We live in the best of times [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Michael Alpert

23-Aug-2007, 09:15

Kirk,

Yes, I agree. But why are we not more appreciative and happy?

I am writing the introduction to a book involving a photographer whose best work was in the 1930s through the 1950s. His struggles involving materials, equipment, money, acceptance of photography as an artform, etc. seemed never to end. Only basic cheerfulness kept him afloat.

Today, if we can somehow maintain a sense of optimism about the world and the possibility of meaning within it, we are living in a golden age. At least for photographers in developed countries. So I share your thought, although I am aware (as I am sure you also are aware) that there are millions of people who move through life with us who cannot afford to buy an aspirin when they have a toothache.

John Z.

23-Aug-2007, 09:15

It may be the case, but the options for film and paper in 11x14, my preference, are becoming more scarce. If we can still get Kodak to make a special run of TMY 400 every few years, I will be happy.
It is true that the ability to reach a world audience via the internet has never been greater.

davidb

23-Aug-2007, 09:22

Most definitely interesting times.

Marko

23-Aug-2007, 09:51

some of the most interesting times, at least.

maybe the best if you're flexible enough to jump to new materials every time one you're used to gets New and Improved or tossed into the dustbin of history ... a daily occurence whether you're using digital materials or traditional ones. it's volatile out there!

We are witnessing - no, we are a part of a transition from industrial to informaton age. There were only a handful of such transitions over the last few thousand years and we should feel fortunate to live in and be part of one.

The main characteristic of the information age is content - information - by itself a very immaterial concept. Another characteristic is the transfer of information and its speed. Both of those characteristics are limited by the current technology, hence the drive for constant improvement.

Physcial information containers such as paper or film simply cannot sustain the amount of information required, much less the transfer speed. They are also introducing the medium distortion and therefore represent the blind alley, the end of the road for that particular information stream. Finally, they make the transfer of information they contain extremely slow by their very nature.

That is why traditional materials are becoming niche - or rather butique - medium and the mainstream is moving toward all-electronic pathways. Rather like the quill and the typewriter of old vs. the computer or the saddle-making vs. an airplane.

In other words, materials and crafts tied to them are becoming increasingly irrelevant in relation to the information itself. The Content is becoming free as it never was before and that can only be a good thing for Photography itself.

Yes, I would say these really are the best of times and not just because we get to live in them. :)

Bruce Watson

23-Aug-2007, 10:01

This...........right now........

This

is the golden age of photography.

Absolutely. I couldn't be more happy or more amazed at the stupendous quality of 400PortraNC in 5x4 sheets. It nearly defies imagination.

So too are films like 400Tmax, 320Tri-x, 160PortraVC/NC, Pro160C/S, Acros, FP4+, etc., etc., etc.

So too are developers like XTOL, Pyrocat-HD, etc., etc., etc.

Way back in the mid-1970s when I started down this photography path I could never have imagined films with so little graininess, such high sharpness, such large dynamic range.

I surely couldn't have imagined glass like the 110mm SS-XL, or cameras like the Toho FC-45X that I hike around with.

It is a fine photographic world we live in, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to participate in it such as I can.

Michael Alpert

23-Aug-2007, 10:04

We are witnessing - no, we are a part of a transition from industrial to informaton age. . . . Physcial information containers such as paper or film simply cannot sustain the amount of information required, much less the transfer speed. They are also introducing the medium distortion and therefore represent the blind alley. . . .

That is why traditional materials are becoming niche - or rather butique - medium and the mainstream is moving toward all-electronic pathways. Rather like the quill and the typewriter of old vs. the computer or the saddle-making vs. an airplane.

In other words, materials and crafts tied to them are becoming increasingly irrelevant in relation to the information itself. The Content is becoming free as it never was before and that can only be a good thing for Photography itself.

I didn't know all this. Please say more. What is "butique" anyway? From a horse's point of view, is a saddle-maker butique? From a reader's point of view (and I mean a reader of something more complex than comics) is paper butique? What do you actually do with your photographs? Does what you do ever involve paper?

Michael Graves

23-Aug-2007, 10:09

paulr

23-Aug-2007, 10:13

Marko, i think what you're talking about is the only real substantive part of this move from analog to digital photography. all the other stuff people fixate on--printing on ink, easy manipulation of images, etc. etc.--is just minor side effects, and none of it's really new.

the whole aspect of the image being disembodied IS new, and as you're saying, it's part of the larger information revolution.

