Considering what we are.

[pocketshaver]

In terms of equipment capability. We haven't really progressed much throughout the ages. Seriously we haven't.

This must be the falsest statement I have read about photography in the recent past. I don't know who "we" is in this context, but replacing it with "the imaging industry" I'd say that imaging producing technology has advanced enormously in the last 50 years. It is the same level of advancement that has moved us from typewriters to modern computers. There is just no comparison.

Now, I am 60 and I love to shoot film. It's fun, and I can create good images in the darkroom. I can even print images manually and make each image unique. But this doesn't take away the incredible advancements the industry has made in imaging.

IF the industry has made HUGE advancements in quality, why has the art of taking photos become the art of photo shop and post production computer work?

If the claim that digital cameras have given use a device that has the ability to take photos without needing to have external lighting, why has that "advancement" simply become one of having to use a computer to adjust the light balance, darkness, lightness, of a photo we took..

When in the "dark ages" we would have either waited for better light, or used a flash or camera on a tripod in order to take a picture in less then ideal lighting?

 

[Derrel]

I think you are prone to overgeneralizing and I'm beginning to wonder about your anti- technological rantings and ravings. The art of digital photography has recently become the art of off-camera lighting within the past decade. 30 years ago only people like me, who had real Studio lighting gear, or even umbrellas and speedlights, were the exception rather than the rule, but on November 16th I went to a group photo shoot at a haunted house, and there were loads of people there, even a few 6-month beginners, and they all had their own off-camera lighting setups. In many ways digital photography has "upped the game" of many practitioners today

I think you have tremendously over- emphasized, to the point of ridiculousness, the impact that Photoshop has on image- making. I saw photos from the group shoot from about 20 different people and their images looked remarkably un-Photoshopped to me. I was there.I saw the rooms.I saw the makeup.I saw the models. The finished work that I saw was largely confined to simple global adjustments. The photos had extremely little evidence of NOT having been created in front of the lens. In other words, the photos that I saw were basically as-shot, and were not creations of Photoshop, but were instead basically direct photos made by 20 or so different photographers of varying ages and backgrounds and gender.

 

[Derrel]

Adjusting images in the film darkroom was what made the work of Ansel Adams so compelling. I think you should re-evaluate your dismay over adjustment of images. As Adams used to say the " negative is the score, but the print is the performance." I think perhaps you should look at the work of Jerry Uelsman before you start whinging about how Photoshop has ruined photography.

It seems to me that your knowledge of photographic history is rather narrow, and you complaining about things like exposure adjustment is really off the mark because adjusting the print to make it lighter or darker has been done for almost 150 years or more by people who shot on film negatives and who used enlarging techniques. Back in the years of contact printing, it was much more difficult to adjust exposure in the darkroom, but chemicals and literally etching knives were used to make the photographer's vision come to life on prints which had areas which needed lightening or darkening chemicals such as Farmer's Reducer and intensifier were used for local adjustments in a manner very similar to what we do today in Photoshop or another image processing application.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

IF the industry has made HUGE advancements in quality, why has the art of taking photos become the art of photo shop and post production computer work?

Can't you see that you're measuring the value and advancement of the technology by the the aesthetic of the artistic value of the images?

Again you assume that better technical spec means a better camera and therefore a better photo. Or in this case you make a broad assumption that because you think everybody's spending so much time in Photoshop their photos are bad. Therefore the the technical advancement must be nil because better camera must make better picture so we shouldn't be spending so much time in PS...

1. Not everybody does spend time in Photoshop.
2. It beats being in the darkroom, and is an obvious progression with digital photography, (or where you only deriving the history of photography from your limited experience with digital?).
3. It's not because the camera is bad or the technology defective.

 

[Derrel]

Photoshop killed The Art of Photography as much as the microwave killed the art of fine cooking.

 

[texxter]

This can't possibly be a serious discussion. I am out.

 

[dxqcanada]

I hate to say this ... but I do find pocketshaver's discussions "difficult" for some reason.

