# Are photographers getting better - and why?



## The_Traveler (Apr 23, 2007)

I was out digging dandelions, physically engrossing but certainly not mentally taxing, and I started thinking that virtually every day I see some drop dead gorgeous shots from my fellow amateurs (on this and another board) that would be photomag quality 20 years ago.

I talked myself through why - but I'm interested in others' opinions. - and I don't think that all the reasons are that obvious.


----------



## blackdoglab (Apr 23, 2007)

I think having the ability to get instant feedback online helps.  This board brings in a lot of diverse folks.


----------



## Alpha (Apr 23, 2007)

I think they're getting worse. And I think that the digital revolution is partly to blame. The age old problems of interesting subject matter and composition have always been and will always be endemic to amateur photographers. But I think the issue of so-called photographers showing no interesting in legitimately learning about their art has increased since the "digital revolution." I can't say for sure, however, because I haven't been around long enough to personally make that solid a comparison. However, what I _have_ seen is that there are a thousand people who run out and buy a pro-sumer SLR, take a bunch of mediocre photos, and then wonder why they're no good. I think it was Matt who said in another thread that places like this are not designed to be personal tutors for beginning photographers. To be completely honest, I actually think that it's rather disrespectful in a sense. I mean, you take someone who thinks their camera will make their shots good (and there are plenty of those people), who won't even invest the time and energy into correctly learning about things like relatively basic exposure, composition, filtering, etc. I think that it's A) Naive, then, to expect that your shots will be good, B) Disrespectful to the art form itself (that someone without a clue what they're doing actually call themselves a photographer), and C) Frankly, rather annoying sometimes is places like this. It's like you get someone who's been shooting on ISO 800, and then comes around wondering why their photos are grainy. So I don't mean to be rude, but...

I think the ephemerality of digital photography can go both ways. On one had, you can afford to reshoot something a thousand times till you get it absolutely perfect. On the other hand, you aren't compelled to pay as much attention to your shots in the first place precisely for that reason.

There are a lot of very good amateur photographers, but I think there are just as many, if not more poor ones than there have ever been.


----------



## Corry (Apr 23, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> There are a lot of very good amateur photographers, but I think there are just as many, if not more poor ones than there have ever been.




Well of course there are!  Access to equipment is a lot easier these days!  The instant gratification of digital is very alluring to many...

...however, I don't think he was comparing the amount of good amateurs to the amount of bad ones....he was comparing the amount of good amateurs today to the amount of good amateurs 30 years ago.


----------



## blackdoglab (Apr 23, 2007)

Put an auto everything dslr or slr in my hands and I'll waste a roll.  You do feel more inclined to just shoot at random without thinking things through.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 23, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I think they're getting worse. And I think that the digital revolution is partly to blame.



I totally disagree here.

it is simply more people showing their images around since it became so easy on the internet. so you see more of the average talent which was around always ... just 30 years ago it was hidden in private albums and slide boxes.

but also some good things where hidden there of course, don'T get me wrong 

also today more people use cameras. if in the old days 5 of my friends/colleagues/relatives were using cameras, then one maybe had significant talent and produced nice images. .. today it might be 50, of which 10 are producing images worth to show.

in absolute numbers you are right, the number of people mediocre shots has risen from 4 to 40, but the fraction remains the same more or less.

also, today, mediocre photographers produce more images per photographer...


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 23, 2007)

It's a combinations of things.

Equipment is cheaper and easier to use + easier to share said pictures + easier to get critiqued on pictures = More good shots.

Computers are not doubt the culprit here. not only in the camera, making them more effecient, but also making it easier to share/edit/enjoy the pics.

The end result is I can replicate a picture that 50 years ago would've been signigicant, and now I have to go above and beyond that get the same reaction.


----------



## Don Simon (Apr 23, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> Are photographers getting better?


 
No. And are they getting worse? No again. I think Alex summed it up... we just see more photographs now. Before the internet, there could be a number of people in your town with the skill and the talent, and unless you were involved in some local group or happened to see each other out shooting, how would you know? With the internet you see the work of local, national and internation photographers. You don't have to seek them out, they advertise. Now personally, if I know that one particular forum or site tends to have mediocre images, then I don't frequent it. I will tend to stick to those with a number of really good photographers producing work that I like. More people now have and use cameras (even if only in their phone), and we see the results a lot more than before, but that doesn't actually make the average quality any better.

Another thought, on whether digital photography and the internet make it easier to get into photography, or to be a better photographer... When scanning some relatives' old negatives and slides, I realised that the majority were very well-exposed. Now these would have been taken without any electronic program modes; at the most some may have been taken using a very basic meter. They were also pretty well composed. These people weren't very serious about photography, it was just their holiday snaps. I suspect that not endlessly comparing specs or technologies left them more time to learn some basics of exposure and to think about what was in the viewfinder. Of course a lot of people would have been put off by the technical aspects... and nowadays digital is supposedly some great democratising force... but it hasn't become any easier to persuade people to learn if they don't want to. For everyone who asks for critiques on a forum, there are more people wondering what's wrong with their camera because their photos are no good. People who want to learn and progress will do so, just as they always did.


