Objectivity in Digital Photography

[Mr_T]

I have been thinking about this a lot recently and have come to the personal conclusion that Photography appears to be seen in a much more objective manor than ever before. I think that since the arrival of digital cameras with ever increasing specifications the emphasis seems to be more on the gear and the technical quality of the Photographs and not how they make you feel.

I was shooting snaps on film for most of my life but 4 years ago I got an SLR and took up Photography as a hobby. It was a lot of fun discovering what I could do although it did get rather expensive having my colour negatives developed at the local lab but I guess that was all part of the experience. With film a took photographs of what I thought looked nice and then find out what worked and what didn't. The size of the prints I had made was so small that in reality I'm sure a lot of the prints I liked probably weren't fully in focus but I still liked them and that's all that really mattered.

After using my film camera for 2 years I made the jump to digital and got the digital SLR I still have today. It was a bit strange going from one to the other but eventually I got used to it. I tried to get my technique right and generally improve with the benefit of being able to have a look at the result almost instantly. I was happy about how much I progressed but only very rarely got things printed, this trend of not getting things printed for me at least has continued too. When I got out to take a few shots the thought process is the same but once I've taken the shot I either check the histogram to see if my exposure is off or wonder if I've managed to get the exposure spot on. I never even considered these sort of things when using film, I took the shot and then happily wandered off somewhere else to take a few more.

Having a look at the forums of various photography communities prompts me to ask all sorts of questions about colour spaces, gamuts, dynamic range, white balance and more but I think it completely misses the point. I think I may actually enjoy Photography more if I just go out and shoot without worrying about this, ignore that the screen on my camera exists and once I'm done get everything printed out. Only then will I be able to tell what I like or not.

There is also post processing in digital and all the different ways to increase your dynamic range, colour tones, karma and decrease your chromatic xylophones. It's all fine to do this, but I've found that if I started editing the wide variety of tools available make me wonder where I should stop. To some degree lots of these have been around for decades and can still be put to good use with some elbow grease and an enlarger but arguably not so easily. The only area in Photography that I think should be left well alone post processing wise is journalism, that needs to be gritty and imperfect no matter what it is.

I realise this is a sensitive issue and expect heated answers but more than anything I want what people really think about this.

 

[joxby]

I think that since the arrival of digital cameras with ever increasing specifications the emphasis seems to be more on the gear and the technical quality of the Photographs and not how they make you feel.

That's very true, unfortunately forums tend to be that way, everyone has an opinion on sharp/colour/white balance and composition, there doesn't seem to be much room or at least much thought put into how an image makes you feel, which to me is more important.
Its easy to point out technical failings, more difficult to express what often is a personal thought about an image.
To be fair, most images posted for critique are there actually for technical information, I'd say what I feel more often, but I don't think peeps actually care that much, they're more interested in exposure sharp and dynamic range.
I made a thread a while ago, it got 2 reply's

 

[AndyB]

Technology, progress. If it wasn't there before you couldn't use it. That's no reason not to use it now it's here.

Photography is far more technical for individuals than before because so much of the process is under their control.

My thought for the day. You can't see where you're going if you are always looking behind you.

 

[joxby]

You can't see where you're going if you are always looking behind you.

Nah, you shouldn't forget where you came from, and what made you what you are, progress/camera technology/photographic improvement shouldn't change the way you feel about a photo.
I know a guy who feels that he needs to destroy all his old work in order to move on, its like it holds him back....I know what he means, I just don't agree.
I dunno if he's embarrassed by it, like he's saying that was the old me, this is the new me, or he feels he can't improve on it so to save comparisons he chucks the lot and starts with a clean slate.....either way its a damn shame.

 

[petemc]

In the past you took a photo and you got a print. There was no thought of post processing. Compose, push button, drop in to Boots and wait for prints. You accepted that the print was the final result. Thats your best effort. Now days everything can be tweaked. So peoples eyes are opened to what the professionals of yesterday who spent hours in the darkroom post processing actually did. People realise that now if you want the best from your photos you'll have to learn how to get that. Which brings me on to this point;

Having a look on this forum prompts me to ask all sorts of questions about colour spaces, gamuts, dynamic range, white balance and more but I think it completely misses the point.

