# The Golden Age of Photography



## The_Traveler (Jan 3, 2015)

I was looking at a book entitled 'The Golden Age of British Photography 1839-1900 and I went from page to page trying to see the greatness.  What I saw was images that conquered the technical obstacles of the age but,  compared to the easy technical perfection that is attainable now, the pictures were not exciting or interesting.

After judging a fair amount in the local camera clubs, I grew to accept that the average digital images were inevitably 'better' than slide images.  We, I, would see images taken on film and printed in the darkroom and accept less technical achievement than would be accepted or required in a digital image. Film got points both because of the effort and technical obstacles conquered and because of the nostalgia component.

But, is the technical issue important in looking at art?  When we see a miniature town constructed of matches, we marvel at the tenacity of this technical achievement; it is a wonder of craftsmanship not art.

We are now in the Golden Age of Photography. Technical barriers are low if not gone and the road is comparably easy for the eye and vision to create. The problem is not the achieving but the flood of work that hides or even drowns the possible best of it.

We are in the golden age of photography but the most difficult problem is how to find and elevate the greats of this era.


----------



## Overread (Jan 3, 2015)

The Golden Age of anything is nearly always rose tinted and in the past - the current age is current and any who are not wearing the rose tinted glasses are either absorbed within the age and can't see it or are looking to the future! 


I'd say that yes when one look at the history of any craft there are many creations which are famous because they did something different. They did something first, something new, something innovative. Or they were done BY someone important and thus changed the nature of the craft in a significant way. This is especially important in art where for many generations art was controlled very strictly as to what was and wasn't allowed by the galleries and peers of the age. You had to BE someone to change that. 

I don't think, though, that that precludes greatness in those times. You can certainly take some fantastic photos using very limited gear. 


To answer the other question about technical I would say that for many yes it is important. What you did to create something is important. Sometimes less so - sometime as much and sometimes more so than the creation itself. It's like a journey - sometimes its the trip - sometimes its the destination - sometimes its what happens after. There is no rule to ascribe what "IS" the most important (and loads of reasons why each stage could be); each has its own weight and each situation and indeed each person will be different. 

That said I suspect what you see at the camera clubs is that those with film reach limits too easily and settle into established patterns of behaviour. They've learned up where they are comfortable and have stopped. Whilst those with digital are either new and learning and pushing or are older, but pushing at the newest and continuing the journey. Thus you're getting an increase in advancing skill in the digital and an increase in stagnation in the film. Because Digital does little that film could not do - so the difference must be the users not the gear so much. 



For myself and the golden age I very much agree that we are in a golden age, but not just of technical freedom, but also artistic freedom. We have a freedom to express ourselves in a way that has never really been realised before in history ever. But I don't just see that the golden age is now - its in the future too - we've got a wealth of new things coming and we can't even begin to imagine what they might be (go back 100 years - nearly all we have now was the bounds of sci-fi stories and wild dreams).


----------



## bribrius (Jan 3, 2015)

that is what i hear. That photography is in the golden age. I am tempted very much to agree but have doubts. It is actually technology that WAS in a golden age and photography is reaping some of those break throughs in slow advancements. Since the origin of digital i am not so sure photography itself can be in a golden age as i cant think of anything that has been a large break through in the last couple decades. More of a trickle down effect on it from digital progression.

It would depend on if you define "golden age" in the metaphor of growth or increase, or if you define golden age in the classical sense of purity and origin. I think you could make a shallow argument for the former if not based on innovation at least on sheer numbers in growth and increase of popularity.  But for the classical reference photography is near opposite of golden age as the trickle down advancements and changes take us further away from its origin..


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 3, 2015)

It sounds to me like you place to much weight on technical detail.

The breadth of vision we see in Victorian photography simply dwarfs what we see today on photo sharing sites, despite the fact that there might be ten orders of magnitude more images.

I am not familiar with that book, so possibly it is not very representative, though.


----------



## terri (Jan 3, 2015)

_I was looking at a book entitled 'The Golden Age of British Photography 1839-1900 and I went from page to page trying to see the greatness. What I saw was images that conquered the technical obstacles of the age but, compared to the easy technical perfection that is attainable now, the pictures were not exciting or interesting._

Therein lays your apparent frustration or issue with the use of the word “golden."  You state that you went through the book looking for “greatness,” but the term used was “golden.” This seems appropriate, since the book seems to be looking at the very beginnings of photography, when it was approached as a scientific challenge, more chemical than technical in nature.

The word “golden” can be applied to the dawn of a new process with much potential that had yet to be discovered; it can also be applied to the present, as you have done.  I would imagine the book in question is little more than an objective presentation of images that were taken during the time period mentioned, with the processes that were available then, of the people and landscapes as they existed then.  When we look at them today we must make the effort to keep them in context with those times.

You seem to have a strong bias towards digital processes and what you perceive as “technical perfection.”  It seems to matter a great deal to you, because your question implies conflict by its presence in art.  That’s all well and good, but probably makes you less than objective when judging art.  A judge who is giving points for the _nostalgia_ of a process seems inappropriate; it’s another type of bias.  Photos displayed for judging are meant to be viewed as a finished work.  What makes the image successful?  Line, composition, tonal value, a message or story?  Spending time to determine whether it’s film or digital should be outside what makes it successful or not.

_We are now in the Golden Age of Photography. Technical barriers are low if not gone and the road is comparably easy for the eye and vision to create. The problem is not the achieving but the flood of work that hides or even drowns the possible best of it._

I hope you can appreciate that this assessment could have been made 100 years ago, word for word!


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 4, 2015)

Using the word nostalgia in connection with film is erroneous. Film is alive and kicking.

Film has a certain workflow. Digital has a certain workflow. Both require a certain amount of technical understanding. Certainly, however, the work flow is a means to an end in both cases.

My understanding of your post is that it is a thinly veiled dig at film. It seems to me that you feel insecure about your efforts using digital; that you feel photographers who use film are given a head start. I would argue that this is nonsense and you should concentrate on your own preferred form of the art and let others do as they please.  

Do you think, or are you suggesting that those using film shout about it from the rooftops - in order to get special consideration? This may happen and I can understand that you might find this annoying, but not everyone using film behaves in this way. Just as not everyone using digital is obsessed with its rapid technical advancement. There are those in both camps who are content to get on quietly with the important goal - photography.

To each their own. Live and let live. Change the tune.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

Perhaps to find the great photographers of today one needs to stop hanging around with other photographers.

I suspect the great photographers of today are, somehow, avoiding the influence of places like 500px, flickr, and, yes, TPF. These places raise easy technical perfection too high, and ruthlessly crush creativity outside of certain strict bounds. Whether these artists are simply not hanging around other photographers at all, or are but are somehow immune to the social influences, I do not know. Well. I have some ideas, based on some artists I respect.

But I don't know.


----------



## Overread (Jan 4, 2015)

It's clear that what we each consider "great" differs. Indeed many appear to ascribe difference to greatness - others technical - others compositional - others the subject etc...