 

[pocketshaver]

Its OK if you find it difficult to talk about. Seriously its ok.

The voightlander Vitomatic II is considered to have been a 109.00 camera for the common man/poor masses in 1958 when it was introduced. Thing is, you can go online and find photographs made with them, that are as good as anything your big fancy D7200 can do.

But the thing is, the photographers didn't say a damned thing about doing any editing to the photo after they hit the shutter button. But SO many folks cant release a photo made with a D7200 WITHOUT adjusting something. Even though they may have taken 30 photos to get that "1 good photo that was worthy of being photoshopped".

How is that technological advancement?

 

[Grandpa Ron]

The fact that you can override all the automatic controls and operate a high tech DSLR as though it was a vintage camera, should tell you that technology provides time saving convenience and a reduction in errors.

When you add the multitude of quality improvements over the years, modern gear wins hands down.

I love shooting film and holding a vintage camera, knowing that was built with pride by some long dead skilled craftsman; or resurrecting the twin lens of my high school years. But that is just nostalgia, a pleasant pastimes for sure, but simply nostalgia.

Also I have swapped my lenses dozens of time. I have never had a dust or dirt issue. If I do, that is why they make sensor cleaning kits.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Its OK if you find it difficult to talk about. Seriously its ok.

The voightlander Vitomatic II is considered to have been a 109.00 camera for the common man/poor masses in 1958 when it was introduced. Thing is, you can go online and find photographs made with them, that are as good as anything your big fancy D7200 can do.

But the thing is, the photographers didn't say a damned thing about doing any editing to the photo after they hit the shutter button. But SO many folks cant release a photo made with a D7200 WITHOUT adjusting something. Even though they may have taken 30 photos to get that "1 good photo that was worthy of being photoshopped".

How is that technological advancement?

Once again, you've noticed that artistic achievement hasn't advanced in line with megapixel count or lens sharpness. But instead of making the more obvious conclusion that human artistic achievement can't be measured in megapixels or seen on an MTF chart you use it to prove that camera technology hasn't advanced.

You make broad unsupported assumptions, create generalizations from the top of your head and use word association to create abstract links between ideas, a better camera = a better photo = a better artistic talent shortened to a better camera = a better artistic talent.

A thought which, funnily enough, is derived from believing exactly the same marketing idea you railed against in your opening post. (Owning the technology makes you creative and therefore you need to keep buying...). You seem to be arguing about the contradictions in your own ideas, arguing against the idea that technology makes you creative while still making the broad assumption that a better camera = a better artistic talent, and hence the conclusion that cameras haven't advanced...



More people take more photos with more diversity, greater success and needing less technical knowledge that ever before. That's progress...

 

[Overread]

But the thing is, the photographers didn't say a damned thing about doing any editing to the photo after they hit the shutter button. But SO many folks cant release a photo made with a D7200 WITHOUT adjusting something. Even though they may have taken 30 photos to get that "1 good photo that was worthy of being photoshopped".

Um back then the internet didn't exist. The only way to display photos was in a gallery, a book or at a club. Most galleries won't note how a photo was edited (no matter the format); most artistic coffeebook books of photography won't list how they were made and even at the photo club unless its someone teaching and not just showing their photos, they might also not mention any details of how a photo was made.
That has nothing to do with the medium, its the presentation. You can bet that in clubs people would talk about the best chemical brands to use for developing; that schools would have taught a range of editing skills. Heck most of the names of processes in Photoshop are lifted directly from dark-room editing methods. Stalin famously had multiple people edited out of photos with himself as those people fell out of his favour and that was all film work.


Also don't forget a large generation of film photographers grew up with the photolab doing all the processing. They'd snap away and then take the film to the chemist and the chemist would do all the processing required. Of course those who sent them to higher end labs might have had more corrective work done and low to high end labs might well have done requests and editing adjustments if asked/part of the service.