John Kasaian

23-Aug-2007, 10:14

We live in the best of times because we live!

paulr

23-Aug-2007, 10:17

We have some excellent papers, but we're amazily lacking in truly great papers.

andi if a great paper shows up, how long will it be around? i don't think it's trivial switching form one paper to another. it takes me a while to learn the nuances of each one. this has alway been a problem in photography, but the pace of change these days can be hard to manage.

but i see kirk's point. in terms of abundance of choices, these are pretty amazing times.

Matt Miller

23-Aug-2007, 10:24

roteague

23-Aug-2007, 10:40

I don't agree.

There has been some positive things come about, and some negative. Frankly, I dislike the "look" of digital images, and find that I am continually confronted with them every time I open a magazine or a book. I feel the quality of images in the mass media has dropped considerably.

Marko

23-Aug-2007, 10:51

I didn't know all this. Please say more. What is "butique" anyway? From a horse's point of view, is a saddle-maker butique?

Oh, my. Having a sarcasm attack, aren't we?

I don't know about you, but I prefer the view of the world from rider's perspective. ;)

From a traveler's point of view, though, neither the horse nor the saddle are in the picture any more - haven't been for about a century. Saddles and horses are used only for racing and wealthy pass-time these days, at least here where I live. So, to answer your second question - yes, saddles are boutique items here.

From a reader's point of view (and I mean a reader of something more complex than comics) is paper butique?

I wouldn't know about comic books either, I'll defer that to connoisseurs of that particular genre. I prefer a good book - been reading them for the past 45 years or so, many of them in languages and alphabets I suspect you might have hard time recognizing.

What do you actually do with your photographs? Does what you do ever involve paper?

Whatever I do with them I do it primarily to satisfy my desire to enjoy this great hobby. I don't think it is of any importance to you, really, nor of any relevance to this discussion.

But anyway, back in the old days, I used to print from film to paper. Today I'm using an inkjet to print either digital or scans when I feel like printing. When I finally manage to make room for a 4x5 Beseler that's sitting in my garage, I will print some traditional too.

I am merely answering your questions hoping that it will put an end to this ad hominem silliness.

Capocheny

23-Aug-2007, 10:57

That is why traditional materials are becoming niche - or rather butique - medium and the mainstream is moving toward all-electronic pathways. Rather like the quill and the typewriter of old vs. the computer or the saddle-making vs. an airplane.

Marko,

You may be correct in that we are moving more towards an electronic pathway. For example, from traditional LPs to the compact disc.

However, the big question has to be, "Has it all been for the better?"

There are those who would argue that the CD has a "tin-nier" sound quality to them unlike that of a traditional LP with its warm, full-range of sound nuances."

But, I would agree with Kirk in his assessment. Photographically, we ARE living in the best of times! :)

Cheers

Capocheny

23-Aug-2007, 10:58

Chris Strobel

23-Aug-2007, 10:59

I don't know, i find myself spending more time these days researching all these new toys,
lusting, thinking about them more than thinking about subject matter.I'm stressed.For me personally its not the best of times.

Marko

23-Aug-2007, 11:07

Marko,

You may be correct in that we are moving more towards an electronic pathway. For example, from traditional LPs to the compact disc.

However, the big question has to be, "Has it all been for the better?"

Now, that's a totally different discussion. One does not have to like the fact in order to recognize it.

I don't think I know nearly enough to say with any certainty if is is for the better or for the worse. But I do know enough to understand why it is and how it became.

As with progress in general, I like some aspects and I dislike others. I also try to be at piece with all of them, if nothing else, then because I know I can't change the process, I can only adapt to it.

:)

Gordon Moat

23-Aug-2007, 11:20

Some might state: it was the best of times, and the worst of times. Sure, there is DVD Audio and 5-1 sound to replace stereo CDs, but then there is MP3. Then you can get HD-TV, while web video is becoming ever more popular. In photography, you can buy nearly anything of high quality, yet the camera phone is the highest volume seller.

So the highs and the lows of the markets are well addressed. I have seen some comments from museum directors deriding the cost cutting in printing, implying too much emphasis in that direction over quality considerations.

Then there is micro stock in the photography market, a development after Getty Images and Corbis bought out 80% of the stock agencies. On-demand printing and books for wedding photographers are more accessible. There are more magazines, though many are paying less, and some not at all. Advertising budgets are finally on the rise again, though the cost of attracting that market has increased.

