| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/30/2006 04:50:14 PM · #1 |
A friend of mine forwarded this link to me, with the disclaimer that no, he was not being anti-digital. He is a very accomplished black and white photographer who has not yet invested in a digital SLR, although he plans to in the near future.
Anyway, about the essay. He was right. This is not anti-digital. This is simply a very good essay, and well worth the time it takes to read it. I would be lying through my teeth if I said that I was already subscribing to everything that he is saying, at least on a consistent basis. But I get where he is coming from, and it made me think a little harder about the kinds of photos I want to take in the future, and exactly how much effort I am willing to put into the process.
The Modern Camera, And the Dilution of Effort.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 04:56:12 PM · #2 |
| It is an EXCELLENT essay and contains a lesson all of us would do well to heed. As someone else has said, spend more time working on the settings on the other side of the eye. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 04:56:18 PM · #3 |
'watched' and will read the essay when I get home tonight :)
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 05:02:30 PM · #4 |
great stuff.
the article reflects part of my on going philosophy of 'visualize, forethought, and detail'.
However, I too am quilty of Lemonography at times. Digital pix are certanly easier than wet plate proccessing.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 05:07:23 PM · #5 |
| It's a good read, if not a somewhat technophic one, but full of unfortunate hyperbole. "Criminal", "offense", and "felony" to describe the habits of some novices is a tad over the top. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 05:23:46 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Louis:
It's a good read, if not a somewhat technophic one, but full of unfortunate hyperbole. "Criminal", "offense", and "felony" to describe the habits of some novices is a tad over the top. |
I don't see any technophobia in the article myself: just the bald statement of what's undoubtedly true. Pictures don't "cost" anything anymore once you have the gear, except the time you invest in them. And this has been pretty much true since the advent of the 35mm camera and its heyday from the 60's on.
The concept of "making it count" is allied to Ansel Adams' approach of "previsualization". I believe Ansel once said that any year that produced a dozen enduring images was a good year, or words to that effect, and I couldn't agree more.
Even now, although I'm "full digital" instead of large-format film, I'll frequently go out on a shoot and return with anywhere from 3-6 exposures, often all variants of the same basic shot. This is for landscape work. I'm all about setup and framing and waiting for the light, not myriads of images from which to choose.
I highly recommend it, actually :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 05:30:25 PM · #7 |
An interesting essay that I hadn't read before! I certainly agree with the basic premise. Heck, my Dad took less than 5000 photos over 40 years. I've shot double that since I got my first DSLR in July, 2003. And I'm not a prolific shooter by any stretch of the imagination. It requires conscious effort to learn to think and really compose, to develop a good eye. Without a strong financial or physical limitation, we tend to just shoot like crazy and sift the wheat from the chaff later.
I'm not as pessimistic as the author when it comes to the effects of digital, however. In large part, I've seen more photographers become very competent far faster with digital than would be financially feasible with film. Granted, most of those photogs, myself included, are not making art the quality of Jackson, but that doesn't mean their work should be dismissed.
Also, good landscape photographers still plan for months or years for the *right* time to capture a treasured scene. They still labor for hours or days for that perfrct final image (think about stitching a perfect, large panorama). Astrophotograpers still spend hours acquiring a single image.
IMO, the art and science of fine photography is alive and well. IMO, the advent of high-quality digital imaging has created a huge new pool of photographic talent. That simply can't be bad for photography. In other words, the glass is (more than) half full... |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 05:50:26 PM · #8 |
Good essay, but it seems to be a little one-sided. While there is something to be said for slow, careful processes, there is equal validity for shooting from the hip. And what's the deal with this "young, modern photographers"?? A little too old and traditional perhaps?
Some of my favourite images were accidents, or tight crops out of an otherwise useless scene. It's just a different method of working. What really matters is the image you come out with. If you're going to start judging a work too much on how it was made, you're going to miss out on enjoying the image itself.
In my opinion, both methods work. I've seen equally good images from both camps and my guess is that most of us work somewhere in between. I thoroughly enjoyed lugging around a 4x5 and setting everything up and on and on. But I also enjoy the ease of being able to leave the house with my DSLR around my neck and not have to worry about lugging it all about.
Wilson has some good points to be made for sure, but the attack was unnecessary, unwelcome and unprofessional.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 06:07:59 PM · #9 |
Interesting essay, but fallacious. While my good shots/total shots raio would go up if I limited myself to 10 shots a week, my total # of good shots would likely stay the same or go down.
Follow the argument to its extreme. Taking one shot should produce the best image if you spend enough time. I disagree. I have challenges which required many shots to either test lighting and exposure, look for best perspective, or capture ephemera which one cannot see when taking the shot (the particular blur captured by a long exposure shot on waves). All that is benefited by MORE shots, not less.
The essay may be trueish for the casual photographer who thinks that if they snap the shutter enough times a magical shot will appear (which can be the case, see Born into Brothels). True, if they spent more time, they would probably increase the overall quality of their shots, but for the person who knows what they are doing, I don't think it holds and feel it's just a matter of wishing for the "good old days".
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 06:19:42 PM · #10 |
ok, read the essay and imho its more of a history lesson than anything else. I find it is totally flawed by suggesting that all digital fotogs just run around clicking at will. Yes, I can shoot at 8.5 frames a second but it doesn't mean I do it all the time!
