Whatever happened to Camera-craft?

chuckles said:
I think you're just proving the point that it is a craft and, as a craft, is slowing vanishing - just as Thatchers, Wood-turners, Farriers, Blacksmiths, Coopers, Wheelwrights, etc.
Click to expand...
I'm still not sure if anything bad is happening.

If you look at those crafts you mentioned, some are dwindling due to lack of demand of their product. Like thatchers. Yet some, like coopers and blacksmiths made products still in demand, yet now made in factories with better machines. So these could be seen to relate to photography where the machine has improved. (If you make a picture by hand it's called a painting.)

From my experience, good craftsmen will use the best tools for the job. Which may have been a spoke shave or had a range of different sized hammers. They'd have the best one as they'd be using it all day. I was once an experience draughtsman using the best bows and squares and drawing boards available. However, when we found we could do a better job using a computer and software, it became "unprofessional" to do it the old way. As much as we'd loved it. As it was the results that counted.
 
Last edited:
Yeah... just like Nikon had a 250 exposure back to keep up with their motors! (F or F2, can't remember). For the sake of this discussion Mark, you haven't gone back far enough! ;) How about Sports togs with a Leica IIIF - wot lever wind?

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion, agreeing with Bresson, there is a "Decisive Moment" - that's where the real craft is!
 
Steve Smith said:
Unless you had the 250 exposure back... or was that just Nikon?


Steve.
Click to expand...

I've seen ones for the nikons - the MF24 for the F4... I know canon did a databack and a polaroid back, but pretty sure they didn't do a roll-back.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
I'm still not sure if anything bad is happening.
If you look at those crafts you mentioned, some are dwindling due to lack of demand of their product. Like thatchers. Yet some, like coopers and blacksmiths made products still in demand yet now made in factories with better machines. So these could be seen to relate to photography where the machine has improved. (If you make a picture by hand it's called a painting.)
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying/thinking.... but how about the 'magic' of photography?

Have you experienced the thrill of watching your image emerging on the paper under a redlight in a tray of developer? I know that's part of the process of photography, not so much camera-craft though.
 
The point of interest/discussion which this thread has brought up for me is the idea that improvements in technology have also improved the quality of photographs.

I'm not convinced that something becoming easier to do actually improves anyone's skill.

I'm also not stating that it doesn't - I just think it's an interesting discussion point.


Steve.
 
chuckles said:
I know what you're saying/thinking.... but how about the 'magic' of photography?

Have you experienced the thrill of watching your image emerging on the paper under a redlight in a tray of developer?
Click to expand...

It's not quite the same as seeing a representation of files passing between two folder icons on a Microsoft Windows screen!!


Steve.
 
Change is never all good or all bad, it is, well ... different.

Things move on, no point in being hair shirted about it, if you can shoot a thousand shots at 10fps why not? To get anything decent out of it you still need to have thought about lighting and composition. And a deft and subtle touch in PP is still a craft, it's just a different one.
 
sirch said:
Change is never all good or all bad, it is, well ... different.

Things move on, no point in being hair shirted about it, if you can shoot a thousand shots at 10fps why not? To get anything decent out of it you still need to have thought about lighting and composition. And a deft and subtle touch in PP is still a craft, it's just a different one.
Click to expand...

Indeed.... and I welcome change but like to still have the skills/craft.

Couple of interesting points here.
  • I have a young friend just completing a Uni course in Photography... part his first year (mainly) was spent learning film techniques and processing (I think his photography is better for it too)
  • Why do Software developers spend a small fortune on producing plug-ins/add-ons to reproduce the look of film (Tri-X, Ektar Velvia etc.)?
 
Your last point, Are you saying that this a sentimental thing? Also referring to the magic of watching prints develop?
As I see making a digital picture "apparently" having similar character to a film or faded polaroid just a gimmick.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
Your last point, Are you saying that this a sentimental thing? Also referring to the magic of watching prints develop?
As I see making a digital picture "apparently" having similar character to a film or faded polaroid just a gimmick.
Click to expand...

To a certain extent... some people still like to see selective colouring!

To continue my analogy of 'older' crafts - people good money to watch a Farrier at Country shows ;)

I don't want to detract too far from the theme of 'Camera-Craft' though
 
Last edited:
chuckles said:
Indeed.... and I welcome change but like to still have the skills/craft.

