Has photography lost its character?

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Since diving into photography I’ve spent a lot of time educating myself, researching, observing, taking note of opinions, and what people think is good and bad.

I’ve started a vintage vibe and I have spent a decent deal of time, though not a huge amount, looking through film photos, especially photos that were/are considered fabulous, classic, great, good, etc. a lot of those photos have flaws in them. Motion blur, focus issues, color issues, grain, etc.

By todays digital standards some folks might never post/publish those photos if they took them today. One thing I noticed is all those photos have character. There’s something unique about them and I have to wonder if that is being lost in digital photography. I see lots of photographers talking about consistency, always make your photos look consistent, what’s your style, show the client you ‘look’. I sort of think its hogwash. Be consistently good, sometimes that is being unique. Sometimes the best shot isn’t the best shot. I don’t know, I just wonder if anyone else had the same vibe going.

 

[ACEkin]

Since diving into photography I’ve spent a lot of time educating myself, researching, observing, taking note of opinions, and what people think is good and bad.

I’ve started a vintage vibe and I have spent a decent deal of time, though not a huge amount, looking through film photos, especially photos that were/are considered fabulous, classic, great, good, etc. a lot of those photos have flaws in them. Motion blur, focus issues, color issues, grain, etc.

By todays digital standards some folks might never post/publish those photos if they took them today. One thing I noticed is all those photos have character. There’s something unique about them and I have to wonder if that is being lost in digital photography. I see lots of photographers talking about consistency, always make your photos look consistent, what’s your style, show the client you ‘look’. I sort of think its hogwash. Be consistently good, sometimes that is being unique. Sometimes the best shot isn’t the best shot. I don’t know, I just wonder if anyone else had the same vibe going.

Interesting questions. I was asked a very similar question at a presentation I made a couple of days ago and I suggested that the number of "photographers" has increased by orders of magnitude after the arrival of digital photography and inserting a camera into many devices we use. Many of these "photographers" if not most, are recording what comes in front of them rather than using photography as a language. Consequently, it becomes much easier for most of them to talk about the noise, sharpness, bokeh, and many others instead of what the photograph is about.

I remember seeing a post on another site where a visitor to the Louvre recorded the Mona Lisa and much of the conversation was about the zoom qualities of his phone and how well it did this or that. Even in front of a masterpiece, the conversation can totally ignore it and turn its focus on the gear.

That's the change in my opinion.

 

[MikeZ]

Cemal. you hit the nail on the head. As cameras (of all sorts) have gotten "better" at capturing an image and easier to use, we've lost touch with the art and are more concerned with the technology. While I understand how that evolved, I'm disappointed with the end-state. Today, the standard question "what would Ansel Adams do" seems to center not on the image but how the image was created, how many mega-pixels, what lens, Photoshop vs Topaz, etc.

 

[Only RF]

It was a unique time. Today the majority aren't going to show motion blur, focus issues, colour issues, grain, etc because these things have been basically conquered. I have to wonder if I could have taken a consistently taken sharp bird in flight photos in 1985 would I have not wanted to do so? I was limited by technology.

Motion blur, off focus, unique colour, grain, etc have become specialty categories. We have motion blur category here. I don't see too many posts of those types of images unless it's a specialty category. Perhaps people don't want others to think they aren't good photographers. I never really thought about that until today.

Kids today have instagram and can post selfies with rabbit noses and ears. I think like the past there will always be percentage that will take photography more seriously and to that next level. There was a documentary about Vivian Maier. She back to her family village in Europe. Some old timer said people normally take pictures at weddings and communions. She takes pictures of garbage cans. She was one in million back then.

I read all of Ansel's books, had a 4x5 field camera, dark room, etc. By the time I got my first DSLR in 2005 I did not miss the darkroom. I applied his teachings to my digital darkroom. I wonder if he had access to what we have today which one would he have chosen. Many years ago I was at his show in Toronto and I walked up to a poster sized print of Moonrise over Hernandez. Jokingly I asked if they would take a cheque and they told me it was priceless. One of his most famous works yet the negative was not that great. He worked it to get those fantastic prints. Another person might have thrown that negative in the garbage. Today the purists who still shoot with 4x5 or 8x 10 do it because it is now unique. People didn't have a choice back then.

As for a certain look. If I was a professional wedding photographer I'd want to promote my style that I could re-produce consistently to beat out my competition. I used to get motion blur shots because I made a mistake. Today I do it on purpose because as opposed to film digital captures are free. Film added up which did make me think twice about taking some shots, mostly too many. Not at all with my 4x5. I could never figure out how to get 30 fps. We try to make our work interesting but I think we have our base style that at times we apply without even thinking about it.

