The Golden Age of Photography

[gsgary]

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.

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

 

[bribrius]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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.

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

 

[bribrius]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[sashbar]

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]

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]

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.