A great diversity of variations in viewpoints. The key problem, in my view, being that when we talk about greatness we just talk about greatness. We don't speak of the type of greatness we mean. As if by mentioning what we consider be the key element of the greatness will some how lessen the "greatness" of the photos we are going to nominate. 

A few try for overall greatness, I think they tend to end up focusing on one or two of the conditions, but never manage to get all of them very easily (its just too vast a task)


----------



## sleist (Jan 4, 2015)

I think many examples of great photography from the past are timeless.  There is a significant percentage however that, at least as far as I'm concerned, need to be appreciated within the context of when and how they were shot.  From a purely uneducated observer's perspective, today's ease and pervasiveness of photographic imagery has "raised" the bar on what is generally considered great/interesting photography.  Those with more experience in pre-digital techniques, developing, and printing may look at these works with a different set of emotional filters and the image may resonate more for them as a result.



Fred Berg said:


> My understanding of your post is that it is a thinly veiled dig at film.



I don't get this from Lew's post at all.  In fact, what I see is an effort to understand how to appreciate, or even create, a visually interesting and technically imperfect image at a time when technical perfection is so easily in reach and thus expected.  The world is full of technically perfect images that bore the crap out of me.  I also love the works of the great photographers despite (because of?) the effects created by the limitations of the medium used.  That being said, just shooting with film does not excuse the photographer from creating crap and getting extra credit because it's film.

Should images be judged by how (or when) they were created?  Does it matter?  Are someone's blurry/noisy digital street shots worse than those shot with film years ago simply because the technology was available to have made the digital shots technically better, but the photographer chose not to (or failed to).  Does the fact that I can take a cell phone picture and make it look 100 yrs old by applying a filter in photoshop diminish the impact of the older photo?  Can we judge images by content only?  Should we?


----------



## sashbar (Jan 4, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> Using the word nostalgia in connection with film is erroneous. Film is alive and kicking.
> 
> Film has a certain workflow. Digital has a certain workflow. Both require a certain amount of technical understanding. Certainly, however, the work flow is a means to an end in both cases.
> 
> ...




I often see how photographers post a picture with a rather low IQ, that has basically poor and uninteresting composition and content. You know, the kind of a shot about nothing that would be deleted without thinking twice on a digital camera. But the guy posts it and adds that this is some Kodak Superduperextamonoclourchrome 20054 XTC. Had he not mentioned it, I would have thought - poor, boring photo, why is it here. Then I see it is film and think: OK, fair enough. SuperduperKodak. Might be rare. Might be just 35 shots in the roll.

If a photog mentions that it is film, does it mean he shouts from the roof?  I am sure he does not think so, but it sound like that to me.  Probably there is some meaning in mentioning what film was used. To me it does not matter, what matters is the end result.

What does it all say about film photography? I do not know. Probably nothing. Probably it says that film photography is more about the process than the result these days. I very rarely see modern film images that are kicking. Probably they exist somewhere.  How many pros that make a living on photography shoot film?


----------



## fotomonkey (Jan 4, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Perhaps to find the great photographers of today one needs to stop hanging around with other photographers.


I just look in the mirror.


----------



## Designer (Jan 4, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> But, is the technical issue important in looking at art?



The technical aspects of how any art is produced is an integral part of that particular piece of art.  When we look at a photograph, we are looking at the sum total of every bit of technology that went into producing it.

So yes, for the product of film photography, the print, that includes the entire process, from capture, to developing, to printing.

One might assume certain manipulations to have occurred, such as burning and dodging, but little else.

In digital, one could assume some basic manipulation even perhaps a great deal has occurred as well.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 4, 2015)

Lew, it's the same old battle for me. Where you wear blinders allowing photography to be only "art", I still stand by the opposite. If I wanted to be an artist, I'd take up painting and put every blade of grass where I wanted it to be.
Leonore and myself were having a chat a while ago, where we discussed the, sometimes, boredom of the "perfect photo". Razor sharp, perfect exposure and contrast with a perfect composition. We also discussed how the look of a print produced with mediocre lens on a mediocre camera is sometimes missed by both of us. (_Sorry for dragging you in on this Leonore_)
I first marveled at the abilities of the digital world. If there's an unwanted utility pole in my shot, just remove it. There are so many ways to manipulate a photo, it can become an image of fiction, not fact. For me, as time goes on, I'm beginning to feel corrupted, and lazy instead of satisfied and accomplished.
I feel there is enough room in photography for both film and digital. While neither has to fully agree with the other, both should be shown all respect for the medium they choose.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

The 'just clone that out' attitude is, I feel, incredibly damaging. It leads to a focus on details at the expense of everything else.

We often see critique about moving lights around and skin processing and bend this limb, but nobody points out that the model is just standing there like a cow, and that if you can't fix that you're never going to have an image that's worth a damn. And if you can, minor fiddling with the lights won't matter.

There are trees and there's a forest. The victory of the trees is near universal.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> The 'just clone that out' attitude is, I feel, incredibly damaging. It leads to a focus on details at the expense of everything else.
> 
> We often see critique about moving lights around and skin processing and bend this limb, but nobody points out that the model is just standing there like a cow, and that if you can't fix that you're never going to have an image that's worth a damn. And if you can, minor fiddling with the lights won't matter.
> 
> There are trees and there's a forest. The victory of the trees is near universal.


I separate my "general " photography  that "outside " people see from my actual photography (you know the stuff I really care about).  use  it as a filter system similar to quality control of influence. Anything that hits will have to first stick to the general b.s.  "outside" photography before even being up for consideration on the meaningful stuff. I have a pretty fixed line between what is up for grabs tossing online or to others and what I keep for myself as well. Another photographer I know does similar to a simply astonishing degree. I compare what she has online, compared to her facebook, compared to the little I see of her actual real photography. Totally different worlds. you would hardly guess looking at her online material just how real and intimate her photography is in her personal collections. Barriers for sifting and quality control of information and influence is your friend.  And you can still learn , be involved, post photos. All helpful. Just throw on some strict filtering and draw hard lines. I would maybe clone in a photography in the throw it online section of general photography some day.   I cant fathom cloning ever coming near my own personal work though.


----------



## limr (Jan 4, 2015)

Rick58 said:


> Lew, it's the same old battle for me. Where you wear blinders allowing photography to be only "art", I still stand by the opposite. If I wanted to be an artist, I'd take up painting and put every blade of grass where I wanted it to be.
> Leonore and myself were having a chat a while ago, where we discussed the, sometimes, boredom of the "perfect photo". Razor sharp, perfect exposure and contrast with a perfect composition. We also discussed how the look of a print produced with mediocre lens on a mediocre camera is sometimes missed by both of us. (_Sorry for dragging you in on this Leonore_)
> I first marveled at the abilities of the digital world. If there's an unwanted utility pole in my shot, just remove it. There are so many ways to manipulate a photo, it can become an image of fiction, not fact. For me, as time goes on, I'm beginning to feel corrupted, and lazy instead of satisfied and accomplished.
> I feel there is enough room in photography for both film and digital. While neither has to fully agree with the other, both should be shown all respect for the medium they choose.