I don't think it misses the point at all. I think you've missed the point of what this forum is essentially about. Its about helping the members take better photos and in order to do that there are certain technical aspects that need to be discussed.

 

[Mr_T]

Sorry, it sounds like I'm having a general dig at this forum which isn't the case at all. I will edit my initial post to make this clearer. I still think that although in some situations these have some importance, it will never make a photograph better, enhance perhaps but not actually make it better. I was shooting on medium format and enjoyed the clunky hands on experience, I have processed the negatives and they seem OK but there is still a bit on mystery on how they will turn out in the end. If you leave everything untouched I think that gives a nice feeling of truth, what you see is what you get. I also like the fact that you have one original tangible negative and from that you can do what you like, it's your negative and it's up to you. You can hand a JPEG to anyone and they will be able to make a print from it, it's not nearly as special.

 

[petemc]

Truth is very subjective as cameras are limited by the amount of truth they can capture in a scene.

Some importance? I'd say they have a lot of importance. If you meter wrong you end up with a very over or under-exposed photo. Surely if you meter right and get those technical aspects under control it makes for a better photo? Surely a well exposed photo is better than a black photo.

 

[joxby]

Don't apologise, it doesn't sound like a dig to me, more an observation which is absolutely true.
There IS more to a photo than discussing technical aspects, it ain't the beginning or the end of what can be discussed on a forum, it just happens to be more prevalent here, even subjectivity is limited to "feelings" about technicals.
Its essentially about, whatever the majority of members decide its about.

 

[petemc]

You have to remember that TP is essentially landscapes, buildings, cars, flowers, pets and family members. I doubt that theres anyone really dealing in photojournalism or documentary style photography where the technical aspects aren't as important as getting the message across. At least if there is they very rarely post.

 

[Mr_T]

Some importance? I'd say they have a lot of importance. If you meter wrong you end up with a very over or under-exposed photo. Surely if you meter right and get those technical aspects under control it makes for a better photo? Surely a well exposed photo is better than a black photo.

I was referring to other aspects of Photography many people (myself included) take into account when shooting on digital. White Blance, colour gamuts, noise, even histograms. I think all of these really detract from what Photography is, it's about capturing a moment in the way you wish to capture it not if the colour is slightly off or if you are clipping the shadows these are the sorts of things that do bug people but I'm not entirely sure why. People seem to really like being able to 'improve' a photograph but improve it because they can and not necessarily because they want to. It's almost as if the less is more approach is long dead.

A good example of quite a big player in commercial photography taking these (silly in my opinion) issues serious is Alamy, you can upload anything you want there, no matter how dull so long as it's exposure is super-fantastic, it has no noise, no chromatic aberration, no barrel distortion and all of these frankly insignificant things.

 

[joxby]

You have to remember that TP is essentially landscapes, buildings, cars, flowers, pets and family members. I doubt that theres anyone really dealing in photojournalism or documentary style photography where the technical aspects aren't as important as getting the message across. At least if there is they very rarely post.

Is it not more important the way a photo makes you feel, than whether its pin sharp and perfectly exposed......or not.
Does it really matter what subject/genre it is, whether its photojourn, seascape or a dog ?
I don't think so, a photo that makes you feel anything, whether its a fantastical HDR or a dog eared fadey b/w, has more merit than a perfectly exposed sharp thing that leaves me apathetic imo.

 

[petemc]

I don't think they detract at all. They give you grounding and confidence. The confidence to know that when you're out you can capture that moment as you see it and when you show it to someone they feel what you felt. I've had that. I've exhibited and its great to hear people saying "Wow isn't that scary" about a photo of a building that scares me due to its insane size. If it wasn't for the technicalities I wouldn't have been able to get the message across.

As to Alamy well thats just stock. Its meaningless. If you want meaning you don't browse a stock library you goto a gallery or an exhibition. You leave the technicalities at the door, read a bit about the exhibition and take it all in.