The internet, and EBAY, have provided access to gear that was difficult to find only ten years ago. Unfortunately that has also hurt many local stores. Shipping services and choices have improved some aspects of this, though there are fewer vendors of purely photographic gear. There are also fewer labs, yet the few that stay do seem to be doing a better job, and can provide some quite good quality printing.

As with anything, one must accept the good with the bad. I am very happy with the Large Format gear I now own, and some of the changes have been to my benefit. My camera comes from China (Shen-Hao (http://www.shen-hao.com/)) through Badger Graphic Sales (http://www.badgergraphic.com/), one lens from MPEX (http://www.mpex.com), a few items from KEH (http://www.keh.com), film through B&H Photo (http://www.bhphoto.com), another lens and some film holders off EBAY, and some nice accessory bags bought locally through Nelson's Photo Supply, etc. In some ways it was all too easy.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Ole Tjugen

23-Aug-2007, 11:47

I agree that films are better, the chemistry is better and that our equipment is easier to use. But I don't know about paper. What do we have that equals Kodak Elite or Azo? Ilfobrome? And where or where is my beloved Agfa Brovira. We have some excellent papers, but we're amazily lacking in truly great papers.

I don't know about you, but I use Ilfobrom Galerie. It may be difficult to get hold of, but it's still made. And it's as least as good as it has ever been!

When I found out the price for new Slavich photographic plates I was shocked. But then I looked up the prices in 1930, corrected for inflation et cetera, and discovered that plates have never been as cheap as now in "real money".

The same is true for lenses: One lens I bought a few years ago cost ne exactly the same sum as when it was new in 1912: £12.-. But in 1912 that was a small fortune, about the equivalent of £500 today (it's not only inflation, you have to correct for average wages as well and how much of those were left after spending the absolute minimum necessary for survival).

Steven Barall

23-Aug-2007, 11:53

This absolutely is the golden age of photography. Never before has photography been so democratic and accessible. When is was like twelve years old, thirty four years ago, and I wanted an 8x10 color print made my father had to take the negative to the camera store and they had to send it off to Kodak and a week or so later I got my print. What a thrill that was, to see my photo enlarged all the way to a giant 8x10. I can still remember it all like it was yesterday and I still have that print.

Now I sit here with my film and scanner and HP 9180 printer and I can make 13x19 inch color prints that are of much higher quality than any color prints ever made in any darkroom and for very little money also. And then there is the digital camera stuff which is an even more streamlined process. The point is that we all do this and so do kids. Kids today can use photography as a tool to an extent that I could never have dreamed of when I was twelve years old.

The question is whether the preciousness of photography in the olden days was good for the Art and Artists or whether this new unfettered access is better. There is something to be said for toil. Only time will tell I guess.

Kirk Gittings

23-Aug-2007, 11:59

Take my friend Michael Mutmanski for instance. He does everything from 7x17, contact prints, digital prints and digital contact prints to using a Canon 5D for commercial work. He pushes the boundaries more than I do, but

If tomorrow you decide to do a daguerreotype or a project emulating Carleton Watkins or Thomas Struth's new digital work, all of that technology is virtually at your fingertips. It is solely a question of your financial resources and your initiative. When I got started in the late 60's we were far, far more limited both in terms of technical resources and aesthetic opportunities. At art schools it was traditional b&w silver prints period.

Michael Graves

23-Aug-2007, 12:18

I agree completely. It seems everytime I get comfortable with a great paper, it goes away.

My point exactly. I fell in love with Elite. Got to where I knew it well.

It went away.

Got to know Brovira.

It went away.

Then Zone VI (the real Zone VI, not the stuff they're selling today) bit the big one.

Oren Grad

23-Aug-2007, 12:27

In other words, materials and crafts tied to them are becoming increasingly irrelevant in relation to the information itself.

Reminds me of the paperless office. ;)

Seriously: at least for this small group of outliers who are deeply into craft, the new technology broadens the range of tools for moving a picture from initial capture to its ultimate physical embodiment. But a non-electronic physical embodiment is still the goal.

Jim Chinn

23-Aug-2007, 12:41

It really is great times to shoot film in any format, color or B&W. I remember 20 years ago lusting after an 8x10 sinar or arca swiss that cost a few thousands of dollars. Now they go on ebay in the hundreds. I recently bought an RB6x7 medium format body from an estate sale new in box for $200. New what did they sell for? $1500/$1700?