No worries, Rick 

It's all true. Because of the ability to make sharper, more saturated, more technically perfect images, this has become the standard of greatness. If any deficiency in exposure or sharpness exists in the photo, these are flaws to be eliminated - and these days, this means 'shopping them out. It's pretty clear that 'technical' has a narrow definition, and 'greatness' is being defined just as narrowly.

And the assumption - that was explicitly stated, actually - is that film cannot reach this level of greatness. 
_"I grew to accept that the average digital images were inevitably 'better' than slide images. We, I, would see images taken on film and printed in the darkroom and accept less technical achievement than would be accepted or required in a digital image." (Lew)
_
The medium itself is not capable of reaching this new technical greatness and the photographers themselves just stagnate and shoot in a technical rut.
_"That said I suspect what you see at the camera clubs is that those with film reach limits too easily and settle into established patterns of behaviour. They've learned up where they are comfortable and have stopped." (Overread)
_
(Btw, I can assure you that I have not reached the limits of what I can do with film and I have not stopped learning just because I'm shooting film.)

"Technical. (adj): 1610s, "skilled in a particular art or subject," formed in English from technic + -al (1), or in part from Greek tekhnikos "of art; systematic," in reference to persons "skillful, artistic," from tekhne "art, skill, craft" (see techno-)."

So 'technical' doesn't - or shouldn't - just mean _digital_ process. And yet film and digital shots are being judged by the same technical details even though the process is different and the outcome will inevitably be different. People talk about "technical perfection" and they automatically mean what a digital camera can produce. I've seen plenty of film shots that could be considered technical masterpieces. They don't look the same as a technically perfect photo from a digital camera, but they are technically perfect nonetheless. 

Oh lord, do I feel sorry for this poor dead horse...


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

They limitations of wet processes forced us, on good days, to consider how on earth we were to make something out of this.

Now that we have a universal process, Photoshop, universal in the sense that any visual effect of gum bichromate or whatever can be done and undone with a few clicks, we are now constrained only by our own feeble imaginations.

To our great detriment.


----------



## sashbar (Jan 4, 2015)

Film is friendly and forgiving. Digital is cold and ruthless.  New amazing technical opportunities bring enormous amount of frustration to many photographers who are artistically aware and sense this rapidly growing dissonance between vast technical opportunities of the digital medium and their own limited creative abilities. The more a camera does all technical stuff for you, the more you are left exposed with your own creative side, or complete lack of it. 
 Blessed are those who are happy shooting wallpapers, they will be happy.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

limr said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > Lew, it's the same old battle for me. Where you wear blinders allowing photography to be only "art", I still stand by the opposite. If I wanted to be an artist, I'd take up painting and put every blade of grass where I wanted it to be.
> ...


you know, this isn't the first time in history the technical has been used to blaspheme a photographers work only to be later thrown under the bus and the photographer suddenly considered a artistic genius. While technicals are important to learn I dare say they are what we fall back on to discuss when nothing else is in the photo of merit.  some of the more notable photographers were ridiculed for not following technicals. so if someone says that your medium or result isn't compositionally correct or technically perfected what does that actually mean? As long as you know your compositions and technicals I don't think it really means a damn thing. Falling back on such things is more  a sign of lacking in a societal perspective and photographs without much merit other than technicals. Often a sign of the practioners too. It is easier to learn the rules and recite them than actually make photos that mean anything. This is where you run into the b.s.  "that telephone line should be cloned out, that tree should be cloned out blah blah blah"   Some are so stuck on the composition and technical they cant see "the forest through the trees".... And after it is all said and done another technically correct , pleasing to the eye, but utterly worthless photo is manufactured. I put this mentality in the same one as "lacks interest" and "what is the subject?"  Looking through photographers of earlier times many would be blasphemed on all grounds. And at the end of the day it just comes down to shoot what you want, how you want. What others make of that and do with that is THEIR problem not yours.


----------



## Nettles (Jan 4, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> We are now in the Golden Age of Photography.



Good photography, whatever that is, should elevate itself. But being intertwined with artistic expression, just about anything goes. So what's new? 

Photography is about inspiration, creativity, vision, technical abilities. It's always been that way, so I'm not sure there can be a Golden Age. Instead we have the never ending application of vision and ability through whatever tools are available.

And there are so many opinions nothing definitive can be offered. Just more pictures.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> It sounds to me like you place to much weight on technical detail.
> 
> The breadth of vision we see in Victorian photography simply dwarfs what we see today on photo sharing sites, despite the fact that there might be ten orders of magnitude more images.
> 
> I am not familiar with that book, so possibly it is not very representative, though.


lew does anyway, reading some his posts he seems to be at this for six years or so and learning processing the last few. Kind of like the restaurant shot he was processing for whatever reasons when I kind thought the photo was only worth a jpeg snap shot to start with (and probably more valuable as a unprocessed snapshot in my mind). Replicating is a learning tool.  I think he is In a learn phase himself on processing and technicals, still trying to copy previous styles with his photoshop. Half of these questions he posts I believe revolve more around him and deciding the road for his own photography than anything else . I don't blame him though I am just starting such a phase trying to learn some at least basic processing. Mostly because I need to know technicals and processing if for no other reason than to not be ignorant. Give lew a couple more years maybe he will be out of the phase knowing whatever he wanted to know and his mindset may change again. He reads this book and suddenly the thread is made. He posts his original view and uses the feedback to judge how sound the view is. Then writes in his blog. learning himself at the same time. I think this is how lew "filters".  cause he/ We all go through phases and constantly learn is my guess. Next year I am going to be in the phase where everything is tilted, on the third line, selective color and out of focus. Be warned.  But I will know more about processing.


----------



## sleist (Jan 4, 2015)

bribrius said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > It sounds to me like you place to much weight on technical detail.
> ...



Perhaps you should listen more and talk less.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 4, 2015)

terri said:


> You seem to have a strong bias towards digital processes and what you perceive as “technical perfection.”  It seems to matter a great deal to you, because your question implies conflict by its presence in art.  That’s all well and good, but probably makes you less than objective when judging art.  A judge who is giving points for the _nostalgia_ of a process seems inappropriate; it’s another type of bias.  Photos displayed for judging are meant to be viewed as a finished work.
> I hope you can appreciate that this assessment could have been made 100 years ago, word for word!



It seems that rather than talk about whether or not the digital age is the Golden Age of Photography, which is my opinion, those photogs with a heavy investment in traditional methods want to prove that I am somehow biased, incorrect or wrong. Instead of discussing the message, you end up discussing the messenger.



Fred Berg said:


> Film is alive and kicking.
> My understanding of your post is that it is a thinly veiled dig at film. It seems to me that you feel insecure about your efforts using digital; that you feel photographers who use film are given a head start. I would argue that this is nonsense and you should concentrate on your own preferred form of the art and let others do as they please.
> 
> Do you think, or are you suggesting that those using film shout about it from the rooftops - in order to get special consideration? This may happen and I can understand that you might find this annoying, but not everyone using film behaves in this way. Just as not everyone using digital is obsessed with its rapid technical advancement. There are those in both camps who are content to get on quietly with the important goal - photography.