To quote Cartier-Bresson;

To take photographs means to recognize - simultaneously and within a fraction of a second - both the fact itself and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms that give it meaning. It is putting one's head, one's eye and one's heart on the same axis.

 

[petemc]

Is it not more important the way a photo makes you feel, than whether its pin sharp and perfectly exposed......or not.

Of course not. I didn't say it was. This is a critque forum and as such the technical aspects are the easiest things to correct. We're not trying to critique the level of emotion in each others photos.

Does it really matter what subject/genre it is, whether its photojourn, seascape or a dog ?

It does. A nicely exposed photo of a sunset just isn't as powerful or as meanigful as say a protest against Gaza. Documentary and photojournalism is about the message. There really isn't a great deal of people here doing that sort of work. We're mostly "This is my cat. This is my kid. This is my cat and kid at sunset." Sure there's meaning but its mostly to the person taking the photo because of the personal connection.

 

[Mr_T]

It shouldn't matter what the photograph is of, someone has thought about it and that's why it was taken in the first place. A photograph of a dog turd can be just as powerful as a photograph of a war protest or any other momentous event so long as it evokes some reaction from the viewer; be it disgust, laughter, sadness or any other emotion or feeling.

 

[Sparks]

I'm of a slightly different opinion, I agree with the initial statement so far as I think forums such as this promote better knowledge of the more technical aspects of photography (which isn't a bad thing!) but I do think that after a point the discussions may go too far when in reality we should just be getting out and taking pictures.

Stock websites have been adapting and developing submission rules that seem ever more rigourous and do so to weed out what I can only assume are hundreds if not thousands of submissons each day which fall short of anything they'd ever want to stock. I completely, wholeheartedly agree with petemc regarding stock as meaningless. Stock photos are pictures for a purpose - theyre never going to be art as such.

However, I do think that there is a growing realisation in the industry now that the picture has to elicit emotion as its number one priority and that technicalities come in second place (albeit a close second place).

I tend to see portfolios of commercial photographers which feature a high proportion of photos that wouldn't pass over the desk of an editor at a stock library due to the technical imperfections. However the same photos may have been used in highly successful marketing campaigns due to the emotional content if the images.

Hope that reads ok...just my immediate thoughts!

 

[petemc]

It shouldn't matter what the photograph is of, someone has thought about it and that's why it was taken in the first place. A photograph of a dog turd can be just as powerful as a photograph of a war protest or any other momentous event so long as it evokes some reaction from the viewer; be it disgust, laughter, sadness or any other emotion or feeling.

In theory maybe. I doubt in practice. I imagine people here aren't looking to make turds as powerful as war photography which is back to my original point of what TP is. People here want to enjoy taking photos and want to know they've taken a good photo. If people say its bad they want to improve it. Do you really think Member #2299383 taking a photo of his white Corsa in a car park at night is trying to convey feelings and emotion or simply take a nice photo of his car because he likes it?

 

[neonpollen]

Do you really think Member #2299383 taking a photo of his white Corsa in a car park at night is trying to convey feelings and emotion or simply take a nice photo of his car because he likes it?

I would hope that he is taking this picture to convey the feelings he has for the car itself.

If a photo doesn't evoke any feelings/emotions when you look at it then imo it's not a very good photo, it may be pin sharp, have perfect DOF and fantastic colours but that isn't enough to make it good. For me photography is not a technical exercise, sure it has technical aspects to it but it's the emotions you get from a photo that determine its merit.

 

[Mr_T]

Just out of interest, what experience do any others have with film? I think that it may be quite hard to see what I'm getting at if you've only seen one side or the other of photography.

 

[petemc]

Ok more of a concious thing then. A guy photographing a Corsa with a huge spoiler in Tescos car park probably isn't thinking "How can I best convey the emotional aspects of my love for this car?" He's probably thinking "Iz like Max Power innit."

 

[CT]

Mr T.

Did you process and print your own film?

