Joris1632
Veteran Member
I recently came across this Ansel Adams quote; -
Any thoughts?
--
Joris1632
Any thoughts?
--
Joris1632
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is digital photography too easy?
- Thread starter Joris1632
- Start date
yardcoyote
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 18,130
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 18,310
No. It has advantages over film that may in some ways make it more easy, or at least faster, to learn to control the technical aspects. But the effort needed to create a successful work of art stays the same. That has a lot more to do with the mind and the eye and the heart than it does with the trivialities of technology.
- Messages
- 15,230
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7,703
I see his point, and for the type of photography he's known for I would largely agree with him; the average quality of photographs would greatly increase.I recently came across this Ansel Adams quote; -
Any thoughts?
However, if all photography was time-consuming and required much expertise, it would make many types of photography difficult if not impossible, as it was in the past.
On balance, I'd prefer that non-experts have the opportunity to get the images they want, and those who want to be meticulous in their imagery can still practice their art/craft.
Some, perhaps many, may start as superficial snapshooters and move on to greater skills.
There is truth in what he says but he also wrongly comparing different artistic mediums. It takes far more skill to paint a good watercolor than it does to take a good photo. He would no doubt disagree but that's because much of what he believes would then come under question.I recently came across this Ansel Adams quote; -
Any thoughts?
The fact is, photography is not the difficult craft that some would like you to think it is.
salla30
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,596
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 460
Very interesting quote.I recently came across this Ansel Adams quote; -
Any thoughts?
--
Joris1632
The creative process involved in GOOD photography is not akin to painting. You need to be in "the zone" to do it. Focused, (no pun intended), in tune with your craft. I have been an avid artist, watercolorist and oil painter in the past.
The creative process involved with artistic photography now is split into two part; the actual taking of the photograph and the post processing to achieve the "polished" result.
For both phases, to produce a good result, one needs to be in the right frame of mind, and the final result may be rubbish anyway, like with painting, lol.
The interesting thing about the quote is that he is inferring that the masses possibly do not rise above the mediocrity of "snapping", and explore artistic areas of creativity with photography simply because of its simplicity. And with this I agree. I think the 100's of paintings I produced even if many years ago, have helped me move further into a searching mentality of creativity, exciting me to try new ideas and compositions and techniques.
Now we are in the Iphone camera generation, I fear this will not improve soon.
Very intersting!
--
David,
Switzerland
David Haesler | Flickr
www.flickr.com
--
David,
Switzerland
David Haesler | Flickr
www.flickr.com
The "iPhone camera" only affects the technical side of photography. It does not affect the artistic side.Very interesting quote.I recently came across this Ansel Adams quote; -
Any thoughts?
--
Joris1632
The creative process involved in GOOD photography is not akin to painting. You need to be in "the zone" to do it. Focused, (no pun intended), in tune with your craft. I have been an avid artist, watercolorist and oil painter in the past.
The creative process involved with artistic photography now is split into two part; the actual taking of the photograph and the post processing to achieve the "polished" result.
For both phases, to produce a good result, one needs to be in the right frame of mind, and the final result may be rubbish anyway, like with painting, lol.
The interesting thing about the quote is that he is inferring that the masses possibly do not rise above the mediocrity of "snapping", and explore artistic areas of creativity with photography simply because of its simplicity. And with this I agree. I think the 100's of paintings I produced even if many years ago, have helped me move further into a searching mentality of creativity, exciting me to try new ideas and compositions and techniques.
Now we are in the Iphone camera generation, I fear this will not improve soon.
Bobo Hodls
Veteran Member
But still, the creation of a compelling image isn't easy, it still offers the same challenges as it ever did. Exposures are easy in general. Consistency in content is another matter. And when one challenges them selves and the potential of the gear. . . it still takes some degree of intent and skill.
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,976
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
I think that's the key point, the average quality would increase BUT the amount of great photography would almost certainly decrease along with the amount of photography generally.I see his point, and for the type of photography he's known for I would largely agree with him; the average quality of photographs would greatly increase.I recently came across this Ansel Adams quote; -
Any thoughts?
However, if all photography was time-consuming and required much expertise, it would make many types of photography difficult if not impossible, as it was in the past.
On balance, I'd prefer that non-experts have the opportunity to get the images they want, and those who want to be meticulous in their imagery can still practice their art/craft.