A dozen years ago IIRC there was only one source for ULF film and that was rebranded Ilford. you might have been able to get TriX in 11x14 retail but otherwise I think anything Kodak was special ordered. Now we sitll have Ilford, but also TMY and TriX with special orders as well as Adox/Efke.

There are still very good papers around and hopefully we will see the revival of AGFA film and paper next year as well as the long awaited Lodima Fine Art silver chloride contact printing paper.

Besides regular silver gelatin paper and film, there has been a tremendous resurgence in alternative methods like Plt/pld, wet plate collodion and other hand coated emulsion techniques. The ability to learn these and find materials would be impossible for most without the internet to relay information.

Marko

23-Aug-2007, 13:04

Reminds me of the paperless office. ;)

Seriously: at least for this small group of outliers who are deeply into craft, the new technology broadens the range of tools for moving a picture from initial capture to its ultimate physical embodiment. But a non-electronic physical embodiment is still the goal.

Or perhaps something like Apple Newton... ;)

Both were the concepts that came well before their time when neither technology nor the people were ready and so became the laughing stock.

Well, iPod and iPhone are here and nobody's laughing. As for the office, just think of how much less paper is circulating around these days and how many more emails and attachments. Stuff like spreadsheets, Word documents, screenshots... Not to mention photographs. ;)

It is not an event, it is a trend. I am not saying that paper is going to disappear, I'm saying that it is ultimately going to become a specialized niche because it cannot provide the throughput needed to sustain the increasing flow of information.

Just look at the kids and see how much paper they use - for them, it has already become an oddity. They practically live online. You don't need to guess - just look at them and you'll know what lies ahead.

Scott Davis

23-Aug-2007, 13:10

The "paperless office" is actually a fraudulent sham. There's actually MORE paper being used now than was in the past before the "paperless" office. People print emails because they don't trust the medium. They also print PDFs. I can tell you stories about when I was working at the Pentagon, the staffers would produce these 200+ slide PowerPoint briefings, and then PRINT 20 copies in COLOR for distribution at the meeting. Kinda defeats the purpose.

Oren Grad

23-Aug-2007, 14:08

Just look at the kids and see how much paper they use - for them, it has already become an oddity. They practically live online. You don't need to guess - just look at them and you'll know what lies ahead.

And of course, one can make pictures with the goal of displaying them online or on a personal gadget. But if, in doing so, one labors over color spaces and gamma and profiles and browsers and so on, out of concern about how the pictures will look to the viewer, it means that craft hasn't been entirely superseded by "pure" information.

Or, rather, the medium is inseparably part of the message, even if it is a new-fangled medium.

Marko

23-Aug-2007, 14:38

And of course, one can make pictures with the goal of displaying them online or on a personal gadget. But if, in doing so, one labors over color spaces and gamma and profiles and browsers and so on, out of concern about how the pictures will look to the viewer, it means that craft hasn't been entirely superseded by "pure" information.

Or, rather, the medium is inseparably part of the message, even if it is a new-fangled medium.

Presentation will always involve some type of skill, just like anything else we do does. But IMO the craft itself is an inseparable part of the medium rather than the mesage. Different mediums have always required different sets of skills, even for conveying the same message. Or should I say especially so for conveying the same message.

There is nothing inherently wrong with it, it's just that mediums change faster than the message and we seem to have a privilege of witnessing - or be caught in, if you will - one such transition.

adrian tyler

24-Aug-2007, 02:33

has anyone mentioned that more photos are being taken than ever, more people than ever own cameras (mobile phone) more photography books being printed, more exhibitions, more photographs in circulation.

all the barrieres are collapsing and there is everything to play for, right on kirk, let's be thankful to be here now.

paulr

24-Aug-2007, 07:33

has anyone mentioned that more photos are being taken than ever, more people than ever own cameras (mobile phone) more photography books being printed, more exhibitions, more photographs in circulation.

good point. i get reminded of this by photographers a generation older than me who talk about the change with a mix of awe and nostalgia. on the one hand they had to struggle to get any recognition as artists. and there were very few outlets and resources available for them. on the other hand, there were only about a half dozen other photographers out there doing serious work, so there wasn't the incredible competition for resources that we have today. if you wanted to show your work to the guy at the museum, you'd grab a box of prints and go knock on the door. there weren't five thousand recent MFA graduates in line ahead of you!

the boom in the book market .. . the quantity and the quality, and the accessibility of cheap publishing ... is pretty amazing.

scott_6029

24-Aug-2007, 07:49

I agree mostly. There is certainly a rennaisance towards 'traditional' processes. Nice choice of films (albeit prices higher). Great for color with digital scan/print, etc. Nice for digital negs for alt. printing (although I use in-camera negs). Paper is somewhat of a dissapointment, but perhaps with Mirko's efforts and others Michael and Paula, we will have nice paper selection as well. One thing we can't overlook....

