PDA

View Full Version : an interesting editorial on the state of photography today



Frank_E
22-Jun-2013, 18:39
here is an excerpt from the Toronto Globe and Mail article in today's paper

This spring, I was an adjudicator of the 2013 Banff Mountain Film and Book Festival photography competition. This week, my three fellow judges – all professional photographers and curators – and I announced that we couldn’t find a winner, and won’t be awarding a prize for the first time in 18 years. There isn’t even a runner-up.

and a link to the full article

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/humanity-takes-millions-of-photos-every-day-why-are-most-so-forgettable/article12754086/?page=all

very insightful commentary on the state of photography generally today
worth a read in my opinion

Wayne
22-Jun-2013, 20:31
I sat through a 3 hour slide show on a 15" laptop that showed the "photographer" and all the places they saw and all the people they met and all the beaches and all the bars and all the airports they saw on a 2 month trip. Seriously, there was no editing at all. After 2 hours they said "we're almost done" and it went on for another hour and another 100-200 inane, uninteresting pixographs.

Despite how much bad photography there is today, I think its lame and rather inexcusable that a winner couldn't be chosen when people paid to enter.

Marc B.
22-Jun-2013, 21:02
Frank,
A very good read! Thank you for posting the link.

Marc

JW Dewdney
22-Jun-2013, 21:18
well - seems like it would be a huge boon to those capable of making 'memorable' images it seems? I think traditonal methods are definitely one way to get there, in terms of craft anyway...

paulr
22-Jun-2013, 21:21
Dissenting opinion. That piece was a mountain of clichés and tired, easily skewered assumptions. It could have been written about any medium in any era, by any critic lacking historical perspective or rigor.

Kirk Gittings
23-Jun-2013, 00:27
That could have been said in about three paragraphs.

Kodachrome25
23-Jun-2013, 00:47
Great article that tells it like it is in using lots of much needed examples. I am hearing the same from more and more people everyday....



Despite how much bad photography there is today, I think its lame and rather inexcusable that a winner couldn't be chosen when people paid to enter.

I don't, I think it says the competition is real and all the self indulgent photoshopped garbage is not. It's time for more of these kinds of articles, ones that call it like it is in that through all the sickening circles of mutual flickr-praise, digi-hacks actually think they are good....and they are not.

I bet in ten year's time I am one of the only people left in my town earning a real living off of photography because I am kicking digital anything and Internet everything to the curb, I'll check back in ten years and if this site is even in exsistence, you'll know how it is going...

I have some things to list in the classifieds and then I am done on here too.

JMB
23-Jun-2013, 01:36
The article indeed tells it like it is, and the judges deserve recognition for being brave enough to draw an important line. It is very high time to unmask and reject the “incredible surge in mediocrity” referrred to by Conrad Habing in the article that pervades so much photography and other arts in contemporary culture.

Robert Langham
23-Jun-2013, 07:12
Article is more a condemnation of the quality of people today than anything else. Everyone in a hurry skimming over their lives. Congrats to the judges for withholding prizes they didn't feel were earned.

I loved the line "the stain of the real." I'm not sure that is exactly why young folks are getting all tatted up these days but it applies in other situations.

Life is it's own therapy.

97474 Shiprock

Wayne
23-Jun-2013, 07:22
So who gets the money? Do they return it to the people who paid for a chance to win? Yes much pixelography sucks for all the reasons given but so does fraud and theft. The more ethical thing to do would have been to award a winner, and then be ballsy enough to say their entries sucked.

Brian Ellis
23-Jun-2013, 07:29
I sat through a 3 hour slide show on a 15" laptop that showed the "photographer" and all the places they saw and all the people they met and all the beaches and all the bars and all the airports they saw on a 2 month trip. Seriously, there was no editing at all. After 2 hours they said "we're almost done" and it went on for another hour and another 100-200 inane, uninteresting pixographs. . . .

Sounds like the days of the Kodak Carousel and 35mm slide film, when people took a vacation, shot rolls and rolls of film, then invited their enemies over for an evening of mindless gazing at hundreds of inane, uninteresting, grainographs.

Brian Ellis
23-Jun-2013, 07:33
The article indeed tells it like it is, and the judges deserve recognition for being brave enough to draw an important line. It is very high time to unmask and reject the “incredible surge in mediocrity” referrred to by Conrad Habing in the article that pervades so much photography and other arts in contemporary culture.

Perhaps but how come the "incredible surge in mediocrity" wasn't unmasked and rejected a long time ago? It's not like most photographs were masterpieces until digital came along and ruined everything.

bob carnie
23-Jun-2013, 08:16
Yes agree that ship sailed away long before digital.



Perhaps but how come the "incredible surge in mediocrity" wasn't unmasked and rejected a long time ago? It's not like most photographs were masterpieces until digital came along and ruined everything.

Doug Howk
23-Jun-2013, 08:28
One reason it took so long to unmask the mediocrity was that digital proponents kept saying "but that will be fixed in the next iteration". Their crap kept getting a free pass. Glad to see that the judges had the cajones to reject them all.