Some, perhaps many, may start as superficial snapshooters and move on to greater skills.
salla30
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,596
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 460
yes but the point is that the very fact of the ease with which we take images can defer the photographer from exploring artistic boundaries, or putting much thought into the imagery itself. As a former painter I can appreciate this utterly. I would spend ages just prevaricating over the composition and subject matter before taking the plunge and starting to paint, as the act of painting itself, whilst enjoyable was a time consuming and uncertain process, so the artistic merits of the scene played a very important factor in the the whole process.The "iPhone camera" only affects the technical side of photography. It does not affect the artistic side.Very interesting quote.I recently came across this Ansel Adams quote; -
Any thoughts?
--
Joris1632
The creative process involved in GOOD photography is not akin to painting. You need to be in "the zone" to do it. Focused, (no pun intended), in tune with your craft. I have been an avid artist, watercolorist and oil painter in the past.
The creative process involved with artistic photography now is split into two part; the actual taking of the photograph and the post processing to achieve the "polished" result.
For both phases, to produce a good result, one needs to be in the right frame of mind, and the final result may be rubbish anyway, like with painting, lol.
The interesting thing about the quote is that he is inferring that the masses possibly do not rise above the mediocrity of "snapping", and explore artistic areas of creativity with photography simply because of its simplicity. And with this I agree. I think the 100's of paintings I produced even if many years ago, have helped me move further into a searching mentality of creativity, exciting me to try new ideas and compositions and techniques.
Now we are in the Iphone camera generation, I fear this will not improve soon.
--
David,
Switzerland
David Haesler | Flickr
www.flickr.com
phaedin
Veteran Member
So are you talking about "Using a camera"? Or "Photography"?I recently came across this Ansel Adams quote; -
Any thoughts?
--
Joris1632
This depends on what your objective is.
If it is to document or record a event or situation then no, photography is not too easy. Being able to get acceptable results without having to have a lot if technical expertise, them having a camera which can guess what is required is key. This is more what I consider to be "using a camera"
If you are talking about artistic photography, where the photographer is specifically aiming to create an image, capture emotion, control lighting, control depth of field, motion blur and background.
The photographer needs to have the knowledge, experience, planning and preparation to achieve the desired result, the camera is just the tool the photographer uses.
You obviously can have overlap as with all things nothing is just black and white
yardcoyote
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 18,130
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 18,310
Making a good etching is easier than making a good watercolor too. Watercolor is a brutal and unforgiving medium and anyone who can make a really strong, striking image with it is some kind of art hero. Seriously.
That said, selection of subject matter, composition and the use of color are selection of subject matter, composition and the use of color regardless of medium used. Some media are easier to learn to use effectively than others, and photography is probably on the easy side, compared to watercolor anyway. But making a truly piece of visual art on flat plane represents a particular set of challenges that are the same across media.
Some media are better than others at certain tasks. Anyone who has ever taken even a basic drafting class would probably prefer photography to pencil drawing for capturing an architectural detail. But if I want to create an image of a dragon having an intense conversation with a dog, I would much rather tackle that with a piece of drawing paper and a fountain pen than a camera. (I could do it with the camera, with or without recourse to "faking it" in software, but the drawing will be a lot faster, and probably do the job better.)
Taking a well exposed photograph is probably not that hard to do. Taking a well exposed photograph that is beautiful and moving is much harder.
That said, selection of subject matter, composition and the use of color are selection of subject matter, composition and the use of color regardless of medium used. Some media are easier to learn to use effectively than others, and photography is probably on the easy side, compared to watercolor anyway. But making a truly piece of visual art on flat plane represents a particular set of challenges that are the same across media.
Some media are better than others at certain tasks. Anyone who has ever taken even a basic drafting class would probably prefer photography to pencil drawing for capturing an architectural detail. But if I want to create an image of a dragon having an intense conversation with a dog, I would much rather tackle that with a piece of drawing paper and a fountain pen than a camera. (I could do it with the camera, with or without recourse to "faking it" in software, but the drawing will be a lot faster, and probably do the job better.)
Taking a well exposed photograph is probably not that hard to do. Taking a well exposed photograph that is beautiful and moving is much harder.
tex
Veteran Member
What Adams was referring to isn't quite the case. I bet he spent as much time making a fine photograph as anyone doing a pastel, other drawing, or watercolor, if you consider all of the work. Only an oil painting might have taken longer in his day, but only due to drying times or certain glazing techniques.
