What is lost in the digital age ?

[Terry Hayden]

So, I've been asked to participate in a talk about art and the digital age.

Because of my large format/analog background it is probably assumed that I'll rail against the
current practices and processes in the digital world.
Kind of a non-issue to me personally (I shoot both).

However - thinking back on what I learned by needing to go through the analog process, I do
believe "kids today" are missing out if they don't spend time with film.

Amongst academic things being missed are :
1) Basic math - manual shutter speeds and f/stops and their relations (too much automation now)
2) Chemistry - working with the effects of different dilutions, what different ingredients do, etc
3) Physics - lenses, light/film interactions.

All the above are things that we needed to at least understand in concept. No photographer I know
needed to study calculus to make a good photograph - but they had to know how their systems and
processes worked. All these things we (I) learned were in an applied form, not in a classroom - so it
was a palatable way to get these ideas across.

Other than that, what I also find is that a lot of what I see today comes from people that have apparently no
idea what a good print looks like. Between HDR monstrosities and general over sharpened/over saturated imagery
there is a lot of real dreck out there. Much of this, I believe, is from an erosion in aesthetics that has taken place
that is related to the wonders of Photoshop and "easy" digital processes.

So - would anyone else care to chime in and give me more talking points for this presentation? No flames or diatribes,
just good solid ideas to present please.

I really am not going to say that fine art can't be created digitally - my belief is that this is not a supportable assertion
anymore. It is more a matter of pointing out the changes/losses that I see in the total digital orientation and education
of todays photographers.

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Regards,
Terry

[bob carnie]

When working with film there is a lag time that happens between the exposure and looking at the print.
The time lag can create nightmares for those relying on a commercial purpose for film.
The time lag can make the photographer more attentive to detail as if its not on film , reshoot.
I like the fact that I have to envision what my image is going to look like.
I have never used a digital camera other than a camera phone so I do not know what the other side of the coin is like.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Good subject, approached with good intentions. Thank you.

I know an accomplished retired professor-photographer. He is more than a university professor. He has several published documentary photography books. I left him with a Deardorff 8x10 camera and several film holders and 50 sheets of film. Later he had an open house for his photography students and demonstrated it to them.

He said it was a remarkable, amazing experience for the class because they saw how very simple a camera can be. That's my point here. No batteries, all clockwork and bench fittings, AND it can perform perspective controls. I asked if they understood how very fine an image can be with all that real estate at the film plane and he said, "Funny, but they didn't seem to care. It was just so big they just took it all in. Maybe the pencil math will come out later. We gotta do some prints with them some day."

Cameras are simple and adaptable. They saw that. The deeper they investigate it, the more profound the concept becomes.
--
"When the answer is found, it will be simple." -- Domina Jalbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domina_Jalbert)

[paulr]

Spotting prints.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Spotting prints.

Retouching negatives with a razor and soft pencil.

[AuditorOne]

I am not so sure that composition, math, and those items are really the issue. I tend to agree more with Jac. My grandchildren are shooting and developing film with me, as well as shooting, sharing and printing digital through their cell phones. I don't see a huge difference between what they shoot on their cell phones and what they shoot on film. But what they enjoy is the simplicity of the film cameras (they understand how their film cameras actually work) and the mystery of waiting for the negative, and then later the enlarged, or contact, print.

They were absolutely blown away when we built a pinhole camera out of an oatmeal box and took pictures with them. Digital is around them all the time and they do not give it a second thought. Film, and film processes are not.

[Dan Henderson]

Good points have been made so far by you, Bob, and Jac. One other point I would like to contribute is the editing process. Film photographers do varying degrees of editing before deciding to commit a scene to film. Before digital, National Geographic, sports, and news photographers were on one end of this spectrum, free to use as much film as they needed to. Large format photographers are on the other end, excluding many (most?) potential images; setting up the camera and exposing film only when we are relatively certain that our vision will be realized. But it seems to me that most (although certainly not all) digital photographers machine-gun away at anything that attracts their eye, then spend hours sifting through images on the computer in the hope of finding a gem or two.

I wonder if this shift in emphasis from pre- to post-exposure editing results in some loss of critical evaluation of the scene that is photographed? It is now common to hear digital photographers state the number of pictures they have made of a certain subject, making me wonder if quantity is being substituted for quality.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...]
They (grandchildren) were absolutely blown away when we built a pinhole camera out of an oatmeal box and took pictures with them. Digital is around them all the time and they do not give it a second thought. Film, and film processes are not.

It was the same with me in 1950. When I became a little know-it-all at nine years old, an uncle showed me how to make pictures on leaves. I was blown away all over again. So were my parents, especially mother who was the photographer in the family. (we used Mother's 6x9cm negatives). See Chlorophyll Prints (http://petapixel.com/2011/08/30/photographer-makes-chlorophyll-prints-using-leaves-and-sunlight/) for someone else's examples.

[AuditorOne]

That is a great link Jac. Thanks. I am going to have the grandkids give that a try this summer as well.

[Kirk Gittings]

FWIW I recently gave a talk to the American Institute of Architects about Architectural Photography in the Digital Age. In this case we were not talking art photography but documenting art ie architecture. I came to digital AP after a lifetime of film AP and using VCs. So I am really a hybrid and I use a DSLR pretty much as I used a VC. In terms of meeting our clients needs today, practically speaking, nothing has been lost and allot gained.

Having said that I still prefer LF and film for my personal work and that is largely because of the slow meditative hands on methodology which IMHO helps me to create thoughtfulness and depth in my images.

[David Lobato]

So, I've been asked to participate in a talk about art and the digital age.

Other than that, what I also find is that a lot of what I see today comes from people that have apparently no
idea what a good print looks like. Between HDR monstrosities and general over sharpened/over saturated imagery
there is a lot of real dreck out there. Much of this, I believe, is from an erosion in aesthetics that has taken place
that is related to the wonders of Photoshop and "easy" digital processes.

Regards,
Terry

Not very long ago there was rampant mediocrity (and worse) in film photos too. I suggest using examples of high quality photos from both sources and showing the strengths of each. Smooth tonality and lots of detail in LF prints for example. Accurate color and sharpness from the newest sensors. It would help photography to show the gratification that can be had from disciplined application of skills and talent.

[John Kasaian]

There is a tactile quality thats been lost. It's difficult to describe. I experienced it most profoundly while examining an original sketchbook from the 1890s---the words H. Belloc printed by hand and the Mogollon Rim scenes he sketched, even the book it's self marked as having been purchased at a stationary store in Paris had rarely encountered qualities. This is much like seeing an original Ansel Adams print as opposed to a reproduction. The object it's self is History rather than a representation of History. That goes beyond---or at least in a unique direction---from the artistic experience that digital captures and portrays.

Hell, I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Brian C. Miller]

1. Permanence.
A black and white negative can be usable for many decades. There are color images from the 1890s, from tri-color or Autochrome.

2. Adaptability.
A film camera can be as simple or as complex as needed. It can be as small or large as needed.

3. Detail.
I snapped a 4x5 chrome of the view out the company kitchen window. There were many surprised responses when I showed people the chrome on a light box with various magnifiers. A far ridge showed all of the tree branches, stuff like that. Normal stuff for film. Not so normal for digital.

4. Accuracy.
Digital sensors still have a problem with color. Yes, after all this time. Sony NEX-6 Review: Conclusion Part II (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/04/sony-nex-6-review-conclusion-part-ii.html) features a photo of a reportedly pink car. I think it looks like an orange car, and I looked at the image on four different monitors with different web browsers. Still orange. A comparison of the Nikon D800 to a Hasselblad H4D-40 showed that the Nikon gave a reddish tone to Caucasian faces. If color is critical, then what color is the digital camera showing? It's not a question of saturation, it's a question of accurate color. Film manufacturers solved the problem of accurate color quite a while ago. Why is this still a problem?

5. Character.
Kodak Tri-X is the most popular black & white film. Why? It's comparable to why people like wood paneling better than a synthetic laminate. Grain gives a certain texture to a photograph. Granted, the larger film formats usually don't show it. But grain isn't necessarily bad, and many people do associate memories with grainy photographs.

6. Authenticity.
Certainly photography has been manipulated from the beginning of the process. However, it is the intrinsic nature of a photograph to accurately represent a fragment of time. Manipulation required time and skill. Digital manipulation now has the ability to process a photograph or movie stream in real time to alter the final image. This manipulation can be done within the device itself, providing no absolute reference to the physical subject.

7. Magic.
I'll call it magic. It happens when I see certain old photographs, and I get that cat-pawing-at-the-mirror syndrome. "I can see you. I'm here. You're there. Who are you? Can't I touch you? Can't I hear your voice? Can't we share together?" It's a photograph, just a piece of paper. And yet it connects. Magic.

[Brian Ellis]

You mentioned "too much automation" as something that's been lost in the digital age. Actually there was plenty of automation with 35mm film cameras and some medium format cameras long before digital came along.

You mentioned loss of knowledge of chemistry as something else that's been lost. Some photographers in the "film age" knew that kind of stuff but most sent their film somewhere else to be developed and printed. Only a relatively small fraction had their own darkroom and knew anything about what different chemicals did.

You mentioned physics, e.g. light film interactions, as something else that's been lost. I'm not sure what you mean by this, I know nothing about physics or "light/film interactions" unless you're talking about something very basic like "more light = brighter print."

You mentioned that today you see a lot of people who don't know what a good print looks like. That was equally true in the "film age." Excellent prints were as much a rarity then as they are today, perhaps more so.

I think you're making a mistake that is often made in this forum when "digital" is discussed. That mistake (IMHO) is comparing "film" as it was represented by serious, knowledgeable photographers who generally used medium or large format cameras with "digital" as represented by snap-shooters who know nothing. There certainly were and are people in both camps but neither is necessarily representative. It's not like automation, snap-shooting, little knowledge of technique, bad prints, etc. only started when digital came along.

Do you plan to talk about what has been gained in the digital age or only about what you think has been lost?

[MIke Sherck]

One of the things lost in the transition from film to digital is the happy unplanned accident. With film, accidents are often decidedly unhappy but sometimes a miracle occurs and wonderful things result. Could the discovery of solarization have occurred by someone using digital methods? Of course not. How many digital multiple exposures have been saved because they were interesting? For that matter, how many digital shots were deleted after a moment's preview on a tiny matchbox screen which, had they been viewed with greater leisure, been seen as interesting?

Digital methods encourage quick workflows and snap decisions. One thing which might be seen as having been lost, or at least diminished, is thoughtfulness.

Mike

[jp]

I'm also big on the applied physics, math, history, etc...

AFAIK, the brightness range of tmy2 handily beats any common DSLR's ability and looks better than HDR.

The ability to use one camera for multiple size contemporary films and metal/glass plates from 150 years ago.

Less magnification when shooting/scanning/enlarging for better results with old glass.

Lack of "chimping" means a greater importance of getting it right the first time (creating confidence), where digital chimping can be a creative godsend in shortening the feedback cycle in experimentation.

Use 150+ year old lenses.