All digital editing has done is make it easier for the photographer and also increased the range of options possible. Heck sometimes things like the reduced dynamic range of digital compared to film (esp in the earlier days of digital - its less big a gap now) meant that photos possible with a single film exposure required some editing (HDR/Tonemapping) to digital photos to achieve. Meanwhile the ability to blend photos made some process more practical. That you can automatically stack a bunch of photos together makes things like depth of field stacking and astronomy photography a LOT easier and extends the realms of what's possible.



Honestly you're just sounding ignorant of the whole process in both film and digital. You're also making a big assumption that "everyone is editing" which is blatantly not the case. There are many shooting in straight JPEG and the most they might edit is to crop the photo.

 

[pocketshaver]

my vitomatic is a camera, its made to take pictures. Its sooooo stupid technologically it merely needs someone to set aperture, shutter speed, and adjust the focus. It doesn't NEED to have special modes for taking photographs of my happy meal. Or a special mode for taking a portrait, it just does what the user says.

So should it be a question of, if photographic equipment is soo much more sophisticated, why haven't camera users adapted faster?

 

[Overread]

my vitomatic is a camera, its made to take pictures. Its sooooo stupid technologically it merely needs someone to set aperture, shutter speed, and adjust the focus. It doesn't NEED to have special modes for taking photographs of my happy meal. Or a special mode for taking a portrait, it just does what the user says.

So should it be a question of, if photographic equipment is soo much more sophisticated, why haven't camera users adapted faster?

That doesn't even make any sense. Camera users HAVE adapted.
Those who only want to take a portrait of their friend or family without learning anything kick their phone/camera into portrait mode and shoot away happily.
Those who know more and want to take a very specific photo a specific way set the manual settings on their camera to the settings they need - they might even use modern technology like histograms to aid them in their choices.
Those who know more and who are just out and around taking happy snaps - yeah - they might well use auto or portrait mode.

You realise that a huge amount of using a camera has nothing to do with art right? And that for many people using a camera they don't want to learn all the ins an outs. Heck can YOU program your own Operating System? Or your own software? You're using some form of computer yet you're likely using standard software options rather than making your own. Sure you could learn, nothing is stopping you, but for most peoples needs they don't need to spend 10 years learning to code to surf the internet and check their emails.

 

[The_Traveler]

In terms of equipment capability. We haven't really progressed much throughout the ages. Seriously we haven't.

my vitomatic is a camera, its made to take pictures. Its sooooo stupid technologically it merely needs someone to set aperture, shutter speed, and adjust the focus. It doesn't NEED to have special modes for taking photographs of my happy meal. Or a special mode for taking a portrait, it just does what the user says.

So should it be a question of, if photographic equipment is so much more sophisticated, why haven't camera users adapted faster?

I think that you and I live in different worlds. Making a good image and editing it either in a darkroom or in a computer are actually technical feats that were obstacles to many/most people. When I started in photography in the late 60's, my work was limited by my technical abilities, the access to equipment and facilities and finally by my talent and vision. The vast proportion of people clicked a P&S and sent it out to be processed. I worked away in the lab to produce in hours what would take me no time now.

The sophisticated equipment has removed most of the technological obstacles and the number of people taking photography more seriously has expanded as the obstacles to getting the image they want have been lowered.
If you are content to work as people did in the 60's, go right ahead if that satisfies you.

Yes, equipment has outstripped the capability of most photographers simply because it is much easier to include all the features in a limited range of cameras even if many or most photographers don't use them. My camera has a much more complete feature set than I use but it does have included the features I want and use.

I am free to work at making art (even mediocre art) without having to worry about pouring emulsion on glass plates.

 

[waday]

And there's a difference between a bridge/point-and-shoot and a fixed-lens camera.

Gosh, this is so true. The other day, I was using my Ricoh GRIII next to someone that had an early model Nikon D3xxx with kit lens. I tried to talk to them photographer to photographer, but they acted as though my camera was bupkis because to them it was a “point and shoot”. I left it as is without saying anything. Little did they know, it just showed how shallow and uninformed they were.

also, to add, I’m not saying that the Ricoh is a godsend of a camera nor is it “better than theirs”, but it is several years newer with same size (and newer) sensor, built in IS, etc...