The lost craft of photography?

AR-Graphics

AR-Graphics

Messages
63
Name
Ashley
Edit My Images
No
This could be a contentious posting. I'm interested to know if others feel some of the craft of photography is being lost. In many ways photography is getting a lot easier with digital. When I started about 40 years ago (ok this is where I start sounding old!:LOL:) you had to get it right in the camera, you had to know what the lighting was going to do, how the different films would react to it etc. Moving to med format with a Polaroid back was a huge step as I could now see what was happening in a couple of mins. Now with digital a quick glance at the screen allows us to see immediately if things are okay and adjust accordingly.

Please don't get me wrong I'm all for digital with all the extra creativity and ease it gives me. In many ways it allows me to be concentrating on the image rather than some of the technical aspects, however I recognise that it can (and does) make me lazy. I regularly use Lightroom and photoshop to replace the old darkroom techniques, and push my imaging in ways that would never have been possible pre digital. At the end of the day it's the final image that matters not how it was produced.

However I am often saddened at some of the things I read in some of the forums on various sites. For example when someone asks how an effect was or could be produced and gets multiple posts outlining various photoshop procedures when to me it's obviously been/could be produced easily in camera! It even spills over into other areas like a model profile I recently saw saying she had several small tattoos that would be "easily photoshopped out"! It sometimes feels that some photographers rely completely on editing programs as part of their basic image production rather than to enhance and extend what is already an acceptable image.

Anyway I will continue to enjoy using all my digital processing to try and realise my photographic ideas. however I will always endeavour to start with the best image from the camera I can.
 
I am too young to have used (with no choice) the original SLR cameras. But I see your point. From my point of view though and I suppose it is biased as I haven't experienced both going digital has enabled new techniques but also making a a faster steeper learning curve. Results are instant mistakes can be altered (im talking about camera settings wise, to retake the picture, not editing the mistake) whilst the thought process of the shot in question is still in your mind rather than waiting ages to see the results. I think all that really has happened is the process has become quicker. I prefer to do things in camera, I enjoy photoshop but I use it to the minimum. Biggest changes I have made in photoshop are closed eyes.

On the plus side surly cost has come down with digital? As there is less waste in printing. My own theory in photography as a beginner though is get it right in the camera as it will make me better a better amateur photographer in the long run by learning what setting has done what to an image.
 
100% in agreement! Having used film for many years I despair at many of the things so prevalent thanks to digital, and particularly "PP" - as I've said before, especially if you were doing it professionally, you had to get it right first time - the exposure, focus and framing had to be bang on right.
Many times people attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by use of PP, far better to take it right..........."Way back then" we had the same nonsenses, soft focus filters and the worst excesses of Mr Cokin, and those who revelled in lens test charts (the equivalent of "pixel peepers") - none of whom could take a decent picture to save their lives.........:D
 
Good points folks. Yes digital is fantastic for us old film users there is far less cost, effort (and stress) involved. Hell we don't even have to focus our cameras now! Lol Now we can apply the filter after the taking and remove it when we realise what a mistake it is! Problem is some people don't remove it! Lol

The youth of today don't know how lucky they are etc etc etc lol. Hang on whilst I get my slippers cardigan and pipe! Lol
 
I'm on the fence here.

I grew up with film in the 80s, studied photography at college, did all the developing, dark room work, learned to get it right 'in camera' etc etc but then for one reason or another I drifted away from photography.

Mid 90's I got back into photography as a hobby, picked up a new 35mm SLR but without access to all the facilities I used to have for developing and printing I soon felt somehwhat resticted.

When digital first kicked in I was a bit sceptical of the cameras but when DSLRs finally became available (when they became on a par with 35mm SLR and affordable) the world of photography opened up to me again mainly because I could regain control again of the 'developing' of the final image.

I'm pretty sure those of us who grew up having to get things right on film do have an 'ingrained' understanding of getting correct exposure with the desired aperture and shutter speed etc but as you say - that isn't quite so important these days.

Is that a good or bad thing ?

I guess it's no longer so important. If somebody stumbles on getting a shot right after the luxury of shooting and reviewing 13 duff digital shots or they only get the shot they want after an hour of PP then at least they get the image they want. The important thing is that they use this 'luxury' to improve as they go as it's never been easier to learn by trial and error.

