Photography Spirit, Gone?

The spirit is lost....?

• No this is not Film vs. Digital quality and so Issue

Back in the Film days we use to be very careful in allot of things, lens choice, film choice and light control…etc, that made us better photographers IMO, and we enjoyed photography” as much as they did in the golden days of Painting”… with the forgiving digital tools nowadays, gone are the days of care... didn’t they?

with their high-end digital equipment as extremely talented photographers are with their 10D's. In my opinion, knowledge, study, care, talent, etc. are just as important now as they were yesterday.

Lens choice, light control, technology comprehension... have never been more important. I know. I'm someone who would LOVE someday to capture the quality of image I've seen by some on this forum. I learned early on that my digital equipment doesn't matter one bit. I'm still going to have to understand composition, lighting, and basic photographic principle to even come close.
Ahh...but it is fun, isn't it?

Mike

and they can now make them extra crappy with Photoshop.

the "good old days" of poloroids or hoping when you develop the film that the exposures are right are not something that will make a photographer "better"

A good photogrpaher will take care in their lighting and composition. I don't think using flash powder would make one a better photographer, do you?

Digital only facilitates the process and brings the "preview" that was only available for a price (poloroid backs and film) for free.

Michael Browers said:

with their high-end digital equipment as extremely talented
photographers are with their 10D's. In my opinion, knowledge,
study, care, talent, etc. are just as important now as they were
yesterday.
Lens choice, light control, technology comprehension... have never
been more important. I know. I'm someone who would LOVE someday to
capture the quality of image I've seen by some on this forum. I
learned early on that my digital equipment doesn't matter one bit.
I'm still going to have to understand composition, lighting, and
basic photographic principle to even come close.
Ahh...but it is fun, isn't it?

Mike

Click to expand...

alshamsi said:

The spirit is lost....?

Click to expand...

Also, before digital and the internet, it was a lot harder to share images. You actually had to schlepp a portfolio from place to place, and no one is going to do that much work unless they are showing their best images . The internet makes it easy to slap up anything in 5 seconds, good or otherwise...

I don't think the spirit or quality is gone... it's just easier to see everyone's crud.

-Adam Krumbein
http://www.metrophotography.com

" well let me see... i can add some color later to this dull shot.."
" i will add unsharp mask to this soft lens low quality..."
" i will blurr that background a bit and so on....."

yes this is great flexibilty but i think all this makes us more volume shooters then carefull photographers, dont you think so?

technology is and will allways be welcomed.

Adam Krumbein said:

alshamsi said:

The spirit is lost....?

Click to expand...

Also, before digital and the internet, it was a lot harder to share
images. You actually had to schlepp a portfolio from place to
place, and no one is going to do that much work unless they are
showing their best images . The internet makes it easy to slap up
anything in 5 seconds, good or otherwise...

I don't think the spirit or quality is gone... it's just easier to
see everyone's crud.

-Adam Krumbein
http://www.metrophotography.com

Click to expand...

the volume does go up for sure. But what happens is the learning curve is accelerated. The actual final image is either good or bad on it's own merits seperate from how it was produced.

The likelyhood of a pro to get a great shot was always improved by their volume. Many National Geographic photographers would be able to shoot 400 rolls or more of film on a two week assignment. Not something your average "Joe" could ever afford. Digital becomes the "poor man's" (subjective given the price of a DSLR these days) unlimited film budget.

now on to what I think you are really driving at. Does digital cause photographers to lose sight of careful consideration for an image? To a certain degree, yes. It's happened to me, but it doesn't last very long because the quality of the images begins to show it. I then go back to trying to improve my images through content/lighting/composition/story. There are some things that pure volume cannot fix. This is why I believe that even when Digital Camcorders can record 30 10 megapixel images a second, there will still be people who take 30 bad photographs in that second.

alshamsi said:

" well let me see... i can add some color later to this dull shot.."
" i will add unsharp mask to this soft lens low quality..."
" i will blurr that background a bit and so on....."

yes this is great flexibilty but i think all this makes us more
volume shooters then carefull photographers, dont you think so?

Click to expand...

.............. we enter the age were totally talentless people can take great pictures and then slap themselves on the back for a job well done.

But naturally we cannot discuss this, it’s not PC and the rabble only get so offended it’s a scream to see them squirm.

But there are still areas totally outside the control of the camera, the make up artist, the set director, the fashion director, the creator and designers. All these people produce fantastic picture sets and many never touch a camera. When a photographer possesses these skills him or herself to produce an image we indeed to see real spirit.

Artists too show a lot of spirit, but then they are not photographers, even if they use a camera as the primary capture medium.

The photographic spirit can be better than ever with digital!