People also forget that photography can be a timeless art; much as you can use 100 year old easels and brushes to make paintings, you can do the same with photography making new photos with old styles or gear, studying/collecting old photos. Consumerism and innovation in the business of photography hardware distract most people from this notion.

[Kirk Gittings]

Not very long ago there was rampant mediocrity (and worse) in film photos too. I suggest using examples of high quality photos from both sources and showing the strengths of each. Smooth tonality and lots of detail in LF prints for example. Accurate color and sharpness from the newest sensors. It would help photography to show the gratification that can be had from disciplined application of skills and talent.

Indeed! I have taught photo at the university level since 1984-currently teaching both film based and digital. There was vast quantities of crap then too.


There is always vast quantities of crap art, because vision and craft in all media are at all times rare-not commonplace.

[Jac@stafford.net]

There is always vast quantities of crap art, because vision and craft in all media are at all times rare-not commonplace.

It is Sturgeon's Law.

[Terry Hayden]

Wow - all good points. Thank you all very much.

Most i agree with, and many I will use to flesh out my comments.

Brian - I had hoped I had made clear that this is not a "dump on digital" talk. Actually, there is another photographer on the same bill talking
about the wonders of digital imagery. My purpose is to balance that out and make sure that what might have been lost or compromised is
pointed out.

As to mediocrity in photography - yes, I've taught at various levels over the decades, and been involved in curating a lot of exhibits - there is
never a shortage of mediocre or bad imagery to be had. On the one hand, properly archival silver prints allowed "us" to present our work in
permanence comparison to any artwork - on the other hand, there is now a vast number of mediocre to bad photography out there that will
last for 300+ years...

The technical aspects of film photography are important - even those that don't claim any knowledge of physics, chemistry, etc have learned
by experience how film, lenses and chemistry work. I think it would be a loss to not have that as part of the learning curve.

Part of my plan is to bring my 4x5 with me and demonstrate the process of setting it up. The reason for this is, as was mentioned, to show the
necessary mechanical delay in getting a photo composed and exposed. It is, for me, a meditative process - it does indeed force a pre-exposure
consideration of what I am about to shoot.

Motor drives came in full force in the late 60's and early 70's - 72 exposure backs, unlimited film availability (Nat'l Geo sorts) - all that lent to machine
gun photographing. Now with 64 gb cards it's even more pronounced.

So, again - all good and valid points, thanks to everyone ( and to those yet to comment).

Regards,
Terry

[benrains]

There are inherent costs in working with film: the costs of the photographic materials, photochemistry, and time. Digital photography lacks those. In one sense, I think that's a real benefit to beginner photographers because it gives them endless freedom to experiment and learn about photography, and to get immediate feedback on their results.

The down side of it being, more often than not, I think it makes photographers careless, even sloppy. Working with the analog processes, out of necessity, you're forced to master the craft side of photography if you want to consistently make good images. And by mastering the craft, I mean not just technical skills of operating the camera and processing the film, but also the skill of selecting and composing your subjects. The novice learns patience, to be observant, and persistence in the face of repeated (costly in terms of time and materials) failures. With film you don't have the luxury of just being able to hold the shutter button down to produce an almost continuous stream of shots that get edited after one dumps 5000 images from an SD card onto a computer.

You certainly could learn nearly all the same essential lessons from digital photography as can be learned with film photography. There's nothing about digital photography that forces people to be careless. However film photography does force them to be careful... or at least more so, and over the long term (unless you've an endless supply of time and money, and are also completely devoid of common sense.)

[paulr]

My biggest sense of withdrawal when I gave up the darkroom was from working with my hands and with potions—the sense of alchemy.

Fortunately I have a kitchen. I moved my alchemical obsessiveness to the next room and got serious about cooking. This is one discipline that I believe will remain analog for a long time …

The added efficiency of the digital workflow means I'm more productive than ever with photographic projects, and still have time to sometimes run an underground restaurant in my studio.

As far as the quality of my prints, they are better than they have ever been. Some people don't want to believe this is possible. I fully understand the skepticism. But we are well into the age when any quality level is possible with either paradigm—the differences come down to the workflow you prefer, and the price/performance relationship of any given implementation. And the availability of materials. The latter factors, of course, are changing all the time.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, it is a lot like fine cooking. The main difference is that, in the darkroom it's my space, in the kitchen I have to do what
my wife tells me! But I'm just disgusted with American Pop culture in general. Junk food, junk politics, drive-thru weddings,
junk TV programming, want everything yesterday, or just want everything... Digital is just one more adolescent technology
filling the machine-gun mentality to photography. Unfortunatley, more pictures rarely equates to more quality. It need not be. A handful of people will do great things with it, but at the moment, they will most likely be those who disciplined their vision with something else beforehand. The masses will do what they have always done before.

[PrabuVenkat]

I think one of the most important things "lost" in the digital age is "a deeper and personal sense of appreciation". For the "making". And for what "precedes" and "follows".

To me that "sense of appreciation" is the one calm spot in all the rush that defines me and my all-round expression as a human being.

[bob carnie]

I was involved in a couple of intense photo-labs catering to professional photographers first an E6 lab then my own BW lab.
There was a community back then that is not found today, There was a tension each night as the film was brought in for clip tests, failure or success could be smelled in the room. The lab was a landing pad each night and much socializing continued into the night, mostly from the success crowd , not so much when the photographer missed their mark on the clips.

Today it is very unlikely two competing art photographers will be in the room with me at the same time, when there is I get a sniff of the old tension. Not sure if I miss those days, I do miss the good booze though.

[SergeiR]

Amongst academic things being missed are :
1) Basic math - manual shutter speeds and f/stops and their relations (too much automation now)
2) Chemistry - working with the effects of different dilutions, what different ingredients do, etc
3) Physics - lenses, light/film interactions.


Sorry, but you wrong on all 3 counts there. Digital doesnt relieve you from any of above.
Manual is still there and very strong amongst people who like to get serious about light and who need repeatable results.
Chemistry is kinda replaced with requirement of knowledge of basic colour theory for corrections and profile building, and understanding on how things are printed on inkjet and what effect will be.
Lenses - whole fetish is still there.

Digital added instant gratification - thing that (bar polaroids) wasnt really there in film age. But it took away excitement of long wait for development, mystery of getting things delivered later. Rest stays almost same.

[sanking]

93414Most of the things that have been lost in photography are the same things we still have, i.e. factory made films, papers, and cameras.

If you want to connect with the early spirit of real photography why not emancipate yourself from the factory by learning to make prints with a hand coated process from the early days, say say salted paper, carbon transfer or albumen. Learn to make your own wet or dry plates on glass. Learn how to make color separations in your view camera through Red, Green and Blue filter on B&W panchromatic film. Learn how to really do things like in the old days, when knowledge and hard work mattered more than ideology and opinions.

I personally print with a 19th century process invented in 1865 (carbon transfer), and with an inkjet printer set up with an all gray K7 ink set, and I really enjoy both methods. I use film and digital and like working with both. And the only thing I really miss at age 69 is the energy and vitality of being half this age. I don't miss Kodachrome a bit, and while TMY is a great film, I can make do with others.

And BTW, I am not familiar with all this "instant gratification" some people tend to associate with digital. Whether the capture device is film or digital in my work flow it is just the first step in a long process that leads to a print. I have never seen a nice carbon transfer print pop out of my view camera, or out of my Mamiya 7 or Nikon D800E.

See photo of expectant dog with sized art papers drying on line, for future printing with carbon transfer. Image thanks to the miracle of digital and HDR with the iPhone.

Sandy

[Brian C. Miller]

Brian - I had hoped I had made clear that this is not a "dump on digital" talk. Actually, there is another photographer on the same bill talking about the wonders of digital imagery. My purpose is to balance that out and make sure that what might have been lost or compromised is pointed out.

I'm guessing that you are directing the comment to this Brian.

I work in IT, and the first place I had a job had just done a major move from punched cards to magnetic tape and 13-platter hard drives. When the magnetic tape machine was demonstrated for the first time, I watched one of the programmers jump back when it used air to self-thread the tape. (The system used to boot from punched cards, and it used to have a reader that took six-foot stacks of cards at a time.) I have used a TTY machine with punched tape.

Permanence has always been an issue with digital information. At one programming gig I was also tasked with the custom backup system. Believe me, I do know from first-hand experience and research the problem with archiving and retrieving digital information. Permanence is a problem in IT. Big time problem. Will that digital information be there in 100 years? Good question.

Digital is not as adaptable as film. Want a bigger sensor? Cut a bigger sheet of film and slap an appropriate lens on the front. Done. Want to change characteristics? It's as fast as loading film into the camera.

Detail. Compare the actual information on a (oh, hey, they cleaned my office windows!) 4x5 chrome and compare it to a 12Mp or 24Mp sensor image. I don't mean print, I mean the totality of information. I showed that chrome around and I got solid oohs and ahs from people who knew how to operate a DSLR. They hadn't seen a 4x5 before, and they were impressed.

Accuracy. Follow the link. What is the color of that car? Seriously. What does it look like?

Authenticity. That's a serious concept. In-camera manipulation is a serious matter.

Character and magic. Those two concepts are, of course, squishy.

No, I'm not dumping on digital. It looks like a presentation, so go and make one. Don't set yourself up to be a Charlie Brown or Don Quixote figure. These cameras are the big guns. Go and make a loud boom!

[paulr]

I have never seen a nice carbon transfer print pop out of my view camera, or out of my Mamiya 7 or Nikon D800E.
Sandy

Ooh, just wait for the d801 ...

[Kirk Gittings]

I was involved in a couple of intense photo-labs catering to professional photographers first an E6 lab then my own BW lab.
There was a community back then that is not found today, There was a tension each night as the film was brought in for clip tests, failure or success could be smelled in the room. The lab was a landing pad each night and much socializing continued into the night, mostly from the success crowd , not so much when the photographer missed their mark on the clips.

Today it is very unlikely two competing art photographers will be in the room with me at the same time, when there is I get a sniff of the old tension. Not sure if I miss those days, I do miss the good booze though.

That is all very true except now we have Dumante.......

[Andrew O'Neill]

Various films and papers. But what I have lost, I have gained in the digital world.
My wife and the general public couldn't care less.

[sanking]

93414

See photo of expectant dog with sized art papers drying on line, for future printing with carbon transfer. Image thanks to the miracle of digital and HDR with the iPhone.

Sandy

BTW, my red labrador Queen Roxy, seen in an attached .jpeg, is not expectant as with puppies, but expectant as in wanting her daily pig ear!

Sandy

[Jac@stafford.net]

With digital I can sit in our living-room with my wife as she reads her books and watches TV. I edit and post process and in the end produce, for better or worse, images. There is some kind of 'schmooze' she likes about our being in the same space doing our thing. I love this lady ( 17 years together) and we recognize differences. One day 'above ground' in the living room earns me uncountable days in the basement darkroom. In the very end, placing my silver prints in the living room and inviting contrast and comparison of digital vs silver reveals that she could care less.

... And she is 64 years old. I am close to 70. I tell ya, she's a friggin modernist, a hippie! 😁

Just saying, as they say.