As for PP - as you say, it's the end result that counts and whether it be photography, musical instrument effects, or using power tools for DIY - it's about progress and making the most of what technology is available to achieve that end result.

Even if I know I'll need PP, I'll try to get it as near to what I want 'in camera' or I'll try to get 'in camera' what I know is the best starting point for a particular PP style.

There's no right or wrong answer - I just know I've done the whole film thing and whilst I loved all that - I'm so glad that affordable quality digital has come around in time for me to enjoy whilst I'm young enough to grasp the tech and fit enough to get out and about.

We just move with the times as we've always done.
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
I'm on the fence here.

I grew up with film, studied photography at college, did all the developing, dark room work, learned to get it right 'in camera' etc etc but then for one reason or another I drifted away from photography.

A few years later I got back into photography as a hobby, picked up a new 35mm SLR but without access to all the facilities I used to have for developing and printing I soon felt somehwhat resticted.

When DSLRs became available (when they became on a par with 35mm SLR and affordable) the world of photography and (ulimately control of my final images) opened up again.

I'm pretty sure those of us who grew up having to get things right on film have an 'ingrained' understanding of getting correct exposure with the desired aperture and shutter speed etc but as you say - that isn't quite so important these days.

Is that a good or bad thing ?

I guess it's no longer so important but there's no right or wrong answer.

If somebody stumbles on getting a shot right after the luxury of shooting and reviewing 13 duff digital shots or they only get the shot they want after an hour of PP then at least they get the image they want. The important thing is that they use this 'luxury' to improve as they go as it's never been easier to learn by trial and error.

As for PP - as you say, it's the end result that counts and whether it be photography, musical instrument effects, or using power tools for DIY - it's about progress and making the most of what's available to achieve that end result.

Even if I know I'll need PP, I'll try to get it as near to what I want 'in camera' or I'll try to get 'in camera' what I know is the best starting point for a particular PP style.

There's no right or wrong - I just know I've done the whole film thing and whilst I loved all that - I'm so glad that affordable quality digital has come around in time for me to benefit from everything that gives.
Click to expand...

Yes totally agree I have absolutely no desire to go back to film at all. I am a huge fan of digital and all the great advantages it brings. I think the key thing you said was "learn by trial and error" with learn being the operative word. If someone goes to the trouble of figuring out why the other 12 shots did not work so next time they get it in 2 or 3 that's great. Unfortunately though there are some people who just seem to rely on the luxury of the instant feedback. The same goes for those that spend the hour pp something that could be done in 1/125 sec in the camera if understood. Like yourself I'm only pp a shot to add something to it I could not have done in camera.

Anyway at the end of the day as long as we are enjoying what we are doing that's all that counts. :)
 
PP is no different to people burning negs, or solarising in the darkroom - or a host of other techniques people used to use.

Whatever the camera can do, it cannot see inside your head - a photographer's eye will always be the dividing line. yes, with film and manual focus lenses we had to learn to follow focus, or trap focus - or the old 35mm lens, f8 and BE THERE rule! What seperated good pictures from poor pictures back then, as now, is lighting.

Lighting - you can see it, or you can make it. Seeing it depends to a degree on luck - being in the right place at the right time. You may create that luck by studying the weather and understanding how clouds will "form" the light - where the sun will be at a certain time, but you cannot make it a sunny day if it is raining! Artificial lighting sources can be controlled to create the kind of light you want - no amount of technology can remove that kind of choice - and it is choices that photographers make to create the pictures they make.

Good pictures are MADE not taken.
 
I was clearing out the room under the stairs a few weeks ago and stumbled over a box full of torn test strips. My eldest daughter (who takes 'pics') was intrigued when I explained what they were.

Following on from what Lensflare says - whatever era we grew up in and whatever technical photographic constraints we've had during our formative years - the abilty to capture, compose or anticipate a good photograph is down to the eye or field craft of the individual regardless of the kit or the workstream.
 
Last edited:
Myself I just make the most out of the equipment and software available. Like I said I prefer and always try my best to get it right in the camera but sometimes I feel there is just as much skill (sorry if this offends and old timers) I having a play in the editing suits.
My personal preference and it applies to everything I do is to do the best you can in the first place and then tweak if need be afterwards.
 
Lensflare said:
PP is no different to people burning negs, or solarising in the darkroom - or a host of other techniques people used to use.

