FStop Magazine
August 3, 2007 5:59 PM Subscribe
Think that all photography has gone digital? Well, output probably has, but read a few of the detailed articles and interviews, each about an individual image, over at The FStop and you'll see that for professional photographers going digital, perhaps more than anything else, means unlimited control over all mediums of photography and unlimited combinations. (via the always wonderful Strobist)
More "Photoshoppers" then photographers
Yep. I've always defended Photoshoppery -- there were plenty of tricks done in the darkroom as well -- but there's a lot of stuff now (and HDR is bad for this) where much of the skill and talent is in the computer. It's good in a way, but it's different.
posted by bonaldi at 6:21 PM on August 3, 2007
Yep. I've always defended Photoshoppery -- there were plenty of tricks done in the darkroom as well -- but there's a lot of stuff now (and HDR is bad for this) where much of the skill and talent is in the computer. It's good in a way, but it's different.
posted by bonaldi at 6:21 PM on August 3, 2007
delmoi, most of the photographers there shot either with digital backs on medium format cameras, or scanned 4x5 negatives. What's so wrong with utilizing every tool you have to make images that wouldn't otherwise be possible?
It is different, I'll agree with bonaldi, but it's not like these guys are using photoshop to skip a few steps or avoid difficult lighting situations, they're taking photography in new directions.
posted by ztdavis at 6:29 PM on August 3, 2007
It is different, I'll agree with bonaldi, but it's not like these guys are using photoshop to skip a few steps or avoid difficult lighting situations, they're taking photography in new directions.
posted by ztdavis at 6:29 PM on August 3, 2007
means unlimited control over all mediums of photography
I'm not so sure if being in control is the best motivation for making a photograph.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:38 PM on August 3, 2007
I'm not so sure if being in control is the best motivation for making a photograph.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:38 PM on August 3, 2007
"I'm not so sure if being in control is the best motivation for making a photograph."
For those of us who need to produce a quality image on time and on budget, control over the image and how its produced is extremely important. My motivation is making the client happy, and that's reason enough to make a photo - through whatever means are appropriate, digital or traditional.
posted by blaneyphoto at 7:01 PM on August 3, 2007
For those of us who need to produce a quality image on time and on budget, control over the image and how its produced is extremely important. My motivation is making the client happy, and that's reason enough to make a photo - through whatever means are appropriate, digital or traditional.
posted by blaneyphoto at 7:01 PM on August 3, 2007
they're taking photography in new directions.
Yes, new and complicated steps in boredom. The photo you link to for me isn't very interesting from a photography sense. It isn't anything new at all. Making a collage of photos which would have been impossible to do "live" isn't anything new. The methods they are using are newer, but it's not anything different than 100 years ago if someone had painted that fantasy.
Your mention of the equipment they use is pointless. Good photography isn't dependent on the equipment used. Large format only increases the resolution, it doesn't change the importance of composition or anything else. Ansel Adams with a 3 megapixel point and shoot would still kick ass on any of these photographers, and wouldn't need the digital karate to do so.
My own interest in photography is the art of capturing a vision. Something you actually see. I know a few people that do wonderful photoshop work. Creating a faux lomo effect, or other things, but what they do creates a mood over the original composition of a photo. Enhances the mood of the photograph as it were. What I see in these pages is something different, and not really about photography as an art. What they're doing isn't any different than any other collage, drawing or painting, the medium is just different. I am amazed at their photoshop skills, but what they're doing is hardly new or innovative. They're just painting with a different brush, and viewed in that light, there's not a lot interesting here.
posted by Eekacat at 7:04 PM on August 3, 2007
Yes, new and complicated steps in boredom. The photo you link to for me isn't very interesting from a photography sense. It isn't anything new at all. Making a collage of photos which would have been impossible to do "live" isn't anything new. The methods they are using are newer, but it's not anything different than 100 years ago if someone had painted that fantasy.
Your mention of the equipment they use is pointless. Good photography isn't dependent on the equipment used. Large format only increases the resolution, it doesn't change the importance of composition or anything else. Ansel Adams with a 3 megapixel point and shoot would still kick ass on any of these photographers, and wouldn't need the digital karate to do so.