I recently had the good fortune to spend a week on the Isle of Mull with a Medium Format fotog. Together we plotted each days locations and the best time/tide to visit them, we also found many opportune moments to shoot things. We had our 'locations' planned and spent several hours waiting for 'the right light' TOGETHER! My mf partner also came back with more images than I did.
Photography has moved on since the days of 30 minute exposures as the norm, and imho its wrong to try and tell people to click the shutter once rather than 30 (or whatever)times.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 07:01:03 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The concept of "making it count" is allied to Ansel Adams' approach of "previsualization". I believe Ansel once said that any year that produced a dozen enduring images was a good year, or words to that effect, and I couldn't agree more.
R. |
How many exposures did he average to create those dozen images? It was my impression that, even with all the planning, it was quite a few. And I'm sure there must have been many experimental print exposures before he came up with a "script" for printing the image.
When I got a chance to tour his house in Carmel, I was most impressed by his extensive record-keeping ... EXIF in longhand, plus the History Log from Photoshop! |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 07:02:44 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Yes, I can shoot at 8.5 frames a second ... |
Fashion photographers have been shooting in this fashion for years ... |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 07:10:54 PM · #13 |
These can still be bought on ebay if anyone wants to try taking less shots. :)
Ebay Link
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 07:20:27 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by buzzrock:
These can still be bought on ebay if anyone wants to try taking less shots. :)
Ebay Link |
one raw ....no thanks
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 07:51:04 PM · #15 |
| Just imagine for a minute that each time you fired off a shot it cost you a dollar weather you kept it or not, would you take any more time with the shot or just fire away over and over again until you got what you wanted? |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 07:59:57 PM · #16 |
What difference does that make?
I could just imagine anything...
For instance:
Imagine everytime you took a shot you peed you pants.
Imagine everytime you took a shot it cost you fifty cents.
Imagine everytime you took a shot your camera broke.
Imagine everytime you took a shot a child went hungry.
Imagine everytime you took a shot there was an "incident".
Imagine everytime you took a shot it cost you ninety-nine cents.
Imagine everytime you took a shot an angel got its wings.
Jokes aside, I used to shoot 4x5 film which did cost a dollar a shot (not including developing, printing, etc; just a single sheet of film).
It cost money even if you didn't shoot it, ie. if it's been sitting in your freezer for three years).
Furtermore, that really doesn't apply to the true nature of the essay, which had nothing to do with economic factors. Peace.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 08:05:21 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by shanelighter:
Furtermore, that really doesn't apply to the true nature of the essay, which had nothing to do with economic factors. Peace. |
Actually, a major part of the "logic" of the essay was that digital shooters have no incremental cost per shot; the costs are "front loaded" in the purchase of the camera. To me, that's a heck of an economic factor. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 08:43:36 PM · #18 |
You are in fact right, that does seem rather trivial. I believe someone else added up a 35mm frame as being like 29 cents. While that does surely add up, that never stopped most of us from shooting film like mad anyways.
Really, what this essay is about is the amount of artistic merit afforded to a certain way of working over another. Consider it analogous to making films. Some directors plan everything out and shoot very little extra (ie. Hitchcock) while others simply shoot lots and edit later. The question here is which method affords more artistic merit, not which film is cheaper.
And don't get me wrong. I agree with his positive points about slowing down and taking your time. I just find his negative view on shooting form the hip to be naive.
So again, although this essay did mention and use economic factors as part of its argument, it is not really what the essay is about. Once again, peace.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 09:59:50 PM · #19 |
anyone interested in a 16MB memory card? :p
You get 1 shot... make it count |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:12:50 PM · #20 |
Great Stuff - I fear however that it is too late, the cancer has a grip and it is terminal!
Remember the Challenge Suggestion thread where it was suggested that we have a National Geographic type challenge where only ex-camera files with NO manipulation was allowed?
There were howls of indignation, some quite paniced and sad where people suggested that such a thing was impossible. "... not even any colour correction? We have to be able to crop! Impossible! ...." was the cry.
How quickly we forget. When shooting slides or transparency of any kind (i.e almost all commercial photography for the last 80 years), that's exactly what people have done. Your transparency had to be perfect in every way straight out of the camera. Our car exteriors and interiors were always shot that way for brochures. It's easy when you apply yourself to it - and it requires skill, patiance and planning.
Brett |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:12:51 PM · #21 |
Ooops duplicated itself :(
Message edited by author 2006-05-30 22:13:29. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:40:57 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Remember the Challenge Suggestion thread where it was suggested that we have a National Geographic type challenge where only ex-camera files with NO manipulation was allowed?
There were howls of indignation, some quite paniced and sad where people suggested that such a thing was impossible. "... not even any colour correction? We have to be able to crop! Impossible! ...." was the cry. |
Oh I'm still trying to forget that one - I was the thread starter, and boy was I disappointed by some the replies. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:05:37 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by crayon:
anyone interested in a 16MB memory card? :p
You get 1 shot... make it count |
LOL, I actually have a 16MB card around here somewhere... and I'd get exactly one shot on it! I should try it sometime. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:06:40 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by shanelighter:
...I just find his negative view on shooting form the hip to be naive.... |
We're defintitely on the same page here! |
|
|
|
05/31/2006 12:23:51 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Your transparency had to be perfect in every way straight out of the camera. Our car exteriors and interiors were always shot that way for brochures. |
If you were printing it in a brochure, then it was almost certainly adjusted by the process camera/scanner operator and/or graphic artist before it went to press.
Message edited by author 2006-05-31 00:24:58. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 07:38:02 PM EDT.