An accomplished artist can dash off a really good piece very quickly---maybe an hour or so. What takes time is the years of training required to get to that level. Training to physically do the work, not the composition, understanding of what to draw/paint, etc---that is about the same for any visual artist including photographers.
Digital seriously compresses the time that Adams et al. needed. Still, to make a great image you have to get to the place to find the shot, take the shot, get home and process the shot. Done really correctly, maybe 1/3 of the time needed to do a good watercolor or sketched drawing of moderate size (watercolor is a very immediate medium---it's pretty speedy...so is drawing, charcoal, conte, graphite, or ink). Still, not such a huge difference. But now a very large difference in training. Getting up to speed technically with digital capture and post processing is a lot faster than photography in film days.
As far as the ease of it ruining something, that's not what's ruining anything. The parlous state of art education, especially art history, and the often willful disregard among so many photographers of any medium but photography, and the incredible animosity expressed by a whole lot of "photographers" towards the other visual arts---usually demonstrated through disgust at contemporary art, but now even art that is 100 years old, like fauvism, expressionism, cubism and other early 20th century forms, but also clearly manifest from their often total ignorance of art of the previous centuries---these are the things contributing most to the sense of routinized image making we see today, and it often is routinized, even at a high level.
The difference is we can no longer ignore it, there is so much of it. A lot of work being done today is stuff people like Galen Rowell would have been proud to call his own----in 1970. But the ubiquity of it, the sense that it is too easy, and the feeling that it's all from the same box of stuff, these things also contribute to this sense of diminishment.
An accomplished artist can dash off a really good piece very quickly---maybe an hour or so. What takes time is the years of training required to get to that level. Training to physically do the work, not the composition, understanding of what to draw/paint, etc---that is about the same for any visual artist including photographers.
Digital seriously compresses the time that Adams et al. needed. Still, to make a great image you have to get to the place to find the shot, take the shot, get home and process the shot. Done really correctly, maybe 1/3 of the time needed to do a good watercolor or sketched drawing of moderate size (watercolor is a very immediate medium---it's pretty speedy...so is drawing, charcoal, conte, graphite, or ink). Still, not such a huge difference. But now a very large difference in training. Getting up to speed technically with digital capture and post processing is a lot faster than photography in film days.
As far as the ease of it ruining something, that's not what's ruining anything. The parlous state of art education, especially art history, and the often willful disregard among so many photographers of any medium but photography, and the incredible animosity expressed by a whole lot of "photographers" towards the other visual arts---usually demonstrated through disgust at contemporary art, but now even art that is 100 years old, like fauvism, expressionism, cubism and other early 20th century forms, but also clearly manifest from their often total ignorance of art of the previous centuries---these are the things contributing most to the sense of routinized image making we see today, and it often is routinized, even at a high level.
The difference is we can no longer ignore it, there is so much of it. A lot of work being done today is stuff people like Galen Rowell would have been proud to call his own----in 1970. But the ubiquity of it, the sense that it is too easy, and the feeling that it's all from the same box of stuff, these things also contribute to this sense of diminishment.
Pantyhose Bandit
Veteran Member
And they do.
Seriously... The quality of the output of the average cellphone is now so good that compact cameras have been knocked off the market. When I want a picture, I grab my cellphone. Its only rarely that i use my DSLR now and I'm thinking of getting a Nikon 1 camera instead. I'm not sure how the quality compares image wise or how I'd manage about framing night shots or turning off the LCD screen during long exposures.
Seriously... The quality of the output of the average cellphone is now so good that compact cameras have been knocked off the market. When I want a picture, I grab my cellphone. Its only rarely that i use my DSLR now and I'm thinking of getting a Nikon 1 camera instead. I'm not sure how the quality compares image wise or how I'd manage about framing night shots or turning off the LCD screen during long exposures.
So? I once had a painting of mine that I painted in school when I was around 8 years old get exhibited at an art museum. Even at that age I thought the adults, more like the artist types, gushing over it were crazy. I thought my painting was awful and I only painted it because that is what we were instructed to do. I had zero interest in it.yes but the point is that the very fact of the ease with which we take images can defer the photographer from exploring artistic boundaries, or putting much thought into the imagery itself.The "iPhone camera" only affects the technical side of photography. It does not affect the artistic side.Very interesting quote.I recently came across this Ansel Adams quote; -
Any thoughts?