[paulr]

Various films and papers.

It was actually the constant loss of papers that pushed me out of the analog world. The rise of digital accelerated this trend, but didn't start it. The history of photography, like any technological medium, has been one of constant flux. You get attached to something, and it abandons you. I'm sure my favorite inkjet papers will likewise get discontinued or "new and improved," but with a technology on the upswing this will sometimes actually mean an improvement. And switching from one material to another is much less of a disruption when you have tools like color management. The range of choices in digital materials right now looks closer to the analog world of the 50s and 60s, when every manufacturer had several premium papers, each available in many surfaces.

[paulr]

With digital I can sit in our living-room with my wife as she reads her books and watches TV. I edit and post process and in the end produce, for better or worse, images.

I had my darkroom set up to make that kind of thing possible. I printed only at night, and illuminated my loft with red chili pepper lights, so I could keep the darkroom door open and wander in and out. My cat could wander in and out. The music filled the whole place. Not quite the freedom of the computer, but a step in that direction. I sometimes miss those nights.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . Brian - I had hoped I had made clear that this is not a "dump on digital" talk. Actually, there is another photographer on the same bill talking
about the wonders of digital imagery. My purpose is to balance that out and make sure that what might have been lost or compromised is
pointed out. . . . Terry

Thanks for your response Terry. If I'm the "Brian " at whom this is directed, I understood that you weren't starting a "dump on digital" thread and I didn't mean to suggest that you were. My point was simply that most of the things you described as having been present in the film age and lost in the digital age in fact were either lost before digital came along (e.g. automation in cameras) or if they existed in the film age they existed only with respect to a relatively small number of film photographers (e.g. knowledge of darkroom chemicals).

As I said before, it seems to me that you were - consciously or not - comparing "film" as used by serious, knowledgeable, mostly large and medium format photographers who did their own darkroom work vs. digital as used by snap-shooters. Many of the comments in this thread seem to me to reflect this same sort of thinking. To take just one example, benrains said that "with film you don't have the luxury of just being able to hold the shutter button down to produce an almost continuous stream of shots . . . " That's true if "film" is limited to large and medium format but motor drives allowed the same thing to be done with 35mm film (I don't mean to pick on ben who made several excellent points in his message, his message just happened to be right below mine as I was typing this). Maybe automated rapid-fire shooting is more prevalent today, I don't know. But I know it isn't something that just started with "digital."

When I asked whether you planned to talk only about things lost with digital I wasn't being sarcastic or facetious, I was really curious. If the question came across the wrong way, my apologies.

[John Conway]

I use both digital and film. I use my digital camera as an electronic polaroid camera. I like getting the instant results and having the option to delete and try again at no cost. Print quality is great. But my film cameras, especially my large format,is what I really love. And that will never die. When people come to my home and see the big black and white portraits on the wall, they ask how I do it. They move in close and almost touch the glass. I know it sounds strange, but they know there is something special and unique about the image. Especially the 8X10 work. When I show them the cameras, most of time, they request a portrait of themselves or their children using the old camera and film. I personally feel, and many people agree with me, that the digital age is becoming a bit overwhelming. Not just cameras, but everything else, as well. I go to the bank, there are video screens on the wall pumping out news, news, news. I go to the gas station, pump my gas, I have look at a video screen on the pump. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned, but I think there are a lot of people that would enjoy using their hands to create something they can call their own.I have a young nephew, he lives in the city. He has the whole boat load of tech toys; iphone , ipad, itoothbrush etc. He spent a week with my wife and I up in the mountains at our cottage. During that trip I had him help me cut down a tree and split firewood, introduced him to archery, help me service my tractor( get dirty and grimy) and we went out and made 4X5 images of farms, barns, and old rusty cars. He was fascinated. All he talks about is going back to the country. Some things need to be preserved.

[Terry Hayden]

T

When I asked whether you planned to talk only about things lost with digital I wasn't being sarcastic or facetious, I was really curious. If the question came across the wrong way, my apologies.

Brian (Ellis) - no problem - I actually was concerned that this thread would turn into some sort of digital vs analog flame fest.

Fortunately that wasn't the case.

Yes, I was referring (at one point ) to those of us that tend to delve into the deeper part of our art, and not paying enough attention to the
happy/snappy sorts that have always been around. To quote Seinfeld on another subject "not that there's anything wrong with that"...

All of the comments here have been quite helpful in honing my approach to this talk - I can take criticisms and correction, so do feel free to offer them.

Regards,
Terry

[invisibleflash]

BW looks too flat and plastic looking with digital. Wish they would make it more film like.

[sanking]

BW looks too flat and plastic looking with digital. Wish they would make it more film like.

Haha.

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

BW looks too flat and plastic looking with digital. Wish they would make it more film like.

That is up to you to do and frankly with a little practice it can be done.

[Mark Sawyer]

Say what you will about the digital revolution, I think it's opened new artistic doors. Used to be, if I made a portrait of someone, I just made a portrait of someone.

But with the new digital technology, if I make a portrait of someone, I can turn it into a Simpsons cartoon, then turn that into a wet plate...

With the right connections, I think that could get a show in New York...

[Leigh]

What have we lost in the digital age?... Quality.

Modern viewers have no idea what quality means. They think iphone photos are great.

Expectations have been lowered so dramatically that people think newspaper cartoons are fine art.

- Leigh

[Brian C. Miller]

What have we lost in the digital age?... Quality.

Modern viewers have no idea what quality means. They think iphone photos are great.

Expectations have been lowered so dramatically that people think newspaper cartoons are fine art.

- Leigh

What have we lost in the film age?... Quality.

Modern viewers have no idea what quality means. They think Brownie photos are great.

Expectations have been lowered so dramatically that people think the Yellow Kid is fine art.

- somebody with a view camera

[SergeiR]

BW looks too flat and plastic looking with digital. Wish they would make it more film like.

Dunno. I had images published where (fairly experienced in matter) editors by accident marked them as film, and they were from digital back (admittedly some images from same set were in fact 4x5 film) .. So sorry. You just might want to learn how to convert better.

[Serge S]

Film photography with an inherent cost can lead to less experimentation, especially for a young kid. Resources are finite for everyone. I always thought it would be cool not to have to pay for film & processing and now that it's happened with digital...I 'm not so sure I'm happy that I got my wish!
To me process is a bit diff shooting digital, as you can monitor the shooting in real time if you like. Good or bad it is a component of the new image capture. I shoot a bit more in digital, but really try to limit what I shoot as I dislike the editing process. I much prefer to edit ahead if I feel confident enough by not shooting too many frames or skipping the shot altogether. LF photography, as has been mentioned is a lot like that as there is the cost of effort in setting things up + film costs etc.
In a way it's great to use digital & film as they both offer a different look.

One last thing, my kids focus much on sports and at school there is little emphasis on the visual arts. They bring them to performing arts events occasionally, but never visit the local museums (and we have a few fine ones). I feel I need to pick up the slack and show them paintings, as you learn by osmosis. Art is a language & we have a lot of visual illiterates.

Sorry probably got a little off track:) but I feel strongly about this issue.

Getting back to film & digital. They both have a place in this world. They both have diff looks. They both make us select things in a diff way and art is about selection. We have too many choices today:)

[Jac@stafford.net]

What have we lost in the digital age?... Quality.

Modern viewers have no idea what quality means. They think iphone photos are great.

The public has always had low expectations, or expectations coupled with cost. Kodak did a huge, scientific study of what their public (market) perceived as quality. Their conclusion was used in the development of their Next Big Consumer Camera - this! (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Camera_Kodak_Disc_4000_with_disc_film.jpg) Talk about a horror!

[John Kasaian]

I think the OP was referring to what has been lost as meaning those things neccessarily accompany film based photography which are missing from digital capture.
Thats a fair question.
Why is everyone getting so uptight?

[Kirk Gittings]

Dunno. I had images published where (fairly experienced in matter) editors by accident marked them as film, and they were from digital back (admittedly some images from same set were in fact 4x5 film) .. So sorry. You just might want to learn how to convert better.

I've had similar experiences, where I did a mixed submission of scans from film and digital capture......"which ones are which-they all seem the same to me".

Having said that I think it is a huge advantage in this regard to have a solid history in traditional film and printing.

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh ... it would a huge step backwards for me be forced into color digital printing itself. And it would be more expensive.
People need to see what color film and paper are truly capable of at the moment. As far as I'm concerned, digital is the complicated and expensive way of getting of getting from point A to point B. But if you gotta have every new toy jes cause
it's a new toy ....

[paulr]

I'm sometimes nostalgic for printing black and white in the darkroom, but not color. Not anything about it.

There is no "new toy" aspect to my current choice of tools, except that i found the old tools lacking.

I'd still be doing all my work 4x5 if I were doing black and white. It was the move to color that forced me to drop it. It was unaffordable, as were the means of printing to my standards.

[Mark Sawyer]

But if you gotta have every new toy jes cause
it's a new toy ....

As opposed to those of us who gotta have every old toy jes cause it's an old toy? :rolleyes:

[Drew Wiley]

Nope Mark. Jes cause it's optical doesn't make it obsolete or inherently old. After all, our own eyes still use optical technology. I get that kind of remark on the trails sometimes: Is that a real old-time camera? Answer: they didn't use delrin
and titanium and epoxy/fiberglass laminates in old times did they? I'm a result-collector, not an antique collector.

[Drew Bedo]

Before the internet and digital photography, there were camera shows in most major markets across the country. I enjoyed going to the "Houston Camera Show and Sale" in a hotel out by Hobby Airport on the south side of town. I know that the marketplace has spoken and there are other and better ways tro sell/buy all things photographic on line . . .What I miss is the experience.

Twice a year I would meet venders and customers over two days starting Friday night. Many became friends. I could walk around and see (and mostly hold) wonderful pieces of photographica, and meet friends from as far away as the Pacific Rim. I learned a whole lot about photography, photographic history and photo-gear. Many pieces were from the mid part of the previous century (1930-1970). Some were rare antiques. These were classic old school film cameras and lenses.

When the world went digital in the late '90s / early 2Ks, all that changed. Almost no-one wanted the "old" cameras any more and absolutly on-one wanted early generation digital cameras either. Customers-through-the-door dropped from 2,500 (~1998) over two days, to <500, then only a few friends-of-friends. The number of tables at the show hit a high of +250 and dropped each year TO no more than 40 or so, then zero.

Again: I recognise all the factors that bring us to the point where this forum, Pixtus and Craig's list are the best venues to buy/sell . . .I just miss "the good old days" of The Houston Camera Show and Sale.

[bigdog]

Sony NEX-6 Review: Conclusion Part II (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/04/sony-nex-6-review-conclusion-part-ii.html) features a photo of a reportedly pink car. I think it looks like an orange car, and I looked at the image on four different monitors with different web browsers. Still orange.

Digital sensors may, indeed, have color "accuracy" issues. I don't, in fact, know. However, almost all films did to some extent, too.

But, in all fairness, the photograph referenced is titled "Pink car at sunset". You know, that orange, late afternoon light that effects the color of everything ...