I never said anything about 'shouting from the rooftops, but, wherever I judge, slide (film) images are judged independent of digital images; and the slide images are, on the average, lower in technical quality. Yes, a master photographer can produce wonderful slide images but for the average photographer, it is truly hit or miss.
If you don't believe that the average B&W image from film is less impressive than the digital images, then I can't disabuse you of that fantasy. Inevitably the film and darkroom origins are obvious in looking at the print and afaic, this awareness of the process is not relevant.
I have said before - and believe - that the only importance of technical issues are when when they interfere with the viewer's appreciation of the scene. To that end, It is rare that I see a b&w image, produced in a wet darkroom, that achieves the kind of pass-through invisible technical perfection that a good digital image produces.
I look for the image as an end point not to appreciate that it was shot with 'Kodak Superduperextamonoclourchrome 20054 XTC' and printed on some specific paper.

When I lived in Colorado, my fishing partner just worshiped his bamboo fly rods and used them, regardless of the situation and the required additional care - even when the rod itself didn't work as well for what we were doing. I knew I could keep on fishing for another fifteen minutes while carefully disassembled his rods, wiped them down and stowed them in their cases. He loved the experience of fishing with them.



sleist said:


> I think many examples of great photography from the past are timeless.  There is a significant percentage however that, at least as far as I'm concerned, need to be appreciated within the context of when and how they were shot. * From a purely uneducated observer's perspective, today's ease and pervasiveness of photographic imagery has "raised" the bar on what is generally considered great/interesting photography.*  Those with more experience in pre-digital techniques, developing, and printing may look at these works with a different set of emotional filters and the image may resonate more for them as a result.
> That being said, just shooting with film does not excuse the photographer from creating crap and getting extra credit because it's film.
> 
> *Should images be judged by how (or when) they were created*?  Does it matter?  Are someone's blurry/noisy digital street shots worse than those shot with film years ago simply because the technology was available to have made the digital shots technically better, but the photographer chose not to (or failed to).  Does the fact that I can take a cell phone picture and make it look 100 yrs old by applying a filter in photoshop diminish the impact of the older photo?  Can we judge images by content only?  Should we?



I don't care about by whom,  how or when the image was created.
I was at a large photo show in DC that featured galleries from all over the US and every significant photographic artist I could think of was represented in the prints displayed. There were, for me, enlightening conclusions I came away with.
Many of the iconic images that we see and almost revere, when seen 'in the flesh' in real life, were really unimpressive. All of the images displayed had price tags starting at $3,000 and up - going to $40,000. In the last room I went into the pictures were as impressive, beautifully done and I was stunned to see that the prices were in the hundreds rather than the thousands. It turned out that these were images from a local photo cooperative and all the pictures were contemporary.
When I look at a picture, I don't care by whom, when or how it was done, I see only the picture as it is.



sashbar said:


> I often see how photographers post a picture with a rather low IQ, that has basically poor and uninteresting composition and content. You know, the kind of a shot about nothing that would be deleted without thinking twice on a digital camera. But the guy posts it and adds that this is some Kodak Superduperextamonoclourchrome 20054 XTC. Had he not mentioned it, I would have thought - poor, boring photo, why is it here. Then I see it is film and think: OK, fair enough. SuperduperKodak. Might be rare. Might be just 35 shots in the roll.
> 
> If a photog mentions that it is film, does it mean he shouts from the roof?  I am sure he does not think so, but it sound like that to me.  Probably there is some meaning in mentioning what film was used. To me it does not matter, what matters is the end result.
> 
> What does it all say about film photography? I do not know. Probably nothing. Probably it says that film photography is more about the process than the result these days. I very rarely see modern film images that are kicking. Probably they exist somewhere.  How many pros that make a living on photography shoot film?



I couldn't agree with this post by Sashbar more. I understand that the film photographer might have more invested emotionally in their image because of the effort and process involved. If I am given food to eat, should I care that the ingredients were raised locally, gathered by hands and prepared in a specifically arduous manner - say help in the chef's bare hand over a charcoal fire?
IMO, no.
I care only for the final product.

My opinion is, as it was before, that the digital age is the Golden Age, opening the art by removing some of the artificial technical barriers that existed before.
If an artist can conceive of it, it is possible to do it.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

sleist said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...


I listen. I actually keep a mental tally. I have you marked down for the one way street photo for valuable insight on overuse  of noise reduction and composition for a cars placement and not posting different versions of the same photo. you are one in eight posters I have retained valuable input from this past year. ysarex down for explaining tonal range. lew down for some processing insights and lighting on a portrait etc. etc. etc.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> If an artist can conceive of it, it is possible to do it.



And that is both a blessing and a curse.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to have a strong bias towards digital processes and what you perceive as “technical perfection.”  It seems to matter a great deal to you, because your question implies conflict by its presence in art.  That’s all well and good, but probably makes you less than objective when judging art.  A judge who is giving points for the _nostalgia_ of a process seems inappropriate; it’s another type of bias.  Photos displayed for judging are meant to be viewed as a finished work.
> ...


lew, just reading this. it becomes apparent to me that you really aren't into photography at all. Just the final image is not photography, nor by your own omission you declare yourself the value of work isn't based on how you like it or technical perfections or appeal. it isn't photography you are into, it is products. Photography is a life, art, craft. It isn't a product for anyone that takes it seriously. you are out in left field here. Product thinking is for wedding photographers or simple retail. Not the entirety of what photography is. you're wrong. And the entire art world would say you are wrong. The best art is not based on appeal or how well you like it, it goes much much deeper than that.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 4, 2015)

limr said:


> It's all true. Because of the ability to make sharper, more saturated, more technically perfect images, this has become the standard of greatness. If any deficiency in exposure or sharpness exists in the photo, these are flaws to be eliminated - and these days, this means 'shopping them out. It's pretty clear that 'technical' has a narrow definition, and 'greatness' is being defined just as narrowly.
> 
> So 'technical' doesn't - or shouldn't - just mean _digital_ process. And yet film and digital shots are being judged by the same technical details even though the process is different and the outcome will inevitably be different. People talk about "technical perfection" and they automatically mean what a digital camera can produce. I've seen plenty of film shots that could be considered technical masterpieces. They don't look the same as a technically perfect photo from a digital camera, but they are technically perfect nonetheless..



This is a straw man that you have set up rather than reply to what I said.
I didn't say that technical perfection was limited to digital images.
I said the the film process, as it is seen here and many places, generally produced images where the process itself intruded visible into the final product.  
In other words, most images made with 35 mm equivalent film products look like film and, imo, lean too much on that 'look'.