Peter Mounier
23-Jun-2013, 08:50
I think it's important to note here that nobody said the photos were mediocre or bad. What was said was that the stories, told through photographs were bad.


Our jury gazed upon any number of beautiful images: astonishing pictures of the aurora borealis, climbers in Peru, mountains in China, of bears and bobcats and birds both here and abroad. We saw technically brilliant photographs, superbly (or, more often, overly) Photoshopped. But none of them managed to tell the simplest of stories.

What was said was, they didn't tell a story. And that's what's different than other photo contests. If the story is paramount, they should put more emphasis on telling a story through photographs. But if they are holding a photo contest, they should award the people who submit the best photographs.


In other words, the best photographic sequences taken by amateur and professional wilderness photographers alike had no perceptible story, and therefore no significance.

... as a story.

tgtaylor
23-Jun-2013, 09:37
While the criteria was to tell a story, keep in mind that not all photography is story telling in approach.

I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
- Garry Winogrand

Thomas

Wayne
23-Jun-2013, 09:58
Sounds like the days of the Kodak Carousel and 35mm slide film, when people took a vacation, shot rolls and rolls of film, then invited their enemies over for an evening of mindless gazing at hundreds of inane, uninteresting, grainographs.

You must have had a more unhappy childhood than me. ;-)

Jerry Bodine
23-Jun-2013, 13:23
That could have been said in about three paragraphs.

+1. Throughout this article, I couldn't help thinking: blah, blah, blah !

As for my personal opinions ..... sigh! .... I hardly know where to begin.

I would never have even considered contributing to such a competition, for reasons that will become obvious. The author is a journalist. They make their living writing stories. Stories are their mindset. Many come from a "back East" environment of wall-to-wall people - forgive them for that's all they know. I was one of them as well (couldn't wait to escape) to the "out West" which was like a breath of fresh air and open space.

Statements that jumped off the monitor at me (emphases are mine):

"Good pictures that tell a story are always about other people."

A story is a cohesive account of events in which something is at stake – a beginning, middle and end tied together with characters, ...

Sorry, folks. I'm not anti-social but I simply do not want any people in my landscape work. They detract from my "story."

"If you’re photographing to share an image, you’re not photographing to keep it.” - Whaaat? Run that by me again.

"... vision being “a point of view that says something about yourself.” - No, I'm not a narcissist. I just want to share the good feelings I experienced beholding all the unpopulated beauty in the world, even if it's just kept and hangs on my wall for me and others to enjoy.

"It’s the struggle that makes visual work interesting." - I'm certain nobody wants to hear about how tough it was for me to create my image on paper. This is journalism again. Ever notice how they concentrate on negative news, disasters, people crying and emotionally upset, the human condition, etc., etc. The reason bad news sells is because it makes the recipient happy it's not happening to him/her.

There, I'm feeling better now - blah, blah, blah ! Wait, maybe I should take up journalism and try their shoes ... naaa, forget it.

Bill L.
23-Jun-2013, 14:40
I think it's important to note here that nobody said the photos were mediocre or bad. What was said was that the stories, told through photographs were bad.



What was said was, they didn't tell a story. And that's what's different than other photo contests. If the story is paramount, they should put more emphasis on telling a story through photographs. But if they are holding a photo contest, they should award the people who submit the best photographs.



... as a story.


Assuming that this is the entry form:

http://www.banffcentre.ca/mountainfestival/competitions/photo/2013/2013-photo-competition-regulations.pdf

Telling a story is not the only option. From the entry form:

*“A photo- ssay (or photographic essay) is a set or series of photographs that are intended to tell a story or evoke emotions in the
viewer. Photo essays can be sequential in nature, intended to be viewed in a particular order, or they may consist of non-ordered
photographs which may be viewed all at once or in an order chosen by the viewer to reveal their character and
dynamics.”

Many landscape and wildlife photos can evoke an emotion without telling a story with a human element. I worry about a competition where the judges don't follow the competition's criteria. Especially when there is presumably an entry fee, and they aren't awarding the promised cash awards.

Michael E
23-Jun-2013, 14:47
Sounds like the days of the Kodak Carousel and 35mm slide film

Remember the sigh of relief when finally the projector's bulb broke?

I have to agree, much of the distress of mediocrity came long before digital technology. The article sings the song of the good old times more loud than well. "People aren’t photographing for history any more." Oh, please! Photos gain historical value in retrospect, not because somebody intended them to (with few exceptions). In 100 years, there will be a solid photographic documentation of our time. Sure, it's more work to select the good images from the indifferent ones. But there will be a lot of good material to choose from.

"But he fears that his granddaughters won’t have any memorable photographs of their own children: They will be lost in the technological deluge." On my mother's first photo, she was 6 years old. Her parents didn't own a camera. Of my own first years, there are two photo albums. My son's photos are digital, and there are thousands of them. Each year I assemble a photo book with about 100 of the best images of him. They tell stories, they show him laughing, crying, eating, sleeping, growing up. "Technological deluge"? Nope.

