Are photographers getting better - and why?

[Kingpatzer]

I think they're getting worse too.

Back in the olden days you still had uninteresting subjects, bad composition and poor lighting. And here, I think Alex is right, the proportions haven't changed at all.

But in the old days in order to do anything you had to know how to make a correct exposure. And most serious photographers knew how to operate in a darkroom as well. They understood how lenses, aperture, exposure time and film worked together to form the image in a way that just doesn't exist anymore.

But all that knowledge still matters in the digital world. Bryan Peterson talks about each image having one correct exposure for the desired artistic effect. But photographers today don't even understand what exposure IS let alone make conscious artistic choices about it (even if they are bad artistic choices!).

The reason is that most photographers today, even in the SLR world, have a point-n-shoot mentality. They don't choose their aperture, ISO, shutter speed or even focus point. They just aim and click.

So while in the old days you had 1 out of ten thousand people being photographers, those folks knew how cameras worked, and could make artistic choices around their subject matter. Now, they made the same proportion of bad artistic choices as we see today -- but they were at least artists in some sense of the word.

Today, maybe 1 in 1000 people are photographers (ten times as many as before), with the same proportion of artistic challenges, but only 1 in forty thousand understand photography (a quarter as many as before). The rest are just letting the camera make all the choices for them.

The above numbers are of course, pulled out of my rear end, but I think the relative proportions are about right, regardless of what the starting "1-out-of-#" is for photographers.

Where I think the difference really lies is that for the 1-in-40,000 who really does know what they're doing -- the level of equipment has gotten significantly better in the last 10 years. Far more of those photographer's images are "keepers" than in the past.

The films are better, the machines are better, the lenses are better, the meters are better, the af systems are better, and on the digital side the editing software is better . . . and it all adds up to more better pictures for those who know how to use the gear.

 

[usayit]

Very interesting thread....

Any photographer's here been around long enough to see changes in equipment that brought photography out to the masses? Do you see parallels from that time to the topic discussed here?

I'm sure back when only a select few had the ability, equipment, and knowledge to take a picture felt the same way when the general mass obtained access to photographic equipment.

Going farther back, I would image painters didn't regard photos as works of art.


I personally embrace the digital revolution even though I still prefer to keep one foot in traditional film. It has resparked a new found interest in photography in the wide public. Yeh.. a large majority are just "point and shooters" but there a lot of young people mixed in who are destined to be true photographers. Young people that might not have had a chance not too long ago.

I think the art is still there... I think true photographers are still around. They are just a bit more difficult to identify among the huge populous of poeple shooting photos. Those point and shooters have the intent to record their cheerished memories or to capture something that interest them... you "photographers" shouldn't feel threatened.

On another note...

If you drive an automatic and don't have any track experience or an interest in learning performance driving.. I don't regard you as a "driver" but just a "commuter". It doesn't mean that drivers are any worse... just more "commuters" out there. Thats just fine.. with me

 

[craig]

I think photographers (of all levels) are improving quickly and producing great images. I believe it is basically attributed to the information super highway and digital cameras. Main deal is that this generation has forsaken their tired rock and roll roots and now listens to Drum and Bass!!!!!

Seriously. Photography is now in the era of the 90 second photo lab. Photographers or folks taking pictures can work through that uncomfortable waiting period of getting the prints back from the lab. Hell they can even delete the bad shots in the camera. This alone is changing the art form in ways we have yet to realize. Strangely I think prints are falling by the way side. I question how many shots are posted as opposed to printed. That's kind of a problem. Definitely a whole other discussion.

Digi is providing the art form to the masses. The technology is becoming so advanced that it is not easy to take a poorly exposed or focused photograph. Exciting stuff for sure. It has been mentioned that this is hurting photography. That is only partly true. I think that as the photographer progresses they will be able to take this technology for what it is worth.

The web is helping in that information is global and readily accessible. The learning process has been greatly accelerated. Beautiful thing!!!!!

Photography has always been technology based. Our job as artists is too work with that technology. Personally photography takes a serious commitment. There is no way around that. Clearly some people put time into their work. Clearly some do not. This the area that is becoming blurred. That is fine with me. If you love taking photos do it. The art form is very therapeutic. That is what it is all about!!!!!!!!!

 

[rmh159]

I think they're getting worse. And I think that the digital revolution is partly to blame.

I couldn't disagree more. It's always the knee-jerk reaction to blame the technology, blame the music, blame the movies, etc. Lame.