I have a good friend who shoots 4x5 and larger cameras.  He takes his time and the results are as beautiful as I have ever seen, both technically and artistically. Looking at his work on the Internet doesn't do it justice. His workflow bends the situation to his needs, he scouts the situation and decides on where the light must be when he shoots and then returns days or months later when the light is correct for his shot. His does his own developing and he uses a drum scanner to digitize the image for editing and printing. 
Another friend shoots classic mountain landscapes with a Nikon3x and is an exquisite printer.  Her work is carried by several fine galleries in the West and it is indistinguishable from the finest large format film b&w.

Their work is beautiful and, most important to me, the process is unseen in the final product.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

The fact that Lew does not see what's so great about the iconic images tells me immediately that he and I are looking for different things in images.

What he's looking for I shan't speculate.


----------



## sleist (Jan 4, 2015)

bribrius said:


> lew, just reading this. it becomes apparent to me that you really aren't into photography at all. Just the final image is not photography, nor by your own omission you declare yourself the value of work isn't based on how you like it or technical perfections or appeal. it isn't photography you are into, it is products. Photography is a life, art, craft. It isn't a product for anyone that takes it seriously. you are out in left field here. Product thinking is for wedding photographers or simple retail. Not the entirety of what photography is. you're wrong. And the entire art world would say you are wrong. The best art is not based on appeal or how well you like it, it goes much much deeper than that.



The final image is everything.  But what is a final image?
Photographic frames of mind:

Concept - The photographer has an idea he/she wants to express visually.

Seeing - The photographer "sees" a scene that expresses his/her vision regarding the concept.

Shooting - The photographer captures "the scene" in such a way as to provide ample opportunity to express the "mind's eye" vision.

Processing - The photographer understands that it is the mind, and not the eye, that "sees".  Processing brings the mind back into the image.

Printing - The photograph becomes a physical entity.  A photograph exists in the real world.  Until then, it is still a concept.

Film required the last step - no photo could exist without a printed image.  Digital (with the help of the internet) made the last step "seem" unnecessary.
I think a "photo" needs to exist in the real world.
Until a digital photo is printed, I don't think it can be compared to film.

Then, and only then, can it be judged on its own merits.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 4, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> The fact that Lew does not see what's so great about the iconic images tells me immediately that he and I are looking for different things in images.
> 
> What he's looking for I shan't speculate.



And i don't think he has ever seen a good wet print, for me digital prints do not compare


----------



## gsgary (Jan 4, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > It's all true. Because of the ability to make sharper, more saturated, more technically perfect images, this has become the standard of greatness. If any deficiency in exposure or sharpness exists in the photo, these are flaws to be eliminated - and these days, this means 'shopping them out. It's pretty clear that 'technical' has a narrow definition, and 'greatness' is being defined just as narrowly.
> ...



If you good friend wet printed them they would be much better than a digital print


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> The fact that Lew does not see what's so great about the iconic images tells me immediately that he and I are looking for different things in images.
> 
> What he's looking for I shan't speculate.


he just doesn't get it.  Given a kia or a 57 chevy he would wonder why the 57 chevy was worth more and more sought after when the kia was made under higher technological standards and meeting current industry processing standards..  Could say the same thing for anything hand assembled vs. assembly line. He isn't following why one could be worth more than the other and why. But those that know cars know why, those that know woodworking know why, those that collect guns, boats,  memorabilia of any type, and ART know why.  those that know the field KNOW why. He just don't know..  Like if you go to a auction all the don't knows bid on whatever they bid on.....  But then a piece comes up and out of group only five people bid but the price goes up ten times higher. The don't knows are wondering what the five people know and look around confused. why are only five people bidding this and why is it worth s much more? They don't know.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

I know for an absolute fact that Lew had seen excellent wet prints. I've seen some of the same museum shows he has.

The difference in our viewpoints is not founded on ignorance either way.

It's always tempting to assume that when you don't agree with some fellow that he is an idiot. It's also wrong some of the time.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 4, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> The fact that Lew does not see what's so great about the iconic images tells me immediately that he and I are looking for different things in images.
> What he's looking for I shan't speculate.





gsgary said:


> And i don't think he has ever seen a good wet print, for me digital prints do not compare



You don't really know anything about my experience -14 years shooting and processing film and the last 9  digital - and rather than
responding to my initial statement you try to disparage my opinions.


----------



## sleist (Jan 4, 2015)

I feel like the real question here is being ignored.

This is not (IMHO) a digital vs. film argument.
I think this is about whether or not "the process of capture" should be considered when evaluating the quality of an image.

My feeling is that it should not.
An image is either good or bad (as interpreted through the experiential filter of the viewer) and the method of capture should be irrelevant.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 4, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that Lew does not see what's so great about the iconic images tells me immediately that he and I are looking for different things in images.
> ...



For me the process of taking the shot is as important as the finished print and i will always prefer that on film


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

sleist said:


> I feel like the real question here is being ignored.
> 
> This is not (IMHO) a digital vs. film argument.
> I think this is about whether or not "the process of capture" should be considered when evaluating the quality of an image.
> ...


but in art the artist and the artist process right down to the framing and paper used in print are all considerations in desirability and determining value as a piece are they not? Seems I have read more than one collector handbook specifically stating how to value art and I cant recall any saying ignore the process but often help determine value from process right down to type of print. The very aspect of photography in that more than one can be printed vs. painting which speaks of its process determines most photographs are less valuable than paintings. That is why also considered in process is type of print, paper, number of copies, limited editions, first second third additions. No different than buying a first edition collector book on certain paper by a certain writer and often it is the errors in a work and blemishes or misprints that hold the higher values. And the original script worth much more than any of the edited and cleaned up versions. Many styles of art are based entirely on process. This is where I get confused on how process cant or doesn't matter because I cant find the evidence to support that anywhere.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 4, 2015)

bribrius said:


> This is where I get confused on how process cant or doesn't matter because I cant find the evidence to support that anywhere.


Lew's been making the distinction throughout that process shouldn't trump results.  The process shouldn't matter at all if the result is crap.

There's a difference between using a pocket knife to carve a one of a kind intricate and very detailed horse and rider, and using it to make a one in a million pointy stick.  For the first, yes process matters.  But for the second, not at all.

Similarly, if old photographic processes are used to make a true masterpiece, then process can matter as a factor in the photographer's skill with those processes.  But if it's used to make just another boring snapshot, the process was used to make the equivalent of just another pointy stick.

Nonetheless, some people seem to give that photographic pointy stick a lot of credit it doesn't necessarily deserve.

That's the distinction that I see Lew pointing out, and I think he has a valid point.

Photographers throughout the history of the medium have used the tools and technology available to them.  Some used them well and created masterpieces - of their day and the technological abilities of that age.  Others used the same techniques and technology and produced nothing but junk.

Just like today.  

But we can see the image quality progression over the entire history of photography, which is incontrovertible.  If someone of today traveled back in time to the earliest periods of the history of photography with a photo made today, with it's clarity, sharpness, color and basic modern compositional understanding, it would have been hailed as a true masterpiece, while today it might be regarded as just another snapshot.

I see Lew pointing that out, and I think he has a valid point.