My own interest in photography is the art of capturing a vision. Something you actually see. I know a few people that do wonderful photoshop work. Creating a faux lomo effect, or other things, but what they do creates a mood over the original composition of a photo. Enhances the mood of the photograph as it were. What I see in these pages is something different, and not really about photography as an art. What they're doing isn't any different than any other collage, drawing or painting, the medium is just different. I am amazed at their photoshop skills, but what they're doing is hardly new or innovative. They're just painting with a different brush, and viewed in that light, there's not a lot interesting here.
posted by Eekacat at 7:04 PM on August 3, 2007
For those of us who need to produce a quality image on time and on budget, control over the image and how its produced is extremely important. My motivation is making the client happy, and that's reason enough to make a photo - through whatever means are appropriate, digital or traditional.
I'm not saying it isnt important - i'm saying that sometimes it can be the predominant reason for making a photograph - i happen to think thats misguided.
posted by sgt.serenity at 7:28 PM on August 3, 2007
I'm not saying it isnt important - i'm saying that sometimes it can be the predominant reason for making a photograph - i happen to think thats misguided.
posted by sgt.serenity at 7:28 PM on August 3, 2007
Ansel Adams with a 3 megapixel point and shoot would still kick ass on any of these photographers, and wouldn't need the digital karate to do so.
Kinda sorta. Ansel Adams had the eye, but he was also all about the darkroom. His Zone System was a way to get the most range possible in the negative, but his prints depended on much burning and dodging. He was a great photographer, but an even better darkroom artist.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:04 PM on August 3, 2007
Kinda sorta. Ansel Adams had the eye, but he was also all about the darkroom. His Zone System was a way to get the most range possible in the negative, but his prints depended on much burning and dodging. He was a great photographer, but an even better darkroom artist.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:04 PM on August 3, 2007
Yes Benny, but without the original composition, he was shit. Burning and dodging is one thing, but the kind of collage work shown here is something different.
If it's on budget, it's not art.
posted by delmoi at 9:01 PM on August 3 [+] [!]
This is just dumb.
posted by Eekacat at 8:17 PM on August 3, 2007
If it's on budget, it's not art.
posted by delmoi at 9:01 PM on August 3 [+] [!]
This is just dumb.
posted by Eekacat at 8:17 PM on August 3, 2007
Ansel Adams was also all about the f64, which no 3MP point-n-shoot could come close to in its little digital dreams. Adams did have great landscape composition skills, but he was a super-diligent techie as much as an artist.
I shoot with both film and digital, but my favorite results almost always still come from my medium-format Bronica 6x7 camera; I get the negatives scanned. I do very little Photoshoppery that I couldn't do in a color darkroom -- things like darkening the edges and correcting the color balance. I just like my medium-format lenses, and unless some brilliant company comes up with a digital back for my GS1 (very unlikely), I'll keep doing film as well as pure digital.
posted by lisa g at 10:52 PM on August 3, 2007
I shoot with both film and digital, but my favorite results almost always still come from my medium-format Bronica 6x7 camera; I get the negatives scanned. I do very little Photoshoppery that I couldn't do in a color darkroom -- things like darkening the edges and correcting the color balance. I just like my medium-format lenses, and unless some brilliant company comes up with a digital back for my GS1 (very unlikely), I'll keep doing film as well as pure digital.
posted by lisa g at 10:52 PM on August 3, 2007
lisa g, I imagine that was directed at me, but my point was that Ansel Adams wasn't defined by his equipment, but rather his artistic eye. Something that I think is lost in the photos in this FPP. Sure he was a techie, but in the end I think he'd kick ass on the folks represented here even if his only tool was a 3 MP camera. There's a point where technology doesn't matter anymore, and I think this FPP proves that. Ansel Adams certainly was one that took full advantage of what was availble to him, but that doesn't disprove my point. If all he had was a little point and shoot, he'd still win. It's not like no one else had access to the technology available to him then....
posted by Eekacat at 11:17 PM on August 3, 2007
posted by Eekacat at 11:17 PM on August 3, 2007
I'm not so sure if being in control is the best motivation for making a photograph.
