When photography was important

[DannL]

Garret,

You should follow Collector Daily under the "galleries" & "museums" sections. https://collectordaily.com/

You will see that film is not the only method being used to put images on paper. There are also other methods that can be employed to produce works of "artistic merit".

The site appears to be a bit slow to react sometimes. It wasn't always that way. But, it still pulls up the pages. Patience is the key.

Ooops! Now there's a freudian slip. I should have said "merit" alone.

[barnacle]

Reading old photographic books and magazines, 1900s to 1930s in particular, it's obvious that there is/was a huge emphasis on the technical mastery of the mechanics of the subject. That is, if you hadn't expended the time and effort to learn how to properly expose and develop the negative and the print (by whichever method) then you couldn't even begin to consider the artistry of the image.

Now I find that sort of thing fascinating - but I'm not sure I agree one hundred percent with the sentiments that were so prevalent at the time. But it seems to me that it wasn't until you got the likes of Ansel Adams discussing how he saw the image before he exposed the negative that there was any serious emphasis on what the negative would look like when it was finished. You wanted to understand composition, you went to art class, not photography class...

Of course, with automatic cameras (film or digital) it might be argued that you *don't* need to know the techniques; the electronics will do it for you, and you can concentrate on the image - but on the other hand I've seen lots of 'prizewinning' images where the automatics have so obviously got it wrong: focus on something other than the subject, unintended motion blur, over-chromed images, obtrusive flash shadows...

In my not so humble opinion, trying to make a good photograph (and why would you want to make a bad one?) without knowing the basics of the craft is like trying to write a book in ignorance of traditional spelling and grammar. You might just get lucky, but the odds are not for it. Without places to learn, I see a time - it may already be here - when there is *nobody* making photographs with any intention other than sticking them on a hard drive or a website.

We are doomed to a billion smartphone images a day, most of which will never see the light of day.

Neil

p.s. "What's a camera, daddy?" "Well son, it's like a phone that can't make calls..."

[RSalles]

Another point about the thread:

Its a daunting task to admit that's not the medium, but the task. Every place is wonderful is you don't know where you're going or arrive to: How many writer monkeys are required to write a Nobel prize winning book?

The target of social media image sharing is maximum audience, "likes", or so. Another completely different story is to get the visual reality and study it as an scientific object and a medium of personal expression. That capabilities of LF photography and film as a medium is a integral part of the expressive choice, but the merit, if any, I hope will remain with the person behind the camera - that's why I give a limited value to "absolutely incredible lens, impressive piece of work as that camera, etc, etc. When I was young and bought a Leica IIIC, in the very first day I came across the fact that the camera will not turn me in a Cartier-Bresson in a day, nor two. But, as many have noticed, I could not blame my equipment anymore...

There is one thing I like in pics taken with cellphones and point&shoot cameras: that's cheap - well an iPhone6 is not exactly cheap but many are - available for everybody, and you can learn something from it. Well, folks have to start from something, maybe later a real passion for photography will emerge. When I started to make photos, when something came wrong I tough about what was wrong and learnt from it, but today, that's all a matter of clicking again, automatically, until find what's "less worst". You learn NOTHING. It's a trial & error perspective, probably never goes one step higher, and the the person remains sharing the same (quality level speaking) crap.

Another point that I had figured out: if you learn well LF photography, till arriving at a good level of excellence with this set of tools, you can make photos with no matter what and will have very good results in 10 minutes, but a cellphone shutter will take 30 years shooting the same and will not get results that good. The better equipment in the world is that one which you'll teach yourself to see. And, as everybody already known, you can not learn photography with that think,



Cheers,

Renato

[Ari]

We "serious" photographers are a niche, always have been. It's normal to sometimes get annoyed at the way things change in our little corner of the world.
But we're just comparing our way of working to those for whom this isn't such a big deal; so what?

I've had this conversation for almost 30 years, going back to when I was a musician, and computers were just entering the scene, especially in the recording studio.
We'd always joke/lament that I (the drummer) could be easily replaced by a machine, but the truth was, even back in the 80s, we could all have been replaced by machines (synclavier).

This comic strip pretty much sums up what I'm trying (very badly) to say, but I think the spirit of the comic is analogous to what the OP is talking about:

[tgtaylor]

Player pianos have been around for over 100 years now and while they can hit all the notes, and then some, in the correct time and without a mistake, they lack that "touch" that only a human can impart. If you're a player, then you know what I mean.

Thomas

[neil poulsen]

I think that another heading for this thread might have been, "When the Photographer Was Important".

Back in the days of film (which weren't that long ago), there was just enough of a knowledge and experience gap between a scene being photographed and a good photograph, it required a specially trained person to bridge that gap. That included knowledge of lighting, filtering, differences between film, printing in a darkroom, and other areas of expertise.

Digital photography has narrowed that gap considerably, to the point where a lay photographer can often produce reasonably high quality results. I hate to say it, but I think that we have to consider this an improvement. And, the same individual can also produce a high quality color print (or even a better print) that previously required the services of a photo lab with specially trained and experienced lab technicians.

Another interesting caveat is that previously, if you possessed the negative, you controlled the reproduction of the image. Hah! Not any longer, and this has had huge implications for the profession of photography. I recall an architectural photographer friend commenting that, he and his partner saw a big difference in their business when clients began viewing and displaying images using PowerPoint.

[Kirk Gittings]

I recall an architectural photographer friend commenting that, he and his partner saw a big difference in their business when clients began viewing and displaying images using PowerPoint.

I agree with your POV but you left this point obtuse. What was the big difference?

[neil poulsen]

I recall an architectural photographer friend commenting that, he and his partner saw a big difference in their business when clients began viewing and displaying images using PowerPoint.

I agree with your POV but you left this point obtuse. What was the big difference?

Sorry I didn't make that clear. Prior to PowerPoint, clients ordered prints to view images. My friend is an excellent color darkroom printer and could provide these prints himself. When that need went away, it made a big difference in their business.

[Kodachrome25]

I dunno folks, I have seen it come back around in the past few years.

I see more business, more respect for the craft and profession, higher day rates, even on the editorial side. Folks seem to want to see those who have refined vision and unwavering commitment be celebrated and rewarded again. Art directors are pushing back against the bean counters as they insist on developing long term working relationships with powerful artists instead of getting the monthly "I spent less of the art budget" award.

Film as a niche is also gaining traction in pop culture and in some paid work.

I think things are looking up!

[Sirius Glass]

At one time one could earn a good living being a photographer. Not any longer with GWCs.