I haven't seen the entries of said competition and don't want to judge. But I work part time for an art academy, and I see the young folks come up with great images. Please, let us not chime in the chorus of "all the good music stopped in the seventies". Like the article said, there are photographers out there turning out great work. Some even use digital cameras :-)

On a side note: I saw an interesting, uncredited remark about the state of photography in a german commerce magazine. One image showed an astronaut with a Hasselblad: "Went to the moon, took 5 photos". The other image showed a young woman with a phone in front a mirror: "Went to the bathroom, took 38 photos".

Michael

jnantz
23-Jun-2013, 17:01
nothing it said had anything to do with digital photography,
which seems to be the dog to kick right about ... now .
people were saying the same thing with the advent of dry plates
and then roll film and then ...

it seems the people who entered the contest have the same problem
high school students have, they don't read instructions.
i am sure if someone read the contest rules / instructions
which suggested the photographs be a photo essay and tell a story
someone would have won whether they used a iphone or a 24x20 tintypes.

JW Dewdney
23-Jun-2013, 20:14
it seems the people who entered the contest have the same problem
high school students have, they don't read instructions.
I am sure if someone read the contest rules / instructions
which suggested the photographs be a photo essay and tell a story
someone would have won whether they used a iphone or a 24x20 tintypes.

what instructions?? :)

Kirk Gittings
23-Jun-2013, 20:57
nothing it said had anything to do with digital photography,
which seems to be the dog to kick right about ... now .
people were saying the same thing with the advent of dry plates
and then roll film and then ...

it seems the people who entered the contest have the same problem
high school students have, they don't read instructions.
i am sure if someone read the contest rules / instructions
which suggested the photographs be a photo essay and tell a story
someone would have won whether they used a iphone or a 24x20 tintypes.

Old school house painters said the same thing about paint rollers.................

Jac@stafford.net
23-Jun-2013, 21:27
Old school house painters said the same thing about paint rollers.................

Now they spray paint. Oh, I should call it Giclée.

Kirk Gittings
23-Jun-2013, 22:31
pathetic attempt at trolling......are we out of high school yet?

Bill Burk
23-Jun-2013, 23:19
Interesting article. I've forgotten to think in series, instead focusing on the individual print. I'll take it as a reminder to get back to storytelling.

Jac@stafford.net
24-Jun-2013, 00:01
pathetic attempt at trolling......are we out of high school yet?

Kirk, it is almost impossible to know what you are responding to.
Can we try quoting?

jonreid
24-Jun-2013, 03:15
well - seems like it would be a huge boon to those capable of making 'memorable' images it seems? I think traditonal methods are definitely one way to get there, in terms of craft anyway...

It would seem you missed the author's point...

jonreid
24-Jun-2013, 03:20
One reason it took so long to unmask the mediocrity was that digital proponents kept saying "but that will be fixed in the next iteration". Their crap kept getting a free pass. Glad to see that the judges had the cajones to reject them all.

The argument in this article is not a digital vs film one, its about vision and intent and visual narrative...

Doug Howk
24-Jun-2013, 04:48
From Ian Brown's article:

Like Mary Ellen Mark, the renowned New York documentary photographer who has shot everyone from Don Ameche to Lou Reed, Mr. Richards still shoots on black-and-white film. “When I’m shooting film, I have a finite number of images,” he said. “And I really have to think about what I’m shooting. And this is where I think we’re going: People no longer have to think.”
From Bruce Barnbaum's website:

There is nothing about digital photography that forces lack of thinking, but there is much about digital photography that encourages it.
As suggested above the problem with digital is not inherent in the technology; but rather the technology encourages bad habits, eg. don't compose before taking the image. So maybe you missed the point of the article ;-)

bobwysiwyg
24-Jun-2013, 04:53
From Ian Brown's article:

From Bruce Barnbaum's website:

As suggested above the problem with digital is not inherent in the technology; but rather the technology encourages bad habits, eg. don't compose before taking the image. So maybe you missed the point of the article ;-)

+1 sums it up well.

Brian Ellis
24-Jun-2013, 05:18
From Ian Brown's article:

From Bruce Barnbaum's website:

As suggested above the problem with digital is not inherent in the technology; but rather the technology encourages bad habits, eg. don't compose before taking the image. So maybe you missed the point of the article ;-)

Or maybe you forgot that in terms of composition and care in making photographs, there's no significant difference between how most people use a digital camera and how they used their 35mm cameras.

Brian Ellis
24-Jun-2013, 05:25
Kirk, it is almost impossible to know what you are responding to.
Can we try quoting?

You really didn't know what he was responding to? I had no trouble with it and I doubt that many others did either. You made what I guess you thought was a clever statement that maybe house painting should be called "giclee." He responded. No need for a quote, especially when his statement immediately followed yours.