[Drew Wiley]

Was talking to a friend of mine yesterday PM, who has quite a background in museum work, art representation, and publication himself, but has been out of the loop for awhile due to other interests. He and his wife has just returned from a couple of museum shows of modern photog over in Frisco, and his comments were how everything was printed BIG - ungainly for the content involved (or lack of content and detail), and how poorly printed it all was. In this area of the so-called West
Coast school, where our heritage is richly nuanced fine prints, it's quite a letdown to see all that tossed out the window because now subject matter is all that counts. Just more monkey-see/monkey-do mentality. What one museum does, the
others copy. And they can't properly archive all that big stuff when the venue is over.

[Andrew O'Neill]

BW looks too flat and plastic looking with digital. Wish they would make it more film like.

In the hands of the right person, no. I've seen some very large digital prints that knocked my socks off. The depth was astounding.

[paulr]

What one museum does, the
others copy. And they can't properly archive all that big stuff when the venue is over.

There is nothing in the world easier, or less interesting, or less intelligent, than to make huge, sweeping generalizations without reference to anything in the real world, which, in every instance, fall apart under the closest scrutiny.

What you and your "friend" are calling a trend is one among many, and it's mischaracterized, and if anything it's been on the decline for a decade, and it only occasionally fits the simple description you offer anyhow.

In other worlds: an utterly useless observation.

Why not spend your attention looking at the the interesting work? It will always be a minority of what's available. That's no more true now than in was in the 1970s or 1930s or 1860s. All of these eras were home to choruses of small-minded old people who said, essentially, "work today sucks because of X and Y and Z." Why waste your time installing yourself on the wrong side of history?

[Jim Noel]

I agree with all you say. Having recently retired from teaching photography at the college level all your statements are blatantly obvious.
I think the biggest loss will not be in evidence for several more years when people realize there may be photos of their great grandparents, and great great grandparents, but none of their grandparents, and possibly children. These memories so common to those of us past about 60 years of age, will not be inexistence.

[paulr]

Over one decade the big question of the digital age has shifted from how to preserve information to how to delete it.

Keeping your artwork and heirlooms for posterity is no longer a challenge. But good luck permanently deleting those pics of you throwing up on the intern at the company xmas party from the Facebook archives.

[Kirk Gittings]

There is nothing in the world easier, or less interesting, or less intelligent, than to make huge, sweeping generalizations without reference to anything in the real world, which, in every instance, fall apart under the closest scrutiny.

What you and your "friend" are calling a trend is one among many, and it's mischaracterized, and if anything it's been on the decline for a decade, and it only occasionally fits the simple description you offer anyhow.

In other worlds: an utterly useless observation.

Why not spend your attention looking at the the interesting work? It will always be a minority of what's available. That's no more true now than in was in the 1970s or 1930s or 1860s. All of these eras were home to choruses of small-minded old people who said, essentially, "work today sucks because of X and Y and Z." Why waste your time installing yourself on the wrong side of history?

Witness the William Clift exhibit that is now traveling and last years Robert Adams retrospective. Big shows where the prints are small. I guess all the other museums will copy that as the new trend?

[Drew Wiley]

It's pretty blatant. And what happens to be so ironic is that one of the color photographers in mind was hailed back in the
70's for making "precious" 8x10 Type C contact prints designed to be viewed at an "intimate" level. Now some of those same
images are being displayed eight feet wide. The fact is, back in the 70's he was too poor to even own an enlarger. The next
big trend will be Minox contact prints, but centered on matboard six feet wide.

[Drew Wiley]

Well Paul, the new director of the SFMMA (after an extremely nasty coup) is from NYC. I sure hope he doesn't bring a lot
more Warhol and polka dots with him. It's already got enough of that stereotypical nonsense. I do give them credit for
taking on a major collection of interesting entirely unnamed amateur images. Whether it ever gets displayed in another story.
The more Barbarians the better.

[paulr]

Kir, those shows are great examples. And the work I've seen at moma's contemporary photographers series over the last couple of years has come in all sizes.

Even the poster boys of huge prints, like Andreas Gursky, are best known for work that they did over a decade ago. And that work was neither gratuitous in its use of scale, nor was it derivative of anyone else's style.

The giant work that started wearing on me was mostly in the Tina Barney school of huge, staged, domestic vignettes. I thought it was interesting in the early 1990s when it first appeared, but it outlasted its expiration date. Still, that was one trend among many, and between the yawns there was some interesting work.

[paulr]

Drew, do you think all the work in NYC looks alike? I don't even think you could point to a trend here. Under Peter Gallassi's watch, I couldn't identify anything resembling an esthetic or philosophical position at MoMA (much unlike the Szarkowsky decades).

At any rate, who cares that sfmoma has a new director. That job is to bring in money. Sandra Philips is still curator of photography as she has been for over a quarter century. She runs one of the more conservative photography programs at a major museum, and unrelatedly (in my opinion) one of the best. You should be happy to have it.

FWIW, when SFMOMA acquires an image, they don't even ask what kind of print it is, or whether it was captured by analog or digital means. A conservator figures that out when they catalog it. As it should be, I believe.

[Kirk Gittings]

Well Paul, the new director of the SFMMA (after an extremely nasty coup) is from NYC. I sure hope he doesn't bring a lot
more Warhol and polka dots with him. It's already got enough of that stereotypical nonsense. I do give them credit for
taking on a major collection of interesting entirely unnamed amateur images. Whether it ever gets displayed in another story.
The more Barbarians the better.

In all frankness Drew, you talk out of your butt more than anyone here. I don't actually think you are serious most times but playing devil's advocate?

[PrabuVenkat]

Was wondering if it would be possible to approach the original question, stripping the discussion of any "technicalities" or "capabilities" of the two systems (after all, it is expression, and I would hail something expressive from an iPhone as I would from, say, a wet-plate).

I had found the answer in a rather sad experience last year: I had signed up for a course on a darkroom work (in a rather very famous week-long photography workshop/festival, and offered by one of the very famous photographers in Norway). Apparently I was among just too few people who had signed up and the course had to be cancelled.

Is it the technology ? or its capabilities ? or the medium itself ? I would say what has "changed" (if not "lost") is within us. As enthusiasts, as practitioners, as observers, and very *importantly* as contributors. Including our approach to the "change" itself !

[paulr]

Was wondering if it would be possible to approach the original question, stripping the discussion of any "technicalities" or "capabilities" of the two systems ...

I would welcome that as well.

Alec Soth has spoken compellingly about why he works with 8x10. I can't point to a particular interview, but they're all worth reading. He mentions the slow pace, and the way the big camera encourages him to be engaged personally with the people he photographs, rather than to have a viewfinder camera between them.

He uses other formats in other situations.

I think this kind of distinction is much more interesting than the kind we usually talk about ... it can materially influence someone's vision and working methods.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, Kirk, "devil's" advocate is a bit of a judgment call. Stirring the pot maybe ...

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry they have about the same practical meaning to me.

[paulr]

Devil's advocacy and pot-stirring both offer benefits. But I don't see an upside to these ritual outbursts. Is there an old-timey expression for what the the gorilla at the zoo does when he poops in his hand and throws it at you?

[Drew Wiley]

Why would anyone want to eat out if every restaurant served the same thing? I'm not against big prints, but the ease of
wide-format digital printing has certainly contributed to the mediocrity of a number of current installations, as has image
selection over the web. I can enjoy a well-printed large image as much as a small one, but it better have more going for it
than big for the sake of big. That's what outdoor advertising companies are for. Believe me, I'm not the only one around here
getting fed up. Was having dinner the other nite with some friends of mine who are from NYC and are very well-heeled in the
sense of being serious philanthropists in this area too, and they are getting pretty bored with seeing just about the same
thing in both venues. Both MMA's are getting scratched off their list of things to either see or support. Up the street there's
a giant hole in the ground where the new UC Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive is going. Hard to understand student's of
taxpaying parents being unable to afford an education there anymore and who knows how many tens of millions going into
that hole in the ground, but maybe they'll do something different. Maybe not. I do like the option of the Oakland Museum.
Worth crossing the bridge for, if anyone mistakenly thinks all the cultural stuff is going on in SF.

[Lenny Eiger]

I won't speak to the technical issues about whether or not you can create a wonderful looking print (by my standards) with a digital back or not. My guess is that if its not there today, it will be, certainly with the new b&w systems. One might just have to wait for the cost of high end gear to come down for it to be reasonable. (That is, if it ever does come down.)

I think what we have lost is in two areas. Both are related to fine art. The first is the influence of post modernism and the second is that now everyone has a camera, all the time. Personally, I am interested in images that are deep. I like the sleeper ones, where somehow by looking at an image you find that you have changed. If it hasn't happened to you, go look at some more original work. I have a copy of Clarence White's "Morning", from 1908, and when I first saw it I was stunned. I think I forgot to breathe for a couple of minutes. It took 22 years to acquire a copy and its one of my favorite things. It's still a "source" photograph for me. There are plenty of other photographs that have moved me over the years, from Watkins and O'Sullivan to Paul Caponigro, and well, too many to mention.

Today, the world seems to be all about commodity. Post modernism frowns upon any emotional content in an image. It's "tainted", according to the pundits of this philosophy, but to me its cold and there's nothing for me to be moved by. I want to grow as a human being, be more kind, compassionate. I don't find anything there to interest me or to show me what's important in life.

With everyone having a phone camera, and everything on Facebook being a "photo" it seems to make everyone a "Photographer". At least they seem to think so. In 2005, Getty sold about 1.5 million stock images. That's a big dent in commercial photography. Today, that number is over 20 million. Except for some niches here and there, that has to suggest that commercial photography as a potential career for some young person is over. I can't recommend that anyone go to Photography school these days. Now we have Instagram, and some of those things are interesting, of course. However, it moves Photography to the snapshot aesthetic. The other possibility seems to be journalism, more and more intense. Even some landscape photography seems to have a journalistic aspect in some practitioners, who want to engender a sense of awe for the people viewing their images. Personally, I'll take understanding over shock and awe any day.

Galleries and Museums are less and less showing the work that is deeper, and more and more show work that is either journalistic or snapshot. These are both important genres within the field and I won't denigrate them. However, what's missing is the photographer who sees the underlying magic of life at work. whether it be portrait still life or landscape. I think much of it is still going on, certainly by many members of this forum. However, it isn't being shown, isn't being discussed, has been dismissed from museums and galleries. The public does not appear to know the difference between a landscape that is a very commercial look and something more compelling, done by someone who has studied Photography (and life) seriously.

I think we have lost a lot.

Lenny

[paulr]

Lenny, I'll take an opposing view on both counts. Regarding postmodernism, no label has been less fashionable over the last ten years. We've been in a cultural era marked by artists strongly influenced by questions raised in the postmodern era (1960s through 1990s or so) but that have been summarily rejecting most of the answers. The results have been eclectic, with many of them embracing emotion, others going down different paths.