 

[petemc]

Just out of interest, what experience do any others have with film? I think that it may be quite hard to see what I'm getting at if you've only seen one side or the other of photography.

I figured this was basically a film vs digital thread which IMHO is silly. I mean if you're going on about what photography is and isn't its neither film or digital. As you said its about capturing moments. Its about light. Whether thats on a roll of film or on a cf card it shouldn't matter one damn bit. A bloody good photographer should be able to pick up his camera and convey whats in his heart in an instant because thats what is the most important.

I realise that may sound like I'm contradicting what I've stood up for in the thread so far but I'm not. My earlier thoughts are that TP simply isn't overly about the emotion and meaning of photography. For the most part people want to know they've taken a good photo and progress.

 

[Mr_T]

Ok more of a concious thing then. A guy photographing a Corsa with a huge spoiler in Tescos car park probably isn't thinking "How can I best convey the emotional aspects of my love for this car?" He's probably thinking "Iz like Max Power innit."

Well, if he's doing that you'd have to ask other people into that sort of thing what they think about it. If they agree that they really like what he's done with the car and the way it was done he's succeeded. The fact that the subject and the audience is entirely different doesn't make it any better or worse, just more specific (more people are into world events than 'pimped' cars).

I figured this was basically a film vs digital thread which IMHO is silly. I mean if you're going on about what photography is and isn't its neither film or digital. As you said its about capturing moments. Its about light. Whether thats on a roll of film or on a cf card it shouldn't matter one damn bit. A bloody good photographer should be able to pick up his camera and convey whats in his heart in an instant because thats what is the most important.

No, it's not a film vs digital debate at all. It's not what you use it's how differently you use one from the other. I just stated how differently I work with both the mediums and also how I feel about both of them. I also don't know why I do what I do or if anyone else does or feels the same about it.

 

[petemc]

Well, if he's doing that you'd have to ask other people into that sort of thing what they think about it. If they agree that they really like what he's done with the car and the way it was done he's succeeded. The fact that the subject and the audience is entirely different doesn't make it any better or worse, just more specific (more people are into world events than 'pimped' cars).

Surely then he's failed if he hasn't convey the emotion right? I thought that any turd could be a winner?

 

[joxby]

It does. A nicely exposed photo of a sunset just isn't as powerful or as meanigful as say a protest against Gaza.

I think you're wrong, agreed its largely down to the viewers life experiences as to the level of feelings an individual has for a photo, but it can be just as powerful.
Been doing a talk on this recently, the photo in discussion was in a NewYork gallery until a couple of months ago, that doesn't make it any good but anyway, its some old work from a fairly unknown Japanese photographer Asako Narahashi, I suppose its docu I dunno, but anyone could have shot it by accident.
6/10 of peeps asked what they thought, thought it was carp.
The other 4 were made up of 1 that liked the colours/comp and light reflecting off the sea
The other 3 were scared ****less of it, I think that's the whole point.

I quote one of them -

No I don't think this is a turner prize winner but..

The first thing that came to my mind was a sense of familiarity. like I've been in this situation before, at times near drowning or just treading water, and when you do this, the last thing you have in your mind is taking a picture, I never had thought to stop and enjoy the view...

And what can you do if there is a mountain of water in your face and the horizon is all cocked up? nothing, you have absolutely no control over this and this is why i like it, not for the image quality, colour balance or some other cockamamie reason..

I would also imagine this image to be HORRIFYING for anyone who does not swim...

*edit* for the record, its digital

 

[Mr_T]

Surely then he's failed if he hasn't convey the emotion right? I thought that any turd could be a winner?

Any turd can be a winner, that's what subjectivity is. There is no right or wrong. In fact using an example of what you deem to be bad is surely objectifying it?

 

[petemc]

I'm hardly going to use an example of what I deem good I think we've wandered off from your original point about why forums emphasize technical discussions over emotion and feeling. I think the thread proves quite well why. Its too bloody subjective where as you can see if a photo is under-exposed and correct it.

 

[neonpollen]

The other 3 were scared ****less of it, I think that's the whole point.

