YOU tell if your favorite author used a pen and paper or a computer to write when you are reading his book?

[darkman]

I tend to agree with you, however, you are blending illustration and photography together, to me they are two seperate things. Yes, many people load an image into PS and start messing with filters and effects. But how many stick with it? Or go beyond applying the same stupid filter? I'm sure not many photographers do, but the ones that do become illustrators. They become different than you and I. A photograph might be the starting point for their final vision. Can we call that photography? Not really IMO, it's illustration, but that only means it's different, not better or worse. And digital photography didn't make this possible, scanner have been around forever, as well as PS. No, instead digital photography has made it more widespread, easier to get into. Yes, the amount of garbage being posted and printed goes up, but with that so does the amount of quality images. Is it proportional? I'm sure not. Like I said, all those ideas that you didn't want to waste film on before are now photos for everyone to see. You still make the same amount of quality work, maybe even more, but the amount of trash pictures has skyrocketed. This is not in any way representative of how digital has affected the art of photography, instead it is just a physical record of all those ideas we used to discard.

Are we getting technically sterile photographs? I don't think so. I think we used to with film. Only the ones that really could afford to do it experimented enough to get those truely masterful, artistic images. The rest of us couldn't risk it, we took the "safe" route. Well-exposed, technically great images, using safe compositions. Overall, not to exciting except from the group of really excellent photogs, who could allow themselves the risky frames, just to see how they come out. I think digital has allowed many more people the freedom to experiment and learn so much faster that I think in some areas the bar is being raised. I think the ones that will truely push the envelope will be the ones that succeed with digital, the ones that stand out from the rest. I don't think it's a bad thing, just a transition period. I don't think we can really compare today's images to the ones of old. We can learn from the past, but I think the current situation is one where we will have to see what these new tools will let our new artists create.

Do you sound cynical? Maybe...but I tend to lean your way as well, I agree with what you say, I have seen too many dabblers put out garbage. I think I'm not looking hard enough for the ones that are really pushing the medium, maybe you should try looking harder as well?

The problem is, the internet is homogenizing art. Groups like ours here are wonderful, but how often do you see orignal, truely different work? And when you do, the posters tend to get few remarks, simply because it's so strange to us we just don't know how to respond. Forums such as these are basically like cliques in high school. We all dress the same, we all listen to the same music, you get the point. It becomes easy to sit inside one or two of these groups and make a statement about the world as a whole. I feel you are frustrated, and I am in many ways as well. I suggest we both search out really brilliant photographers and see what they are doing with the medium in the digital age. I think your views might change, and I hope my idealistic banter will have been worth it.

We need to start ignoring the masses and start looking for the rare gems.

Jesus, I hope any of this makes any sense, but I will post it anyway.

Wow Sebastion! Now that's an INTENSE post. Convert this into photography

For what it's worth, I STILL like the same photographers I liked from back when they were shooting film and I still dislike (this words kind of harsh, I do appreciate them) the same photographers from back when they were shooting film.

What is sterile? The people doing technically well done photos or people doing "other" types? They've all been around since day one. I have different appreciations for each. It's not one is better than the other.

And it is a clique.I 've seen work here get accolades. While at another site it just get ignored or bashed. Someone here once said they couldn't stand to see another alpenglow (or landscape). Apparently, they had all been done. I pointed out there is an equal amount of every other kind of photography out there if you know where to look.

IMO, the best photographers are not only solid at what they do, but are very good at selling themselves too.

Mike

[Sebastian]

Wow Sebastion! Now that's an INTENSE post. Convert this into photography

For what it's worth, I STILL like the same photographers I liked from back when they were shooting film and I still dislike (this words kind of harsh, I do appreciate them) the same photographers from back when they were shooting film.

What is sterile? The people doing technically well done photos or people doing "other" types? They've all been around since day one. I have different appreciations for each. It's not one is better than the other.

And it is a clique.I 've seen work here get accolades. While at another site it just get ignored or bashed. Someone here once said they couldn't stand to see another alpenglow (or landscape). Apparently, they had all been done. I pointed out there is an equal amount of every other kind of photography out there if you know where to look.

IMO, the best photographers are not only solid at what they do, but are very good at selling themselves too.

Mike

Mike, that last sentence says it all. How many awesome photogs were there whom we never heard of? Many I'm sure, we just never saw their work get out of the shoebox and into a gallery...

As for the sterile statement, I agree with you. The images were different, and I appreciate all of it. However, appreciation doesn't make an image move me, it doesn't make me like it. I appreciate the Beatles and what they did for music, but can't stand listening to them. What I should have said is that the images were sterile to ME, and not the famous ones, the ones that litter this site, and other sites, and so may magazines, the majority.