Its the spirit of using the camera LCD monitor and histogram display to

ensure the photos are perfectly composed and exposed. Its the spirit of showing the client on location that the shoot is going great. Its the spirit of making 360 degree panoramas that will blow your mind. Its the spirit of being able to experiment without having to buy film and wait for processing. Its the spirit of knowing that the "cat's in the bag" when you're finished shooting. Its the spirit of expanding dynamic range by combining bracketed exposures together. The list can go on and on.

Keith.

I am in my 20th year as a professional photographer in both the wedding and "SCHOOL" business. A lot has changed in those 20 years but I see digital as beneficial. It's so much better now to take a wedding group shot, look at the histogram and know your exposure is dead on. Or, to be able to take so many more "creative" shots to produce a photojournalistic album for the bride instead of just a posed group album.

Or, how about not have to carry 100, 200 and 400 speed film and all those Hasselblad backs. It's been a year since I've had to use the "tank" otherwise know as an RB-67. Try toteing that baby around for several hours. Or, how about the 4 or 5 times in those 20 years that the lab has lost or ruined my film in the processing. Or, how about the 100's of times that somthing needed to be reprinted because the color was wrong.
Nope- I've enjoyed the changes.

alshamsi said:

The spirit is lost....?

• No this is not Film vs. Digital quality and so Issue

Back in the Film days we use to be very careful in allot of things,
lens choice, film choice and light control…etc, that made us better
photographers IMO, and we enjoyed photography” as much as they did
in the golden days of Painting”… with the forgiving digital tools
nowadays, gone are the days of care... didn’t they?

Click to expand...

--
Only the Dead have seen the end of War....PLATO

is an often used term.
Garbage in = Garbage out.

alshamsi said:

" well let me see... i can add some color later to this dull shot.."
" i will add unsharp mask to this soft lens low quality..."
" i will blurr that background a bit and so on....."

yes this is great flexibilty but i think all this makes us more
volume shooters then carefull photographers, dont you think so?

Click to expand...

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

alshamsi said:

Back in the Film days we use to be very careful in allot of things,
lens choice, film choice and light control…etc, that made us better
photographers IMO, and we enjoyed photography” as much as they did
in the golden days of Painting”… with the forgiving digital tools
nowadays, gone are the days of care... didn’t they?

Click to expand...

The same thing was once said about the 35mm format.

alshamsi said:

The spirit is lost....?

• No this is not Film vs. Digital quality and so Issue

Back in the Film days we use to be very careful in allot of things,
lens choice, film choice and light control…etc, that made us better
photographers IMO, and we enjoyed photography” as much as they did
in the golden days of Painting”… with the forgiving digital tools
nowadays, gone are the days of care... didn’t they?

Click to expand...

--
Hi,
The craft and care is still a choice. Dare I say a commitment!?

Digital has allowed some to propagate really bad images that has absolutly no meaning, or a thought of anykind. These images do not have any "why" atteched to it. The thrue meanings remain "why not" ...do something else... like flyfishing! The crime is visual polution.
Tony K

alshamsi said:

The spirit is lost....?

• No this is not Film vs. Digital quality and so Issue

Back in the Film days we use to be very careful in allot of things,
lens choice, film choice and light control…etc, that made us better
photographers IMO, and we enjoyed photography” as much as they did
in the golden days of Painting”… with the forgiving digital tools
nowadays, gone are the days of care... didn’t they?

Click to expand...

One could easily argue that the need to fuss with film type/speed, etc. got in the way of photography - the business of getting the image in your head onto paper.

Think back to the days when exposure times were so long that wire supports were used to help subjects keep their heads steady during the shot. The lack of technology limited one's ability to create the image that might have been 'seen'.

Today's cameras allow one to adjust white balance (even after the shot), quickly bracket, check exposure, etc. with minimal effort and leave the photographer free to concentrate on the photograph.

For many of us technology has greatly increased the enjoyment of photography.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

BobTrips said:

One could easily argue that the need to fuss with film type/speed,
etc. got in the way of photography - the business of getting the
image in your head onto paper.

Click to expand...

If you can't previsualize the shot in your head, and then figure out what camera and lens to use to capture it, you'll never make the shot. If you can't make a good print once you have the raw image (be it on disk or on emulsion), you won't realize what you set out to accomplish.

When 35mm appeared on the scene, there was the same sort of hand-wringing about how this "amateur" format was going to open the floodgates to the unwashed masses and how the "serious" photographers would be crowded out by the teaming throngs of barbarians with cheap 35mm cameras. It happened again with AF SLRs and again with point and shoot 35mm cameras.

Nothing is stopping anyone from using whatever tools and methods appeal to them. If the original poster feels that digital allows for too much slop and carelessness, he's free to avoid using it. Cameras are just tools. From an artistic point of view, I couldn't care less what tools others choose to use. If I like your work, I don't care whether you use a DSLR, a large-format view camera or a pinhole camera made from an oatmeal can. I won't like your work any more than I otherwise would if you happen to use the same equipment that I do.