Perfectly put. This is a great image becasue it evokes a strong emotion, for me it's helplessness .

 

[neonpollen]

I'm hardly going to use an example of what I deem good I think we've wandered off from your original point about why forums emphasize technical discussions over emotion and feeling. I think the thread proves quite well why. Its too bloody subjective where as you can see if a photo is under-exposed and correct it.

But why not say how the photo makes you feel as well ? I took a photo in which I was trying to convey a message and I showed it to quite a few people, no one got the message. I learned more from that response than people telling me the dof wasn't right etc.

 

[petemc]

I often do, or at least try and show enthusiasm for the thing I photographed. But the thing is no matter how many paragraphs you write about how it makes you feel it can be entirely pointless. Just look at the water plane example. People didn't get it. White Corsa guy could gush on about his car but at the end of the day if its out of focus, blurry, under-expoed with terrible white balance I think people are simply going to say "Well you love your car but thats a bad photo."

 

[AndyB]

Creativity is seeing and capturing the picture. But use the technical knowledge and the technology available and you have a choice of making the image whisper or making it yell.

It's still a good capture but if you want people to sit up and notice then there are other things to be considered.

Perhaps what you're saying is some people here seem to pay too much attention to the techie stuff and not enough to the actual content. I would aggree with that but there still needs to be an emphasis on the best way to catch the moment.

And back to my thought for the day - I didn't say you should forget whas gone before - just that you should take whats useful from that and enhance it with what becomes available.

 

[eddo123]

Heres my two pence.

I have to say i agree. I have recently started shooting large format as opposed to with my digital SLR. I find i get much more from it. Its not about looking at the image after taking it and seeing that i got something wrong and having another go. Its about taking the time, absorbing whats around you and feeling part of it. This approach has led me to feel alot more inspired recently, which i can see as only being a bonus.
My photography technique has also improved with the amount of time i spend setting up composing ensuring that i get things right. I feel that the frame has my complete concentration, nothing behind me is going to distract me. The feeling of he image after then for me is so much better. Because i absorbed it in so much when i was there, i feel i am a better judge to see if i did the scene any justice.
Maybe the way to go is to slow down and be more considerate whatever medium you use. Surely then you will feel your getting more either way.
Cheers,
Edd

 

[Mr_T]

I have to say I'm impressed eddo123, I've always shied away from LF because I'm convinced I could never remember to go through all the right steps (I'm also hopeless at loading film!). I think I've been having similar experiences using a very old Pentax 6x7 and just shooting a few day-to-day things, the results are probably technically poor but I still find them satisfying in their own way. More satisfying than the majority of the photographs I've taken in digital. Perhaps like others on this forum I will revert back to film, about the only thing stopping me is how invested I am in my current gear (and the cost of development!).

 

[joxby]

Perhaps like others on this forum I will revert back to film, about the only thing stopping me is how invested I am in my current gear (and the cost of development!).

Sometimes ya just feel like shooting up with digital, I could give it up and be all film, but I wouldn't like it.
In an ideal world, have both.
Strangely, I can't say the same about film, if something had to give, I'd have to drop out of digital..:shrug:, to be fair I don't have top of the range digital gear anyway, so.........ere, I just thought, that's the compromise you make to own great film gear, if you're poor...

 

[Woz!]

I don't think this is a film v digital debate at all - it's a head v heart debate.
The problem is that many people who are likely to contribute to forums are biased towards head!
I've noticed this is not quite true with sites like flickr - you get quite a few technically poor but artistically talented people on there. I'm not sure why this is - it might be that it just has a massively wider audience than a typical forum.

Please note - I'm NOT saying that people on forums are not artistically talented, I'm saying that forums will probably not include people who are VERY artistic but have limited technical skill.
For example - I very much doubt you'd see someone like Sarah Moon posting on any photography forums - she seems largely disinterested in the technical aspects of photography. In fact, most of her work would be torn to shreds if posted on most photo forums. I love it by the way

 

[AliB]

I've said the very same thing a few times now. National Portrait Gallery, Annie Liebowitz, portrait of Leonardo DiCaprio with a swan draped around his neck..........parts of it are OOF. Bob Carlos Clarke, commercial genius, if he wanted it sharp, you could cut yourself on it, if he wanted to portray down and dirty, you got movement and not always in focus.