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 23, 2007)

Zaphod... Im not sure about that. Could it be the only pictures SAVED from that time period are the photos WORTH saving?

It seems to me the MAJORITY of photographs taken between 1965 - 1979 in my family's albums are underexposed, have no white balance leaving the colors muddled, and the ones with flash are horrible.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 23, 2007)

my pictures from my slide negative times and my slide times are very similar to what I produce today


----------



## Don Simon (Apr 23, 2007)

RMT... I did wonder about that and asked... I think they saved pretty much everything. I had to sort the ones worth scanning from the shots of random goats etc 

Anyway I didn't mean to say that everyone 'back in the day' took better photos. My point (if I had one, which is doubtful) was that with film it wasn't really that hard to learn and improve if you actually thought about it. I've heard it said before that film photography was somehow hard to get into, and now we're living in some golden age where anyone can learn. I disagree. Yes information is more readily available, but so is misinformation and misconception. You can learn a lot from the internet, but sometimes you really need to be selective. So I don't think it's inherently a better (nor worse) time to be a photographer now.

Oh and regarding the photos you describe... bear in mind if they were taken now with a digital p&s they might be _over_exposed, oversaturated... and the built-in flash would _still_ be horrible 

In other words... _Plus ça change_...


----------



## Orgnoi1 (Apr 23, 2007)

I think the statement can be construed as a double edged sword...

I think the ART of photography is dying a slow death... meaning that with the introduction of "dumbed down" equipment any person who likes to shoot snapshots is now a photographer. 15-20 years ago you could talk to photographers and they knew about developing, about films, about equipment. Of course back then there were people who bought instamatic cameras and there were people buying pro cameras... but since the digital age the playing field has significantly leveled, and even beginners can produce images and IF they are cocky enough to profess to being a professional then people listen.

Quite frankly not too many people that I shoot with now (who arent in some way doing this as a serious hobby) could just pick up my Mamiya TL Pro and figure out the aperture and shutter... take light readings... adjust for the film and take 15 GOOD pictures... but I do know that you can give someone a camera... put it on the green square and let anyone fire away...producing at least halfway decent images.

I DO agree though that you cant judge by this or any other number of forums out there... as the reason we are all here is because (I hope) we all love photography and enjoy learning about it. I dont feel that you cannot learn a thing from places like here, NEF, FM, etc like was stated though... I dont ever have a problem lending a helping hand when I can... and if you are truelly passionate about your photography I dont see why anyone else would either... my $0.0245 for what its worth...


----------



## Don Simon (Apr 23, 2007)

Orgnoi1 said:


> I dont feel that you cannot learn a thing from places like here, NEF, FM, etc like was stated though... I dont ever have a problem lending a helping hand when I can... and if you are truelly passionate about your photography I dont see why anyone else would either... my $0.0245 for what its worth...


 
I agree, I don't have a problem giving advice if I think I can. Even if the question is "What camera should I buy", it's a good opportunity to try and persuade them to look at it in a different way.

I also think you can definitely learn from forums... as long as you realise they are (or at least should be) places for different opinions.


----------



## blackdoglab (Apr 23, 2007)

> I think they're getting worse. And I think that the digital revolution is partly to blame.


 
Maybe...
But that can be true of many film slr's as well.  When you start with an all manual camera, you are forced to become very conscienscious of everything that is going on.  When many folks begin with an auto everything camera, they tend to leave most decisions in the hands of the camera without learning what is actually going on.


----------



## Alpha (Apr 23, 2007)

Not necessarily. You hand a non-photographer an F5 and they wouldn't have much of a clue what to do with it. That much is true. But the reason that someone might go out and by a D-Rebel instead I think has a lot to do with the psychological paradigm of the "digital era." Granted, we all have our share of problems with technology. But generally speaking, the modern electronic age revolves around a few inextricably linked concepts like automation, convenience, and ease of use. Whether or not those are actually true of most "digital" products is beside the point. What's important is that they are generally concepts that people associate with modern electronics, or "digital" products. As such, I think that there is a relatively easy subconscious association that people make between an object and the word "digital," that implies such things as automation, convenience, and ease of use. Aside from the use of the word "digital" as a marketing technique, I believe that such associations make the prospect of correctly operating a relatively expensive DSLR seem probable, if not obvious. When in fact, it isn't any "easier" per se to use than a film camera of equal caliber.


----------



## Kingpatzer (Apr 23, 2007)

I think they're getting worse too.

Back in the olden days you still had uninteresting subjects, bad composition and poor lighting. And here, I think Alex is right, the proportions haven't changed at all.

But in the old days in order to do anything you had to know how to make a correct exposure. And most serious photographers knew how to operate in a darkroom as well.  They understood how lenses, aperture, exposure time and film worked together to form the image in a way that just doesn't exist anymore.

But all that knowledge still matters in the digital world. Bryan Peterson talks about each image having one correct exposure for the desired artistic effect. But photographers today don't even understand what exposure IS let alone make conscious artistic choices about it (even if they are bad artistic choices!).

The reason is that most photographers today, even in the SLR world, have a point-n-shoot mentality. They don't choose their aperture, ISO, shutter speed or even  focus point. They just aim and click.

