The Golden Age of Photography

[The_Traveler]

I was looking at a book entitled 'The Golden Age of British Photography 1839-1900 and I went from page to page trying to see the greatness. What I saw was images that conquered the technical obstacles of the age but, compared to the easy technical perfection that is attainable now, the pictures were not exciting or interesting.

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.

But, is the technical issue important in looking at art? When we see a miniature town constructed of matches, we marvel at the tenacity of this technical achievement; it is a wonder of craftsmanship not art.

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.

 

[Overread]

The Golden Age of anything is nearly always rose tinted and in the past - the current age is current and any who are not wearing the rose tinted glasses are either absorbed within the age and can't see it or are looking to the future!


I'd say that yes when one look at the history of any craft there are many creations which are famous because they did something different. They did something first, something new, something innovative. Or they were done BY someone important and thus changed the nature of the craft in a significant way. This is especially important in art where for many generations art was controlled very strictly as to what was and wasn't allowed by the galleries and peers of the age. You had to BE someone to change that.

I don't think, though, that that precludes greatness in those times. You can certainly take some fantastic photos using very limited gear.


To answer the other question about technical I would say that for many yes it is important. What you did to create something is important. Sometimes less so - sometime as much and sometimes more so than the creation itself. It's like a journey - sometimes its the trip - sometimes its the destination - sometimes its what happens after. There is no rule to ascribe what "IS" the most important (and loads of reasons why each stage could be); each has its own weight and each situation and indeed each person will be different.

That said I suspect what you see at the camera clubs is that those with film reach limits too easily and settle into established patterns of behaviour. They've learned up where they are comfortable and have stopped. Whilst those with digital are either new and learning and pushing or are older, but pushing at the newest and continuing the journey. Thus you're getting an increase in advancing skill in the digital and an increase in stagnation in the film. Because Digital does little that film could not do - so the difference must be the users not the gear so much.



For myself and the golden age I very much agree that we are in a golden age, but not just of technical freedom, but also artistic freedom. We have a freedom to express ourselves in a way that has never really been realised before in history ever. But I don't just see that the golden age is now - its in the future too - we've got a wealth of new things coming and we can't even begin to imagine what they might be (go back 100 years - nearly all we have now was the bounds of sci-fi stories and wild dreams).

 

[bribrius]

that is what i hear. That photography is in the golden age. I am tempted very much to agree but have doubts. It is actually technology that WAS in a golden age and photography is reaping some of those break throughs in slow advancements. Since the origin of digital i am not so sure photography itself can be in a golden age as i cant think of anything that has been a large break through in the last couple decades. More of a trickle down effect on it from digital progression.

It would depend on if you define "golden age" in the metaphor of growth or increase, or if you define golden age in the classical sense of purity and origin. I think you could make a shallow argument for the former if not based on innovation at least on sheer numbers in growth and increase of popularity. But for the classical reference photography is near opposite of golden age as the trickle down advancements and changes take us further away from its origin..

 

[photoguy99]

It sounds to me like you place to much weight on technical detail.

The breadth of vision we see in Victorian photography simply dwarfs what we see today on photo sharing sites, despite the fact that there might be ten orders of magnitude more images.

I am not familiar with that book, so possibly it is not very representative, though.

 

[terri]

I was looking at a book entitled 'The Golden Age of British Photography 1839-1900 and I went from page to page trying to see the greatness. What I saw was images that conquered the technical obstacles of the age but, compared to the easy technical perfection that is attainable now, the pictures were not exciting or interesting.

Therein lays your apparent frustration or issue with the use of the word “golden." You state that you went through the book looking for “greatness,” but the term used was “golden.” This seems appropriate, since the book seems to be looking at the very beginnings of photography, when it was approached as a scientific challenge, more chemical than technical in nature.

The word “golden” can be applied to the dawn of a new process with much potential that had yet to be discovered; it can also be applied to the present, as you have done. I would imagine the book in question is little more than an objective presentation of images that were taken during the time period mentioned, with the processes that were available then, of the people and landscapes as they existed then. When we look at them today we must make the effort to keep them in context with those times.

You seem to have a strong bias towards digital processes and what you perceive as “technical perfection.” It seems to matter a great deal to you, because your question implies conflict by its presence in art. That’s all well and good, but probably makes you less than objective when judging art. A judge who is giving points for the nostalgia of a process seems inappropriate; it’s another type of bias. Photos displayed for judging are meant to be viewed as a finished work. What makes the image successful? Line, composition, tonal value, a message or story? Spending time to determine whether it’s film or digital should be outside what makes it successful or not.

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.

I hope you can appreciate that this assessment could have been made 100 years ago, word for word!

 

[Fred Berg]

Using the word nostalgia in connection with film is erroneous. Film is alive and kicking.

Film has a certain workflow. Digital has a certain workflow. Both require a certain amount of technical understanding. Certainly, however, the work flow is a means to an end in both cases.

My understanding of your post is that it is a thinly veiled dig at film. It seems to me that you feel insecure about your efforts using digital; that you feel photographers who use film are given a head start. I would argue that this is nonsense and you should concentrate on your own preferred form of the art and let others do as they please.

Do you think, or are you suggesting that those using film shout about it from the rooftops - in order to get special consideration? This may happen and I can understand that you might find this annoying, but not everyone using film behaves in this way. Just as not everyone using digital is obsessed with its rapid technical advancement. There are those in both camps who are content to get on quietly with the important goal - photography.

To each their own. Live and let live. Change the tune.

 

[photoguy99]

Perhaps to find the great photographers of today one needs to stop hanging around with other photographers.

I suspect the great photographers of today are, somehow, avoiding the influence of places like 500px, flickr, and, yes, TPF. These places raise easy technical perfection too high, and ruthlessly crush creativity outside of certain strict bounds. Whether these artists are simply not hanging around other photographers at all, or are but are somehow immune to the social influences, I do not know. Well. I have some ideas, based on some artists I respect.

But I don't know.

 

[Overread]

It's clear that what we each consider "great" differs. Indeed many appear to ascribe difference to greatness - others technical - others compositional - others the subject etc...

A great diversity of variations in viewpoints. The key problem, in my view, being that when we talk about greatness we just talk about greatness. We don't speak of the type of greatness we mean. As if by mentioning what we consider be the key element of the greatness will some how lessen the "greatness" of the photos we are going to nominate.

A few try for overall greatness, I think they tend to end up focusing on one or two of the conditions, but never manage to get all of them very easily (its just too vast a task)

 

[sleist]

I think many examples of great photography from the past are timeless. There is a significant percentage however that, at least as far as I'm concerned, need to be appreciated within the context of when and how they were shot. From a purely uneducated observer's perspective, today's ease and pervasiveness of photographic imagery has "raised" the bar on what is generally considered great/interesting photography. Those with more experience in pre-digital techniques, developing, and printing may look at these works with a different set of emotional filters and the image may resonate more for them as a result.

My understanding of your post is that it is a thinly veiled dig at film.

I don't get this from Lew's post at all. In fact, what I see is an effort to understand how to appreciate, or even create, a visually interesting and technically imperfect image at a time when technical perfection is so easily in reach and thus expected. The world is full of technically perfect images that bore the crap out of me. I also love the works of the great photographers despite (because of?) the effects created by the limitations of the medium used. That being said, just shooting with film does not excuse the photographer from creating crap and getting extra credit because it's film.

Should images be judged by how (or when) they were created? Does it matter? Are someone's blurry/noisy digital street shots worse than those shot with film years ago simply because the technology was available to have made the digital shots technically better, but the photographer chose not to (or failed to). Does the fact that I can take a cell phone picture and make it look 100 yrs old by applying a filter in photoshop diminish the impact of the older photo? Can we judge images by content only? Should we?

 

[sashbar]

Using the word nostalgia in connection with film is erroneous. Film is alive and kicking.

Film has a certain workflow. Digital has a certain workflow. Both require a certain amount of technical understanding. Certainly, however, the work flow is a means to an end in both cases.

My understanding of your post is that it is a thinly veiled dig at film. It seems to me that you feel insecure about your efforts using digital; that you feel photographers who use film are given a head start. I would argue that this is nonsense and you should concentrate on your own preferred form of the art and let others do as they please.

Do you think, or are you suggesting that those using film shout about it from the rooftops - in order to get special consideration? This may happen and I can understand that you might find this annoying, but not everyone using film behaves in this way. Just as not everyone using digital is obsessed with its rapid technical advancement. There are those in both camps who are content to get on quietly with the important goal - photography.

To each their own. Live and let live. Change the tune.

I often see how photographers post a picture with a rather low IQ, that has basically poor and uninteresting composition and content. You know, the kind of a shot about nothing that would be deleted without thinking twice on a digital camera. But the guy posts it and adds that this is some Kodak Superduperextamonoclourchrome 20054 XTC. Had he not mentioned it, I would have thought - poor, boring photo, why is it here. Then I see it is film and think: OK, fair enough. SuperduperKodak. Might be rare. Might be just 35 shots in the roll.

If a photog mentions that it is film, does it mean he shouts from the roof? I am sure he does not think so, but it sound like that to me. Probably there is some meaning in mentioning what film was used. To me it does not matter, what matters is the end result.

What does it all say about film photography? I do not know. Probably nothing. Probably it says that film photography is more about the process than the result these days. I very rarely see modern film images that are kicking. Probably they exist somewhere. How many pros that make a living on photography shoot film?

 

[fotomonkey]

Perhaps to find the great photographers of today one needs to stop hanging around with other photographers.

I just look in the mirror.

 

[Designer]

But, is the technical issue important in looking at art?

The technical aspects of how any art is produced is an integral part of that particular piece of art. When we look at a photograph, we are looking at the sum total of every bit of technology that went into producing it.

So yes, for the product of film photography, the print, that includes the entire process, from capture, to developing, to printing.

One might assume certain manipulations to have occurred, such as burning and dodging, but little else.

In digital, one could assume some basic manipulation even perhaps a great deal has occurred as well.

 

[Rick58]

Lew, it's the same old battle for me. Where you wear blinders allowing photography to be only "art", I still stand by the opposite. If I wanted to be an artist, I'd take up painting and put every blade of grass where I wanted it to be.
Leonore and myself were having a chat a while ago, where we discussed the, sometimes, boredom of the "perfect photo". Razor sharp, perfect exposure and contrast with a perfect composition. We also discussed how the look of a print produced with mediocre lens on a mediocre camera is sometimes missed by both of us. (Sorry for dragging you in on this Leonore)
I first marveled at the abilities of the digital world. If there's an unwanted utility pole in my shot, just remove it. There are so many ways to manipulate a photo, it can become an image of fiction, not fact. For me, as time goes on, I'm beginning to feel corrupted, and lazy instead of satisfied and accomplished.
I feel there is enough room in photography for both film and digital. While neither has to fully agree with the other, both should be shown all respect for the medium they choose.

 

[photoguy99]

The 'just clone that out' attitude is, I feel, incredibly damaging. It leads to a focus on details at the expense of everything else.

We often see critique about moving lights around and skin processing and bend this limb, but nobody points out that the model is just standing there like a cow, and that if you can't fix that you're never going to have an image that's worth a damn. And if you can, minor fiddling with the lights won't matter.

There are trees and there's a forest. The victory of the trees is near universal.

 

[bribrius]

The 'just clone that out' attitude is, I feel, incredibly damaging. It leads to a focus on details at the expense of everything else.

We often see critique about moving lights around and skin processing and bend this limb, but nobody points out that the model is just standing there like a cow, and that if you can't fix that you're never going to have an image that's worth a damn. And if you can, minor fiddling with the lights won't matter.

There are trees and there's a forest. The victory of the trees is near universal.

I separate my "general " photography that "outside " people see from my actual photography (you know the stuff I really care about). use it as a filter system similar to quality control of influence. Anything that hits will have to first stick to the general b.s. "outside" photography before even being up for consideration on the meaningful stuff. I have a pretty fixed line between what is up for grabs tossing online or to others and what I keep for myself as well. Another photographer I know does similar to a simply astonishing degree. I compare what she has online, compared to her facebook, compared to the little I see of her actual real photography. Totally different worlds. you would hardly guess looking at her online material just how real and intimate her photography is in her personal collections. Barriers for sifting and quality control of information and influence is your friend. And you can still learn , be involved, post photos. All helpful. Just throw on some strict filtering and draw hard lines. I would maybe clone in a photography in the throw it online section of general photography some day. I cant fathom cloning ever coming near my own personal work though.