Couple of interesting points here.
  • I have a young friend just completing a Uni course in Photography... part his first year (mainly) was spent learning film techniques and processing (I think his photography is better for it too)
  • Why do Software developers spend a small fortune on producing plug-ins/add-ons to reproduce the look of film (Tri-X, Ektar Velvia etc.)?
Click to expand...

Decades ago I did some film processing and the results were fairly mediocre. I agree it was fun and seeing the images emerge was satisfying. I also quite liked some processing effects such as solarising but quickly recognised I was either going to have to put in a lot of time to learning yet another skill or just let someone who knew what they were doing do it for me. Even if that meant I didn't have the creative control.

Reproducing the look of film is, I suspect, a combination of nostalgia and "because we can".

One of the great things for me about digital is the ability to learn quickly. I am rubbish at organising myself to the point of knowing which ISO, F stop and shutter speed I used for a shot, digital tells me and I can happily try different combinations without any expense.
 
sirch said:
Decades ago I did some film processing and the results were fairly mediocre. I agree it was fun and seeing the images emerge was satisfying. I also quite liked some processing effects such as solarising but quickly recognised I was either going to have to put in a lot of time to learning yet another skill or just let someone who knew what they were doing do it for me. Even if that meant I didn't have the creative control.

Reproducing the look of film is, I suspect, a combination of nostalgia and "because we can".

One of the great things for me about digital is the ability to learn quickly. I am rubbish at organising myself to the point of knowing which ISO, F stop and shutter speed I used for a shot, digital tells me and I can happily try different combinations without any expense.
Click to expand...

Without any additional expense I suspect ;)

I recently took a series of shots of the Avro Vulcan... I then gave it aTri-X 1600 treatment because I wondered what Russian spy planes would've made of it - mainly, as you say, I can.
 
chuckles said:
I know what you're saying/thinking.... but how about the 'magic' of photography?

Have you experienced the thrill of watching your image emerging on the paper under a redlight in a tray of developer? I know that's part of the process of photography, not so much camera-craft though.
Click to expand...

How is that any different to loading up the images from your card onto your PC? Or watching your image emerge from your printer?

It isn't, it's the same process of thrill, discovery and satisfaction (or dissatisfaction!). Just sounds like elitist nonsense 'I work the old way so it has more value'.
 
GlennW said:
How is that any different to loading up the images from your card onto your PC? Or watching your image emerge from your printer?

It isn't, it's the same process of thrill, discovery and satisfaction (or dissatisfaction!). Just sounds like elitist nonsense 'I work the old way so it has more value'.
Click to expand...

All three of my kids have had their time in the darkroom and to this day the all still talk of it in a nostalgic way (just as I did with my father 55 years ago) - it has/had it's place.

I don't think anybody is saying "I work the old way so it has more value" -- least of all me. I certainly don't consider myself elitist - just enjoy my craft.
 
No, others made them. I saw one of the OM ones on sale recently somewhere.
 
ancient_mariner said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psnp2vXblfQ
Click to expand...

Interesting. And it kind of follows my line of reasoning. It's not exactly comparing apples with apples though.

Here is an absolute Craftsman and has been given new technology. He has more than successfully applied his craft and adapted to the new technology - but, as he states, it's easier and made him more productive - but, has he had to learn new techniques? Nothing more than back-button focussing if you ask me! So, it's a moot point really.

I just love his view of continuous use of the viewfinder, never remove your eye until you have what you want.... none of this shoot, look at the screen, shoot again! Then, toward the end he's 'chimping' like a good'un!
 
Opening the developing tank and taking out a wet roll of 6x6 colour transparencies and holding it up, dripping, to the light is an amazing memory I'll never forget. Or ever do again.
GlennW said:
How is that any different to loading up the images from your card onto your PC? Or watching your image emerge from your printer?
It isn't, it's the same process of thrill, discovery and satisfaction (or dissatisfaction!). Just sounds like elitist nonsense 'I work the old way so it has more value'.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood. There is a difference. There is usually much more satisfaction from success in a challenging situation. If it's an easy push button process, the moment often feels routine.