--
Joris1632
The creative process involved in GOOD photography is not akin to painting. You need to be in "the zone" to do it. Focused, (no pun intended), in tune with your craft. I have been an avid artist, watercolorist and oil painter in the past.
The creative process involved with artistic photography now is split into two part; the actual taking of the photograph and the post processing to achieve the "polished" result.
For both phases, to produce a good result, one needs to be in the right frame of mind, and the final result may be rubbish anyway, like with painting, lol.
The interesting thing about the quote is that he is inferring that the masses possibly do not rise above the mediocrity of "snapping", and explore artistic areas of creativity with photography simply because of its simplicity. And with this I agree. I think the 100's of paintings I produced even if many years ago, have helped me move further into a searching mentality of creativity, exciting me to try new ideas and compositions and techniques.
Now we are in the Iphone camera generation, I fear this will not improve soon.
What's the point? You don't have to care about art or put as "much thought" as some would like you to think, to create good or even great photos.
So-called artists tend to grossly overthink their craft because that is what they have let themselves be conditioned to think and/or because they wish to be accepted in the art community. That if something is not given deep thought or if it doesn't have a meaning beyond the aesthetics then it is not very good. Because of that, I think most self proclaimed artists are phony, pretentious snobs.
M
MPrince
Guest
The fact that digital photography makes it easy for the vast majority of the unwashed masses to take snapshots of their cats, children, or whatever does not in any way diminish the value of a great photograph made by a gifted photographer, any more than a stick figure drawn by a two-year-old devalues the majesty of a painting like, for instance, "Madonna Litta".
Madonna Litta
Madonna Litta
Maybe if Ansel had to haul all his LF gear himself instead of his assistants, he'd think differently 
Just elitist talk. I don't look at Instagram or blurry grainy Facebook posts. Nobody has to look at what they don't like. If you feel like your eyes only deserve the best of the best, you can pick to see just those. Just don't forget that all those amazing craft photographers had to start somewhere, maybe with the crappiest digital camera, a phone or a disposable film camera. Just like the best painters probably started with some easy doodling.
--
Don't quote whole posts - your keyboard has the Delete key!
Just elitist talk. I don't look at Instagram or blurry grainy Facebook posts. Nobody has to look at what they don't like. If you feel like your eyes only deserve the best of the best, you can pick to see just those. Just don't forget that all those amazing craft photographers had to start somewhere, maybe with the crappiest digital camera, a phone or a disposable film camera. Just like the best painters probably started with some easy doodling.
--
Don't quote whole posts - your keyboard has the Delete key!
Last edited:
What exactly in my comments are you responding to?
G
griddi
Guest
Partly, as one can take several photos of the subject, which was more costly before digital s camera came on the market, and so select from the several taken, the best one........
But one still need to select the best compensation, or as some say " to have the eye " ..........
Griddi........
But one still need to select the best compensation, or as some say " to have the eye " ..........
Griddi........
It is a good point. We all tend to "spray and pray" at times whether we will admit it or not.
From time to time I use some legacy lenses on my EOS cameras to make me slow down and think about what I am doing. All functions are in manual. Are the pictures better? Maybe not, but at least I was thinking about what I was doing, and when I slow down I think more about composition etc.
Adams thought about everything in his photos ahead of the click. We need to do more of the same.
I will let you guys debate art...camera vs brush.
whvick
From time to time I use some legacy lenses on my EOS cameras to make me slow down and think about what I am doing. All functions are in manual. Are the pictures better? Maybe not, but at least I was thinking about what I was doing, and when I slow down I think more about composition etc.
Adams thought about everything in his photos ahead of the click. We need to do more of the same.
I will let you guys debate art...camera vs brush.
whvick
Exactly.Maybe if Ansel had to haul all his LF gear himself instead of his assistants, he'd think differently
Just elitist talk.
I have an Ansel Adams poster sized print hanging in my home but only because I like the photo and the price for the large print was far more reasonable than what you see people selling their prints for today.
I think many photographers of today are producing far better work than Ansel Adams did, and I'm not just talking about the technical quality of the images. The teacher has been surpassed by the students and the bystanders. If I were him I would be happy about that.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum