Are photographers getting better - and why?

[terri]

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.

Then one could argue you didn't have an excellent grasp of exposure - or you never bracketed. For shame!

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.

If you speaking only of the image/film developmental process, then this makes sense.

At least I could see what I was doing relatively quickly in the process and could adjust my behaviours to aim towards better results.

All you needed by your side back then was a good Polaroid for instant feedback. :mrgreen:

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.

Digital has certainly knocked Polaroid from top spot in this sense, but the premise of giving people the ability to check lighting and composition prior to making that "final shot" is unchanged. Polaroid invented it.

No one is isolated and everyone can get some ideas about their progress from online communities.

Online communities are even more apt to isolate you, the way I see it. The old days of camera clubs or photography groups where people actually came together are certainly gone. You now sit alone in front of your PC and get ideas from people you only know online.

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.

:scratch: Film was and is not exclusionary. Kodak's been pushing ubiquity of cameras since they came out with the Brownie! "You take the pictures; we'll do the rest" is a fine way for anyone to start, and I could argue that it is now Adobe (through PS) that promises that very thing. "Go snap the shot; it can all be fixed later if you use our product." You can be a semi-fanatic using ANY medium.

Just my take; but as always - what the hell do I know?

:razz:

 

[The_Traveler]

Then one could argue you didn't have an excellent grasp of exposure - or you never bracketed. For shame!If you speaking only of the image/film developmental process, then this makes sense. All you needed by your side back then was a good Polaroid for instant feedback. :mrgreen:

Digital has certainly knocked Polaroid from top spot in this sense, but the premise of giving people the ability to check lighting and composition prior to making that "final shot" is unchanged. Polaroid invented it.Online communities are even more apt to isolate you, the way I see it. The old days of camera clubs or photography groups where people actually came together are certainly gone. You now sit alone in front of your PC and get ideas from people you only know online.
:scratch: Film was and is not exclusionary. Kodak's been pushing ubiquity of cameras since they came out with the Brownie! "You take the pictures; we'll do the rest" is a fine way for anyone to start, and I could argue that it is now Adobe (through PS) that promises that very thing. "Go snap the shot; it can all be fixed later if you use our product." You can be a semi-fanatic using ANY medium.

Just my take; but as always - what the hell do I know?

:razz:

I think that Terri has missed my points a little. The bracketing and Polaroid issues assume several things: first that the technical understanding and interest are there already, second that the additional equipment is availalable and third that one can actually afford it.

With digital images and instant feedback, the casual user can see immediately that the picture is not perfect or even good and can adjust accordingly and immediately. This adjustment fosters the realization that making pictures is less of a magic technical process and more an art based on a skill that can be mastered.

With film, the possibilities of improvement and thus the realizations are much less obvious because one has to wait. How many fewer musicians would there be if, after one pressed on the keys, the sound didn't come out for a week?

In re: exclusionary: it is semi-ironic that while Terri is saying that film is not exclusionary, many of the other posts are bemoaning that digital lets everyone be a photographer. So these other people can only play in your art if they play in a way that you decide is OK?

Yes, many pictures are derivative. That is a battle I fight every day with my own pix. Sure, pictures are derivative, pictures are also trite, boring, silly, pretentious, pointless, self-absorbed. But we try to keep these negative traits from entering our own images and we try to help others see these faults in theirs - in a gentle understanding way.

 

[terri]

You still didn't say whether or not you ever bracketed. :mrgreen:

And I'm right there, quoted in your post, so it's okay to speak directly to me, hon.

With digital images and instant feedback, the casual user can see immediately that the picture is not perfect or even good and can adjust accordingly and immediately. This adjustment fosters the realization that making pictures is less of a magic technical process and more an art based on a skill that can be mastered.

But, but.....your Polaroid could have been crap, too! And exposure adjustments would have been made.

I'm having fun with you, but to answer the question in your post, I'm simply saying it's all been done before and digital hasn't really changed anyone's approach to photography. The same people who wanted instant feedback in the 1970's can certainly get it today from a DSLR (if they want to pony up the bucks) and take a peek. If you run around and shoot 5 rolls of film or run around and fill up a memory card, at some point you are still going to have to review your results and face the music.

So to more directly answer your question, no, I don't particularly think today's photographers are any better than their counterparts of yesteryear. Why would they be? You can now peek at the back of your camera and see a tiny preview; so what? You could sneak a peek at a Polaroid, too, but in both cases, you don't really know what you have until you're able to sit down with your negative or raw image and start to mess with it. And neither darkroom or PS mastery will make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

But it also remains subjective, to the tastes of the photographer, his family, or the AD you're trying to impress. Whatever works! If you like it, then someone else might, too.

 

[Don Simon]

The argument about film being exclusionary is basically what I was disputing in my last post; I thought it might come up here.

Yes I started with crappy point-&-shoots... but I didn't have to be semi-fanatical to learn how to use manual controls later on. I just had to be vaguely interested.

Yes people can now look at the results as soon as they've taken them... but frankly a lot of people will still think "there's something wrong, the camera's crap", rather than "ah, it's overexposed". Some of these people will go on a forum, ask what's wrong with their camera, and when told "Nothing, this shot is overexposed", they'll say "Oh. So what camera should I buy now?" Instant review is helpful but it can't make people learn or progress.

Yes the information is widely available now... but that doesn't mean people will bother to read it or take it in. Nor is the information all in one place and all accurate. The internet contains at least as many myths and misconceptions as it does useful information. Previously people might have had to buy a book or find someone to explain things, now they have to work out what's a reliable source of information.

And yes, you can get instant feedback on your images... is all feedback inherently constructive? Doesn't that depend on the people contributing the feedback? To some extent, doesn't it only tell you how to take photos as someone else would?

 

[Eric Piercey]

I think we're talking apples and oranges almost as photography has changed so much.

I believe there's much greater potential for a person today to learn photogrpahy, with info availible at one's fingertips, and with the ability to take more shots and get quicker feedback. On the other hand, we live in an A.D.D. world because of all the stimulation and information whereas in the past one learned through hands on experience, concretely as opposed to abstractly.

There are also more photographs than in days past (digital) and advancing imaging technology (both in camera and software) ...so statistically we have more great photographs out there, but are photographers getting better? On an individual level or a statistical level? LOL.

On an individual level a great photographer in days past will still be a great photographer in the digital age, and a crappy one still a crappy one. Today there are more ways to polish a turd, is all.

I will say this though, a great photographer 40 years ago and one today are not doing the same thing due to the advent of the digital darkroom. There was far more to "photography" in the past because not only did one need to shoot it to capture it, they also needed to develop it. Mastery of the darkroom is an artform in and of itself which doesn't equate directly (at all) to a mastery of photoshop. I'm not saying one is superior to the other, but that they are vastly different. Furthermore darkroom requires both a certain set of concrete knowledge as well as certain timing and dexterity. One planned in advance in the past because doing it again meant more time, more supplies, more effort. Foreplanning and careful deliberate execution to acheive a look is vastly different than rifling through effects filters with multiple layers which can be made invisible with a click.

Is the racecar driver today "better" than the racecar driver yesterday because the cars are more complex, or are they less skilled?

Is the mechanic??

The photographer of yesteryear was both the photographer and the mechanic. If darkroom skill (which encapsulates the very foundation of photography, namely exposure and how to manipulate it) counts, than the answer to the overall question is no, they aren't getting better.

The best of anything will always be those with the most passion who learn everything they can and strive endlessly to master their chosen medium.

 

[panocho]

sorry if I say something that has already been said, since I couldn't take the time to read all the post before.

anyway. I don't think they're getting better, not at all. On the other hand, would hesitate to say that they're getting worse, also. But if I had to choose between one of the two (why should I!!??), no doubt would prefer saying worse.

maybe we do see a lot of great photographies -just because we see an incredible amount of photographies. and if we just focus on technique, that is probably true that things have improved: simply because anyone has access to a lot of retouching, something prior limited to high level amateurs (you know, with a dark room, a lot of experience, etc). Nowadays, a few clicks, a few minutes and you have a retouching

but for this very reason, I would no doubt second the opinion that film photography teaches you better than digital. No neccesarily, I agree, but definitely most of the times

and then, when I see old photographies, very often I find some beautiful something in them that is harder to find in new pictures.

well, surely that's purely a subjective feeling, but anyway, I would NEVER second the claim that there is some kind of general improvement of the quality of photography

 

[gizmo2071]

I'm only 22, but have been shooting for like 9years now.
I mean I started when I was 13 and even shot my first wedding when I was 14.
I shot film up until last year, although I still shoot B&W film now, I just don't have a decent scanner to get any work online.
So i'm not just someone who gets a few lucky shots, I have been practicing this trade for nearly a decade.