Whatever the camera can do, it cannot see inside your head - a photographer's eye will always be the dividing line. yes, with film and manual focus lenses we had to learn to follow focus, or trap focus - or the old 35mm lens, f8 and BE THERE rule! What seperated good pictures from poor pictures back then, as now, is lighting.

Lighting - you can see it, or you can make it. Seeing it depends to a degree on luck - being in the right place at the right time. You may create that luck by studying the weather and understanding how clouds will "form" the light - where the sun will be at a certain time, but you cannot make it a sunny day if it is raining! Artificial lighting sources can be controlled to create the kind of light you want - no amount of technology can remove that kind of choice - and it is choices that photographers make to create the pictures they make.

Good pictures are MADE not taken.
Click to expand...

Once again I totally agree, the mind behind the camera is the most important thing in the whole equation. True the pp is the same as the processing that used to be done in the darkroom, but what I feel is often missing is an understanding of many of those processes. For example I'd guess that very few could explain the difference between using a soft focus filter in front of a camera lens and in front of an enlarger lens, and how could you reproduce these in pp.

As you say light is the most important part of photography, without it were stuffed:( I'm just a bit saddened to see many people it seems relying so much on the technology to get it right or correct defects instead of taking the time to find out how to get it right to start with. As you say good pictures are made not taken, I just feel instead of being made when they are taken many have to be made after they are taken!
 
Bmwjc said:
Myself I just make the most out of the equipment and software available. Like I said I prefer and always try my best to get it right in the camera but sometimes I feel there is just as much skill (sorry if this offends and old timers) I having a play in the editing suits.
My personal preference and it applies to everything I do is to do the best you can in the first place and then tweak if need be afterwards.
Click to expand...

No offence taken and agree there is a huge amount of skill involved in good digital processing. I love spending hours playing about processing images. I'd say your personal preference to working is ideal.
 
the required skill to make a standout image has probably shifted more to the post process side now, auto mode or apature priority now is very good, theres auto focus. i mean really you just compose what is or isnt in the shot.

theres not the physical craft in the taking the picture moment so much anymore, plus film is harder medium to work with.

its probably like vintage cars, new cars are way better in nearly every area, but the old ones are probably more satisfying.
 
AR-Graphics said:
When I started about 40 years ago.
Click to expand...

Was how things worked 40 yrs ago... Do you drive a 40 yr old car? Do you have 40 yr old furniture in your house? and on and on ....
 
I reckon it's nostalgia for some and just the old 'vinyl sounds better than CD' in others. Basically progress is progress and as tools get more advanced everything gets easier. For example you don't see many blacksmiths fitting horseshoes these days, training an apprentice to do it just right. What you do see though is a Kwik Fit with a work experience kid who learned how to fit tyres in 20 minutes.

I am of the opinion that it is sad that all those old skills and, if you will, arts, are being lost but I am also excited to see the new advances in technology.
 
All sounds a bit luddite to me. Of course it is easier to get the image you want these days but that is a good thing as photography is ultimately about getting the end result you want and not how you got it.

Don't know about 40 years ago but as a casual photographer I have used an OM10 and found it as easy to use and as easy to get the exposure correct as a digital camera. The manual focusing was easy to use and the available aperture priority with built in meter worked well. What I couldn't do was any post processing as I had no tools or skills to do that so I just had to take the photos as they were developed and that is a real downside for me.

You could say the same about something like Garageband. I can now make a multi track recording using samples, drumbeats, rhythms, some of my own playing etc,. that would have been impossible to me 40 years ago and you could say I wouldn't have had a clue if you sat me in a an old studio with it's 4 track tape setup. That would be true, I wouldn't have a clue but so what - I am happily making music via a means that would have been unavailable to me 40 years ago.
 
Coming from a music and recording background myself, this debate has been going on for years, fed up with it to be honest, analogue versus digital and all that, things change and progress ( for the better in my opinion) it's certainly easier and cheaper with modern tech to get good results in both music recording and photography and I certainly don't miss sodding about with bits of tape and I wouldn't bother with cameras if I had to use film again, onwards and upwards, good things to come.
 
Last edited:
Interesting debate. There was an fascinating thread on Pistonheads recently about a guy who frequents the forum that is now becoming a very successful commercial photographer. His work almost looks like renderings, and there were the obvious comments that 'it's not photography'.