Just one question, the "intense" statement, was that meant in a good way or were you giving me a hard time? I'm just curious, I have a hard time understanding posts sometimes...

BTW, this has got to be my favorite PR.com thread of all time...

[darkman]

Just one question, the "intense" statement, was that meant in a good way or were you giving me a hard time? I'm just curious, I have a hard time understanding posts sometimes...

BTW, this has got to be my favorite PR.com thread of all time...

Hi Sebastion,

I almost used the music analogy too... While I appreciate some form of photography, that doesn't mean I want to hang it on my wall.

Yes, it is hard in posts to always understand. You want to be short and consice; but often end up rambling-on or sound abrupt.

I meant the "intense" statement in a very positive way. I do enjoy your phogography even though I don't often reply to it. Your passion for it comes through.

Mike

[Sebastian]

Hi Sebastion,

I almost used the music analogy too... While I appreciate some form of photography, that doesn't mean I want to hang it on my wall.

Yes, it is hard in posts to always understand. You want to be short and consice; but often end up rambling-on or sound abrupt.

I meant the "intense" statement in a very positive way. I do enjoy your phogography even though I don't often reply to it. Your passion for it comes through.

Mike

Mike,

Thanks for clearing that up, and thanks for the supportive words, I appreciate them.

[Norman]

I tend to agree with you, however, you are blending illustration and photography together, to me they are two seperate things. Yes, many people load an image into PS and start messing with filters and effects. But how many stick with it? Or go beyond applying the same stupid filter? I'm sure not many photographers do, but the ones that do become illustrators. They become different than you and I. A photograph might be the starting point for their final vision. Can we call that photography? Not really IMO, it's illustration, but that only means it's different, not better or worse. And digital photography didn't make this possible, scanner have been around forever, as well as PS. No, instead digital photography has made it more widespread, easier to get into. Yes, the amount of garbage being posted and printed goes up, but with that so does the amount of quality images. Is it proportional? I'm sure not. Like I said, all those ideas that you didn't want to waste film on before are now photos for everyone to see. You still make the same amount of quality work, maybe even more, but the amount of trash pictures has skyrocketed. This is not in any way representative of how digital has affected the art of photography, instead it is just a physical record of all those ideas we used to discard.

Are we getting technically sterile photographs? I don't think so. I think we used to with film. Only the ones that really could afford to do it experimented enough to get those truely masterful, artistic images. The rest of us couldn't risk it, we took the "safe" route. Well-exposed, technically great images, using safe compositions. Overall, not to exciting except from the group of really excellent photogs, who could allow themselves the risky frames, just to see how they come out. I think digital has allowed many more people the freedom to experiment and learn so much faster that I think in some areas the bar is being raised. I think the ones that will truely push the envelope will be the ones that succeed with digital, the ones that stand out from the rest. I don't think it's a bad thing, just a transition period. I don't think we can really compare today's images to the ones of old. We can learn from the past, but I think the current situation is one where we will have to see what these new tools will let our new artists create.

Do you sound cynical? Maybe...but I tend to lean your way as well, I agree with what you say, I have seen too many dabblers put out garbage. I think I'm not looking hard enough for the ones that are really pushing the medium, maybe you should try looking harder as well?

The problem is, the internet is homogenizing art. Groups like ours here are wonderful, but how often do you see orignal, truely different work? And when you do, the posters tend to get few remarks, simply because it's so strange to us we just don't know how to respond. Forums such as these are basically like cliques in high school. We all dress the same, we all listen to the same music, you get the point. It becomes easy to sit inside one or two of these groups and make a statement about the world as a whole. I feel you are frustrated, and I am in many ways as well. I suggest we both search out really brilliant photographers and see what they are doing with the medium in the digital age. I think your views might change, and I hope my idealistic banter will have been worth it.

We need to start ignoring the masses and start looking for the rare gems.

Jesus, I hope any of this makes any sense, but I will post it anyway.

I guess I have a different way of expressing what I think we both share as a perception of photography. I started out trying to encourage Sean into stretching his reach into photography.

I have spent more years than I care to remeber perfecting the craft of photography, expousure, composition, darkroom work developing B&W, C41 & E6. Now I reached a point where I taught myself digital as a new comer with photographic baggage & there has to be more. That is what Sean should do, find his own style. I guess I have a touch of been there done that, & it does not feed the passion anymore, so style is more important than pleasing a photo clubs judges on the rules of photography.

By the way this post has been inspiring, thank you.