IF we DIDN'T have the web I think this whole process would be Much more difficult....the web makes it great for communication (forums, access to merchants, easier to go direct to mfr, sending files, images, etc) and frankly buying film and supplies from distant lands...

I think the web has a lot to do with the good times.

cyrus

24-Aug-2007, 08:04

has anyone mentioned that more photos are being taken than ever, more people than ever own cameras (mobile phone) more photography books being printed, more exhibitions, more photographs in circulation.

all the barrieres are collapsing and there is everything to play for, right on kirk, let's be thankful to be here now.

Actually I suspect that this ease of "getting into photography" leads an increase in the desire to get into LF and traditional photography too. Once people start with a phone cam, a certain percentage will inevitably "catch the bug" and follow the trail of doom...

Colin Graham

24-Aug-2007, 08:12

If tomorrow you decide to do a daguerreotype or a project emulating Carleton Watkins or Thomas Struth's new digital work, all of that technology is virtually at your fingertips. It is solely a question of your financial resources and your initiative. When I got started in the late 60's we were far, far more limited both in terms of technical resources and aesthetic opportunities. At art schools it was traditional b&w silver prints period.

Great point. I recently started with digital negative contact priting and was amazed how high up I was able to start on the curve. The resources and materials and encouragement and access to work being done are staggering. For example, even if silver paper were to disappear today, the knowledge base is in place to begin making and coating your own emulsions without missing a step.

Anyway, I'm selfish, I say weed out the suckers and dilettantes. I'm here till the end (of me anyway), even if I have to start coating glass and separating eggs. And digital truly is a natural compliment to silver based work. So a hearty second that these are best of times.

Michael Alpert

24-Aug-2007, 08:37

Kirk,

I've been rethinking your notion about this being the "best of times." I agree with your basic premise concerning materials, but I wonder if in other ways the confusions of contemporary society can be neatly sectioned off from the concerns of photographers. Even in this thread there has been ample evidence of a basic confusion between technological change and the level of mindfulness needed for aesthetic experience and artistic work. I am so tired of shallow simple-minded arguments concerning new technology that I tend to react rather than respond; and that failure to truly respond, for me at least, is part of the interference that I am pointing to. I've seen a few fine digital prints and many many terrible digital prints by intelligent people who have no standards. I know that the mountain of poorly conceived and produced work has always been around, but today the pile seems higher and more threatening. As much as I like communication via the Internet, the downside is that one is sometimes too mindful of it. It's great to turn it off. What I am trying to say is that the "best of times" comes at a high cost. Perhaps 1839 was the best of times, when photography was emerging as an enthralling new invention; perhaps we live deeply in the shadow of that original excitement.

Michael Mutmansky

24-Aug-2007, 09:53

There has never been a time in the age of photography that one method/process was on it's way out while another method was emerging, or had taken control completely. This is due to the technological nature of photography as a medium.

If you happen to be interested/excited by the advances, then I think this is possibly the best of times, as the advancements seem to be coming faster than ever, and the quality improvements of some aspects of photography have been astounding.

It's also a great time for those who wish to work in post-industrial methods, the information available through the internet makes almost anything possible and available for use, with only a few notable exceptions that have either been lost to the annals of history or have been guarded to protect the unique nature of the process. In truth, without the internet, there are many people who simply would not be working in the range of post-industrial processes that are out there.

However, there is a dark side to this (I'm a glass half empty type of person recently). The internet makes some movements within photography seem somewhat fad-ish to me, and it also is a tool for the fractionalization of the body of practitioners into somewhat insular and territorial groups. Witness, for example, the concern by some people over whether Foto3 will be 'too digital', the almost fanatic use these days of petzval-style optics from the past, and the sudden interest in wet plate.

I believe the internet is both an enabler and an Achilles Heel of photography. It takes a lot of effort to find real meaningful information that is not suspect in some manner, and there's an awful of information that is incomplete, misapplied, or simply wrong. There's also an awful lot of BS, ego stroking, saber rattling, chest pounding, pissing matches, and bitching and moaning. If you don't have a good built-in bullshitometer, the internet is really not a good place to play.