However, when you read about his process, about how every photo he takes is for a reason relating to the eventual processing of the final image, it's hard not to see and appreciate the craft, albeit far, far removed from what you might call traditional photography.

Personally as somebody who can find nothing worse than sitting at a screen editing (and yes, I'm terrible at it) I've found solace in motorsport photography. There is no get out of jail free card, most styles of shot simply cannot be recreated or enhanced easily in post production, I need to get it right in camera.
 
I started of with film and even had my own darkroom and in my film days was considered a very good photographer but I wonder how many would have thought that if all they had seen was some enprints from Boots.

Today with digital and the digital darkroom the playing field is more level and this old fogey thinks it is a good thing for photography. :)
 
Photography, pre-digital required more photographic skill. It now requires more digital skills. The age of the real photographer as we traditionally know it, is dead.

I could say things like.. "If you all suddenly had to do anything in camera, you'd all be screwed". I realise that would be a pointless thing to say, as no one is required to do that these days... it IS an interesting point though. I reckon the vast majority of photographers now, would genuinely be screwed if they couldn't post process their images and had to rely on lighting and creativity.

There's also an attitude that is VERY common now amongst amateurs (and some professionals, scarily enough), that post processing is where pretty much ALL the skill is. Threads like this kind of make my point for me...

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=482365

See something good? "How is that processed?" is the automatic question. The other thing is, that when you try and suggest to today's generation that lighting is everything, they resist, they fight, they argue.... they know best. :) I see this year in, year out.

So.. all this post processing.... just the same as you did in the darkroom huh? I love it when people make this comment have never even been in a darkroom too :) Yeah you can dodge, burn, pre-flash, solarise, tone a print, do montages... but what about HDR? What about crap like the "dragan" effect.. high pass filtering, yadda yadda.... Seriously people... take a look at what you do to your images, and then ask yourselves.. what would I do if I was into this game 30 years ago? Stop kidding yourselves.... seriously.. what would you do 30 years ago?


Don't pretend you're only doing what people in the darkroom used to do, because you're just not, OK? You may be able to fool each other, but it cuts no ice with me.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of the above.... well, except HDR, which is crap... fact :) The world has changed.. photography has changed. No point looking back and being nostalgic.. that's as stupid as anything else.


Evolve or Die.... that's very true... however....


There is one inescapable fact: Great photography needs great lighting and creativity. Lack either of those two, and no amount of processing will help you. Without those two, you'll be crap and always will be until you acknowledge that fact.

Did anyone watch the documentary on Erwin Blumenfeld last week? Some of you may have been seeing his work for the first time... and I think it's important to make one thing clear...

None of
these
have
been
near
a computer

Few are the photographers who could get this these days.. I mean literally get it on a piece of transparency film.. in camera. "So what?" you cry!... Well... unfortunately the skills that allow you to do that, are the very same ones that make an image great.. and that still applies today no matter what you shoot on.



The best photographers understand lighting, and understand that they are using a communication medium.

Everyone else is just everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Photography, pre-digital required more photographic skill. It now requires more digital skills. The age of the real photographer as we traditionally know it, is dead.
Click to expand...

Thank you David the comments you made so eloquently are exactly the sort of thing I am getting at.

I think Some posts seem to have unfortunately missed the point I'm trying to make (more likely I've not stated it so clearly). This post was never meant to be a debate on which is better film or digital or a Look back at "the good old days". I'm not a Luddite, I love digital and all the new technology and use as much as I can to make my life as easy as possible. IMO in all but a couple of circumstances DIGITAL IS BETTER THAN FILM!

However when doing my digital photography I use skills that I HAD to learn to use film. It's these sort of skills I feel many photographers don't seem to be bothered with anymore. As some posters have pointed out, post processing now seems to have taken on a greater importance with many image makers.

I find it sad when I see forum posts where someone will ask for advice when something is wrong with their photograph and get many replies telling them how to process their picture to make it better. It seems in many cases they are being told how to deal with a problem rather than how to avoid it.

Anyhow thank you all for your comments it's interesting to hear what you think and best wishes for your photography.
 
Lensflare said:
PP is no different to people burning negs, or solarising in the darkroom - or a host of other techniques people used to use....
...Good pictures are MADE not taken.
Click to expand...