Throughout the history of photography, some people use the techniques and technology available to them to shoot a few images and turn out masterpieces, while others can snap their shutter tens of thousands of times, producing nothing but crap, and then spend hour after hour after hour just deleting or throwing away all that crap, whether they're negs, slides, prints or files.

I fully agree with those who say that, in the end, all that really matters is the final photograph.  No matter how you get there, you should be trying to make masterpieces, not being satisfied with crap and justifying it by saying the process matters as much or more.

I say: Strive to be a masterpiece producer, not just a camera operator, no matter what technology and techniques you prefer to use.  And stop acting like the techniques and technology you use are by default the best, and anyone who doesn't agree is a "know nothing" or idiot.  If your actual results are crap instead of masterpieces, you've got no right to crow about how you made them and then put others down for choosing different methods, even by inference.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

Just to sketch out the sort of differences that can arise, a personal example.

Stieglitz took a photo called The Steerage in 1907. For years I struggled with this thing. It is part of the canon. It is a Great Image.

When I approached it as it were as a child, I felt that, wow, that's great. When I approached it as a photographer I could make no sense of it. It appears a pointless jumble.

Only after studying classical composition as she is understood by painters was I able to make academic sense of it. The arrangement of forms is obviously superb, once you have the right background. It can always be understood and seen as terrific, I only had trouble with it when my thinking was clouded with the half-assed ideas of composition photographers are often saddled with by their peers

Does this mean Lew is just ignorant? Certainly not. Possibly, though, something or things he knows are getting in the way of his appreciating certain images as many of us do.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > This is where I get confused on how process cant or doesn't matter because I cant find the evidence to support that anywhere.
> ...


where is the evidence to support this?  quick search i just turned up a 700k boring photo of a tricycle valuation based near entirely on process and a wiki type article stating the first thing they do when valuing unknown work is tossing out aesthetics as they aren't part of the valuation. there is no masterpiece .Why This Photograph is Worth $578,500  some of the most unappealing art is floating the highest valuations. I am asking a SIMPLE question. This final image philosophy, WHERE is the evidence to support this?


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

What? The trike is bloody brilliant.

Just because it's trivial to copy (well, not super hard at any rate) doesn't mean it ain't great.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

Also whether process matters or not, and if so, matters in what sense, is itself a matter of personal taste.


----------



## sashbar (Jan 4, 2015)

When a hobbyist starts talking about an artistic process, I get a bit confused, because an artistic process has very little if anything to do with a hobby 

 A process brings great pleasure to a hobbyist.  For an artist it is an intellectual, emotional and creative torture he simply has to go through the get the result. 

Sort of the difference between the guy who goes to the gym to be fit and the one who is he'll bent to win the gold.  The only difference is an artist if fighting mostly with himself.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 4, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> We are now in the Golden Age of Photography. Technical barriers are low if not gone and the road is comparably easy for the eye and vision to create. The problem is not the achieving but the flood of work that hides or even drowns the possible best of it.
> 
> We are in the golden age of photography but the most difficult problem is how to find and elevate the greats of this era.



Ironically the lowering of the technical barriers has led to this regrettable situation. Photography is now more accessible than it has ever been; it is awash with low grade chit being passed off as art by people with cameras and a computer who will insist on calling themselves photographers for some unfathomable reason.

Please don't misunderstand me, there are people out there using camera/computer combos that are photographers, but the majority are and will continue to be people with a camera and computer.

Photography got easier so spotting the good stuff is like searching for a needle in a haystack.

On the other hand the advances have opened up photography for many many people who would otherwise have contented themselves with an instamatic and snapshots a few short years ago. 

A poisoned chalice? possibly.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> What? The trike is bloody brilliant.
> 
> Just because it's trivial to copy (well, not super hard at any rate) doesn't mean it ain't great.


I actually love the trike, it was used for a quick example.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

sashbar said:


> When a hobbyist starts talking about an artistic process, I get a bit confused, because an artistic process has very little if anything to do with a hobby
> 
> A process brings great pleasure to a hobbyist.  For an artist it is an intellectual, emotional and creative torture he simply has to go through the get the result.
> 
> Sort of the difference between the guy who goes to the gym to be fit and the one who is he'll bent to win the gold.  The only difference is an artist if fighting mostly with himself.




This is a ridiculous over-simplification, and tries to separate two categories which overlap tremendously.


----------



## terri (Jan 4, 2015)

_It seems that rather than talk about whether or not the digital age is the Golden Age of Photography, which is my opinion, those photogs with a heavy investment in traditional methods want to prove that I am somehow biased, incorrect or wrong. Instead of discussing the message, you end up discussing the messenger._

hee hee, are you denying a bias while at the same time stating your posts are just your opinion?      Admitting a bias is no disgrace; we all have them.   It cannot be a surprise to you that on this forum when you make the statements you've made, people will recognize it and call you on it.   Seems a bit disingenuous to call foul on "discussing the messenger" when, in fact, you just did it with your words above, and are taking issue with those who have stated differing opinions.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 4, 2015)

I have a preference based on thought and decision.
So I come to each image and look at the image as it is.
And I don't give any credit for effort put into it because that indeed would be a bias,
If you do give credit for process, that's your decision, based on personal preference - and is a bias.
Sort of like social promotions.
I believe in meritocracies in photography.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 4, 2015)

I remember on another forum, someone I knew as a decent photographer, just gushing dramatically over a picture of some random dog.
We were PMing about some other issue and, in passing, I asked her why she was so complimentary about a truly ordinary snapshot.
She replied that she had a dog like that once and she just loved dogs.

That's bias.
If you like all alternative processed pictures because they are alternative processes, that's like liking all pictures of puppies.
Yes, it's human nature but, to quote Katherine Hepburn in the African Queen, 'Human nature is what we were put on Earth to rise above.'


----------



## Buckster (Jan 4, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Why This Photograph is Worth $578,500


Do you think it's because it was shot with film?  How much of a factor of the price is it that it was shot with film?  Tell me why that's a factor in determining the worth of this photo.  Suppose it was an overexposed image of just the sidewalk shot on the same roll?  If it's not about the end image, but is instead about the process, why isn't every image on the roll worth just as much?  Explain it to me.



bribrius said:


> some of the most unappealing art is floating the highest valuations.


Ahhh... Now we're getting somewhere.  The value of "art" is in the hands of art "critics" and those who are willing to listen to them pontificate at length about the "value" and accept it as some sort of gospel truth.  Note that the buyers listening to those "critics" are themselves usually investors trying to use this "art" to make a profit by reselling later at a higher price, not themselves art "experts".

Of course, how many times have we seen these "critics" who are such "experts" and value these works exposed with their noses in the air and their sheepish tails between their legs when what they pontificated at length about how extraordinarily fantastic something is turns out to be a random splash of paint that fell onto the canvas protecting your rugs from the guy painting the rooms in your house, or works by random kindergartners or animals who splatter watercolors on a canvas in between licking it off the brush?

Recently, food critics got a "taste" of that medicine when someone presented McDonalds foods served up in appealing arrangements at a food critic's convention, where they expected to be sampling the world's greatest delicacies, so that's the way they treated them.  Oh!  They were indeed culinary delights!  But of course!