So while in the old days you had 1 out of ten thousand people being photographers, those folks knew how cameras worked, and could make artistic choices around their subject matter. Now, they made the same proportion of bad artistic choices as we see today -- but they were at least artists in some sense of the word.

Today,  maybe 1 in 1000 people are photographers (ten times as many as before), with the same proportion of artistic challenges, but only 1 in forty thousand understand photography (a quarter as many as before). The rest are just letting the camera make all the choices for them.

The above numbers are of course, pulled out of my rear end, but I think the relative proportions are about right, regardless of what the starting "1-out-of-#" is for photographers.

Where I think the difference really lies is that for the 1-in-40,000 who really does know what they're doing -- the level of equipment has gotten significantly better in the last 10 years. Far more of those photographer's images are "keepers" than in the past. 

The films are better, the machines are better, the lenses are better, the meters are better, the af systems are better, and on the digital side the editing software is better . . . and it all adds up to more better pictures for those who know how to use the gear.


----------



## usayit (Apr 23, 2007)

Very interesting thread....

Any photographer's here been around long enough to see changes in equipment that brought photography out to the masses?  Do you see parallels from that time to the topic discussed here?

I'm sure back when only a select few had the ability, equipment, and knowledge to take a picture felt the same way when the general mass obtained access to photographic equipment.

Going farther back, I would image painters didn't regard photos as works of art.


I personally embrace the digital revolution even though I still prefer to keep one foot in traditional film.  It has resparked a new found interest in photography in the wide public.  Yeh.. a large majority are just "point and shooters" but there a lot of young people mixed in who are destined to be true photographers.  Young people that might not have had a chance not too long ago.  

I think the art is still there...  I think true photographers are still around.  They are just a bit more difficult to identify among the huge populous of poeple shooting photos.  Those point and shooters have the intent to record their cheerished memories or to capture something that interest them...  you "photographers" shouldn't feel threatened.

On another note...

If you drive an automatic and don't have any track experience or an interest in learning performance driving.. I don't regard you as a "driver" but just a "commuter".  It doesn't mean that drivers are any worse... just more "commuters" out there.  Thats just fine.. with me


----------



## craig (Apr 23, 2007)

I think photographers (of all levels) are improving quickly and producing great images. I believe it is basically attributed to the information super highway and digital cameras. Main deal is that this generation has forsaken their tired rock and roll roots and now listens to Drum and Bass!!!!!

Seriously. Photography is now in the era of the 90 second photo lab. Photographers or folks taking pictures can work through that uncomfortable waiting period of getting the prints back from the lab. Hell they can even delete the bad shots in the camera. This alone is changing the art form in ways we have yet to realize. Strangely I think prints are falling by the way side. I question how many shots are posted as opposed to printed. That's kind of a problem. Definitely a whole other discussion.

Digi is providing the art form to the masses. The technology is becoming so advanced that it is not easy to take a poorly exposed or focused photograph. Exciting stuff for sure. It has been mentioned that this is hurting photography. That is only partly true. I think that as the photographer progresses they will be able to take this technology for what it is worth.

The web is helping in that information is global and readily accessible. The learning process has been greatly accelerated. Beautiful thing!!!!!

Photography has always been technology based. Our job as artists is too work with that technology. Personally photography takes a serious commitment. There is no way around that. Clearly some people put time into their work. Clearly some do not. This the area that is becoming blurred. That is fine with me. If you love taking photos do it. The art form is very therapeutic. That is what it is all about!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rmh159 (Apr 23, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I think they're getting worse. And I think that the digital revolution is partly to blame.




I couldn't disagree more.  It's always the knee-jerk reaction to blame the technology, blame the music, blame the movies, etc.  Lame.

Could the answer simply be that quality cameras are easier to come by and it's far easier to get the good pics seen by a wider audience.  I'd be willing to bet the % of quality pics taken is still the same... the total number is just higher due to digital and the means to get that same % seen is far easier.


----------



## DSLR noob (Apr 23, 2007)

I think people are less critical with composition as they were with a roll of film since they had to "pay-per-shot" so to speak. Now, someone with a digital camera can take as many photos as their memory card can hold, then empty it and keep going. Making each shot less of a "make-it-or-break-it" shot. Braketing is so much easier.  Also they get to see their mistakes. I think this balance of not caring so much per shot(in amateurs), and being able to improve by seeing an instant photo balance each other out and leave things where they were.


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Apr 23, 2007)

Kingpatzer said:


> I think they're getting worse too.
> 
> Back in the olden days you still had uninteresting subjects, bad composition and poor lighting. And here, I think Alex is right, the proportions haven't changed at all.
> 
> ...


 

I'm not so sure that was true.  I think that if today something happened where automode stopped being part of the digital cameras and you could only use M mode, the majority of "photographers" would give up the art.  I'd say proportionately there are just as many people today to understand the aspects of photography as there were back in the days, but today we have many many more people using cameras, and we need to differentiate between the groups.

Also, I think it's downright silly to say that you dont have to understand aperture, lenses, time and exposure work to make a whole image.  As for not knowing how to use a darkroom, the digital darkroom is also something that must be mastered.  It isn't like you just go press a button and you are done.  Also photo labs can process film, so you dont technically need to know how to work in a darkroom to shoot film.