Doug Howk
24-Jun-2013, 06:11
From above, Brian Ellis said:

Or maybe you forgot that in terms of composition and care in making photographs, there's no significant difference between how most people use a digital camera and how they used their 35mm cameras.[QUOTE]
Are you saying that 35mm photographers such as Cartier-Bresson shoot similar to digital shooters?
Geoff Dyer, in a june 20th article on Gary Winogrand at LRB, said:
[QUOTE]He shot more film than almost any other photographer, so much that he was unable to keep up with the editing, gradually gave up trying to do so and, by the end, had pretty much stopped looking at – or processing – what he’d shot. The much quoted claim that he photographed ‘to find out what something will look like photographed’ became, effectively, ‘to not bother finding out what something will look like photographed, to photograph for the sake of photographing’.
I think the true heirs of the later stage of Winogrand are the digital image takers who don't bother thinking during the taking process. And, like Winogrand, maybe they need to not "process" those forgetable images.

Brian Ellis
24-Jun-2013, 06:37
From above, Brian Ellis said:
[QUOTE]Or maybe you forgot that in terms of composition and care in making photographs, there's no significant difference between how most people use a digital camera and how they used their 35mm cameras.[QUOTE]
Are you saying that 35mm photographers such as Cartier-Bresson shoot similar to digital shooters?
Geoff Dyer, in a june 20th article on Gary Winogrand at LRB, said:

I think the true heirs of the later stage of Winogrand are the digital image takers who don't bother thinking during the taking process. And, like Winogrand, maybe they need to not "process" those forgetable images.

No. I referred to "most people" who use digital cameras, not to Cartier-Bresson or anyone like him. Obviously there were many serious photographers who used 35mm cameras just as there are many serious photographers today who use digital cameras. My point was that there's no difference in terms of care of composition (or "thinking" to use your term) between how most 35mm cameras were used and how most digital cameras are used, i.e. that "spray and pray" isn't a phenomenon peculiar to using a digital camera.

Bob Salomon
24-Jun-2013, 06:51
.......very insightful commentary on the state of photography generally today
worth a read in my opinion

I see it differently. Apparently there were lots of very good photographs. There just weren't any good photo journalism stories.

The two are quite different!

Brian C. Miller
24-Jun-2013, 08:22
I see it differently. Apparently there were lots of very good photographs. There just weren't any good photo journalism stories.

The two are quite different!

And all of the carping in the article about too many photographs has been going on since the Kodak Brownie, maybe even from the introduction of commercial dry plates.


The contest required photographers to submit striking and well-composed images to tell a visual story, a photo essay, about wildlife or wilderness – important subjects on our climate-challenged Earth.

Now, there's a hint at what would have tripped the judges' collective trigger.


A story is a cohesive account of events in which something is at stake – a beginning, middle and end tied together with characters, scenes and details (long shots, mid-shots, closeups) that lead to a climax and resolution (or not).

Even the entries that were remotely in the neighbourhood of telling a story – and most were hopelessly lost – were edited incomprehensibly.

And then the article wanders into the majority of photographs in the 1960s (55% babies, 44.999% other crap, 0.001% better than that), and meanders off. So apparently the contest allowed a series of photographs, to engage a person in a non-verbal story about something. And there would have been a bonus for a story about climate-challenged Earth.

I'm guessing that a series of photographs that started with a tree growing in the wilderness, and then following a path to the city dump, would have won. And would have been totally cliché.

Frank_E
24-Jun-2013, 08:44
with apologies to Gary in advance if he didn't want this reposted here….
but then again he did post it on FB so I suspect he is not trying to hide this information...

one of our LFF members entered the competition and posted the images he submitted on his blog
I got this from Face Book which updates me on his blog posts

http://garynylander.blogspot.ca/2013/06/2013-banff-mountain-photography.html

they are certainly very "worthy" landscape images
but I will leave it to others to decide (I guess others already have…) whether the meet the competition criteria

Gary Nylander
24-Jun-2013, 09:16
No problem for the link, Frank E...... I'm not sure if I should have posted my images or not on my blog, but I thought I would throw my images out there to show that my images were "best" that I had and I'm sure that they had must have had much better images than mine, but likely it didn't meet their competition criteria. I do find it a bit odd that out of 500 entries that they wouldn't have been something to pick something....also they charging $10 per entry with the incentive of a $3000 winning prize makes one very suspicious.

Sal Santamaura
24-Jun-2013, 09:23
pathetic attempt at trolling......are we out of high school yet?Wasn't that question answered years ago when jj was banned? :rolleyes:

r_a_feldman
24-Jun-2013, 11:33
Originally Posted by Brian Ellis
Perhaps but how come the "incredible surge in mediocrity" wasn't unmasked and rejected a long time ago? It's not like most photographs were masterpieces until digital came along and ruined everything.


Yes agree that ship sailed away long before digital.

http://xkcd.com/1227/

JW Dewdney
24-Jun-2013, 13:07
It would seem you missed the author's point...

yes - i was responding to a point made near the end of the article, rather than the author. I assume we all read it?

Peter Lewin
24-Jun-2013, 13:27
I wouldn't argue that there is any more mediocre photography produced today than there was "x" years ago, but photoshop and digital printers have made it easier to produce in quantity. I was at an open-air concert yesterday, at which a number of artists set up booths; they were almost entirely painters or photographers. My first reaction was that there was a lot of nice work, but no exceptional work. This applied in both mediums, and I wasn't surprised - it is very hard to be an outstanding artist, no matter what medium one works in. But what struck me about the photography, which (since that is what I do) interested me more, was how much easier it is to be a photographer in the digital age. With no film or processing costs, the number of images one can record increases by orders of magnitude, and with digital printers and photoshop files, it is simple to produce many multiple copies in various sizes. A lot of the images were very nice, just like many postcard images are very nice. Color, since it is no longer expensive or tricky to produce, is the standard, b&w a rarity. I spoke with several of the photographers, and almost everything was produced digitally (I was curious, since several cropped their images to what looked like 4x5 proportions). One photographer (a young lady recently graduated from art school) did have some view camera produced images, but unfortunately they were from Yosemite, and looked a lot like lesser Ansel Adams work, i.e. the expected view-points, but with somewhat less dramatic printing. So in sum, in my opinion it isn't that more mediocre work is produced with digital than with film, but more of the digital stuff is put "out there" because it is so much easier to do.

And to go back to the original point of the article and the judges inability to choose a winner, since their criteria had to do with story-telling and sequencing, I am again reminded of a comment from Lenswork, which opined (lovely word, that!) that because digital (including photoshop) made it easier to produce good images, what one needed to stand out from the forest was sequencing and story-telling.

Drew Wiley
24-Jun-2013, 13:52
It is interesting now that digital dominates consumer photography, how film is seen in a new light. This past Saturday a young fellow left the trail and saw me with
my 8x10 propped up. He was very polite and cautious not to disturb the shot. Then when I was starting to pack up he explained how he had inherited a Pentax 67
from his uncle and was very eager to "move on" from digital into "serious" photography, and asked me a number of questions. Then the next day I get an email from
a friend traveling across the country, telling me how he'd taken hundreds of shots of all the wild weather state by state with his latest and greatest Nikon DLSR,
but when he saw something he deemed important, shot it on film instead with his 6x6. So in this respect, the "grass is greener on the other side of the fence"
mentality might actually become an operative bias toward quality, at least in people who want to be the exception rather than the rule. I have encountered it
many times in recent years, but perhaps that because of the educated demographic around here.

Brian Ellis
24-Jun-2013, 15:10
You did inform the first person that how serious one is about photography isn't a function of the equipment used and that if he wasn't serious about it before he's unlikely to become serious simply by changing cameras, right?

As for the second person, that doesn't make any sense at all. If he didn't deem any of the hundreds of photographs made with his Nikon "important," why did he bother making them? For that matter if he couldn't or wouldn't make important photographs with it why did he even have the "latest and greatest" Nikon DSLR? That would be the D4, which runs about $6,000. Even the D800 runs around $3,000. Both seem like a lot of money to spend on a camera that's discarded whenever the subject of an "important" photograph makes an appearance. Wouldn't a little P&S for a couple hundred dollars have served him as well in making his hundreds of unimportant photographs?

pierre506
24-Jun-2013, 15:48
Learn something from the article, thanks.

Drew Wiley
24-Jun-2013, 16:31
No, Brian.... sometimes the psychology of it all is just as important as the facts. I've seen it numerous times. You give someone a piece of gear which "seems" special
and they change their whole frame of reference and suddenly want to do quality work. With film, the extra effort and inherent limitations of the medium (compared to
automated this or that) seems to catalyze the experience for some. Of course, the specifics vary from generation to generation. Like I said, it's about the grass seeming greener on the other side of the fence. But for my other friend, yeah he bought a new top-end digi Nikon and now is extremely disappointed with it. It's
his idea of a disposable vacation camera (he does have that level of income). But he wanted something lighter down the road than his heavy Rollei 6x6 setup. In
his case, I think that amt of money would have been far more wisely spent on an Mamiya 7, but he'd not fond of rangefinders (does a lot of closeups).

Jim collum
24-Jun-2013, 16:53
I'd have to agree with Brian. I own that top-end "digi-Nikon" (why do these always seem like derisive titles when discussing analog vs digital.. why not just top-end digital Nikon... ). It's a marvelous tool... and one would have to be *very* ignorant of almost all aspects of photography to consider that a 'disposable vacation camera'. If your friend can't figure out a way to capture quality work with it.. then his issue isn't with the tools.. it's his ability. If its solely the fact that it's 'harder' to shoot with film than digital.. then maybe he could get a pair of welder's goggles and wear those when shooting. that should catalyze the experience even more for him. Personally, I can make it just as 'difficult' shooting with my D800, as with an F3.. (it's a trivial task, and i usually do.. almost always tripod mounted, manual mode, manual focus).

I probably own a couple dozen camera's... analog and digital. I wouldn't consider *any* of them disposable, nor would I ever consider taking an inferior tool on a vacation.


I suspect if you took a percentage of quality shots captured, today vs 30 years ago.. you'd probably be pretty close. I had a lot of large format friends in the 70's.. and I remember there being soooo many perfectly exposed, technically excellent, boring images back then.




No, Brian.... sometimes the psychology of it all is just as important as the facts. I've seen it numerous times. You give someone a piece of gear which "seems" special
and they change their whole frame of reference and suddenly want to do quality work. With film, the extra effort and inherent limitations of the medium (compared to
automated this or that) seems to catalyze the experience for some. Of course, the specifics vary from generation to generation. Like I said, it's about the grass seeming greener on the other side of the fence. But for my other friend, yeah he bought a new top-end digi Nikon and now is extremely disappointed with it. It's
his idea of a disposable vacation camera (he does have that level of income). But he wanted something lighter down the road than his heavy Rollei 6x6 setup. In
his case, I think that amt of money would have been far more wisely spent on an Mamiya 7, but he'd not fond of rangefinders (does a lot of closeups).

Sal Santamaura
24-Jun-2013, 17:07
...why do these always seem like derisive titles when discussing analog vs digital.. why not just top-end digital Nikon...Because they're used that way with derisive intent. You're perceptive. Posters who use those titles don't mind if you find them derisive. In fact, I'd bet they hope you do.

rdenney
25-Jun-2013, 06:40
I'm with Paul.

Storytelling. Hmmm. What kind of story? Narrative? How does one image convey narration?

It reminds me of a respected local columnist in Chicago who studied trombone in school and attained very good technical skills, but remained unsuccessful on the orchestra audition circuit. He took a lesson with Arnold Jacobs, the famous Chicago Symphony tuba player and wind-instrument teacher, to seek help with his auditioning. Jacobs told him that he was far more expressive in words than in music. As a result, the guy put down the trombone and picked up the pen.

Those who expect photographs to be narrative risk living in a word trap, it seems to me. Some photos are narrative, but most evoke other responses in me, responses that defy verbalization. I might struggle to describe them with just one word, but each additional word beyond the one would just make it harder. And I normally do not struggle much with words.

Music had this argument 150 years ago, with the debate between "program" music and "absolute" music. Program music supported a narrative. Opera is, by definition, program music, and Wagner was a chief proponent of it during that debate. Brahms was one who promoted "absolute" music--music expressly devoid of any potentially verbal narrative. A later example: Vaughan Williams was asked if his astounding Symphoiny in F Minor, No. 4, which he composed in 1935, was about war. He vigorously denied it, saying, "It is about F minor." Yet Vaughan Williams also composed art song and drew from a rich heritage of English folk song in his word. Was that narrative? Without the titles, it's doubtful one could get past verbal narratives beyond "happy" and "sad" if they had never heard the songs sung with words.

Or maybe the problem is that the photos were not expressive. That's a bit dangerous, because expression requires both a transmitter and a receiver, and it's up to judges to open their minds to what is new--and also to what they may personally be tired of seeing (or themselves making). The last photo contest I entered gave the grand prize to a workaday photo of the house of one of the people on the board of the organization that sponsored the photo contest. The word that came to my mind had little to do with anything the photographer might have been trying to express. That contest had working professional photographers as judges, too.

I have come to the conclusion that suffering does not embue a work of art with any special qualities. Often, in my own work, the best stuff just happens, while the suffering follows my attempts to make an unexpressive photo expressive. Sometimes, that level of effort pays off. But that would just take one sentence to write.

I don't mind contests that don't give awards, but I do think a statement should be made about what the entry fees will be used for if not for prizes--they could be saved for the next year, for example. But if there were even merely technically brilliant photos, then can't "Best in show" mean just that, rather than being required to mean "Best I've ever seen"? It does suggest that the technical brilliance was purposely set aside on the assumption that it resulted from the ease of digital processing, rather than the struggle the old judges attached to traditional methods. Which begs the question: How are the judges so sure of the methods used? Methods change and always have, and so do tastes.

Rick "no fan of photo contests" Denney

Jac@stafford.net
25-Jun-2013, 07:10
Drew wrote: sometimes the psychology of it all is just as important as the facts. I've seen it numerous times. You give someone a piece of gear which "seems" special and they change their whole frame of reference and suddenly want to do quality work.

I have seen it as well, and experienced it when I first used a Leica M2 as a young man. I had the notion that there were no excuses with that machine. My mentor was relentless in reminding me of that. Strangely, the only time I experienced the same was about forty years later with my first Holga 120. (The experience was a disaster. The variances in Holga's anti-quality control resulted in my receiving a lens that was actually adequate.)

Drew Wiley
25-Jun-2013, 13:35
Well of course these threads drift, but the original editorial just seemed like so much fluff to me anyway - writers gotta make a living too! And I apologize for offending people by using digi' - didn't know that was a slur, so should correct myself and type out the full "digital-schmigital". Don't worry... I'd be just as contemptuous of any film camera where the viewfinder is as complicated as an airplane cockpit and you need to turn off thirty-nine automated buttons before
you can actually take a picture. Someone like my friend (who is indeed routinely capable of taking and printing very competent black and white work) ends up just
frustrated when presented with too many options. It's the gotta-have-it latest gadget mentality that Nikon and all the others were shoving in the public's face for
year before anyone owned a digital camera.... oops, sorry, I meant a "digital-shcmigital" camera. (Keep slipping... walking on eggs, I realize). Take the same crowd
and give em one manual camera and one fixed lens, and just one film, and lo and behold, they gotta think before they push the button. Holy psychology!!!