It's all about being in control!
It's not about being on a budget either. As already mentioned, Ansel Adams is the perfect example of being in control -- his entire method was about how to transfer the image you see in your mind onto paper. When you have control over your tools you can most effectively give your ideas form.
If I may use an analogy... I also play the trumpet, and it's all about being able to control the sound. Before you can be expressive on the instrument you have to have control, to produce the sound that you want. That control takes a lot of work.
And what's so wrong about discussing equipment? When trumpet players get together they talk about BERPs and the virtues of oils. It's not meant for "normal people's" ears; normal people are only supposed to pay attention to the final product: listen to the sound or look at the image. If you don't like it, that's fair. Art can be bad.
(Sometimes it seems to me that these days it's very unfashionable to have to work to be creative. It's all just supposed to come naturally, without conscious effort.)
posted by phliar at 11:51 PM on August 3, 2007
It's all about being in control!
It's not about being on a budget either. As already mentioned, Ansel Adams is the perfect example of being in control -- his entire method was about how to transfer the image you see in your mind onto paper. When you have control over your tools you can most effectively give your ideas form.
If I may use an analogy... I also play the trumpet, and it's all about being able to control the sound. Before you can be expressive on the instrument you have to have control, to produce the sound that you want. That control takes a lot of work.
And what's so wrong about discussing equipment? When trumpet players get together they talk about BERPs and the virtues of oils. It's not meant for "normal people's" ears; normal people are only supposed to pay attention to the final product: listen to the sound or look at the image. If you don't like it, that's fair. Art can be bad.
(Sometimes it seems to me that these days it's very unfashionable to have to work to be creative. It's all just supposed to come naturally, without conscious effort.)
posted by phliar at 11:51 PM on August 3, 2007
Well, Adams isn't the best example of a photographer who was defined solely by his composition/art skills and not by his equipment -- his technical mastery was a huge component of his artmaking process. But true, the same equipment in the hands of someone with no artistic vision wouldn't have produced prints nearly as breathtaking (and you really need to see his prints in person). I think a tiny digital camera would drive Adams' ghost crazy, but he'd probably still get some good shots off.
Off the top of my head I'd mention Walker Evans or Claude Cahun as awesome photographers roughly of Adams' generation who were defined a lot less by their tech skills but still had unique visions. All great art takes some combination of technical skills and artistic inspiration, but not always in equal proportions. (Open for arguments.)
posted by lisa g at 12:12 AM on August 4, 2007
Off the top of my head I'd mention Walker Evans or Claude Cahun as awesome photographers roughly of Adams' generation who were defined a lot less by their tech skills but still had unique visions. All great art takes some combination of technical skills and artistic inspiration, but not always in equal proportions. (Open for arguments.)
posted by lisa g at 12:12 AM on August 4, 2007
(my above comment is a reply to Eekacat rather than phliar; I know the preview button is there for a reason...)
phliar's mention of music as a parallel to photography is pretty spot-on; they're two art forms where your particular choice of instrument and your mastery (or non-mastery) of that instrument can combine with your ideas in a multitude of ways. No particular way is the only right way, and art's so totally subjective.
For what it's worth, I know tons of photographers currently working some combination of analog and digital, and I imagine it'll be that way for a long while (provided at least a few film companies stay afloat).
posted by lisa g at 12:38 AM on August 4, 2007
phliar's mention of music as a parallel to photography is pretty spot-on; they're two art forms where your particular choice of instrument and your mastery (or non-mastery) of that instrument can combine with your ideas in a multitude of ways. No particular way is the only right way, and art's so totally subjective.