I am not saying it is good to have a challenge. Thankfully we no longer need the risk, and time, and care, and uncertainly required of the old processes. That is the difference.

Yes please "push-button-no-dust-or-temperature problems" thank you very much. And the cleaning up afterwards. Give me the easy way any time. So I can concentrate on what's important... important... important.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
ianp5a said:
Thankfully we no longer need the risk, and time, and care, and uncertainly required of the old processes.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but I think I can recall someone who found that that the output from their printer failed to match the screen, and always found it uncertain what would come out...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes there are some challenges in the digital world too. Although what I like about digital is you can save a good version, and try out improvements on a copy. And if you mess up you can always go back.
 
Last edited:
I have always been some what parsimonious in the way I shoot, both as an amateur and a professional.
If nothing else it saves endless time sorting"best from better"
However last year I had to admit that time was catching up with me, and pills could no longer reliably reduce my natural tremor.

To increase my chances of an unshaken capture, I started taking "groups of thee" at thee shot a second.
To my astonishment I found that even in quite ordinary situations, not only was my hit rate for sharpness higher, but in almost every case, there were profound changes in the images during that elapsed second. With at least one of the shots showing a considerable improvement in what was captured.

Now I always shoot in burst of three in any situation involving people or movement. Much in the way most gentlemen of the press do.
 
GlennW said:
How is that any different to loading up the images from your card onto your PC? Or watching your image emerge from your printer?

It isn't, it's the same process of thrill, discovery and satisfaction (or dissatisfaction!). Just sounds like elitist nonsense 'I work the old way so it has more value'.
Click to expand...

Developing a film and printing from a neg is nothing like sticking your card into reader and uploading it. The processes are the same only at a most facile level, in part because the process of production of the negative also requires additional skill and judgement and physical involvement (not to mention working in the dark for some of the time). The thing is already there on a card and if you use JPEG doesn't even need processing.

I haven't spent time in a darkroom for over 20 years but there is a particular craft element to it that can't be found working images through a computer. But digital photography brings a feeling of almost infinite possibility, in terms of actually taking the picture the craft skills are still valuable but technology has a way of producing or mimicking the same results automatically and so diminishing the apparent need for some skills while introducing more options.

So, in a simple answer to the OP the craft is still there but has changed and adapted in step with technological advances.
 
big soft moose said:
it always has been- literally speaking it means painting with light
Click to expand...


Agreed. I see little distinction between photography and other forms of image making. The problem with amateur photographers is they don't realise this, and like to think of photography as something truly outside of this. It's not, and that's why so many technically superb images are as dull as dish water, and so many brilliant photos are technically flawed.
 
ianp5a said:
Yes there are some challenges in the digital world too. Although what I like about digital is you can save a good version, and try out improvements on a copy. And if you mess up you can always go back.
Click to expand...


You still can with film... you go back to the darkroom with your negative, and print it differently. There's no difference.
 
Steve Smith said:
Is there evidence of this? I think top level photographers have created great work regardless of the technology used for many years now. Equally, technology plays no part in the mediocre efforts at the other end of the scale.


Steve.
Click to expand...
As said previously I think. Wildlife photography technology has played a big part and 11fps certainly helps capture a humming bird in flight with its wings in the best orientation, but you still need skill to produce a grat image rather than a record shot.
 
chuckles said:
I was at Bempton Cliffs yesterday and was amazed at the plethora of big lenses, etc. Walking along the cliff top footpath, loads of toggers were getting their BIFs.

I then heard all the shutters - 10+ fps - it was like quiet machines guns! Add into the mix - Servo focussing, fast ISO, huge memory cards and IS or VR. What has photography come to? Is it just a case of being there with an emptied wallet?

I then pondered over the abilities of two photography Craftsmen whose work I've always admired - Eric Hosking and Stephen Dalton. How did they managed with just 36 shots per roll?

So, it begs the question - What has become of camera-craft?
Click to expand...
I don't think you can say big lenses, large capacity cards or fast ISO have damaged camera craft. For one, we've always had big lenses available to us :)

If anything, its brought us the ability to be more creative, as we have the ability to experiment with trial and error, something we couldn't do shooting expensive rolls of 36 exposures.