Really I dont see a difference (though being only 20, I didn't experience both sides of this) between the actual photographers of the different eras.  Since light meters have been built into the camera body, you dont really have to know anything per se, as long as you understand the concept of "put the bar in the middle" you can create a properly exposed image.  You may not understand aperture vs shutterspeed vs ISO as far as getting that exposure, but in auto mode for digitals you dont know that either... it goes both ways.

Like I said, the only difference today is that more people have cameras (doesn't make you a photographer).


----------



## Alpha (Apr 23, 2007)

rmh159 said:


> I couldn't disagree more.  It's always the knee-jerk reaction to blame the technology, blame the music, blame the movies, etc.  Lame.
> 
> Could the answer simply be that quality cameras are easier to come by and it's far easier to get the good pics seen by a wider audience.  I'd be willing to bet the % of quality pics taken is still the same... the total number is just higher due to digital and the means to get that same % seen is far easier.



Possible, but you're taking what I said out of context. We can go back and forth forever about numerically what direction our understanding of the number and quality of photographers is going. 

However, my point is more basic than that. I'm arguing that quality is going down because of the perception that digital cameras are easier to operate properly.


----------



## fmw (Apr 24, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> every day I see some drop dead gorgeous shots from my fellow amateurs (on this and another board) that would be photomag quality 20 years ago.


 
It isn't that photography has improved.  It is that tastes and styles have changed.  Personally, I prefer the good photography from 20 years ago - or even 50 years ago.  By the way, I don't think pro photographers necessarily make better images than amateurs.  What they do is make good images consistently.  Some amateurs make better images than some pros.  They just don't make their living doing it.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Apr 24, 2007)

I'd say the expensive of film was a deterrant for people, too.  These days, someone who is interested in photography can buy a digital p&s for the same price as a new slr, and never have to put any more money into it as far as making pictures is concerned.  This gives them the ability to try it out and learn some of the basics (most point and shoots have a manual mode) without all the extra expense of buying and developing film.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2007)

When I started taking pictures and when I did take color, the exposed films disappeared into the processing mill and emerged some days later.  I didn't have the sense of how I really could make my pictures better as much of the control loop seemed out of my hands.  Good color pictures were more luck than anything. I wanted to be able to exercise some control over the process so I naturally went to BW.  Even then, I couldn't profit from much help because all my learning came from books and magazines and there wasn't much of an esthetic of photography. At least I could see what I was doing relatively quickly in the process and could adjust my behaviours to aim towards better results. But in my time, I was essentially alone in this hobby.

The digital age has done lots of things to make photography easier to do and to learn.  IMO, the most important effect is had had on quality is to provide instant feedback loops for the mechanics and esthetics of picture making. No one is isolated and everyone  can get some ideas about their progress from online communities. 

The ubiquity of cameras and the ease of their use means that people can take up photography casually and then, seeing it for the creative outlet it is, become more involved. With film, only the semi-fanatic could get into the hobby. Except for some of us grizzled (I haven't shaved yet today) veterans, most of our members, I would say, didn't start with the rough steps of film but were introduced to photography by using P&Ss.

The most destructive part of the digital revolution for me is that there are so many good photographers working and showing that I can no longer even consider myself a skilled, decently able amateur but must accept that I am just a moderately abled patzer and doomed to always be that way.


----------



## Orgnoi1 (Apr 24, 2007)

LOL are you calling me "grizzled"?.....LOL


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2007)

Orgnoi1 said:


> LOL are you calling me "grizzled"?.....LOL



Oh, no. Not you, darling.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Apr 24, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> The most destructive part of the digital revolution for me is that there are so many good photographers working and showing that I can no longer even consider myself a skilled, decently able amateur but must accept that I am just a moderately abled patzer and doomed to always be that way.



Wait.. so then what makes one a decently abled amateur?  Are is the Traveler just being unduly down on himself today?


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 24, 2007)

Great thread. The argument was made that good photographers from yesteryear had to know how to use a SLR, adjust for lighting and make proper exposure, and also be able to use a darkroom.

That doesn't make a good photographer, just a slow one.

Photography is much more about composition than it is about the process of clicking the camera. If a digital machine makes it easier for me to decide how much light I need, what fstop to use, what shutter speed, etc, then so be it. That just means I get to take MORE pictures and spend more time on composition. I still have the ability to tell the camera it was WRONG, and decide those things myself if I choose... and that is part of composition. 

My definition of compositions is: Setting up a picture BEFORE you snap it. Seeing the final product in your mind BEFORE you take the picture.

If you couldn't set up a shot 50 years ago and someone handed you a new DSLR, you still wouldn't be able to set that shot up.... it's important to learn about things like the rule of thirds and how to break that rule, proper posing of your subject, color use and contrast, lighting direction and color, and much more before even TOUCHING your camera. 

I've used a darkroom before with a more traditional camera, like for a week in highschool, and while it did feel sort of magical to print a picture I took, the picture was still a rock in a field and did nothing for anyone. I've taken much better pictures in 30 seconds on my Canon A610 PNS.