As i said in my first message its Not Digital vs Film guys.......

i am 40% digital since 1995, 70% digital 3 years ago and 90% since a year" 10% MF"

and i will never go back to film"35mm" unless a black out take place and we are left out without power.

i have seen better photos from MF then 35mm due to the care photographers take and i have seen better photos from Digital then 35mm due to volume....the care had the spirit.

For the pro photographers in this forum, pardon me for the intrusion, but as an amateur photographer who has just recently found a new and fascinating hobby in photography, visiting every type of forum helps me improve on taking pictures. I truly respect everyone’s views on this thread, and being open about their feelings on the issue of ‘spirit’ of photography. I must say, if it wasn’t for digital cameras, my ‘spirit’ FOR photography would have been non-existent, considering that I am still a university student.

It’s interesting to note that film photographers place great emphasis on the PROCESS involved in understanding the dynamics of their subjects’ environments, while digital photographers illustrate the importance of post processing work. Whether this is the variable for ‘spirit’ of photography, seems to be very much in the grey area, and not so B&W. The manufacturing process of a single photograph has changed dramatically, especially when we’re in era of super-fast information transfer; it’s a positive reinforcement for those who lives in lifestyles like mine, heightening the sense of achievement. The PRODUCT becomes especially important, and the ability to produce a magnificent piece of art within a short matter of time has encouraged the photographic ‘spirit’ of people like myself - and I don’t need to learn the dynamics of lighting, etc. to take magnificent work. The feeling of sensation of taking beautiful works inspires me to learn even more about photography, including lighting, exposures, etc.

But I hope all of you still hold onto your passions for photography. School year books just keep looking better and better every year, and my students are always fascinated with your vision and talents. It seems that the ‘spirit’ of photography hasn’t died yet… just changed.

Cheers

alshamsi said:

The spirit is lost....?

• No this is not Film vs. Digital quality and so Issue

Back in the Film days we use to be very careful in allot of things,
lens choice, film choice and light control…etc, that made us better
photographers IMO, and we enjoyed photography” as much as they did
in the golden days of Painting”… with the forgiving digital tools
nowadays, gone are the days of care... didn’t they?

Click to expand...

imagination said:

It’s interesting to note that film photographers place great
emphasis on the PROCESS involved in understanding the dynamics of
their subjects’ environments, while digital photographers
illustrate the importance of post processing work. Whether this is

Click to expand...

The skills involved are different, but I think the process is not as different as many would make it out to be. I don't consider myself to be a "film" photographer or a "digital" photographer. The majority of what I shoot is captured digitally, but I've been doing photography for almost 20 years and I still shoot film when the mood or the task seems to dictate it. The mental work that goes into subject choice, lighting, composition, lens choice, choice of shutter speed, aperature and ISO is no different regardless of which set of equipment I'm using. When shooting digitally, the properties of the sensor can't be changed the way films can be changed, but I often have a certain effect in my head when I'm shooting that I'll try to apply in post-processing.

I strongly believe that the closer to right you get it in-camera, the better the final product will be. Even with digital post-processing, you'll never conjure up light that wasn't there or be able to make a boring composition interesting. The same is true of traditional printing, regardless of how good your darkroom skills are. Accordingly, I think the process of previsualizing and exposing the image is just as important in the digital world as it is when shooting film.

Cameras, lenses, films and sensors are just tools for recording images. Darkroom equipment and post-processing software are just tools for manipulating images. Regardless of what medium a photographer chooses, mastery of the tools is critical because lack of technique will ultimately hinder self-expression. Of course, mastering the tools and techniques is an awful lot easier said than done .

I have a SLR digital camera, got the lights, and got a meter. I know what a good picture looks like. People pay me to take photos, but I don't call myself a photographer.

It seems that everyone and their grandma now has digital camera and a computer with the latest pirated programs and because of their acquisition has somehow inherited creative talent, therefore everyone is now is now a web designer/graphic designer/photographer/programmer/movie producer/musician/hacker.

Technology makes it easier people to affordably explore their deficiencies. Some of these people actually make a living at it. I may be one of them and not know it.

I look around my area and see photo studios that have been around a while and see mediocre pictures that most people really like and pay for. I can now take photos like that, too. Digital technology has made my mediocrity possible. I am hoping that one day I will acquire enough skills and vision to be comfortable saying "I'm a photographer" and make it sound special.

I remember some old timers complaining when roll film came along... they had to get rid of all their glass plate equipment.

As technology evolves you must keep up with it.

However, the skilled, caring artist will still produce his/her best work, regardless of the tools.