 

[ACEkin]

Adams was very much in favor of digital technology and expressed hopes for it. I first discovered him back in 1969 when I was a student at MSU for a couple of years. I got all his books, understood his teachings and methods, and used them reasonably well. He would have loved to have all the digital editing tools and powers. But I doubt very much that he would have replaced the sky in, say Clearing Winter Storm or any of his work. Some years ago, I wrote a short piece on that work:

Clearing winter storm, or how to look at great photographs 1 of many

Comments on a blog post by John Paul Caponigro, Ansel Adams' photograph Clearing Winter Storm as subject, thoughts on a photograph

www.keptlight.com

In that short piece, I did not talk about the lens quality, bokeh, etc. but what the photograph meant to me. That is the missing element in many photography conversations.

 

[Only RF]

Adams was very much in favor of digital technology and expressed hopes for it. I first discovered him back in 1969 when I was a student at MSU for a couple of years. I got all his books, understood his teachings and methods, and used them reasonably well. He would have loved to have all the digital editing tools and powers. But I doubt very much that he would have replaced the sky in, say Clearing Winter Storm or any of his work. Some years ago, I wrote a short piece on that work:

Clearing winter storm, or how to look at great photographs 1 of many

Comments on a blog post by John Paul Caponigro, Ansel Adams' photograph Clearing Winter Storm as subject, thoughts on a photograph

www.keptlight.com

In that short piece, I did not talk about the lens quality, bokeh, etc. but what the photograph meant to me. That is the missing element in many photography conversations.

I didn't know that. I have no issue with others replacing a sky but I made a decision to never do it myself. That may change one day. I use the tools to enhance files. Balance exposure between subject and background, which he did in the darkroom with his wands. I did that too. Selective sharpening and shadow/highlight tune ups. I'll go nuts with masking to bring out as much as I can of the existing sky for my B&W. If there is brach in front of a bird I won't remove it. I'll have to do better next time in the field.

On a professional/commercial level I'd replace as many skies as I needed to get the job done. I think this new tech invaluable for that.

About 6 years ago we drove to Phoenix. On the way home spent some time in Santa Fe. We really liked old town. We took day trip to Hernandez. It was a too bad there was no marker and bit of write up about that capture. I guess not enough Ansel fans come there.

 

[ACEkin]

Gustave Le Gray was probably one of the first photographers, if not the first, to replace skies. His was out of necessity as the glass plates of the day could not capture the sky and the land or sea exposure. So, he took multiple exposures and blended them in the darkroom.

HDR or high dynamic range is sorely, badly misunderstood

The HDR craze is giving us an avalanche of flat photographs with disturbing halos around the edges in the image. High Dynamic Range does not mean that at all.

www.keptlight.com

Also, Henry Peach Robinson. Fading Away or When the Day's Work is Done, are other examples which are entirely composited. There are many others, like Oscar Rejlander who composited large crowds. So the idea of "generative fill" is not new but the method and the purpose are different from that of today's use. They were transitioning from painting (a synthesis) to photography (an analysis). Pictoriolist movement was driving them. See below for the works I mentioned. The people did not get together and not been in the room at all.

 

[Only RF]

Thanks. That’s interesting. I’m all for whatever one chooses to do with their art.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I think it’s the attitudes people have toward photography- this picture has incorrect color correction, that picture’s white balance is off, the focus point on this one is wrong, that composition is bad, which leads to “can you fix that in photoshop?” Sometimes I think photos need to be authentic.

I do find the above information very interesting. It’s clever to see how they stitched the photos together to create one composite.

 

[MikeZ]

I didn't know that. I have no issue with others replacing a sky but I made a decision to never do it myself. That may change one day. I use the tools to enhance files. Balance exposure between subject and background, which he did in the darkroom with his wands. I did that too. Selective sharpening and shadow/highlight tune ups. I'll go nuts with masking to bring out as much as I can of the existing sky for my B&W. If there is brach in front of a bird I won't remove it. I'll have to do better next time in the field.

I agree completely - it is just personal preference, but if the shot "needs" the sky replaced, then I just didn't do my job properly. If I can't get back to that locale to re-do my shot, then I live with it as is and remember the experience.

I think it’s the attitudes people have toward photography- this picture has incorrect color correction, that picture’s white balance is off, the focus point on this one is wrong, that composition is bad, which leads to “can you fix that in photoshop?” Sometimes I think photos need to be authentic.

This statement is soo true!

The adjustments that Adams made took a great deal of skill (and money) in the darkroom and were part of the artistic endeavor. Adjustments in PhotoShop just don't compare on that level.

I may have just shot myself in the foot or started a riot - apologies if I have irritated or offended anyone - but that is how I feel.