Photographers are getting better. Better at communication. Better at sharing (flickr anyone), better at learning.... and in such there are MORE good shots being produced, no doubt about it. 

However in addition there are MORE people taking pictures overall, so that means that there are also MORE bad pictures. The debate here is the RATIO.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Apr 24, 2007)

What is wrong is that vision, originality, creativity and inventiveness seems to be missing.
Maybe there is the same amount as there always was but it is just being swamped by the mediocre.
Instead of taking their own pictures from their own viewpoint (which takes some intelligence and a lot of hard work) people just want to copy their favourite photographer. And way too many of them wouldn't know a good picture if it sat up and gave them a haircut.
Then of course, digital editing has made it easier to clean up your mistakes. Why spend a lot of time trying to get it right when a few clicks in PS will sort it? I think I may go back to painting....


----------



## terri (Apr 24, 2007)

> When I started taking pictures and when I did take color, the exposed films disappeared into the processing mill and emerged some days later. I didn't have the sense of how I really could make my pictures better as much of the control loop seemed out of my hands. Good color pictures were more luck than anything.


Then one could argue you didn't have an excellent grasp of exposure - or you never bracketed.  For shame!





> I wanted to be able to exercise some control over the process so I naturally went to BW. Even then, I couldn't profit from much help because all my learning came from books and magazines and there wasn't much of an esthetic of photography.


If you speaking only of the image/film _developmental _process, then this makes sense. 





> At least I could see what I was doing relatively quickly in the process and could adjust my behaviours to aim towards better results.


All you needed by your side back then was a good Polaroid for instant feedback. :mrgreen: 



> The digital age has done lots of things to make photography easier to do and to learn. IMO, the most important effect is had had on quality is to provide instant feedback loops for the mechanics and esthetics of picture making.


Digital has certainly knocked Polaroid from top spot in this sense, but the premise of giving people the ability to check lighting and composition prior to making that "final shot" is unchanged. Polaroid invented it.





> No one is isolated and everyone can get some ideas about their progress from online communities.


Online communities are even more apt to isolate you, the way I see it. The old days of camera clubs or photography groups where people actually came together are certainly gone. You now sit alone in front of your PC and get ideas from people you only know online.


> The ubiquity of cameras and the ease of their use means that people can take up photography casually and then, seeing it for the creative outlet it is, become more involved. With film, only the semi-fanatic could get into the hobby.


:scratch: Film was and is not exclusionary. Kodak's been pushing ubiquity of cameras since they came out with the Brownie! "You take the pictures; we'll do the rest" is a fine way for anyone to start, and I could argue that it is now Adobe (through PS) that promises that very thing. "Go snap the shot; it can all be fixed later if you use our product." You can be a semi-fanatic using ANY medium.

Just my take; but as always - what the hell do I know?  

:razz:


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2007)

terri said:


> Then one could argue you didn't have an excellent grasp of exposure - or you never bracketed.  For shame!If you speaking only of the image/film _developmental _process, then this makes sense. All you needed by your side back then was a good Polaroid for instant feedback. :mrgreen:
> 
> Digital has certainly knocked Polaroid from top spot in this sense, but the premise of giving people the ability to check lighting and composition prior to making that "final shot" is unchanged. Polaroid invented it.Online communities are even more apt to isolate you, the way I see it. The old days of camera clubs or photography groups where people actually came together are certainly gone. You now sit alone in front of your PC and get ideas from people you only know online.
> :scratch: Film was and is not exclusionary. Kodak's been pushing ubiquity of cameras since they came out with the Brownie! "You take the pictures; we'll do the rest" is a fine way for anyone to start, and I could argue that it is now Adobe (through PS) that promises that very thing. "Go snap the shot; it can all be fixed later if you use our product." You can be a semi-fanatic using ANY medium.
> ...



I think that Terri has missed my points a little. The bracketing and Polaroid issues assume several things: first that the technical understanding and interest are there already, second that the additional equipment is availalable and third that one can actually afford it. 

With digital images and instant feedback, the casual user can see immediately that the picture is not perfect or even good and can adjust accordingly and immediately.  This adjustment fosters the realization that making pictures is less of a magic technical process and more an art based on a skill that can be mastered.  

With film, the possibilities of improvement and thus the realizations are much less obvious because one has to wait.  How many fewer musicians would there be if, after one pressed on the keys, the sound didn't come out for a week?

In re: exclusionary: it is semi-ironic that while Terri is saying that film is not exclusionary, many of the other posts are bemoaning that digital lets everyone be a photographer. So these other people can only play in your art if they play in a way that you decide is OK?

Yes, many pictures are derivative. That is a battle I fight every day with my own pix. Sure, pictures are derivative, pictures are also trite, boring, silly, pretentious, pointless, self-absorbed. But we try to keep these negative traits from entering our own images and we try to help others see these faults in theirs - in a gentle understanding way.


----------



## terri (Apr 24, 2007)

You still didn't say whether or not you ever bracketed. :mrgreen: 

And I'm right there, quoted in your post, so it's okay to speak directly to me, hon.  