And while there are always downsides to democratization, I think overall nothing is healthier. I love that everyone has a camera. Why should a medium only be available to the wealthy? Why should it only be available to the "serious?" Or the indoctrinated? The signal to noise ratio goes down along with the price of entry, but that's a problem for curators and editors, not for me. The increase in variety and the possibilities for previously excluded perspectives makes it all worthwhile. I'd only be concerned about if I believed my work was distinguished only by an expensive camera, or by an arcane set of technical skills.

I'm not convinced that the work getting canonized today is shallower than the work of earlier eras. Pop Art emerged in the 1950s; Szarkowski started collecting actual snapshots in the 1960s, the height of po-mo snark and appropriation was in the 1980s. Much of the photography from the 19th century is more labor intensive, but doesn't strike me as more profound than this work. Staging a sodden, gauzy scene from mythology isn't necessarily more thoughtful than Piss Christ.

[patrickjames]

What I think is lost in the digital age is the personal physical involvement in the finished artifact itself, the print. With digital images everything is done in the netherworld and the photographer doesn't touch the print until it is finished. It is akin to a cnc sculpture vs. one done by a chisel.

[Drew Wiley]

Well... I completely resonate with what Lenny said. Amen. So does that makes him a devil's advocate too?

[Brian C. Miller]

With everyone having a phone camera, and everything on Facebook being a "photo" it seems to make everyone a "Photographer".


What I think is lost in the digital age is the personal physical involvement in the finished artifact itself, the print.

I'll come at this from a different point.

What has the Brownie lost to the cell phone?

Size? Both are relatively small in size, compared to contemporary equipment.
Convenience? Both are relatively convenient.
Spontaneity? Nope, that's still there.
100 exposures? Still got that.
Convenience? Still there.
Sharing? Can still do that.
Prints? Yep, that, too.

From the context of the Brownie, everything is just fine. All of this is the context of the average person.

Is the average person worried about archiving the past? I worked with a woman who threw away the negatives when she got her prints.

Now what is lost to the professional or fine-art photographer? That's a different question, because it comes from a different view point.

[Drew Wiley]

As large format photographers, I think all this is a priori phrased around some kind of quality context. I understand the distinction between this and amateur photography. In fact, after work tonite I'll probably be shopping for a new point n shoot
for my wife's purse. But what I am referring to in the impact of digital on this machine-manufactured mentality. Even the new
commercial gallery down the road is selling big so-so inkjets. Nobody would have tried that stunt in the past. Photographers
care about "their" prints. Now it's the concept that counts - write a symphony, then have it performed by the local Junior
High marching band.

[Brian C. Miller]

With everyone having a phone camera, and everything on Facebook being a "photo" it seems to make everyone a "Photographer".


What I think is lost in the digital age is the personal physical involvement in the finished artifact itself, the print.

I'll come at this from a different point.

What has the Brownie lost to the cell phone?

Size? Both are relatively small in size, compared to contemporary equipment.
Convenience? Both are relatively convenient.
Spontaneity? Nope, that's still there.
100 exposures? Still got that.
Convenience? Still there.
Sharing? Can still do that.
Prints? Yep, that, too.

From the context of the Brownie, everything is just fine. All of this is the context of the average person.

Is the average person worried about archiving the past? I worked with a woman who threw away the negatives when she got her prints.

Now what is lost to the professional or fine-art photographer? That's a different question, because it comes from a different view point.

[paulr]

In terms of working with your hands, photography has always been the runt of the art litter. No other historical medium requires less of it. Even with older processes, the hand work is incidental ... coating papers, agitating trays, spotting dust. I suppose burning and dodging is a hand process, but you're not even touching anything! The fundamental image creation process is hands-off. That's part of the wonder of it.

Guys like Edward Steichen totured themselves making hand-colored gum over platinum prints, just to prove to the world they were artists. But the farther they went toward pandering to Classicist definitions of art, the less of their energy went into anything photographic.

[Jody_S]

What is lost in the digital age? Nothing. In fact we have made gains in leaps and bounds.

We have gained the ability to edit our photos far better than traditional processes ever allowed. We have gained the ability to make perfect copies of that final photo, in several sizes, with no visible degradation. We have gained the ability to experiment with lighting, lenses, techniques, without being bound by a hard cost/sheet calculation. This has freed us to enjoy experimentation without worrying about 'waste'.

And best of all, we have gained an entire generation of youthful photographers who aren't the nerds hanging out in the high-school darkroom as I was, but who are vibrant, creative, social people pushing the boundaries of what is a 'photograph'. If that process leads to billions of worthless images as well, I would rather have a billion bad 'lomography' photos than a billion bad Brownie snapshots of the disembodied heads of someone's family standing in front of the Grand Canyon. It's not like anyone forces me to look at them (I do that to myself).

[Lenny Eiger]

We've been in a cultural era marked by artists strongly influenced by questions raised in the postmodern era (1960s through 1990s or so) but that have been summarily rejecting most of the answers. The results have been eclectic, with many of them embracing emotion, others going down different paths.

It's a bad bet to listen to people who aren't photographers about photography, especially philosophers. I read Roland Barthes tome (and Kuspit and Berger, and Fried -yuck-, etc. ad nauseum) about photography. He describes a portrait scenario and misses the entire point by a full hundred miles. He understood nothing, yet everyone wanted to follow him. I don't mind the questions, but to paraphrase one of my teachers when I was younger, I want better questions.


I love that everyone has a camera. Why should a medium only be available to the wealthy? Why should it only be available to the "serious?" Or the indoctrinated?

This isn't about money or privilege for me. I have some expensive cameras, but also some cheap ones. No $50,000 backs. I see nothing wrong with making cyanotypes, or gum bichromate, which are dirt cheap. It should be accessible. However, this question is not about access, but about what should be valued. Do I want to deprive families of their snapshots? Of course not. However, if there is to be something called Art at all, then it has to have people who attempt to do more with it than someone who might want to remember something, but has no time for the sport. Speaking of sports, we have a whole economy based on people who can shoot a basketball, for example. We like to see someone doing something well. They define what the word "well" means. Its no different in Art. Certain people study the endeavor and try and do it artfully, with some skill and style, and on occasion, some consciousness.


I'm not convinced that the work getting canonized today is shallower than the work of earlier eras. Pop Art emerged in the 1950s; Szarkowski started collecting actual snapshots in the 1960s, the height of po-mo snark and appropriation was in the 1980s. Much of the photography from the 19th century is more labor intensive, but doesn't strike me as more profound than this work. Staging a sodden, gauzy scene from mythology isn't necessarily more thoughtful than Piss Christ.

I could do without Henry Peach Robinson as well. however, find me a portrait as good as a Julia Margaret Cameron in your pile of snapshots and I'll be impressed. In fact, I'm sure its there, if there are enough snapshots to look at. However, there are people that can do it every time. There are even people who can do it with purpose, who have something to say. If they are successful in expressing themselves, the rest of us can learn something. I'm tired of talking about the weather.

And all that noise is just noise.

Lenny

[paulr]

Lenny, I'm not a fan of Camera Lucida either. That was Barthe's amateur effort; I can't even make a meaningful connection between the ideas in that book and the ones in his good books. On semiotics he was brilliant; on photography he was mostly a waste of time ... unless you happened to be interested in the narrow aspects of the medium that interested him. To my earlier point, you're bringing up a book that came out over thirty years ago. By someone outside of the world of photography who didn't exert much influence on it. And who died that same year.

What are the postmodern trends you see now?

I still don't understand why lots of people having cameras has negative implications for art. So there's more noise. Just as there was more noise in 1910 than in 1880, and more still in 1970. Once upon a time photography belonged almost exclusively to wealthy, educated, white, European or American men. Props to Julia Cameron for finding a way in. And apologies to 99% of the participants here, because I assume this describes the LF forum demographic pretty well even a century later. I just don't think that's healthy.

Literature hasn't suffered just because we allowed literacy to be bestowed upon the non-noble classes. Quite the contrary ... much of the most interesting writing I've seen in English over the last two decades has come from African and South Asian and West Indian countries that used to have illiteracy rates approaching 100%. How awesome that those doors have been opened, if only a crack. And that pencils are cheap.

I think in addition to all the people taking pictures for fun and frivolousness, there are also more people than ever making photographs as art. There are certainly more people studying photography in art programs than ever before. Those programs are a favorite target for people who like to make negative generalizations and knock down straw men—but in reality there's an enormous variety of work being done by students. Whether or not the samples you see are to your taste says nothing about the seriousness behind it. No one goes into $100,000 debt for a degree that offer few prospects for financial rewards without being dead serious about the subject.

[Lenny Eiger]

I still don't understand why lots of people having cameras has negative implications for art. So there's more noise. Just as there was more noise in 1910 than in 1880, and more still in 1970. Once upon a time photography belonged almost exclusively to wealthy, educated, white, European or American men. Props to Julia Cameron for finding a way in. And apologies to 99% of the participants here, because I assume this describes the LF forum demographic pretty well even a century later. I just don't think that's healthy.

I think in addition to all the people taking pictures for fun and frivolousness, there are also more people than ever making photographs as art. There are certainly more people studying photography in art programs than ever before. Those programs are a favorite target for people who like to make negative generalizations and knock down straw men—but in reality there's an enormous variety of work being done by students. Whether or not the samples you see are to your taste says nothing about the seriousness behind it. No one goes into $100,000 debt for a degree that offer few prospects for financial rewards without being dead serious about the subject.

Your point is taken. I don't really want to go thru the whole postmodern thing at the moment. It's time to go to sleep.... and I get really annoyed. Read David Fried (from last year) about how its not ok to take a photo of someone that is actually looking at you (or the camera). There shouldn't be any contact whatsoever. The Becher's are the most important thing to happen to photography in the last 50 years? I could go on... but I won't. We can drop it.

What I see as missing is not that so many people take photographs. I don't really mind. It's the commoditization of art. Its the fact that there is a lack of appreciation for for what photography can actually do, in human terms. There is a thread here, by Heroique that asks the question whether you can learn anything about a photographer from their work. About half of the people participating think the answer is no. To me, there is something missing there. Why wouldn't they think so? Is photography so much about nothing? Where have they learned this?

It's like Walmart. If that's all there is, then people will think that it is the container for the possibilities that exist. They won't know that there is pottery beyond the crap that passes for same at the store. They don't know that there are other choices in the arts other than those awful oil paintings they sell. There is nothing in that store that is create from an artful intent. There is no quality. It's like Martha Stewart or the factory painter Kincaid. If you look at Stewart's colors they are all corporate. There are great colors in the world, but hers are just a bit muted so that ordinary people will buy them. Its insidious. Yet millions think she hung the moon. It's because they don't know there is another choice. Another choice is not accessible. That's the problem. Quality of life is lower. Man is not judged by the quantity of what he knows, but by the quality of his questions.

I say you won't know what a portrait is unless you look a Dorothea Lange, a Walker Evans or an August Sander. There are other things to consider. If you want to be a portrait artist you should look at 100 different artists from the entire History. Here in California I have spoken to numerous photographers, some with their own galleries, that never looked at a single book of photography other than Ansel Adams. Regardless of how good Ansel may or may not have been, that's a sure way to pigeon hole your own style into a monochromatic one. Can you imagine only listening to one kind of music - and then trying to be an original as a musician? You will fail.