Greg Miller
25-Jun-2013, 14:41
And I apologize for offending people by using digi' - didn't know that was a slur, so should correct myself and type out the full "digital-schmigital".

It isn't. Unless it comes from someone who also is prone to frequently using other slurs, such as "faux-toshop".

Jim Michael
25-Jun-2013, 15:06
here is an excerpt from the Toronto Globe and Mail article in today's paper
...


Great capture.

Drew Wiley
25-Jun-2013, 15:16
Guess I better keep a step ahead of the abbreviation police ... I can hardly image the felony I'd be accused of if I wrote "Hassie" or "Dorf"...

Kodachrome25
25-Jun-2013, 15:24
In my 24 year career, the best landscape or wildlife images I have ever seen have usually been by photojournalists who work for the likes of National Geographic. They have often gone beyond the sterile cliche's of what everyone seems to think everyone else likes to see. I think the fact that the Banff competition specifically asked for a more narrative portrayal of our natural world was a breath of fresh air.

I also think that for everyone who entered, it was a sorely missed opportunity. There are very few photo competitions I would enter or have and the Banff one is high on my list. I've worked as a photojournalist for a long time, had my images in National Geographic, Time and Life: The Year in pictures. I now do far more fine art film based work than ever before and will likely retire that way....and you can bet your sweet Photoshop I will do it with the integrity and dynamically open mind of a photojournalist.

I support the judges decision but think that the award should be donated to a charity, that way their choice to not award will not come under scrutiny and become something good.

Drew Wiley
25-Jun-2013, 15:49
Just the opposite for me ... I subscribe to NG because I like the articles, despite their formulaic and often biassed editing; and the photographic content illustrates that accordingly .... but don't think I've ever seen a great landscape photograph in it, not once. Maybe a few near misses. Maybe a few that originally were great, but then they cropped them to fit the magazine and ruined the composition, or else printed them so small that the intended effect is unrecognizable. There is more
than one way to tell a story, photojournalism being just one path, itself with many intersections. A single print can tell an incredible story... but if it's something too
obvious, I've got my doubts. Their current tinkering with trying to be artsy with filed easel borders with black and white images, or Fauxtoshopped scenes just looks
instantly dated and corny to me... trying to keep up with the same Jones' who left town long ago.

paulr
25-Jun-2013, 16:04
In my 24 year career, the best landscape or wildlife images I have ever seen have usually been by photojournalists who work for the likes of National Geographic.

In other words, you prefer one kind of cliché over another.

Drew Wiley
25-Jun-2013, 16:18
... but I should qualify that last remark by noting how, over the years, NG has at times hired some photographers who are capable of pretty remarkable personal
work... but something always seems to get lost in translation at the editing stage. They hire someone like Raghubir Singh, and by the time they're done with him his work looks almost like everyone else they publish. They seem to have a diecast mentality about such things which is only slowly evolving. At least every color shot doesn't have someone in a red sweater like in the old days! But they don't pretend to be a fine arts magazine, so I happily subscribe and enjoy the scientific and
journalistic aspect of it. I was encouraged when Jim Brandenburg allocated himself one shot a day for wildlife and they published examples of it; so the machine gun
rule is getting relaxed a bit it seems. I could do without a few recent example of HDR.

Greg Miller
25-Jun-2013, 16:36
If what the judges say is true, then the contest should be utterly embarrassed, and they should fire all of their marketing staff. After all, they have been in existence for over a decade, and they cannot attract a single photographer skilled enough to submit a series of photos worthy of being awarded a prize. That should tarnish their brand beyond repair. Hey everyone, we held a photography contest, and we have so little standing in the world that nobody of substance showed up!

This does not reflect well on the judges either that they did not have enough pull to to attract even one qualified photographer to submit their images. If I were one of the judges I would want the entire thing to just go away.

Frank_E
28-Jun-2013, 18:15
as the OP for this thread, I am somewhat surprised how much interest it attracted
1990 views and 60 replies at the time of this posting….

here are two more blogs on the topic
the one immediately below is directly related

http://www.randomhouse.ca/hazlitt/blog/digital-photos-won%E2%80%99t-kill-art-form-have-sympathy-skeptics

the other one is indirectly related
but I love the work of Martin Parr
so am interested in his comments somewhat around the same issue
it deals more with why people photograph
as opposed to the merits of what or how they photograph
but in my opinion it is a good read anyways….

http://www.martinparr.com/2012/too-much-photography/

Wayne
28-Jun-2013, 19:38
N+1



if what the judges say is true, then the contest should be utterly embarrassed, and they should fire all of their marketing staff. After all, they have been in existence for over a decade, and they cannot attract a single photographer skilled enough to submit a series of photos worthy of being awarded a prize. That should tarnish their brand beyond repair. Hey everyone, we held a photography contest, and we have so little standing in the world that nobody of substance showed up!

This does not reflect well on the judges either that they did not have enough pull to to attract even one qualified photographer to submit their images. If i were one of the judges i would want the entire thing to just go away.

