The Golden Age of Photography

[photoguy99]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[terri]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

'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]

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.