Photography has tremendous capability to mirror and enhance the human experience. That's why most of us are here. Let everyone who wants to take photographs. However, let's continue to develop the fine art. The worst thing about post modernism is that it wanted to dismiss everything that went before. That will not work. One can not build a house from the roof down. It must have a foundation. Who was it that said, "There is no Art without History?" (I heard it from Bill Irwin, of Pickle Family Circus, don't know if he originated it.)

Commoditization dismisses history, quality, exquisiteness and artfulness. When you can get an image for 20 cents, or free on the net, why buy one for $1000 from an artist. Facebook will tell you that everything is a photo, even if it isn't. Where is the photography. Where are the artists that are pushing the limits or what photography can do? They are hidden by this noise. It isn't people taking more pictures, its our culture falling apart.

That's my 2 cents...

Lenny

[patrickjames]

Paul, you could give 10,000 people a camera and maybe, possibly, perhaps, one person could produce something worthwhile over a small period of time, much less over a long period of time. There are billions of cameras in the world today, but how many great photographers with an interesting view are there? At this point everyone has a camera. There are 350,000,000 people in the US alone. Can you name 35,000 great photographers? 3,500? 350? Maybe 35? The democracy of photography does not produce a significantly larger percentage of great photographers any more than the availability of pencils or paint produces more great artists, or the availability of law degrees produces great lawyers or the availability of engineering degrees produces great engineers. The great art comes, sometimes, in the dedication and in the ability to do it. The argument to the contrary is weak to nonexistent at best. If you believe in the contrary, give someone a camera that has no proclivity for the métier and see what they produce beyond luck. The monetary viewpoint is also weak. I know many a person who has no money, yet produces beautiful work. Commercial photography will always favor the rich by it's nature from what I have seen in my life, but artists don't depend on money. Great artists will rise despite the lack of it if they are good enough.

I hate to call complete bull$shit on several of your points, but I am afraid it is true.


No one goes into $100,000 debt for a degree that offer few prospects for financial rewards without being dead serious about the subject.

Stupid people with egos do. I have met them. In fact most people that spend that much money on a degree do out of sheer ignorance or utter stupidity. Look at the statistics. A very few percentage of any graduates, whether it be a BFA or MFA, ever make a living as an artist, but maybe a few percent more do so as a teacher. The reality is that very few end up profiting from the degree. Far more who don't have a degree but have the ability end up making a living at it. I guarantee that I can name more great photographers that don't have a degree than you can name that do! The straw man is in your arguments, not in real life. If it was real life, they wouldn't be straw men!

[Jac@stafford.net]

No one goes into $100,000 debt for a degree that offer few prospects for financial rewards without being dead serious about the subject.

If only that were true. In particular, those in a liberal arts college seem to have some aversion to work, and a proclivity to posing in order to appeal to their peers and to none in the practicing arts, except criticism. They want to graduate in four years all wound-up and prepared to instantly enter into some kind of employment. Four years is not long enough to achieve expertise, but it is long enough to learn insular behavior.

[Drew Wiley]

Heck, Paul, just about every student I ever knew (and there are tens of thousands of them in this university town) went into debt over a hundred grand without a clue what they want to do. Maybe a handful will land a job in what they actually studied. Art students are the most scatterbrained of all. But at least they acquire skills in how to cleverly arrange pepperoni slices atop the pizzas they'll be making for the next thirty years trying to pay their loan off, while they still live with their
parents.

[Kirk Gittings]

You guys ability to insult large portions of the population with little to go on but your personal bias is astonishing. Yes of course there are students like the ones you describe, but for every one of those there are hard working, intelligent, creative, worldly, streetwise, entrepreneurial kids that end up doing amazing things-just great people that are nurtured in those programs. Heck I have former photo students that (besides doing photography) are doing aids research in Africa, setting up a HABS program in China, owners of fine restaurants, owners of great breweries, galleries to name a few. Your broad brush is demeaning and inaccurate. The best skill you can get from an art school is not some employable technique (though that is useful) but enhanced creativity which will help you in whatever you do.

[Jac@stafford.net]

You guys ability to insult large portions of the population with little to go on but your personal bias is astonishing. [...]

I will stand upon my own thirty-year experience in higher education, before that ten as a news and magazine photographer, and four as a steel worker.

[Lenny Eiger]

If only that were true. In particular, those in a liberal arts college seem to have some aversion to work, and a proclivity to posing in order to appeal to their peers and to none in the practicing arts, except criticism. They want to graduate in four years all wound-up and prepared to instantly enter into some kind of employment. Four years is not long enough to achieve expertise, but it is long enough to learn insular behavior.

I have a Masters degree in the Fine Arts (Photography). By your definition I should be a total louse. In fact, I don't know anyone that works harder than I do to feed my family and get my daughter to college (altho' many work just as much). I'm with Kirk on this one, you're just being offensive...

Lenny

[emmett]

Well Paul, the new director of the SFMMA (after an extremely nasty coup) is from NYC. I sure hope he doesn't bring a lot
more Warhol and polka dots with him..

SFMOMA's director has been at the museum since 2002 and he isn't from New York, he's from your area.

[paulr]

Lenny: commodification of art dates at least to the Renaissance. While John Berger and Walter Benjamin are both of limited scope in my appraisal, they each make a convincing case that commodification of art dates at least to the industrial revolution (Benjamin) and in more important ways to Renaissance (Berger). It's certainly not a product of the postmodern era, many of whose theorists were severely anticapitalist.

Regarding the Bechers, that's another example of work that was of the moment thirty years ago.

Patrick: Sure, a very small percentage of the art made today is interesting. Just like always. I have yet to see an argument against democratization of a medium, by you or by anyone else, that isn't easily reducible to fearful elitist nonsense. Either your work can stand on its creative merits (and you have nothing to worry about) or it has nothing going for it besides the camera and time you could afford (in which case history will do away with it, as it should).

Jac: It's sad that you've encountered so many lazy and stupid students. I've encountered a lot of smart, creative, driven ones. Most of them know better than to make sweeping and hateful generalizations about people they've never met.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah ... and McDonald's is the democratization of cuisine. And maybe we can add microwave TV dinners to that list, at least
as long as TV's still exist, which might not be much longer. After that, you'll use a microwave I-Phone app to heat up your
corn dog. Guess the Holga crowd wouldn't care much for my analogy either.

[paulr]

Drew, let's try something called critical thinking. I promise, it'll only hurt for a minute.

Why not consider some of the real exemplars of democratization in food? Look at the number and the scope and the quality of cookbooks that's available now compared with half a century ago. When my mom got married there was the Joy of Cooking and Betty Crocker. Julia Child's book was like a gift from outer space when it showed up, against great odds. Now we have incredible knowledge of technique and tradition available online, to anyone. We have greater varieties of produce and seafood and meat available in most cities and many rural areas.

This is the real change. McDonalds existed back then … it's nothing new.

If the holga crowd would reject your analogy, it's because that's all it's good for.

[Drew Wiley]

Actually I ate a lot better and healthier when I grew up in the country and we grew or raised everything ourselves. There were no supermarkets. And a cottontail rabbit or bass roasted over a campfire tastes better than a gnawy Julia Child cookbook dipped in all that ghastly French cream sauce. But I did attend a neighborhood potluck dinner the other nite where the desert chef from Chez Panise brought the desert... didn't have that in the hills!

[Kirk Gittings]

I will stand upon my own thirty-year experience in higher education, before that ten as a news and magazine photographer, and four as a steel worker.

Well as long as were comparing resumes :). I'll stand on my undergraduate and graduate degrees, my 26 years teaching higher ed photography at three universities (including two of the top 5 schools in the country) and the success of my kids who all went to liberal arts schools-one of which started an IT company that is now grossing millions and two of which are finishing up their doctorates, one in nursing and the other in physical therapy. So waaah.

[paulr]

Of course, Drew, and nothing today could possibly taste as good as a mastodon you've speared yourself.

Your insistence on turning yourself into a cliche at every opportunity is just funny; what's maddening is your patting yourself on the back for having privileges unavailable to the vast majority of people walking the earth today.

This question of democratization concerns how much of the good stuff—and how much of a voice—we're going to make available to people.

Technology does a lot of terrible things, but occasionally it does some good, like providing access to information and abilities where once there was none. If the price for that is a lower signal to noise ratio, so what.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Actually I ate a lot better and healthier when I grew up in the country and we grew or raised everything ourselves.

Me, too, however we were young and not likely to keel over from the big heart attack that killed grandpa, grandma in their fifties.

[PrabuVenkat]

Actually the original question is of great interest to me, but looks like I have completely lost track of where the discussion has gone :-) !

[Jac@stafford.net]

Lenny, Kirk, you have marked the exceptions. I am happy for each of you and glad that you have pointed to them. They are exceptions.

To temper this thread, let me tell you that while at one time I thrived with success in the creative caldron of the very city of Chicago, strangely now I am living in rural Minnesota where we have very many artists, including those with terminal degrees who are artisans (not artists), who make their living within the ordinary constraints of our economy. We are happy. Very happy, and well informed. But we are all from a generation older than our students' parents.

I stand by my remarks concerning the liberal arts type mentioned earlier.

[bob carnie]

lol + 1 I think Paul and Drew could do a great act in Vegas.

Actually the original question is of great interest to me, but looks like I have completely lost track of where the discussion has gone :-) !

[paulr]

Lenny, Kirk, you have marked the exceptions.

Because obviously, your anecdotal generalization is privileged over anyone else's.

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh, Bob... had to go to a trade show in Vegas maybe two years ago. There were eight - yeah eight - Starbucks counters in just the one indoor lobby between the hotel and the adjacent convention center. Plus I had to walk past a Peter Lik gallery, which made even all the ciggie smoke around the slot machines seem like clean air. But I gotta give him credit for pioneering the use of fluorescent inkjet inks. Here we call that "marking paint" and it's made by Krylon. I hate that town. But the other nite I was working with an 8x10 shot from Valley of Fire maybe only twenty miles outside Vegas. There's some nice scenery once you get a little ways past the smog and other nonsense. Of course they had maneating centipedes out there too. But they only eat New Yorkers raised on French cuisine. Personally, I leave all the snails in my own yard to the racoons.

[Erik Larsen]

lol + 1 I think Paul and Drew could do a great act in Vegas.

Lol, yeah Paul and Drew remind me of the old show the Odd Couple, or Archie and Meathead from All in the Family:) it is entertaining none the less.

[Lenny Eiger]

Drew, let's try something called critical thinking. I promise, it'll only hurt for a minute.

Why not consider some of the real exemplars of democratization in food? Look at the number and the scope and the quality of cookbooks that's available now compared with half a century ago. When my mom got married there was the Joy of Cooking and Betty Crocker. Julia Child's book was like a gift from outer space when it showed up, against great odds. Now we have incredible knowledge of technique and tradition available online, to anyone. We have greater varieties of produce and seafood and meat available in most cities and many rural areas.

This is the real change. McDonalds existed back then … it's nothing new.