Is essentially untrue - certainly for me - I "did my apprenticeship", learnt a great many darkroom techniques, spent many a long hour producing my own prints, and came to the conclusion that for me, a "straight" print was the best - take it right in the first place, print it properly - result! That can be accomplished by your processor (slightly warm and dense please), which frees you from what I regarded as a boring and onerous task.
Was I right? - when I revisit prints I did in the darkroom 25 years ago, the "straight" prints still look good, things like heavily reticulated images with an overall blue tone look bloody awful!:D

Yes, we could use all sorts of darkroom techniques, they existed, but to be frank, only the most extreme "nerds"used more than the "basics"- when making a living with a camera, you used a processor because you didn't have the time (or in my case, inclination) to "faff" - I was, and still am of the view that a great photograph is "taken" - if it's a good photo, it needs no gilding of the lily, if it's a poor one, all the PP in the world can't make it great.

I saw the Erwin Blumenfeld programme - his work was certainly "different" and very competent, and relied heavily on darkroom manipulation - that sort of thing never was my cup of tea, and still isn't - perhaps I'm a "photographic puritan".....:D

I'm doing my best to embrace the digital world, and certainly don't want to go back to film, but find that there is a direct comparison - I'm very happy to relish the advantages of it "diallable instant change of ISO", instant previews, and no need to spend hours in a darkroom etc, but would far sooner hand over the card to a processor and let them do the boring stuff......
 
Last edited:
It's all just tools. Cameras, lights, software. Tools. Same as hammers, drills and saws.

Tools develop, change, improve. There are solid, usable, quality tools, there are gadgets and toys, there are tools which are easy to use and tools that are hard to use.

All tools.

All that matters is end result.
 
Organnyx said:
100% in agreement! Having used film for many years I despair at many of the things so prevalent thanks to digital, and particularly "PP"
Click to expand...

Same here. Which is why I went back to film.

Pookeyhead said:
Don't pretend you're only doing what people in the darkroom used to do, because you're just not, OK? You may be able to fool each other, but it cuts no ice with me.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of the above.... well, except HDR, which is crap... fact :) The world has changed.. photography has changed. No point looking back and being nostalgic.. that's as stupid as anything else.
Click to expand...

What he said. Although there's nothing nostalgic about me wanting to use film. It's what I want to use and I have the choice.

Whilst Photoshop actions might be based on darkroom methods, you can do lots more and go too far with it. Too many people play around with an image until it looks like something from another planet and think they have created great art.

And yes... HDR is crap!

Anyway, nostalgia is for things from the past. There is still plenty of film being made in the present. Someone has to use it!

thewtam said:
All that matters is end result.
Click to expand...

No. I like the whole process. The reason I use film is because I like developing it and printing it in the traditional way and hate sitting at a computer messing about with Photoshop. I can do it... I just choose not to.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Thinking about the phrase "getting it right first time" I'm reminded of a photograph in an exhibition about the iconic photographer Don McCullin.
It was of the original print of his famous photograph of the US Marine with the "thousand yard stare" entitled "shell shocked US Marine, Hue, Vietnam".

The print was literally covered in scribbled instructions to his darkroom assistant of how McCullin wanted the image to be manipulated to produce the effect he desired.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Photography, pre-digital required more photographic skill. It now requires more digital skills. The age of the real photographer as we traditionally know it, is dead.


So.. all this post processing.... just the same as you did in the darkroom huh? I love it when people make this comment have never even been in a darkroom too :) Yeah you can dodge, burn, pre-flash, solarise, tone a print, do montages... but what about HDR? What about crap like the "dragan" effect.. high pass filtering, yadda yadda.... Seriously people... take a look at what you do to your images, and then ask yourselves.. what would I do if I was into this game 30 years ago? Stop kidding yourselves.... seriously.. what would you do 30 years ago?

Don't pretend you're only doing what people in the darkroom used to do, because you're just not, OK? You may be able to fool each other, but it cuts no ice with me.
Click to expand...

I spent the first years of my working life in professional darkrooms and know how absolutely spot on this is !!

Photographic skills as we knew them are dying, its a shame, but that's life :)
 
treeman said:
I spent the first years of my working life in professional darkrooms and know how absolutely spot on this is !!

Photographic skills as we knew them are dying, its a shame, but that's life :)
Click to expand...