So I'd go the other way, all this kit makes us more creative and more likely to experient, create, and come up with something new.
 
Steve-T said:
Modern cameras make things easier yes but then the skilled photographers up their game and produce even better shots.
Click to expand...
But as David pointed out, the good shots aren't due to 'camera skills' it's artistic skills.
 
When I was young and starting out, social photographers were fairly useless image makers. The shots most people were buying in the early 80's hadn't changed much since the 50's. A 'good photographer' was someone who could get a well exposed (on film so not a great hardship) and in focus image. Nowadays the camera gets you to that point. So that level of camera craft has now become irrelevant. But the work that's being produced by mid level social photographers now, is the standard that was delivered by the best back then. So as camera craft has become less important, photographic skill is improving as it's become the defining factor.

As far as sports and wildlife photography go, a similar thing has happened, those thousands of people shooting birds on a twig are now getting more keepers but their images won't be any 'better' if they haven't tried harder to get 'interesting' images.
 
For what it's worth Phil, I tend to agree with you. It was the observation I made Wednesday which suddenly struck a (sad) chord with me. It's comforting to think that I feel I can draw on my photographic experience to realise why I'm doing this, that or the other with the equipment - even to the extent that if somebody were to give me a 30 year old collection of kit I could, more than likely, produce a reasonable set of images.

Technology has given a more level playing field and, if you throw enough money at it, you'll get good record images. "Uncle John can take the wedding photos, he has a good camera". What it won't give is 'creativity' - interesting images created in camera (narrow depth of field, swirly flowers - you know what I'm inferring). Gain a 'good eye' for a picture. Only experience will generally give you that. I agree you could read up on it and apply it. But, just as in life, experience is a great educator.
 
Last edited:
I tried yesterday, ( as you probably notice from my number of postings this morning) - but in the end I gave into my D750 - Nikon 600mm f4 and TC14Ell ….. plus a bean bag …….. great point and shoot
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
I tried yesterday, ( as you probably notice from my number of postings this morning) - but in the end I gave into my D750 - Nikon 600mm f4 and TC14Ell ….. plus a bean bag …….. great point and shoot
Click to expand...

Good to know point-and-shoots are still available. Did you carry the bean bag in the other pocket? ;)
 
I'm going to get shot down for posting this here. Copied from a blog post that I made a few months ago.

You’re on the streets of a busy city centre. Throngs of subjects abound. Standing out among the crowds are the photographers. Not just tourists, but those clearly stalking prey. Not exactly in camouflage – as their brand name straps and bags boldly hail “Canon” or “Nikon” like heraldic battle colours.

You watch their eyes, they dart around in the distance, looking for a subject in reach of their telephoto lenses. Now and then they spot each other. You can read their minds. “Is that a D10000Z?” “Oh I wish I could upgrade to that” “does that fool really need that grip” “Hah, he bought a Canon/Nikon. He should have gone with a Nikon/Canon”, and so on.

You shake your head. Return to the job in hand. A subject right ahead. You swing up the Bronica. With a well exercised movement of the thumb, flip up the WLF, and look down in the viewer. Everything stops. Time slows down. Sound melts away. Shutter speed is set, aperture is set. You turn the focus ring on the barrel of the lens. The subject looks up, as your finger presses the shutter release, and bang! The mirror swings. Photons smash into the emulsions, and salts of silver ripple across the plain of the exposed film.

You drop the Bronica down, breath in, and time resumes. You look up, and the DSLR photographers are looking at you.

This is a camera.
​
Okay, it was a bit tongue in cheek and digitalist, but it emphasises why a manual film camera still has camera craft appeal.

/runs and hides.
 
I agree

Why buy any ordinary camera, get noticed, stand out from the crowd, be the envy of your neighbour, make a fashion statement ………... buy a Bronica ……..
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Paul, mine was also a fun comment

but I could add "miss the shot"

sounded a bit like the old Mannequin cigar advert
Click to expand...
Yeah, actually the Bronny is a crap street camera for that reason. But fun to use, even if only for the challenge - and that camera craft thing. I tend to get more success to be honest, with my Olympus XA2 of the 50p Camera Project.

As amateur enthusiasts, we don't have to use the best tools. We can have fun. Now I've upset the Pros ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top