For what it's worth, I know tons of photographers currently working some combination of analog and digital, and I imagine it'll be that way for a long while (provided at least a few film companies stay afloat).
posted by lisa g at 12:38 AM on August 4, 2007
Two of the most important mediums in our culture - sound recording and photography - are evolving a lot at the moment. I hesitate to pass judgement on them whilst they're in flux.
posted by chuckdarwin at 8:59 AM on August 4, 2007
posted by chuckdarwin at 8:59 AM on August 4, 2007
Digital photography opens up amazing avenues for creativity. This is coming from someone that cut their teeth on film photography (processing rolls of 35mm, printing in a darkroom. I used to dream of pony up the cash for medium format gear).
The things I can do in Photoshop or the Gimp are so liberating to me. 1) They duplicate the dark room, without the major problem of, you know, having a dark room and the concomitant chemicals. 2) They go beyond the darkroom in very interesting ways.
I absolutely love it.
I don't really give a flying fuck how you get your image*, I care whether the art is good.
Digital really can revolutionize the way one takes pictures. It also populizes photography even more, so the pool of people who might become great artists in the field is bigger, which means there will be more of them that become great (yes, they'll be plenty of hacks. Nothing wrong with that. 90% of everything is crap).
I really HATE the pretend dichotomy folk make between film/digital and Photoshop/darkroom.
There is no reason you have to pick one or the other. There is also no reason why "heavily photoshopped" is an insult, or why using Photoshop to do things you can't do in the darkroom is "wrong." There is no war among film and digital photographers.
* Well, I actually do care how you get your image, because I'm a photographer, and I'm interested. But I don't judge.
posted by teece at 9:22 AM on August 4, 2007
The things I can do in Photoshop or the Gimp are so liberating to me. 1) They duplicate the dark room, without the major problem of, you know, having a dark room and the concomitant chemicals. 2) They go beyond the darkroom in very interesting ways.
I absolutely love it.
I don't really give a flying fuck how you get your image*, I care whether the art is good.
Digital really can revolutionize the way one takes pictures. It also populizes photography even more, so the pool of people who might become great artists in the field is bigger, which means there will be more of them that become great (yes, they'll be plenty of hacks. Nothing wrong with that. 90% of everything is crap).
I really HATE the pretend dichotomy folk make between film/digital and Photoshop/darkroom.
There is no reason you have to pick one or the other. There is also no reason why "heavily photoshopped" is an insult, or why using Photoshop to do things you can't do in the darkroom is "wrong." There is no war among film and digital photographers.
* Well, I actually do care how you get your image, because I'm a photographer, and I'm interested. But I don't judge.
posted by teece at 9:22 AM on August 4, 2007
There is no reason you have to pick one or the other. There is also no reason why "heavily photoshopped" is an insult, or why using Photoshop to do things you can't do in the darkroom is "wrong." There is no war among film and digital photographers.
I don't think many folk here are arguing that there should be -- there seems to be a recognition of the skill and art in photoshopping. But what I feel is that there is a divergence between the stuff that's about the image and the stuff that's about the technology behind it.
F'rinstance, before I go on a trip, I do a Flickr search for that place and rank by interesting. It used to be that the top hits would be unusual sights, or nice catches of the place. Now, they're inevitably HDR or photoshopped pictures from the place, but of dull subjects. I remember one in particular, a straight-on shot of a window, but with HDR clouds and millions of curved-in colours reflected in it. Beautiful image, boring "shot".
The decisive moment this stuff ain't.
posted by bonaldi at 9:35 AM on August 5, 2007
I don't think many folk here are arguing that there should be -- there seems to be a recognition of the skill and art in photoshopping. But what I feel is that there is a divergence between the stuff that's about the image and the stuff that's about the technology behind it.
F'rinstance, before I go on a trip, I do a Flickr search for that place and rank by interesting. It used to be that the top hits would be unusual sights, or nice catches of the place. Now, they're inevitably HDR or photoshopped pictures from the place, but of dull subjects. I remember one in particular, a straight-on shot of a window, but with HDR clouds and millions of curved-in colours reflected in it. Beautiful image, boring "shot".
The decisive moment this stuff ain't.
posted by bonaldi at 9:35 AM on August 5, 2007
« Older Collapsed bridge leaves mess, quarantines locals | Skylines Carved Into Currency Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by delmoi at 6:09 PM on August 3, 2007