The value of real life photos, on the other hand, is determined by our clients, and by the end results alone.  They buy the prints of little Johnny, or the photos for the menu, or the photos for the catalog, or the photos for (fill in the blank here) because they find them appealing, or they don't buy them because they're crap.  They don't give a single whit about the process.  It's not at all the determining factor.



bribrius said:


> I am asking a SIMPLE question. This final image philosophy, WHERE is the evidence to support this?


It's in the reality of the people who buy real-world photos for their walls and products, NOT in the artificial valuations of museum pieces, as explained above.

The evidence you seek is right in front of you on your very own camera memory cards.  It's the reason you spend hour after hour after hour deleting the crap snaps you shoot.  You don't save them just because you took them.  You delete them because you recognize that the resulting images are crap, not worth printing, not worth saving, not worth trying to sell, not worth anything, not even to you, let alone to anyone else.


----------



## sashbar (Jan 4, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > When a hobbyist starts talking about an artistic process, I get a bit confused, because an artistic process has very little if anything to do with a hobby
> ...



I use the word "artist" very selectively. There were not many true artists in the history of photography, as far as I am concerned, and not a single one treated it as a hobby.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 4, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> I remember on another forum, someone I knew as a decent photographer, just gushing dramatically over a picture of some random dog.
> We were PMing about some other issue and, in passing, I asked her why she was so complimentary about a truly ordinary snapshot.
> She replied that she had a dog like that once and she just loved dogs.
> 
> ...



Speaking of Katherine Hepburn. As Anthony Hopkins playing Prince Richard in _The Lion in Winter_ says to her Eleanor of Aquitaine, "You're incomplete. The human parts of you are missing."

I think this is true if a photo is viewed with no consideration of the process involved in its creation. The image didn't come out of the blue after all, and art is a human endeavour.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Why This Photograph is Worth $578,500
> ...


clearly you didn't read the article accompanying the photo. But you did state your viewpoint which centers entirely on selling average consumers likable products. .


----------



## Buckster (Jan 4, 2015)

bribrius said:


> clearly you didn't read the article accompanying the photo.


Actually, I read it when it was first published.  And clearly, you avoided all my questions and comments to you about it, as well as the accompanying associated points.



bribrius said:


> But you did state your viewpoint which centers entirely on selling average consumers likable products.


News flash: That's what 99.999% of photography is about.

Ask any working "photographer" if s/he makes his/her living selling "average consumer products" that we commonly refer to as "photographs", or if it's made selling museum pieces of tricycles shot with film, or if being a "photographer" is about being independently wealthy so that you can devote yourself to making black and white images of average scenes with an 8x10 view camera in hopes that someday after your long dead they'll be recognized as "masterpieces" by some "critic", without having to worry about making a living with any of it while alive.

"Photographer" and "photographs" in that last paragraph are clues to what "photography" actually is in the real world, btw.  Pointing a camera and snapping a shutter tens of thousands of times in order to make a bunch of files to spend hours deleting later isn't "photography", believe it or not.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

Buckster is actually wrong on one point. Collectors of high end art are not naive, and they know that they are quite likely to lose money on anything they buy. Art is never an investment.

They may buy it because they like it. They may buy it because it gives them membership in the exclusive club of high end art collectors. They may buy it as part of a complex shelter for some money. In fact they probably buy it for all those reasons at once and more besides.

Buying it with the intention of selling it for more later is silly and the rich are rarely that silly about money.

High end art isn't just a bunch of idiots buying crap. It's artificial, but no more so than any luxury market.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 4, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> If you like all alternative processed pictures because they are alternative processes, that's like liking all pictures of puppies.


Well said Lew. A $8,000 view camera can take a poor photo as can an $8,000 digital. To like either solely for it's origin would be foolish. A boring, poorly processed image is just that, regardless.  As I said, I feel there is room for both mediums 
Everyone with a film camera wants to be Ansel Adams. So to them I offer this quote

_"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them." Ansel Adams
_
I personally enjoy working with film and enjoy the look of film, but just as much, I also enjoy viewing a fine photo, regardless how it was produced.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 4, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Buckster is actually wrong on one point. Collectors of high end art are not naive, and they know that they are quite likely to lose money on anything they buy. Art is never an investment.
> 
> They may buy it because they like it. They may buy it because it gives them membership in the exclusive club of high end art collectors. They may buy it as part of a complex shelter for some money. In fact they probably buy it for all those reasons at once and more besides.
> 
> ...


Now who's wielding the 600 lb hair splitter (and ignoring the meat of the post)?


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

Fair point, fair point! You may assume that since I only called out one minor side remark as wrong that I agree entirely with the rest of your remarks


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 4, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> Speaking of Katherine Hepburn. As Anthony Hopkins playing Prince Richard in _The Lion in Winter_ says to her Eleanor of Aquitaine, "You're incomplete. The human parts of you are missing."
> 
> I think this is true if a photo is viewed with no consideration of the process involved in its creation. The image didn't come out of the blue after all, and art is a human endeavour.



That's true.
The thought behind it is important but the physical process isn't.

If we give credit for the difficulty involved, why should we limit that just to the photographic process?
How about if I stand on one foot while taking the picture, or stand on my hands and press the shutter button with my nose?
How about if I vow to take one image only and that is the sum and total of my entire creative output?
How about if I wear a hair shirt while walking around making photographs?
How about if I use a mule to drag my wagon with a wet plate darkroom inside? 
How about I use film and punch a tiny hole in the side of an oatmeal container and use a piece of tape for a shutter?

All those are interesting side notes but neither add nor subtract from the worth of an image.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

Rick58 said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > If you like all alternative processed pictures because they are alternative processes, that's like liking all pictures of puppies.
> ...


I am not even looking at this as film vs. digital, but rather how someone can discount the medium and process in any art and only look at the final result. I actually never even heard of such a concept before until I joined this forum where it seems oddly prevalent.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

Why shouldn't any of those count?

Our perception of a thing is surely based on all that we know of it. Why should photographs be different?


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

If I make an exact copy of an Adams, a Lik, an Emerson, I can assure you that it would not have the same value to a buyer.

Well, maybe the Lik copy.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Buckster is actually wrong on one point. Collectors of high end art are not naive, and they know that they are quite likely to lose money on anything they buy. Art is never an investment.
> 
> They may buy it because they like it. They may buy it because it gives them membership in the exclusive club of high end art collectors. They may buy it as part of a complex shelter for some money. In fact they probably buy it for all those reasons at once and more besides.
> 
> ...


He is mostly right on commercial photography. There is those wedding photographers for example that advertise and concentrate soley in shooting film or in video. Those are both examples of concentrating on both process and final result. someone paying to have their wedding shot in bw film Is not the norm.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 4, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Why shouldn't any of those count?
> 
> Our perception of a thing is surely based on all that we know of it. Why should photographs be different?



Because we are grownups and not in grade school.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 4, 2015)

That's not an answer. That's just an insult.