An interesting comment. If I remember rightly, I think there were similar comments made in the 1860,s by artists as photography was beginning to catch on !
James
 
I learnt my photography in the 40's and 50's Now in the new 10's I am still learning.
I have not forgotten what I was taught then or am learning anew.

One interesting aspect of this is, that when you go to an exhibition, the images captured are much the same as they were, only the fashions and objects have changed.
We have all learnt new skills to do what we have always done.

However Amateur images are now much sharper and more detailed than previously, but rarely contain the tonal and textural qualities seen in the past.

Pixel peeping has produced a new expectation that we never consideredas necessary before, and never spent any time worrying about. Noise and the film equivalent, Graininess, are poles apart. Control of grain was just one of the tools used to create atmosphere. I have never seen Noise used as an effective tool.

PP in the form of Photoshop has been a godsend. In the past I have spent hours working in the darkroom to get just the right result from a negative, and spent countless hours retouching and spotting negatives and prints. Much of that work had to be repeated if more prints or different sizes were required.

Today such work is a one time operation, and countless copies can be produced with out further effort.

Both then and now the best results come from a creative mind using all the technical skills available, not a reworking of a failed image.
 
I see it as evolution and different skills are now needed as opposed to a good/bad thing.

What I think separates the very good from not so good photographers now is the former will still get the shot right in camera and need very little PP but the latter will rely on PP to make a crap shot look presentable BUT the PP tools available now will give a good photographer the opportunity to get "usable" shots where maybe they'd have just been thrown away.
 
Originally Posted by thewtam View Post
All that matters is end result.
Click to expand...

No. I like the whole process. The reason I use film is because I like developing it and printing it in the traditional way and hate sitting at a computer messing about with Photoshop. I can do it... I just choose not to.
Click to expand...

No, all that matters is the end result. The process you choose is a choice you make based on commerical reasons or personal preference reasons.

I know two carpenters, one uses old wood working tools, most of them themselves made of wood, with hand drills and planes etc and the other power this and power that. Neither is right or wrong, it is down to personal choice.

However, they are ultimatey judged on their end result. Both make bespoke furniture. Customers rarely ask what tools were used.

I shoot digital. If I shot film I don't think my sitters would care one way or the other. They just want to be pleased with the photos.

So I think it is still only the end that matters. What you do to get there is up to you but none of it is right or wrong. It is just a case of using the various tools available.
 
thewtam said:
No, all that matters is the end result. The process you choose is a choice you make based on commerical reasons or personal preference reasons.
Click to expand...

No again.

All that matters to you might be the end result but what matters to me is the whole process.

I don't make money from photography, I do it because I want to. Therefore I do it the way I want to do it rather than the way people think I should be doing it.

Much like when I play music. I use Ye Olde Fashioned hollow body guitar you can see in my avatar image rather than one of those new fangled, modern, solid body guitars (designed in 1947!).


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Why? Are people using tripods more often now?


Steve.
Click to expand...

I rather doubt it... "Serious" amateur togs have always used tripods. It was mostly us "Professionals" who just used them when necessary.
If really fine detail and sharpness was required we used large format.

If you look at any exhibition shots (or even posters) from the past they are rarely critically sharp. They may look sharp from the viewing distance but they rarely have much micro contrast and detail, mostly it is lost in grain.
Today Digital lenses and sensors are very capable indeed of retaining contrast even in detail when pixel peeping at 100%.

True there were a number of high actuance developers that produced enhanced edge effects, but they gave no more detail. Most photographers preferred developers that reduced graininess, the finest detail went along with it.
In colour work you were somewhat stuck with what your film choice gave you.
 
Russ77 said:
I see it as evolution and different skills are now needed as opposed to a good/bad thing.

What I think separates the very good from not so good photographers now is the former will still get the shot right in camera and need very little PP but the latter will rely on PP to make a crap shot look presentable BUT the PP tools available now will give a good photographer the opportunity to get "usable" shots where maybe they'd have just been thrown away.
Click to expand...

PP is not about 'saving' a poor shot. PP is simply an essential part of the photographic whole. This is the case whether you shoot film or digi. 'Getting it right in the camera' is no more or less essential than 'getting it right in post'. Unfortunately many people fail to grasp this simple fact. The amount of PP required is no more relevant than the amount of work needed to get the exposure right.
 