On the whole, the technology age has made photography a very democratic pursuit; the playing field has been mostly leveled from the time when photography was an activity of the well-heeled, and digital has now almost completely eliminated the last few barriers for the typical human in a modern technological society. That does, however, make it more difficult for professionals to make a good living doing it, though.

I continue to move forward with my work, and backwards at the same time. While I embrace digital for commercial work, I enjoy the process of pt/pd and gum printing, and also am now exploring printmaking as well, all of which I could not have become enabled to do without the internet to provide information and exposure to the possibilities.

---Michael

tim atherton

24-Aug-2007, 10:16

However, there is a dark side to this (I'm a glass half empty type of person recently). The internet makes some movements within photography seem somewhat fad-ish to me, and it also is a tool for the fractionalization of the body of practitioners into somewhat insular and territorial groups. Witness, for example, the concern by some people over whether Foto3 will be 'too digital', the almost fanatic use these days of petzval-style optics from the past, and the sudden interest in wet plate.

I believe the internet is both an enabler and an Achilles Heel of photography. It takes a lot of effort to find real meaningful information that is not suspect in some manner, and there's an awful of information that is incomplete, misapplied, or simply wrong. There's also an awful lot of BS, ego stroking, saber rattling, chest pounding, pissing matches, and bitching and moaning. If you don't have a good built-in bullshitometer, the internet is really not a good place to play.

---Michael

I'm not quite so sure about that - I think the internet has only made such communications and information faster to access.

If you read any of the every day documents on photography almost from its inception, you will find pretty much the same thing.

There are whole archives full of Victorian books, articles, proceedings of this club and that society, letters from one well known practitioner to another which are equally full of (in fact often far less polite than we find on the internet) "BS, ego stroking, saber rattling, chest pounding, pissing matches, and bitching and moaning." Much of it suspect and entirely to do with different waring factionalized bodies of practitioners in insular and territorial groups".

There are some amazing papers around on the most dubious forms of photography imaginable (techniques for photographing ghosts or spirits at seances, capturing the aura of your loved ones in post-mortem photography and more...)

That this might have been carried on among a smaller group of people is about the only thing that lessens it's intensity.

Or take the different groups in France at the time Lartigue's photographic eye was forming as child - and of which his father was an active part. Bitter written and verbal wars between various practitioners/factions - the gentleman scientists, the "plein air" democratists, the Sunday Hobbyists, the rich Bourgeois Amateurs each with their own clubs and journals - they seemed to spend as much time attacking and dissing each other as they did taking pictures - not just about style and approaches to photography, but about technological change as well - experimenting with new cameras and film technologies. Arguments about hand-held vs. tripod etc (sound familiar). From what I have read of their proceedings, they were often far more bitter towards and disdainful of each other than anything we ever see on this list.

Then there's bitter words between the Pictorialists and the F64 types

Move backwards or forwards in the history of photography and you'll pretty much find the same thing

Kirk Gittings

24-Aug-2007, 10:53

With all the nonsense that goes on with the web, it is a far better resource than anything we have ever had before. When I started in the late sixties, there were art schools and a few (very few) workshops. Did you ever try learning the Zone System from Ansel's original set of books?? Nor was there anyone at the then famous University of New Mexico photo department (Newhall, Coke, Hahn, Metzger et al) who even used it. The only possibility that I knew of were the AA workshops which I could not afford.

Michael Alpert

24-Aug-2007, 11:15

I think the internet has only made such communications and information faster to access. . . . Move backwards or forwards in the history of photography and you'll pretty much find the same thing

Tim,

I agree with Michael Mutmansky. Although (as you pointed out) there certainly has been much misinformation and strange verbiage published in the past, the difference is that in the past most of what had solid credibility went through the offices of legitimate publishers. Works were edited and published with the reputation of the publisher as well as that of the author at stake. Today, we are faced with the ongoing situation (for instance, on this forum) where it is often hard to tell whether the supplier of information has any background in the subject-at-hand or not. (The forum has several participants who just a year or so ago were asking very basic questions and who now are posting information that suggests they have encyclopedic experiential knowledge.) Along this same line of thinking, there is a world of difference between the world of legitimate galleries and museums, where work is vetted and where the motivation for showing work is complex and often compelling, and the world of websites, where self-promotion seems to be the whole game. I am not saying that galleries and museums are ideal (far from it) or that the world of websites is without merit but that the joys and sorrows of the two are quite distinct.