I much prefer working on my images in the darkroom than I do on the computer. I just get more sense of fulfilment from the time I put into my images under the enlarger burning and dodging.

Has the quality of photography gone down?
Obviously not.
I'm sure there are an equal proportion of great photographers today as there were at any point since the start of the photography era.
But there is also an HUGE number of other people that enjoy taking photos.
Because it really is so much more accessible.
If I had access to a darkroom when I had started i think I would be a hell of alot better than I am now.
Instead I had to wait until I had money saved to buy film and get it sent off to the lab. (which i had no control over how they were processed)

At college and school, alot of people take photography because they think it's a easy course to pass, but the majority drop out or fail (from my course only 3 or 4 out of 15 have much chance of passing the course).

 

[Don Simon]

And going back to the accessibility thing again... it's not like everyone needed a Hasselblad and their own darkroom to take photos with film. Am I the only person who remembers disposable cameras?

 

[xfloggingkylex]

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.

I have never agreed with you more

 

[gmarquez]

If you all would spend less time debating and more time shooting pictures, there would soon be more good photographers.

[quickly runs away]

 

[Hertz van Rental]

If you all would spend less time debating and more time shooting pictures, there would soon be more good photographers.

And contrariwise, if people spent more time discussing Photography and less time snapping pictures there would be a lot less visual cr*p about :lmao:

 

[MrTwister]

I think, techical progress and new instruments make the quality of photos better but not photographers.

 

[Alex_B]

And going back to the accessibility thing again... it's not like everyone needed a Hasselblad and their own darkroom to take photos with film. Am I the only person who remembers disposable cameras?

you don't need a disposable camera to take pictures on film! by the age of 16 I was already using my 3rd 35mm film camera, all of them were not expensive. Started with a handheld light meter and a very simple mechanical camera which my parents got for me second hand and slowly migrated to better cameras. That was tiny investments compared to digital p&s cameras today

I should mention that in my surroundings there wasn't anyone really into photography, still it did not prevent me from creating images with those cameras

 

[jca]

This is my first post on this board, but I thought my response might be relevent. First off, I'm a complete noob to photography. I've nursed an interest for a couple years but only started to get serious about a month and a half ago. I bought a DSLR and several books and have basically been reading anything I can get my hands on and more importantly, taking a ton of pictures.

I think the instant feedback provided by digital is a HUGE advantage to someone trying to learn. I can take a shot, see what I've done wrong, adjust, retake it, review again and continue until I've learned how to get that picture. Obviously composition is another matter, but for someone trying to become technically proficient, I can't imagine being able to make anywhere near the same progress that I have using film. Not that I'm a particularly good photographer at this point, but there's a night and day difference between what I shot a month ago and what I'm shooting now.

Whether this equates to better photography in general, I couldn't say, but it seems to me the potential is certainly there for photographers to learn and improve much more rapidly than in the pre-digital world.

 

[Weaving Wax]

Well, I'm new to this. I do not own a DSLR. I do own a point & shoot and a film SLR. In fact, because I got a point and shoot and saw a friends photographs I wanted to get more serious about photography.

I personally don't like the way digital pictures look. Well, most of them. That doesn't mean that the photographers are "bad", it's just...I don't care for the new technology. I will say that because film isn't cheap, I'm learning about the basics of photography. I've seen some bad photographs with both film and digital. People that really care about photography...no matter what the format (film or digital) are going to read the books, take the courses..etc..etc..because they care. The other 70% are going to look for the quick fix easy answer to their overexposed shots. Let them be. It isn't worth arguing about. Just keep doing what you do.

And as for internet messageboards? I'm surprised some of you guys think no one can learn from here. I have to ask..why do you even post here, then? Not all of us can afford a 4 year college course on photography and then sit at home in the darkroom working at a wolf camera with our degrees. I personally think this site is very helpful and can help people who don't have access to school. It's nice to see people who have been doing it for 20+ years (some members) who can help you with DOF, Aperture, what books to buy, building and developing in the darkroom.

Just my $0.02.