Could the answer simply be that quality cameras are easier to come by and it's far easier to get the good pics seen by a wider audience. I'd be willing to bet the % of quality pics taken is still the same... the total number is just higher due to digital and the means to get that same % seen is far easier.

 

[DSLR noob]

I think people are less critical with composition as they were with a roll of film since they had to "pay-per-shot" so to speak. Now, someone with a digital camera can take as many photos as their memory card can hold, then empty it and keep going. Making each shot less of a "make-it-or-break-it" shot. Braketing is so much easier. Also they get to see their mistakes. I think this balance of not caring so much per shot(in amateurs), and being able to improve by seeing an instant photo balance each other out and leave things where they were.

 

[xfloggingkylex]

I think they're getting worse too.

Back in the olden days you still had uninteresting subjects, bad composition and poor lighting. And here, I think Alex is right, the proportions haven't changed at all.

But in the old days in order to do anything you had to know how to make a correct exposure. And most serious photographers knew how to operate in a darkroom as well. They understood how lenses, aperture, exposure time and film worked together to form the image in a way that just doesn't exist anymore.

But all that knowledge still matters in the digital world. Bryan Peterson talks about each image having one correct exposure for the desired artistic effect. But photographers today don't even understand what exposure IS let alone make conscious artistic choices about it (even if they are bad artistic choices!).

The reason is that most photographers today, even in the SLR world, have a point-n-shoot mentality. They don't choose their aperture, ISO, shutter speed or even focus point. They just aim and click.

So while in the old days you had 1 out of ten thousand people being photographers, those folks knew how cameras worked, and could make artistic choices around their subject matter. Now, they made the same proportion of bad artistic choices as we see today -- but they were at least artists in some sense of the word.

Today, maybe 1 in 1000 people are photographers (ten times as many as before), with the same proportion of artistic challenges, but only 1 in forty thousand understand photography (a quarter as many as before). The rest are just letting the camera make all the choices for them.

The above numbers are of course, pulled out of my rear end, but I think the relative proportions are about right, regardless of what the starting "1-out-of-#" is for photographers.

Where I think the difference really lies is that for the 1-in-40,000 who really does know what they're doing -- the level of equipment has gotten significantly better in the last 10 years. Far more of those photographer's images are "keepers" than in the past.

The films are better, the machines are better, the lenses are better, the meters are better, the af systems are better, and on the digital side the editing software is better . . . and it all adds up to more better pictures for those who know how to use the gear.

I'm not so sure that was true. I think that if today something happened where automode stopped being part of the digital cameras and you could only use M mode, the majority of "photographers" would give up the art. I'd say proportionately there are just as many people today to understand the aspects of photography as there were back in the days, but today we have many many more people using cameras, and we need to differentiate between the groups.

Also, I think it's downright silly to say that you dont have to understand aperture, lenses, time and exposure work to make a whole image. As for not knowing how to use a darkroom, the digital darkroom is also something that must be mastered. It isn't like you just go press a button and you are done. Also photo labs can process film, so you dont technically need to know how to work in a darkroom to shoot film.

Really I dont see a difference (though being only 20, I didn't experience both sides of this) between the actual photographers of the different eras. Since light meters have been built into the camera body, you dont really have to know anything per se, as long as you understand the concept of "put the bar in the middle" you can create a properly exposed image. You may not understand aperture vs shutterspeed vs ISO as far as getting that exposure, but in auto mode for digitals you dont know that either... it goes both ways.

Like I said, the only difference today is that more people have cameras (doesn't make you a photographer).

 

[Alpha]

I couldn't disagree more. It's always the knee-jerk reaction to blame the technology, blame the music, blame the movies, etc. Lame.

Could the answer simply be that quality cameras are easier to come by and it's far easier to get the good pics seen by a wider audience. I'd be willing to bet the % of quality pics taken is still the same... the total number is just higher due to digital and the means to get that same % seen is far easier.

Possible, but you're taking what I said out of context. We can go back and forth forever about numerically what direction our understanding of the number and quality of photographers is going.

However, my point is more basic than that. I'm arguing that quality is going down because of the perception that digital cameras are easier to operate properly.

 

[fmw]

every day I see some drop dead gorgeous shots from my fellow amateurs (on this and another board) that would be photomag quality 20 years ago.