If the holga crowd would reject your analogy, it's because that's all it's good for.

Drew can be a curmudgeon, but he's not an idiot. More cookbooks is better. They provide more variety. They are all based upon the Joy of Cooking and Julia Child. In fact, the first people to systemize cooking, so that it could be communicated, were the French. All you have to do is look at the book, Sauces, to understand how it was put together. Everything else comes from that. Even cuisines that are very different use the model of how to communicate about cooking that was derived from that. It's all based on history.

I remember coming out of a climbing and photographing trip in the 14,000 footers of Colorado. We wanted some food and asked a local if there was any exceptional food nearby. He suggested that there was a Burger King up the road apiece. He thought that Burger King was a good restaurant. More variety, more creativity is not the problem. Even if Burger King exists that's not a problem, at least conceptually. The problem is that because there is nothing else but this garbage, this poor fellow thinks its good.

I like having options in cuisine. We have all sorts of Asian cooking and even have a Puertorican restaurant nearby. Many of these choices are wonderful. Burger King is not. It's harmful on about 10 different levels, and it tastes like crap. We should all be ashamed. Now they have one (I think its actually a McDonald's) in the Louvre. I wrote them a letter telling them how insulted I was that they took the worst of our culture to represent what the US is.

Now here's the real issue: There is no virtue in something being new. The galleries want so much to see something they haven't seen before that they don't care what it is.
(It's like one of my old girlfriends who wanted so much to be married it didn't matter to whom. Boy, did she get some lessons.) If someone puts developer all over their body and rolls around on a big piece of paper is it important? I would say no. I would say its only useful if the image is deep and inspiring in some way. On one hand you say process (or the size or cost of a camera) shouldn't be important, yet you tout this as an advance. It is only an advance if our culture advances.

There is always a part of any medium that is the avant garde. There is nothing wrong with this. It's good. There should always be people out to stretch the bounds, and to generate new questions. The problem is that the avant garde is all the galleries want to look at. It has taken over. We need a lunatic fringe, to be sure, but now the the lunatics are running the asylum. Traditional photography is not valued as it should be, IMO. The traditional values are not even leaking into the avant garde, as its opinion is that nothing that ever happened before is valuable. In your other thread on this topic you ask, "Has anything been gained from analog?" Did you just ask whether Photography has added anything to our experience as human beings? What a question....

Lenny

[Jac@stafford.net]

Because obviously, your anecdotal generalization is privileged over anyone else's.

My anecdotal is my reality. Your interpretation of it is fantasy.

I truly do not understand your posit. Explain, please.

[sanking]

I stand by my remarks concerning the liberal arts type mentioned earlier.

And your favorite television network must be????

Let me guess, FOX NEWS.

Sandy

[Jac@stafford.net]

And your favorite television network must be????

Let me guess, FOX NEWS.

Sandy

Oh, Sandy that is so wrong on many levels and, in fact, reflects badly upon one who would make such an accusation. Let us not fly to simple-minded polarizations, but continue a conversation.
.

[sanking]

Oh, Sandy that is so wrong on many levels and, in fact, reflects badly upon one who would make such an accusation. Let us not fly to simple-minded polarizations, but continue a conversation.
.

OK for you to belittle with generalizations "liberal art types" but my association of you with a network that does the same reflects badly on me? Please . . . .

Sandy

[Jim collum]

Lost? well.. it's not really lost, since I (and anyone else who decides they'd want to ) can do it any time I wish. The alchemy. the smell of the darkroom, chemicals, paper, the brushing of paper with chemistry. The tactile feel of a sheet or strip of film. But again.. that's not really lost.. and I don't think it's going anywhere, anytime soon

Quality? nothing really. Bad photographers before digital, bad photographers after. Prior to digital, I only had to suffer bad photographs from friends/family :) .. now, everyone's friends & family are posting for the world to see.. but I still have the option of editing what it is that I see. The good thing is that since there are soooo many more photographers out there, the actual amount of good work has increased, as well as the chance to see it.

As far as the quality of digital output of color & b/w decreasing... don't think that's the case. If you know how to process, and your desire is to produce a print that 'looks' like it's film generated... it can be done. To further, you can send that digital file off to someone like Bob Carnie, and you'll get a silver gelatin print. Final result is.. you'd have no idea if the source was digital or analog (however you want to spell it)

I just like having more options at my disposal.

[Jac@stafford.net]

If you know how to process, and your desire is to produce a print that 'looks' like it's film generated... it can be done.

Why would someone want to do that?

[Jac@stafford.net]

OK for you to belittle with generalizations "liberal art types" but my association of you with a network that does the same reflects badly on me? Please . . . .

Sandy

Liberal Arts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education) does not equate to the political 'Liberal' in any way that is similar to how Faux News mangles the word.

[Jim collum]

Why would someone want to do that?

why wouldn't someone? .. it's someone's personal aesthetic choice as to how to produce an image. I'm not about to dictate to someone else how to do their own work.. sort of arrogant.

[paulr]

Liberal Arts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education) does not equate to the political 'Liberal' in any way that is similar to how Faux News mangles the word.

It equates to a belief in education for the primary purpose of creating enlightened and responsible citizens, as opposed to technical training for the primary purpose of creating effective workers.
There is indeed an opposition between the goals of liberal education and the manipulative rhetoric of Fox.

[Struan Gray]

I've been quiet of late. Teaching a foundation course in physics for students who took soft subjects at school and now want to read technical engineering courses at university level. My God they work hard.

In general I feel that digital solutions lack formal elegance. A mechanical governer on a steam engine is just so much more inspiring, interesting and intriguing than a computerised engine control system which looks-and-adjusts-and-looks-and-adjusts-and.... There is no formal difference between them (once you understand about time constants, bandwidth, and signal to noise), but the preference remains.

What is really lost is craft knowledge. The old pressmen who could get consistent, reliable colour out of a big analogue offset press. Or people with an instinctive understanding of how silver ions interact with emulsions. There is a grace to doing something difficult well, which you lose when pushing the 'play' button.

[premortho]

So, I've been asked to participate in a talk about art and the digital age.

My answer would be depth of field, and selective focus. One of my reasons for shooting LF is the ability to emphasize the most important subject by the use of diaphrams and tilts and swings. I haven't seen any of that on digital yet. Because of my large format/analog background it is probably assumed that I'll rail against the
current practices and processes in the digital world.
Kind of a non-issue to me personally (I shoot both).

However - thinking back on what I learned by needing to go through the analog process, I do
believe "kids today" are missing out if they don't spend time with film.

Amongst academic things being missed are :
1) Basic math - manual shutter speeds and f/stops and their relations (too much automation now)
2) Chemistry - working with the effects of different dilutions, what different ingredients do, etc
3) Physics - lenses, light/film interactions.

All the above are things that we needed to at least understand in concept. No photographer I know
needed to study calculus to make a good photograph - but they had to know how their systems and
processes worked. All these things we (I) learned were in an applied form, not in a classroom - so it
was a palatable way to get these ideas across.

Other than that, what I also find is that a lot of what I see today comes from people that have apparently no
idea what a good print looks like. Between HDR monstrosities and general over sharpened/over saturated imagery
there is a lot of real dreck out there. Much of this, I believe, is from an erosion in aesthetics that has taken place
that is related to the wonders of Photoshop and "easy" digital processes.

So - would anyone else care to chime in and give me more talking points for this presentation? No flames or diatribes,
just good solid ideas to present please.

I really am not going to say that fine art can't be created digitally - my belief is that this is not a supportable assertion
anymore. It is more a matter of pointing out the changes/losses that I see in the total digital orientation and education
of todays photographers.

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Regards,
Terry

[Kirk Gittings]

I've been quiet of late. Teaching a foundation course in physics for students who took soft subjects at school and now want to read technical engineering courses at university level. My God they work hard.

In general I feel that digital solutions lack formal elegance. A mechanical governer on a steam engine is just so much more inspiring, interesting and intriguing than a computerised engine control system which looks-and-adjusts-and-looks-and-adjusts-and.... There is no formal difference between them (once you understand about time constants, bandwidth, and signal to noise), but the preference remains.

What is really lost is craft knowledge. The old pressmen who could get consistent, reliable colour out of a big analogue offset press. Or people with an instinctive understanding of how silver ions interact with emulsions. There is a grace to doing something difficult well, which you lose when pushing the 'play' button.

Many people with your sentiments decry all the crappy inkjet prints out there (of course there were tons and tons of crappy analogue prints out there too but that is another discussion). I would suggest that those are the people pushing the "play" button. I for one spend far more time working up a digital print than I ever did silver (and I often spent two days on a single silver print). There is no lack of craftsmanship in a top notch inkjet print. It is just another tool that when used in the hand of someone who understands craftsmanship can create magnificent prints.

[Hans Berkhout]

What's lost? I haven't read all previous comments so this may have been mentioned: One loses in a way freedom, independence- one becomes a hostage of hardware & software companies. Too many Products appear, disappear, are compatible, are not compatible, are better, are worse, offer what you don't need, remove what you liked, cannot be serviced anymore etc etc. Potentially too much time spent with equipment issues, potentially too much distraction from photography.

[Struan Gray]

Many people with your sentiments decry all the crappy inkjet prints out there

Not me. At least, not often.

The thing that does surprise me is how few people want prints at all. But that's a topic for another day.

There are surprisingly few crappy inkjets out there. Compared to the number of crappy C-prints or commercial prints-from-slides I remember from my early days in photography. The quality you can get with an all-auto camera and standard printing is simply better than in the analogue age, and that's a good thing.



There is no lack of craftsmanship in a top notch inkjet print. It is just another tool that when used in the hand of someone who understands craftsmanship can create magnificent prints.

It's a different sort of tool. And it's a tool which places less reliance on hand-eye or hand-brain coordination. The difference is less great than it sometimes appears (and it is irrelevant to many viewers), but there is a difference. For my own photography, which is still as much a personal activity as performance, the difference is important, but not overriding.

I'm a lousy woodworker, but I enjoy knocking up handball goals and wattle fencing with hand tools. They'd be better in every measureable way if I used a CNC mill to make the cuts and drill the holes, but I doubt I would have as much fun.

I print digitally because I always hated being locked into the contrast and tonality curves of available materials. Digital offers more control and freedom. I make better prints, and I am happy with that. But there is still a sneaking respect for those who can develop by inspection and then print on multiple layers of hand-coated platinum. And I am still locked into an available parameter space, albeit a larger one with more freedom of movement.

[cepwin]

Good point Hans! If you follow they professional digital guys they need to upgrade every year or two to keep up to date. Some, like Jared Polin (FroKowsPhoto) actually has a plan for handling upgrades that he's talked about in his videos (he sells the old model and upgrades quickly before the old model loses value.) With film cameras back in the day it wasn't the case.