There is a trend on here and in general among photographers that images have to fulfil certain criteria to warrant any merit. It HAS to be sharp, it HAS to be perfectly exposed, it HAS to be processed in certain ways.

Says who?

Some of my favourite images of the last 30 years are technically flawed, yet speak volumes. I'd rather have an image that spoke to me that loudly than one that was technically perfect, yet said nothing.

 

[AndyB]

Horses for courses then eh? Everyone looks for different things in a picture so it's a pretty pointless debate to have in the first place because not everyone has the same perspective.

 

[AliB]

Not at all, it's always very useful to have some understanding of someone else's perspective, otherwise we'd all be the same and we'd never understand each other's point of view

 

[petemc]

I don't think this is a film v digital debate at all - it's a head v heart debate.

The thread is about objectivity in digital photography and the OP has mentioned things like how special it was to have a negative over a JPG. Theres certainly a film vs digital undertone.

I think what digital has done is allowed anyone to play and as such everyone wants to know how to make their photos better, hence TP. Not everyone here is trying to convey emotion and feeling, at least not on a concious level. Of course a photo of someones daughter at a tea party is going to make people go "Awwww" but for the most part I suspect the photographer is wanting to take a well exposed, well processed and well composed photo.

One thing though, I think its easier to accept flaws in film than digital. Lomo for example. Great pics from a flawed camera, technically speaking but the pics really can capture something. Polariod is certainly heart over head. But thats because someone else is doing the processing and you accept that the print is the end result. RAW, for example, forces you to do the processing and well here we right back at one of the main reasons for TP.

I think you're wrong, agreed its largely down to the viewers life experiences as to the level of feelings an individual has for a photo, but it can be just as powerful.

I don't think I'm wrong, per say. I think its a matter of perspective as you said. Theres a clear difference between the photo you posted and the example I mentioned. For one the photographer is an artist. She specifically went out and photographed something with a theme, a point, with feeling in her heart. Like all art its open to interpritation. As you said its about what the viewer brings to it. Thats a hell of a long way from the simple classic TP sunset. I should have been clearer in making that point. Obviously a sunset can make a stunning emotive powerful photo in the right hands. Perhaps a photojournalist photographing a sunset during the Gulf War with the oil fields on fire. That would be a little bit powerful. But that photographer is so far removed from the majority on TP. How often do we see a photo from someones bedroom window of a sunset with 0 point of focus just because they liked the colours?

 

[joxby]

The thrust of your posts appear to suggest that emotive photos are only found in docu and photojourn.
You also said that it mattered what the subject was, you quoted seascape but wrote sunset as though they were equally incapable of triggering emotion.
So there you go.....seascape.

Ok, there's not too many sunsets posted at TP with emotive credentials, but even if there where, nobody would notice cos they're too busy measuring sharpness/exposure/colour with a flux capacitor slide rule micrometer.
The reason the 6 viewers thought it was carp was because they are conditioned to look only for technicals, I'm sure they'd had the same experiences as the 3 who felt something, they were just blind to it.
You feel it, I felt it, I bet 90% of viewers feel it once it is pointed out, which is kinda sad.

The thread is about objectivity in photography, there is no film undertone, it is not about film particularly, the thread contains a little film chat, that's all, nobody could argue that one is better than the other at conveying a feeling, thought, life experience or anything else.

 

[petemc]

Docu and photojournalism is an easier subject to convey emotion and feeling than say landscape photography. Thats what I was trying to get at, not so much that a sunset can't convey emotion as I pointed out.

How can there be no film undertone when its about digital photography not photography? The op compares film vs digital and continues to make points about how film was different as I pointed out. Theres a very clear film undertone. Halfway through it goes off and discusses LF cameras.