Originally Posted by
Jay DeFehr
Patrick,
You agree with Brian. I disagree, and I say why. When I disagree with anyone, I always say why. I don't remember disagreeing with photo chemists, but it's possible. If I did, I'm sure I said why. It's easy to take sides in a disagreement, and it's easier to take sides based on titles than on substance. I'm not a professional chemist, or a professional photographer, but I learned sensitometry, built a sensitometer, and tested my formulas as rigorously as I was able, and made my data available for review. I don't remember anyone claiming my developers don't work as described by me. I made all of my formulas public, have never tried to profit from them, and have done my best to support users of them. True, that doesn't make me a professional, but it does confer some measure of expertise, and speaks to my motives. For what it's worth, neither John Wimberley, Barry Thornton, Gordon Hutchings, nor Sandy King are chemists. Photography has a long history of innovation and invention by amateur photographers, including George Eastman, and I'm proud to count myself among them.
This is a forum for large format photographers, of which I am one. My experience and expertise in various aspects of LF photography lie on a spectrum with the other members of this group, amateurs and professionals. If I'm not qualified to comment here, than neither are many others, yourself included.
In reply to your comments of more substance:
On what do you base your contention that "the craft is gone"? I don't think that's true. I think craft photography, in the sense I believe you intended, has shifted from professionals to amateurs and artists, but it's still very much alive. I think your wrong to disparage images made with cell phones, or Flickr. I've seen beautiful images made with cell phone cameras on Flickr, and it's not out of ignorance that I say so. Are poor images made with cell phones? Sure! But poor quality images have been made with every imaging system ever devised. If you want to discuss quality intelligently, you should make a distinction between commercial work, and art. In commercial work, quality and value are defined by the consumer. If a couple prefers the photos made of their wedding by the brides niece with her new DSLR (or cell phone, for that matter) to those made by a professional wedding photographer, you can say they're wrong, but you'd be wrong. It's a misunderstanding of the job the couple was hiring to do. They were hiring someone to make photos they like, for their own reasons, and not hiring someone to make images that meet some technical standard.
The last wedding I attended was photographed professionally, and additionally by one of the guests, with a Polaroid 600 camera. They much preferred the Polaroids, and the professionally made wedding album sits in a drawer while the scanned Polaroids are shared with friends and family.
I'm not suggesting that professional wedding photographers are hacks, or unskilled, or that they don't make well crafted photos; what I'm saying is that what matters most to the people doing the hiring is not the credentials of the photographer, his professionalism, or the technical quality of his work, but the emotional impact of the images produced. The best wedding photographers can out compete the guests, despite the guests advantages, but even the very best of them can expect their albums to be supplemented by images from guests. When friends ask me to shoot their weddings, I usually tell them I'm happy to take some photos, but if they want a formal album, they should hire a pro. Most say they don't care about a formal album they just want great pictures. I tell them that everyone who attends their wedding will have a camera, and make photos, and they should provide a website for the guests to upload their images to. This is not just the future of wedding photography, but of all event photography, including photojournalism.
Bookmarks