> With digital images and instant feedback, the casual user can see immediately that the picture is not perfect or even good and can adjust accordingly and immediately. This adjustment fosters the realization that making pictures is less of a magic technical process and more an art based on a skill that can be mastered.


But, but.....your Polaroid could have been crap, too!  And exposure adjustments would have been made.

I'm having fun with you, but to answer the question in your post, I'm simply saying it's all been done before and digital hasn't really changed anyone's _approach_ to photography. The same people who wanted instant feedback in the 1970's can certainly get it today from a DSLR (if they want to pony up the bucks) and take a peek. If you run around and shoot 5 rolls of film or run around and fill up a memory card, at some point you are _still _going to have to review your results and face the music.

So to more directly answer your question, no, I don't particularly think today's photographers are any better than their counterparts of yesteryear. Why would they be? You can now peek at the back of your camera and see a tiny preview; so what? You could sneak a peek at a Polaroid, too, but in both cases, you don't really know what you have until you're able to sit down with your negative or raw image and start to mess with it. And neither darkroom or PS mastery will make a silk purse from a sow's ear. 

But it also remains subjective, to the tastes of the photographer, his family, or the AD you're trying to impress. Whatever works! If you like it, then someone else might, too.


----------



## Don Simon (Apr 24, 2007)

The argument about film being exclusionary is basically what I was disputing in my last post; I thought it might come up here.

Yes I started with crappy point-&-shoots... but I didn't have to be semi-fanatical to learn how to use manual controls later on. I just had to be vaguely interested.

Yes people can now look at the results as soon as they've taken them... but frankly a lot of people will still think "there's something wrong, the camera's crap", rather than "ah, it's overexposed". Some of these people will go on a forum, ask what's wrong with their camera, and when told "Nothing, this shot is overexposed", they'll say "Oh. So what camera should I buy now?" Instant review is helpful but it can't make people learn or progress.

Yes the information is widely available now... but that doesn't mean people will bother to read it or take it in. Nor is the information all in one place and all accurate. The internet contains at least as many myths and misconceptions as it does useful information. Previously people might have had to buy a book or find someone to explain things, now they have to work out what's a reliable source of information.

And yes, you can get instant feedback on your images... is all feedback inherently constructive? Doesn't that depend on the people contributing the feedback? To some extent, doesn't it only tell you how to take photos as someone else would?


----------



## Eric Piercey (Apr 24, 2007)

I think we're talking apples and oranges almost as photography has changed so much.

I  believe there's much greater potential for a person today to learn photogrpahy, with info availible at one's fingertips, and with the ability to take more shots and get quicker feedback. On the other hand, we live in an A.D.D. world because of all the stimulation and information whereas in the past one learned through hands on experience, concretely as opposed to abstractly.

There are also more photographs than in days past (digital) and advancing imaging technology (both in camera and software) ...so statistically we have more great photographs out there, but are photographers getting better? On an individual level or a statistical level? LOL.

On an individual level a great photographer in days past will still be a great photographer in the digital age, and a crappy one still a crappy one. Today there are more ways to polish a turd, is all. 

I will say this though, a great photographer 40 years ago and one today are not doing the same thing due to the advent of the digital darkroom. There was far more to "photography" in the past because not only did one need to shoot it to capture it, they also needed to develop it. Mastery of the darkroom is an artform in and of itself which doesn't equate directly (at all) to a mastery of photoshop. I'm not saying one is superior to the other, but that they are vastly different. Furthermore darkroom requires both a certain set of concrete knowledge as well as certain timing and dexterity. One planned in advance in the past because doing it again meant more time, more supplies, more effort. Foreplanning and careful deliberate execution to acheive a look is vastly different than rifling through effects filters with multiple layers which can be made invisible with a click.

Is the racecar driver today "better" than the racecar driver yesterday because the cars are more complex, or are they less skilled?

Is the mechanic??

The photographer of yesteryear was both the photographer and the mechanic. If darkroom skill (which encapsulates the very foundation of photography, namely exposure and how to manipulate it) counts, than the answer to the overall question is no, they aren't getting better.

The best of anything will always be those with the most passion who learn everything they can and strive endlessly to master their chosen medium.


----------



## panocho (Apr 24, 2007)

sorry if I say something that has already been said, since I couldn't take the time to read all the post before.

anyway. I don't think they're getting better, not at all. On the other hand, would hesitate to say that they're getting worse, also. But if I had to choose between one of the two (why should I!!??), no doubt would prefer saying worse.

maybe we do see a lot of great photographies -just because we see an incredible amount of photographies. and if we just focus on technique, that is probably true that things have improved: simply because anyone has access to a lot of retouching, something prior limited to high level amateurs (you know, with a dark room, a lot of experience, etc). Nowadays, a few clicks, a few minutes and you have a retouching

but for this very reason, I would no doubt second the opinion that film photography teaches you better than digital. No neccesarily, I agree, but definitely most of the times

and then, when I see old photographies, very often I find some beautiful something in them that is harder to find in new pictures.

well, surely that's purely a subjective feeling, but anyway, I would NEVER second the claim that there is some kind of general improvement of the quality of photography


----------



## gizmo2071 (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm only 22, but have been shooting for like 9years now.
I mean I started when I was 13 and even shot my first wedding when I was 14.
I shot film up until last year, although I still shoot B&W film now, I just don't have a decent scanner to get any work online.
So i'm not just someone who gets a few lucky shots, I have been practicing this trade for nearly a decade.

