Are photographers getting better - and why?

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.

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.

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...