POAH said:
I'd disagree, it may be easier to get into but its just as difficult to master.
Click to expand...

I am not convince that that is true. But impossible to prove.

The transition from film to digital is certainly easier than starting from scratch...and this is the experience of most of us.
However many of us were already competent users of Photoshop before we ever bought a digital camera. So our entry to the digital world was phased in.

New entrants to digital photography have to master many skills over a very short time frame. But most have no fear of computers or learning new digital programs.
I am often astonished at the quality of the work produced by new entrants in to the world of photography. It is clear that some find the process very easy indeed, and are able to concentrate on producing quality and interesting images almost from day one.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Photography, pre-digital required more photographic skill. It now requires more digital skills. The age of the real photographer as we traditionally know it, is dead.

I could say things like.. "If you all suddenly had to do anything in camera, you'd all be screwed". I realise that would be a pointless thing to say, as no one is required to do that these days... it IS an interesting point though. I reckon the vast majority of photographers now, would genuinely be screwed if they couldn't post process their images and had to rely on lighting and creativity.

There's also an attitude that is VERY common now amongst amateurs (and some professionals, scarily enough), that post processing is where pretty much ALL the skill is. Threads like this kind of make my point for me...

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=482365

See something good? "How is that processed?" is the automatic question. The other thing is, that when you try and suggest to today's generation that lighting is everything, they resist, they fight, they argue.... they know best. :) I see this year in, year out.

So.. all this post processing.... just the same as you did in the darkroom huh? I love it when people make this comment have never even been in a darkroom too :) Yeah you can dodge, burn, pre-flash, solarise, tone a print, do montages... but what about HDR? What about crap like the "dragan" effect.. high pass filtering, yadda yadda.... Seriously people... take a look at what you do to your images, and then ask yourselves.. what would I do if I was into this game 30 years ago? Stop kidding yourselves.... seriously.. what would you do 30 years ago?


Don't pretend you're only doing what people in the darkroom used to do, because you're just not, OK? You may be able to fool each other, but it cuts no ice with me.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of the above.... well, except HDR, which is crap... fact :) The world has changed.. photography has changed. No point looking back and being nostalgic.. that's as stupid as anything else.


Evolve or Die.... that's very true... however....


There is one inescapable fact: Great photography needs great lighting and creativity. Lack either of those two, and no amount of processing will help you. Without those two, you'll be crap and always will be until you acknowledge that fact.

Did anyone watch the documentary on Erwin Blumenfeld last week? Some of you may have been seeing his work for the first time... and I think it's important to make one thing clear...

None of
these
have
been
near
a computer

Few are the photographers who could get this these days.. I mean literally get it on a piece of transparency film.. in camera. "So what?" you cry!... Well... unfortunately the skills that allow you to do that, are the very same ones that make an image great.. and that still applies today no matter what you shoot on.



The best photographers understand lighting, and understand that they are using a communication medium.

Everyone else is just everyone else.
Click to expand...

:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
POAH said:
I'd disagree, it may be easier to get into but its just as difficult to master.
Click to expand...

Once again I entirely agree which is why I said "in many ways". Whilst there is no doubt it is easier, for people to take, edit and produce an acceptable print, with advances in technology, mastering it is not dependant on the tech and is still as hard to do. Unfortunately I feel some people just don't understand the need to put in the extra work.

As I and many other posters have said IMO the end result is all that counts. However I can understand that for some the journey to that result can be just as rewarding. I can see how the feeling of achievement from having been "physically" involved in all the stages of production can be greater than just punching keys on a computer. Like I said, not my way, but respect to those who do.(y)
 
OP - I can see what you're saying but I don't necessarily see why any of what you're saying is a bad thing. Part of what I love so much about photography is the technical side of things. Not the "which ISO" or "what aperture" technical aspects, but the digital post processing side of things. I get tons of joy out of taking an image that wasn't brilliant in camera for whatever reason and turning into something great.

Digital processing also lowers the barrier to entry for producing really good final images. Can't afford to spend £100 on a set of ND grad filters? No problem, just recreate the effect in software.

As for losing the "craft" of photography, I don't think that's the case at all. Software for the most part can't sort out terrible composition or uninteresting subjects. I think it's more like the "craft" of photography has just changed over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top