It isn't that photography has improved. It is that tastes and styles have changed. Personally, I prefer the good photography from 20 years ago - or even 50 years ago. By the way, I don't think pro photographers necessarily make better images than amateurs. What they do is make good images consistently. Some amateurs make better images than some pros. They just don't make their living doing it.

 

[Aquarium Dreams]

I'd say the expensive of film was a deterrant for people, too. These days, someone who is interested in photography can buy a digital p&s for the same price as a new slr, and never have to put any more money into it as far as making pictures is concerned. This gives them the ability to try it out and learn some of the basics (most point and shoots have a manual mode) without all the extra expense of buying and developing film.

 

[The_Traveler]

When I started taking pictures and when I did take color, the exposed films disappeared into the processing mill and emerged some days later. I didn't have the sense of how I really could make my pictures better as much of the control loop seemed out of my hands. Good color pictures were more luck than anything. I wanted to be able to exercise some control over the process so I naturally went to BW. Even then, I couldn't profit from much help because all my learning came from books and magazines and there wasn't much of an esthetic of photography. At least I could see what I was doing relatively quickly in the process and could adjust my behaviours to aim towards better results. But in my time, I was essentially alone in this hobby.

The digital age has done lots of things to make photography easier to do and to learn. IMO, the most important effect is had had on quality is to provide instant feedback loops for the mechanics and esthetics of picture making. No one is isolated and everyone can get some ideas about their progress from online communities.

The ubiquity of cameras and the ease of their use means that people can take up photography casually and then, seeing it for the creative outlet it is, become more involved. With film, only the semi-fanatic could get into the hobby. Except for some of us grizzled (I haven't shaved yet today) veterans, most of our members, I would say, didn't start with the rough steps of film but were introduced to photography by using P&Ss.

The most destructive part of the digital revolution for me is that there are so many good photographers working and showing that I can no longer even consider myself a skilled, decently able amateur but must accept that I am just a moderately abled patzer and doomed to always be that way.

 

[Orgnoi1]

LOL are you calling me "grizzled"?.....LOL

 

[The_Traveler]

LOL are you calling me "grizzled"?.....LOL

Oh, no. Not you, darling.

 

[Aquarium Dreams]

The most destructive part of the digital revolution for me is that there are so many good photographers working and showing that I can no longer even consider myself a skilled, decently able amateur but must accept that I am just a moderately abled patzer and doomed to always be that way.

Wait.. so then what makes one a decently abled amateur? Are is the Traveler just being unduly down on himself today?

 

[RMThompson]

Great thread. The argument was made that good photographers from yesteryear had to know how to use a SLR, adjust for lighting and make proper exposure, and also be able to use a darkroom.

That doesn't make a good photographer, just a slow one.

Photography is much more about composition than it is about the process of clicking the camera. If a digital machine makes it easier for me to decide how much light I need, what fstop to use, what shutter speed, etc, then so be it. That just means I get to take MORE pictures and spend more time on composition. I still have the ability to tell the camera it was WRONG, and decide those things myself if I choose... and that is part of composition.

My definition of compositions is: Setting up a picture BEFORE you snap it. Seeing the final product in your mind BEFORE you take the picture.

If you couldn't set up a shot 50 years ago and someone handed you a new DSLR, you still wouldn't be able to set that shot up.... it's important to learn about things like the rule of thirds and how to break that rule, proper posing of your subject, color use and contrast, lighting direction and color, and much more before even TOUCHING your camera.

I've used a darkroom before with a more traditional camera, like for a week in highschool, and while it did feel sort of magical to print a picture I took, the picture was still a rock in a field and did nothing for anyone. I've taken much better pictures in 30 seconds on my Canon A610 PNS.

Photographers are getting better. Better at communication. Better at sharing (flickr anyone), better at learning.... and in such there are MORE good shots being produced, no doubt about it.

However in addition there are MORE people taking pictures overall, so that means that there are also MORE bad pictures. The debate here is the RATIO.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

What is wrong is that vision, originality, creativity and inventiveness seems to be missing.
Maybe there is the same amount as there always was but it is just being swamped by the mediocre.
Instead of taking their own pictures from their own viewpoint (which takes some intelligence and a lot of hard work) people just want to copy their favourite photographer. And way too many of them wouldn't know a good picture if it sat up and gave them a haircut.
Then of course, digital editing has made it easier to clean up your mistakes. Why spend a lot of time trying to get it right when a few clicks in PS will sort it? I think I may go back to painting....