I always enjoy when I can get images out of a camera made 50+ years ago. I think it will be harder for people in 2063 to get images out of a Nikon D4 or D800 then it will be for people to get images out of a Nikon F4. Now, it may mean making your own emulsion and coating the acetate yourself but you'll be able to do it. However, I also think film will still be available as a fine art product so it probably won't come to that. Now the major digital formats (eg. JPG) won't go away overnight but photographers will have to have a plan to convert from jpeg to whatever the next format is. I'd be more concerned about raw formats as they're more brand specific. That's bad because you lose a lot between a jpg and a raw file that's why it's recommended to shoot in raw.

Personally I went RB67 rather than RZ67 because I didn't want to worry about batteries. The biggest issue with film cameras is some of them used batteries that no longer exist and workarounds are necessary. I'll never have to worry about that with the RB67 and my other mechanical only cameras (inc. the crown graphic.) With digital there is no avoiding this....you can't have a digital camera without a battery and will the correct batteries or a work around battery be available in 2063 for that D800/D4???


What's lost? I haven't read all previous comments so this may have been mentioned: One loses in a way freedom, independence- one becomes a hostage of hardware & software companies. Too many Products appear, disappear, are compatible, are not compatible, are better, are worse, offer what you don't need, remove what you liked, cannot be serviced anymore etc etc. Potentially too much time spent with equipment issues, potentially too much distraction from photography.

[Michael S]

If we could get back to the original discussion, I think what has been lost since the dawn of the digital age has been the perceived veracity of photography. Who can look at a "decisive moment" image now and not think that it was somehow pieced together digitally? What has been lost is the faith in the artist that the world offers such amazing moments to be photographed. I think too much control is not necessarily a good thing, it makes the image unbelievable, even if it was taken with film.

[PrabuVenkat]

What is lost in the age of emails and online forums?

I am really not sure how to take all this "digital bashing" happening here.

"There were no Email-Spammers or FaceBooks or FleaBays in those times" .. would that be an answer to my question above ?

[John Conway]

There were about ten camera shops in the city where I grew up, now there are none. I remember when growing up I would always pass by the camera stores and look in the front windows at the Canon and Nikon cameras as well as the TLR cameras.Often they had photo contests with the nice prints in the window. Eventually my father bought my first Nikon.I loved taking pictures and bringing the film to be developed. Waiting for my prints was part of the fun of the whole experience. I dreamed while I waited. Then , five years later, after saving up, I bought my Mamiya 330f. By then I was a regular at the shops, where people gathered and talked about cameras and photography. Then there was the smell. I always loved the smell in the camera shop from the developing. We also had the many portrait studio shops. My family had so many portraits done. It didn't matter who you were or what you did for a living. Portrait day was big. Everyone dressed up nice and went down to the portrait studio. Sometimes the portrait photographer came to the house with the big camera. It was always a special day. Today, with most of my family gone, I take out those 8X10 prints and admire them, their unique quality and timeless beauty. I think we have lost something in the digital age.

[AuditorOne]

Don't worry, they all have digital cameras in their closets. :)


What is lost in the age of emails and online forums?

I am really not sure how to take all this "digital bashing" happening here.

"There were no Email-Spammers or FaceBooks or FleaBays in those times" .. would that be an answer to my question above ?

[AuditorOne]

To be completely honest, from my perspective we have gained, not lost.

We can shoot digital when it suits us, and we can shoot film when we want.

We have absolutely awesome digital tools to work with, and a lot of us can now afford those magnificent film cameras we only drooled over in our youth.

We can print our negatives with enlargers that are now affordable, or we can digitize them through scanning and manipulate and print them via computer.

We can see our digital images almost immediately, or we can use them to print digital negatives which we then use to print on analogue paper.

We don't have as many different types of film to use, but what we do have is pretty good stuff.

We don't have to wait to be an artist to display our images for everyone to see, now we can post them on Flicker even if they will never be ready to display.

Photography has really become everyone's art form. You may love it, you may hate it. But if you look back in history, that is how it has always been.

People have been saying that digital has disrupted everything, but I don't think that is actually true. Photography has always been disruptive, digital is only another stage.

There is no digital vs film, that is really all in our mind and in our personal biases. They are only different tools.

Pick your tool and go use it!

[cepwin]

I have to agree with you Auditor. While I stand by what I said earlier you have made an excellent point. We do now have the option to bring that digital to make sure we get an image in a situation we can also bring our big iron out and get the hi-res film images but still know we have the digital images to fall back on. I've said in other posts that if I was going to a special event I'd probably like to bring both...the digi to make sure I got something from the event and the film to hopefully get an awesome film image.

[Brian Ellis]

I've been quiet of late. Teaching a foundation course in physics for students who took soft subjects at school and now want to read technical engineering courses at university level. My God they work hard.

In general I feel that digital solutions lack formal elegance. A mechanical governer on a steam engine is just so much more inspiring, interesting and intriguing than a computerised engine control system which looks-and-adjusts-and-looks-and-adjusts-and.... There is no formal difference between them (once you understand about time constants, bandwidth, and signal to noise), but the preference remains.

What is really lost is craft knowledge. The old pressmen who could get consistent, reliable colour out of a big analogue offset press. Or people with an instinctive understanding of how silver ions interact with emulsions. There is a grace to doing something difficult well, which you lose when pushing the 'play' button.

There's plenty of craft knowledge involved in making a fine digital print. It's just a different craft and it has nothing to do with simply pushing a button.

[sanking]

I am really not sure how to take all this "digital bashing" happening here.



Kind of like early APUG deja vue all over again, just a lot later.

What have I lost in the digital age? At least three cell phones.

Sandy

[Struan Gray]

There's plenty of craft knowledge involved in making a fine digital print. It's just a different craft and it has nothing to do with simply pushing a button.

I know that, and regularly defend digital imaging against the APUG types. I've posted in the other, twin thread to this one about how I enjoy the merging of the digital and analogue realms. I print digitally, and can't see myself ever making a c-print with an enlarger again. My long term goal is to make hybrid colour carbon or Woodburytype prints, with the best of analogue and digital. I really don't see this as a competition.

But the thread asked what has been lost, and despite the benefits of digital, it's rapid dominance over analogue printing has led to losses and will lead to more. That raises a certain sadness, partly born of nostalgia, partly at the sense of potentially useful knowledge being lost, or having to be relearnt.

In my own efforts to learn about how to represent colour in print the single most useful resource has been a technical manual on offset printing from the 60s. Wholly obsolescent as a technology, but fascinatingly useful if trying to understand how ink and paper interact in a general, but detailed, sense.

Wood can be sliced with sub-micron precision these days. And pre-fab housing frames have an ingenuity and lack of wastage which is a joy to behold. But there is still room for wonder at a traditional hewn-beam oak frame house, or a hand-built rococo bureau.

[paulr]

Struan and Kirk and Brian, my take on what craft knowledge is lost—or at risk of being lost— is more value-neutral. The craft knowledge behind analog tools is simply different from the craft knowledge behind digital tools, and it's likely to be lost as the people who've mastered it die off. That's simply a loss. The importance of it depends on your values, and on the historical contexts from which it will be judged in the future.

One example is the vacuum tube industry, which died off in the early 1970s. When tubes became popular again in the recording industry and with audiophiles, much of the craft knowledge behind making tubes was gone. The companies that made the components for the tubes had vanished. People are now using a mix of vintage tubes that had been stockpiled in warehouses, and new ones which are only slowly approaching the quality that was taken for granted half a century ago. A thousand wheels needed to be reinvented to make this possible, and it happens slowly, because these are niche industries now.

In other cases the lost knowledge is valuable mostly for historical or nostalgic reasons. In a couple of decades there won't be anyone around who knows how to use a Linotype machine. In the context of the history of typography, there was nothing good about a linotype machine, but it was still of historical importance. And as an as object of industrial history, it is the glorious personification of steam punk. It will be sad to see it relegated to the museum and to folklore.

I've moved to a mostly digital workflow in my photography. The part about this move I found most difficult was abandoning craft knowledge. It had been a major part of photography for me ... I mixed all my chemistry from scratch, and used film developers of my own invention. This knowledge has zero practical value to me now, but it has personal value. One of the reasons I participate in this forum is to keep some of the knowledge alive.

[paulr]

The problem is that the avant garde is all the galleries want to look at. It has taken over.

Could you point me to some? I go to a fair number of gallery and museum shows. I would LOVE to see some avant garde work.


Traditional photography is not valued as it should be, IMO.

I see it everywhere. Historic work can be found at all the major public collections, most of the blue-chip galleries, and the many galleries that show nothing but. The Getty only collects old stuff. As far as valuation, if you want to get literal, here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs) a list of the highest prices ever paid for photographs. The top 19 includes Stieglitz (twice), Steichen, Weston, Ansel Adams, and Atget.

BTW, I think it's significant that these icons of traditional photography all broke with traditions that preceded them. We only consider them traditional because they did that a long time ago, and we've gotten used to their work.

[Struan Gray]

Paul, I think we agree, but I have one nit to pick. I feel that manual craft knowledge is easier to lose forever. First because it is harder to describe in words, and you often need to see it demonstrated ('agitate the print until it looks like this'), and second because it leaves fewer unambiguous traces. Reverse engineering digital manipulations of in image file is much easier than sleuthing homebrew developers or vanished semi-manual industrial processes. The large number of failed attempts to recreate autochromes is a case in point.

I agree that there is no shortage of traditional photography in galleries and museums. Which is a good thing.

[Michael S]

Veracity..."The quality or character of speaking the truth: truthful disposition, truthfulness, honesty, trustworthiness." (OED)

[paulr]

...I feel that manual craft knowledge is easier to lose forever. First because it is harder to describe in words, and you often need to see it demonstrated ('agitate the print until it looks like this'), and second because it leaves fewer unambiguous traces.

Yes, and many of these little details of process become so ingrained that we probably don't even think to communicate them. The knowledge just gets encoded into habits.

Many years ago I took a break from photography, and when I got back into the darkroom was amazed by the degree to which I depended on my notes. I'd written down details about my process purely in response to feeling OCD one day. It seemed unimaginable thatI'd ever actually need to be reminded. And of course there's a lot that I haven't written down.

[Drew Wiley]

It's the journey that counts. The print should somehow encapsulate that, and to a degree communicate it. Some people get
all pumped up about techie tricks - and that is perfectly OK for them, and possibly part of their own journey - but I personally
equate pixels with migraines. I want to be outdoors, experiencing life, then have my hands on the medium in the darkroom. Perhaps tonite if I have time I'll even run some picture frame moulding on the shaper table. It's a hecka lot easier to simply buy frames, cheaper too, but nowhere near as fun or good-lookin.

[Lenny Eiger]

Could you point me to some? I go to a fair number of gallery and museum shows. I would LOVE to see some avant garde work.

C'mon, you're in NY. I think you just want to have the last word... As far as what the Getty collects, they collect everything. The latest big dollar item was 3 or 4 million bucks for Cindy Sherman. As things get older, they do grow in value. What about the Prince picture of the Marlboro Man? last time I was in Chelsea I saw all kinds of stuff, mostly contemporary, mostly not so good.

I think you need to get out more. It's NY, you can find anything you want.

Lenny

[Jac@stafford.net]

It's the journey that counts.

Unless you believe your journey is true, correct to your soul, for if is then you are deluded.