----------



## terri (Jan 4, 2015)

Ho hum.   Here is Lew's opening salvo:

_After judging a fair amount in the local camera clubs, I grew to accept that the average digital images were inevitably 'better' than slide images. We, I, would see images taken on film and printed in the darkroom and accept less technical achievement than would be accepted or required in a digital image. Film got points both because of the effort and technical obstacles conquered and because of the nostalgia component._

And here he is now:

_I have a preference based on thought and decision.
So I come to each image and look at the image as it is.
And I don't give any credit for effort put into it because that indeed would be a bias,
If you do give credit for process, that's your decision, based on personal preference - and is a bias._

When the OP starts to contradict himself, we've come full circle and the discussion becomes dull.   Toss in the insults to fellow members and you know the discussion is basically over!   

Personally, I'm done with this thread.   Play nice, all, so you can keep it going if you'd like.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of Katherine Hepburn. As Anthony Hopkins playing Prince Richard in _The Lion in Winter_ says to her Eleanor of Aquitaine, "You're incomplete. The human parts of you are missing."
> ...


saw a Netflix documentary where national geographic gave credit to its highlighted photographers for the length they went to just to get a shot. From skydiving to rappelling into a volcano. Seems pretty clear they aren't just looking at the final image but the process. The entire doc wasn't about the actual shots but what the photogs did to get them.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 4, 2015)

I didn't mean that I gave points for effort but that is the way that the products of film are seen by most people.
Film and digital images were judged separately and the better results in the film categories were, on average, less in quality than the digital.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 4, 2015)

bribrius said:


> saw a Netflix documentary where national geographic gave credit to its highlighted photographers for the length they went to just to get a shot. From skydiving to rappelling into a volcano. Seems pretty clear they aren't just looking at the final image but the process. The entire doc wasn't about the actual shots but what the photogs did to get them.


What, no documentary about what the photographers who make crap images go through to make them?  What a surprise!  

Why, it's almost like nobody cares about the process at all if it results in crap images, even though it might be the same process used to make astoundingly great images.  It's almost like the end result is the real difference, and becomes the determining factor for whether anyone would even consider caring about the process at all.

Gee, I wonder how many people viewed those images in NG WITHOUT knowing the process, and appreciated them anyway?  And on the flip side of that coin, I wonder how many didn't appreciate them at all because they didn't know the process?


----------



## bribrius (Jan 4, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > saw a Netflix documentary where national geographic gave credit to its highlighted photographers for the length they went to just to get a shot. From skydiving to rappelling into a volcano. Seems pretty clear they aren't just looking at the final image but the process. The entire doc wasn't about the actual shots but what the photogs did to get them.
> ...


 I think it is a combination of the two. while the final result usually (usually, not always, especially in art) takes precedence the more knowledgeable consider the process as well. Knowing the process can give greater appreciation and value to and for the work.  Far as ng I am sure those that enjoyed the photos found even more appreciation in them knowing the lengths gone to in attaining them.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 5, 2015)

This is pretty long, so I am going to break it up in to two posts, loosely related.

Like Lew, I try pretty hard to look at images without respect to process. To a degree. In particular, I try not to award points for degree of difficulty. However, I do respect the process in the following way: I don't deduct points for process either. If you're shooting TMZ, I'm not going to complain about how the picture is all grainy.

One could argue that if you're choosing to shoot TMZ then at least the grain should serve a purpose, and I disagree. It's simply the medium chosen, and need not lend itself especially well. One might as well judge paintings for not being sculptures. Is the image good? Is the execution reasonably good? Then I call it good.

Are you shooting pinhole? Then I'm not going to complain about a bit of softness.

I try not to award, or deduct, points for film. I try not to award, or deduct, points for digital either. If you shoot digital and your highlights are little blocked up, well, that's OK as long as it's not so awful as to make the picture unseeable.

You do get extra points if the medium you've chosen serves the concept particularly well, though.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 5, 2015)

So how DO I judge?

Well, photography is essentially conceptual art. The concept is what matters, not the print, for the simple reason that the print is easy to replicate. Any competent technician can stamp out fake Adams or fake Egglestons or whatever all day long. Adams wrote a set of very helpful books that give you detailed instructions for stamping out fake Adams.

The same it true for other arts, although the art world denies it loudly. It turns out, for instance, that Vermeer was not a divinely inspired craftsman, with an un-duplicatable mastery of the brush. He had good ideas for pictures, and sound technical skills for executing them, and that is all. The art world was very very angry with van Meergeren for proving it, though.

Anyways. If it's conceptual art, then surely what one ought to judge is the concept.

I judge an image based on whether it is a competent execution of a good idea. The reason your picture of a tricycle isn't very good is because you don't have a concept -- Eggleston does. Your picture of a trike, if you're very very careful, might actually be an excellent image, but it's an Eggleston, not a Whoever-you-are.

So process, generally, is merely the vehicle for rendering the concept. Sometimes, if it's really well done, it's a particularly felicitous vehicle, in which case you get extra points. Sometimes, it's a terrible vehicle, in which case you lose points. Sometimes it's  perfectly good vehicle so ill-used that you can lose points. Generally, though, if the process is not terrible intrusive, and it renders well enough that I can see and judge the concept, I'm fine.

This is one of many reasons I decline to give critique, by the way. 99% of my critique would be "sucks, no concept" and the other 1% of the time it would turn into a big fight about how THE FACT THAT THE FOCUS WAS MISSED IS BASICALLY THE END OF THE WORLD.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 5, 2015)

'The Golden Age of British Photography' was the name of an exhibit in 1985 and the book that accompanied it; I think it was just what the exhibit was called rather than a reference to any particular golden age.
The Golden Age of British Photography Portfolio - prints - Aperture Foundation

The exhibit by the Victoria & Albert museum in London displayed early photographs, some of which had been recently discovered, in a partnership with the Philadelphia Museum of Art and included photos from their collection as well. The photographs would have been done in a time not that long after images were first able to be 'fixed' so they could be preserved, and using early plate cameras focused by moving the bellows with shutter speeds of I and B ('instant' and Bulb).
British Stand Camera Information - Antique and Vintage Cameras
Antique & 19th Century Cameras

I think the technical aspect of photography is part of taking good pictures, and if workmanship is lacking it can detract from the artistic quality. But photos would need to be viewed taking into consideration what equipment was available at the time historically or what medium or technology has been used; what's done for example as an alternate process is going to be different than what's done with a DSLR but either can be done using the techniques and technology well or not. 

I use the same lenses on my digital camera and on one of my film rangefinders; neither is necessarily better, it's more a matter of developing skills as a photographer using either. I like the quality of wet prints, the process of shooting film, the hands on aspect of alt processes, but I can photograph and print good quality images digitally as well. There may be preferences but there isn't necessarily a right or wrong, it seems to be comparing apples and oranges; I think good is good even if the technologies may be different.


----------



## Nettles (Jan 6, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> There may be preferences but there isn't necessarily a right or wrong, it seems to be comparing apples and oranges; I think good is good even if the technologies may be different.



Very well said.


----------