I much prefer working on my images in the darkroom than I do on the computer. I just get more sense of fulfilment from the time I put into my images under the enlarger burning and dodging.

Has the quality of photography gone down?
Obviously not.
I'm sure there are an equal proportion of great photographers today as there were at any point since the start of the photography era.
But there is also an HUGE number of other people that enjoy taking photos.
Because it really is so much more accessible.
If I had access to a darkroom when I had started i think I would be a hell of alot better than I am now.
Instead I had to wait until I had money saved to buy film and get it sent off to the lab. (which i had no control over how they were processed)

At college and school, alot of people take photography because they think it's a easy course to pass, but the majority drop out or fail (from my course only 3 or 4 out of 15 have much chance of passing the course).


----------



## Don Simon (Apr 24, 2007)

And going back to the accessibility thing again... it's not like everyone needed a Hasselblad and their own darkroom to take photos with film. Am I the only person who remembers disposable cameras?


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Apr 24, 2007)

fmw said:


> By the way, I don't think pro photographers necessarily make better images than amateurs. What they do is make good images consistently. Some amateurs make better images than some pros. They just don't make their living doing it.


 
I have never agreed with you more


----------



## gmarquez (Apr 24, 2007)

If you all would spend less time debating and more time shooting pictures, there would soon be more good photographers.

[quickly runs away]


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Apr 25, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> If you all would spend less time debating and more time shooting pictures, there would soon be more good photographers.



And contrariwise, if people spent more time discussing Photography and less time snapping pictures there would be a lot less visual cr*p about :lmao:


----------



## MrTwister (Apr 25, 2007)

I think, techical progress and new instruments make the quality of photos better but not photographers.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 25, 2007)

ZaphodB said:


> And going back to the accessibility thing again... it's not like everyone needed a Hasselblad and their own darkroom to take photos with film. Am I the only person who remembers disposable cameras?



you don't need a disposable camera to take pictures on film!  by the age of 16 I was already using my 3rd 35mm film camera, all of them were not expensive. Started with a handheld light meter and a very simple mechanical camera which my parents got for me second hand and slowly migrated to better cameras. That was tiny investments compared to digital p&s cameras today 

I should mention that in my surroundings there wasn't anyone really into photography, still it did not prevent me from creating images with those cameras


----------



## jca (Apr 25, 2007)

This is my first post on this board, but I thought my response might be relevent. First off, I'm a complete noob to photography. I've nursed an interest for a couple years but only started to get serious about a month and a half ago. I bought a DSLR and several books and have basically been reading anything I can get my hands on and more importantly, taking a ton of pictures.

I think the instant feedback provided by digital is a HUGE advantage to someone trying to learn. I can take a shot, see what I've done wrong, adjust, retake it, review again and continue until I've learned how to get that picture. Obviously composition is another matter, but for someone trying to become technically proficient, I can't imagine being able to make anywhere near the same progress that I have using film. Not that I'm a particularly good photographer at this point, but there's a night and day difference between what I shot a month ago and what I'm shooting now.

Whether this equates to better photography in general, I couldn't say, but it seems to me the potential is certainly there for photographers to learn and improve much more rapidly than in the pre-digital world.


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 1, 2007)

Well, I'm new to this. I do not own a DSLR. I do own a point & shoot and a _film_ SLR. In fact, because I got a point and shoot and saw a friends photographs I wanted to get more serious about photography.

I personally don't like the way digital pictures look. Well, most of them. That doesn't mean that the photographers are "bad", it's just...I don't care for the new technology. I will say that because film isn't cheap, I'm learning about the basics of photography. I've seen some bad photographs with both film and digital. People that really care about photography...no matter what the format (film or digital) are going to read the books, take the courses..etc..etc..because they care. The other 70% are going to look for the quick fix easy answer to their overexposed shots. Let them be. It isn't worth arguing about. Just keep doing what _you_ do. 

And as for internet messageboards? I'm surprised some of you guys think no one can learn from here. I have to ask..why do you even post here, then? Not all of us can afford a 4 year college course on photography and then sit at home in the darkroom working at a wolf camera with our degrees. I personally think this site is very helpful and can help people who don't have access to school. It's nice to see people who have been doing it for 20+ years (some members) who can help you with DOF, Aperture, what books to buy, building and developing in the darkroom. 

Just my $0.02.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 1, 2007)

Weaving Wax said:


> why do you even post here, then?



Speaking personally, it's because there is nothing on tv right now... :mrgreen:


----------



## dewey (May 1, 2007)

It's hard to apply such a question to photographers in general.  The advent of affordable professional cameras certainly has increased the number of photographers, but not the quality of the photographs.

The best will always be the best, and the point and shooters will always be that way even if they have an expensive camera... and there's nothing wrong with that.

In the end everyone should worry about their own work.


----------



## THORHAMMER (May 1, 2007)

my usual analogy 

does the advent of faster twin turbo cars with fuel injection make better race car drivers ? 

same thing.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (May 1, 2007)

dewey said:


> In the end everyone should worry about their own work.