Bill Burk
28-Jun-2013, 20:41
I kept asking myself, "What does this have to do with Eliot Porter?"

Then I realized I clicked on the wrong thread.

David N Docherty
29-Jun-2013, 15:45
This article echos the bemoanings of my mentor-teachers during a recent year of photography school. The old guard had little regard for the current state of the union, and admonished best they could to understand and apply good form and content.

KenM
14-Jul-2013, 15:57
Bit late to conversation, but I thought I would add this as an FYI:

http://www.banffcentre.ca/media-release/1137/2013-banff-mountain-photography-competition/

Bill Burk
14-Jul-2013, 17:38
Thanks KenM,

Glad to see the fee could be refunded if asked, otherwise it goes to good cause.

Last week at a scout camp I browsed through an old photo album and realized the old guard knew how to organize pictures into stories, better than I have seen lately. Simple example was morning flag ceremony where the flags and each scout may be clearly seen. While I know the shots I took from the back row will only have the backs of everyone's heads and will look very ordinary.

At least (because of thinking of this thread) I did take one series that tell a story, a commissioner showing the knots to wrap cord around a hiking stick to make a handle.

ic-racer
14-Jul-2013, 19:47
But none of them managed to tell the simplest of stories.

Reminds me of 'stock' photography. If any image even hinted at any meaning it would be useless as generic representation.

I4YM
23-Jul-2013, 17:39
“They take the picture and then they show it to the people in the photograph: ‘Look, I’ve captured us. I’ve captured our moment.’ And after they’ve shown them the picture, I know it will never be put on a wall. It was more about getting the stamp of approval.”

This bothers me. No one is printing for preservation.

Brassai
27-Jul-2013, 17:02
Article is more a condemnation of the quality of people today than anything else. Everyone in a hurry skimming over their lives. Congrats to the judges for withholding prizes they didn't feel were earned.

I loved the line "the stain of the real." I'm not sure that is exactly why young folks are getting all tatted up these days but it applies in other situations.





My take is people get tattoos mainly because they saw those stupid cable TV shows. It's really that crass. As for the article, I agree with most of it. The shift has been people now take photos for instant use where once they took them either for a historical record or for self fulfillment.

Jac@stafford.net
29-Jul-2013, 12:08
My take is people get tattoos mainly because they saw those stupid cable TV shows

I had to smile when I read that.

Today that might be true for a significant number of people. There are strong exceptions.

I am one :)

Halford
30-Jul-2013, 04:10
I had to smile when I read that.

Today that might be true for a significant number of people. There are strong exceptions.

I am one :)

The funny thing is that I'm thinking of getting my first tattoo for my 40th birthday this year, to mark some important changes in my life and embrace some hopes for the future.

I figure that by this stage in life, I no longer have to be scared by the "you'll get old and saggy and regret it" threats :)

ridax
3-Aug-2013, 10:44
The funny thing is that I'm thinking of getting my first tattoo for my 40th birthday this year, to mark some important changes in my life and embrace some hopes for the future. I figure that by this stage in life, I no longer have to be scared by the "you'll get old and saggy and regret it" threats :)

http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/men/10-ways-to-handle-a-midlife-crisis

David_Senesac
8-Aug-2013, 20:22
Doesn't tell a story? As if that was of critical important with images. One can always pick on the work of the average non-serious photographer especially the vast numbers posting trivial images on the web social sites, but one would expect some of the submissions were from competent experience serious photographers. Would have meant more to this person if they provided a specific example of what they meant on one of the better submissions.

Although I'm not a fan of some of what has happened in recent years with the rise of digital photography, especially with post processing, I would tend to agree with what paulr and Jerry Bodine posted.

There are many people especially those ever in the urban world that are so unfamiliar with subjects of nature and landscape photography that they have little to relate with in their personal experiences. Put such a person at some place like Tunnel View in Yosemite and after a couple awkward minutes gazing into the valley they seem lost, then wander back to their vehicle and drive to Yosemite Village where they spend hours in the store, museum, and eateries looking at the mobs of other like people there instead of getting outside. To the naturalist the grand landscapes of the West tell many stories in the rock, geology, skies, and lifeforms. That is one reason in my own online gallery homepage I have bothered to include a page length story and description of what a picture is showing in both its natural history and a brief story of how the picture was taken so such is not so abstract to a broad public audience. For example read the story of this image:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_05-l9-1.html

Jac@stafford.net
8-Aug-2013, 20:33
The funny thing is that I'm thinking of getting my first tattoo for my 40th birthday this year, to mark some important changes in my life and embrace some hopes for the future.

Me and my peers got the tats because we thought we were going to die, and the military ID form had a section for identifying scars and tattoos. Stupid kids that we were, but competent enough to die for the USA.

alavergh
26-Jan-2014, 21:39
Ugh, I couldn't read the whole thing.

Obviously, the only people worthy of winning this award were the three people judging them.

Jac@stafford.net
22-May-2014, 12:57
There is a difference between seeing and image capture.

Jac@stafford.net
22-May-2014, 13:26
The term 'photography' is, and always has been, generic.

Generics flow to the lowest common denominator.

Rise above.