Michael Mutmansky

24-Aug-2007, 12:53

Tim,

Of course there have been equally appalling debates in the past, and equally disturbing personalities, etc. But never before has the dissemination of information been as unfiltered as it is now. That's the reason for the need for the bullshitometer.

I don't believe that the fads of the photographic past were as rapid as they are now, either.

In the end, even fad-ish things are worth merit if the practitioner chooses the approach and develops it to their expressive intent in a meaningful way. Even if they chose to do it for all the wrong reasons, it could develop into a meaningful part of their photographic work if they apply it well. I'm not knocking the fad, only the general availability of the information that causes people to jump on a bandwagon, and then jump to the next in a year or so. That is probably not a good way to develop a photographic vision.

I suspect that the blinders of the pre-internet and pre-information eras was a much better vehicle for concentration on the aspects of the work that would permit growth in photography accomplishment. Yes, it was stifling to some people due to it's limited nature, but those who learned to work within the confines of the silver gelatin world could possible get to a better place with fewer distractions and side-trips along the way.

Distractions... In a way, that's how I see a lot of the things happening in the realm of photography right now. It's not that there's one true path for each of us, but it is likely that avoiding some of the dead ends in our work might be easier if we weren't distracted along the way by this process, or that method, or whatever that we discover on the internet. I think that many people try a lot of things searching for their path, as if something they have yet to try is going to be their way. No different than gear and film swappers, but with process, technique, and vision.

Kirk's right about the AA books. I think that approach and others that are similar can sometimes be looked at as the poster child for 'a little knowledge can be a bad thing'.

---Michael

Marko

24-Aug-2007, 13:08

I'm not quite so sure about that - I think the internet has only made such communications and information faster to access.

If the Internet has made communications faster and access to information broader, the World Wide Web has brought about one even more fundamental change in the form of the basic but very broad challenge to the existing content distribution channels.

This is where the real power (and profits!) of "legitimate sources" used to be. Most of them singularly failed to understand - and still do - the true nature and scope of the change, and so they tried - and still are trying - to fight the new model instead of adjusting to it. Witness the RIAA as the most illustrative example, but there are numerous others.

They all publicly lament the vulgarization and "dangers" that the uncontrolled access to the WWW brings along. What they really mean is access uncontrolled by them, of course, and what they really lament is mostly their loss of power and profits.

Personally, I find it ironic how both "sides" in this clash tend to adopt one of Voltaire's ideas:

The traditionalists' most used argument is, essentially, that only an enlightened higher authority (the King) advised by the selected gatekeepers (themselves) could bring about a change.

The reformists prefer to think that "nothing can stop an idea whose time has come".

tim atherton

24-Aug-2007, 14:28

Tim,

I agree with Michael Mutmansky. Although (as you pointed out) there certainly has been much misinformation and strange verbiage published in the past, the difference is that in the past most of what had solid credibility went through the offices of legitimate publishers. Works were edited and published with the reputation of the publisher as well as that of the author at stake. Today, we are faced with the ongoing situation (for instance, on this forum) where it is often hard to tell whether the supplier of information has any background in the subject-at-hand or not. (The forum has several participants who just a year or so ago were asking very basic questions and who now are posting information that suggests they have encyclopedic experiential knowledge.) Along this same line of thinking, there is a world of difference between the world of legitimate galleries and museums, where work is vetted and where the motivation for showing work is complex and often compelling, and the world of websites, where self-promotion seems to be the whole game. I am not saying that galleries and museums are ideal (far from it) or that the world of websites is without merit but that the joys and sorrows of the two are quite distinct.

Hmm - I'm not sure I entirely agree - I still think it was very much a matter of degree

Although (as you pointed out) there certainly has been much misinformation and strange verbiage published in the past, the difference is that in the past most of what had solid credibility went through the offices of legitimate publishers. Works were edited and published with the reputation of the publisher as well as that of the author at stake.

Perhaps, if you are talking about say the 30's through to the 90's, but in the examples I gave above, it was entirely common for individuals or clubs to publish their own pamphlets and books or - if they were so inclined - even set up their own Press to spread the word.