But the other kids aren't playing right!


----------



## usayit (May 1, 2007)

THORHAMMER said:


> my usual analogy
> 
> does the advent of faster twin turbo cars with fuel injection make better race car drivers ?
> 
> same thing.



Nope.. but in a way yes..  For me driving autox and graduating to a turbo'd car was a challenge.  Learning that challenge made me a better driver.. at least I hope so.

Not a perfect analogy as it lacks human "intention".  If the person improves on their equipment in hopes to open new doors, learn, and expand their experience, then yes....  the newer and improved stuff (tools) helps.

I still love film but the instant results with digital did allow me to experiment more and learn new things.


----------



## craig (May 2, 2007)

In anything we like to think it is 90% the photographer and 10% the gear. At least that is what I go for. Comes down to; at what point are you going to transcend the gear and work at your vision or idea? Car racers do not go fast because they have turbos. They go fast because they know how to drive. Same with photographers. Five large worth of gear helps. Not like it makes us a better photographer. 

Love & Bass


----------



## The_Traveler (May 2, 2007)

THORHAMMER said:


> my usual analogy
> 
> does the advent of faster twin turbo cars with fuel injection make better race car drivers ?
> 
> same thing.



Are we better drivers now than we were in the 1920's? We drive better because we have the advantage of better safer equipment, we can do things we couldn't do then - and more people can do them because the better cars are owned by more people.


----------



## THORHAMMER (May 2, 2007)

I see your point.. I guess you have to define better, 

learning faster and learning better are 2 different things. 

I agree that I learned a lot faster with digital, but I dont think I would of missed anything if I had learned it all with film. would of taken longer, but I might of learned more secrets...

ingenuity was a key factor when technology was limited. there seems to be less ingenuity nowadays.


----------



## Eric Piercey (May 2, 2007)

THORHAMMER said:


> I see your point.. I guess you have to define better,
> 
> learning faster and learning better are 2 different things.
> 
> ...



That's because mechanical things are generally intuitive by nature. Electronics is not intuitive and require learned knowledge. Using something and making it are light years apart. Old school craftsman knew their tools and knew the mechanics behind their craft. As we move into the high tech age, people understand less about how their tools work and depend more and more on them to do the work. A widening gap between what we know and what we do. The good news is, those who put their nose to the grindstone and stay up with the curve will be at a huge advantage. Enough of my old coot rambling


----------



## THORHAMMER (May 3, 2007)

Right on !!


----------



## RMThompson (May 3, 2007)

Eric Piercey said:


> That's because mechanical things are generally intuitive by nature. Electronics is not intuitive and require learned knowledge. Using something and making it are light years apart. Old school craftsman knew their tools and knew the mechanics behind their craft. As we move into the high tech age, people understand less about how their tools work and depend more and more on them to do the work. A widening gap between what we know and what we do. The good news is, those who put their nose to the grindstone and stay up with the curve will be at a huge advantage. Enough of my old coot rambling


 
Yeah, I don't see how this applies. The difference isn't like a chairmaker who once did it by hand and now has a machine does his job... 

A photographer first and FOREMOST should be about capturing an image... and composing a good one to capture.

In fact the first CAMERAS were used as trace-boxes to trace scenes, but when Niepce invented bitumen "film" that took 8 hours of exposure, I am sure that someone preferred to do it the other way! 

When the Kodak Brownie was released, don't you think there were those who called it amateurish, and held on to the beliefs that a "REAL" photographer uses chemicals himself?

As the science behind it developed, what was (and is) still left? The photographer getting behind the camera and setting the shot up the way he wants it.

EDIT: FOUND THIS ON WIKIPEDIA, SEEMS THIS ARGUMENT HAS BEEN AROUND FOREVER: 



> Having written an article in the 1940s for amateur photographers suggesting an expensive camera was unnecessary for quality photography, the famous Picture Post photographer Bert Hardy used a Kodak Brownie (with a cost of $1.00) to stage a carefully posed snapshot of two young women sitting on railings above a breezy Blackpool promenade.[2]


 
Here is that famous picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/41249301@N00/285001100/


----------



## THORHAMMER (May 3, 2007)

dont go crazy with semantics, I think the point is that automation is great, but its just supposed to give you more time to concentrate on the important part of your craft.  which would be your vision. You still have to develop, just not with chemicals, with the computer. You might have better luck with exposure on simple shots, but your composition should be even "better" for it. 

Im sure some of the archaic ways would also build character in us... but thats for everyone to expirament with and figure out for themselves.. we all have our own weakness to build up on...


----------



## Eric Piercey (May 3, 2007)

You see photocrapy I see photography.

This conversion is getting old


----------



## Alpha (May 3, 2007)




----------



## shorty6049 (May 3, 2007)

haha...


----------



## THORHAMMER (May 3, 2007)

max, you spank your stallion waay to much.. be careful or youll go blind


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (May 4, 2007)

THORHAMMER said:


> dont go crazy with semantics



I disagree!  Go crazy with semantics!  Then we all know exactly what one another means, without having to define any of the fuzzy areas with our own assumptions.


----------