Along this same line of thinking, there is a world of difference between the world of legitimate galleries and museums, where work is vetted and where the motivation for showing work is complex and often compelling, and the world of websites, where self-promotion seems to be the whole game. I am not saying that galleries and museums are ideal (far from it) or that the world of websites is without merit but that the joys and sorrows of the two are quite distinct

Again, degree - the website galleries are really in many ways only an extension of the old High Street Gallery which have been going since at the least the days of the California Gold-rush - wherever there was money to be made. The main difference is the internet gallery is rather cheaper to set up and run

And as was pointed out at the start of this discussion, all in all it's probably a good thing - the "established" galleries and museums have for long held a self-interested stranglehold on art and photographic art in particular. As one commentator has put it speaking especially of the big name commercial galleries:

"The world of the arts merchants has encysted itself in its own drag shadow for decades now, and is, historically speaking, overly ripe for change."

All in all, I;d agree with Kirk, the advantages and exciting possibilities of our times vis a vis photography far outweigh any of the disadvantages.

tim atherton

24-Aug-2007, 14:33

Distractions... In a way, that's how I see a lot of the things happening in the realm of photography right now. It's not that there's one true path for each of us, but it is likely that avoiding some of the dead ends in our work might be easier if we weren't distracted along the way by this process, or that method, or whatever that we discover on the internet. I think that many people try a lot of things searching for their path, as if something they have yet to try is going to be their way. No different than gear and film swappers, but with process, technique, and vision.

---Michael

I think one man's distraction is another man's exciting possibility.

I'm sure I come across more people now doing interesting exciting things with photography and pushing its boundaries and apparent limits (and having more fun doing so) than I've ever seen in the previous 35+ years since I first picked up a camera.

Kirk Gittings

19-Oct-2007, 10:52

Just to return to this thought.

After investing heavily in digital for my commercial business last year (which has greatly invigorated, streamlined and made more profitable my business), I have been updating my LF field equipment too with a Phillips 4x5, new Nikkor120sw, Fuji 450, Photobackpacker backpack, Gnass Film File etc. etc. Quality equipment has never been more varied, inventive or targeted for LF.

In addition by scanning (Ted Harris scans) some very early negatives for a recent print sale I was able to solve some problems caused by my poor handling and inexperience. Hence I was able to make the best prints ever from these negatives.

Seriously, it just doesn't get any better.

keith english

19-Oct-2007, 10:58

Now if I just had time to make a picture!

Bill_1856

19-Oct-2007, 14:37

You speak only of the technical aspect of the craft. I think the best of times, artistically, was the first half of the 20th century.

Turner Reich

19-Oct-2007, 16:33

Fear, fear that it will be over before the work can be completed. It's the best of times and the worst of times depending on what you are doing and where you live. Access to the best materials and machines are not universally equal. The more I read about photographers of the 20's, 30's, and onward the more I see that getting the materials and keeping it going was as hard as it is at any time in the history of the medium. Edward Weston in Mexico sweating out getting platinum paper from a supplier in England. It's also interesting that before widespread enlarging the prints went form small to larger to smaller and to ULF today as a rebirth. A lot of contact prints from Weston, Strand and others were smaller than I imagined. Enlarging made the ability to make larger prints from smaller negatives but the quality suffers as the availability of slow speed, finer grain negatives disappears. An 8x10 enlarged print from a 4x5 Panatomic-X negative compared to an 8x10 contact print?

The end of the "Golden Age of Photography" might be contact prints from roll films if the quality is seen as important. Those who choose to use large format materials and keep asking for the best emulsions from manufacturers may be the ones who keep the golden age alive for a longer length of time.

Paul Fitzgerald

19-Oct-2007, 19:55

"Seriously, it just doesn't get any better."

Agree completely, materials are as good or better than ever, equipment is more available and affordable ad conversation is much more open than the past.

"Of course there have been equally appalling debates in the past, and equally disturbing personalities, etc. But never before has the dissemination of information been as unfiltered as it is now. That's the reason for the need for the bullshitometer."

Yes and no, the collective community 'bullshitometer' is in fine working order unlike any time in the past. Claptrap and sillyness usually gets shot-down within 24hr.

As an aside and not to hijack the thread, I am totally dis-allusioned. I was dinking around with C++ and reduced all of Large Format Photography down to a 12k executable program, then zipped it down to 5k. All of the hoohaa and hubbub reduced to 5k, damn what a letdown.:D It should run well in Vista, XP, Win-9x, Win-NT. No viruses at all, promise.

Have fun with it.

Paul Fitzgerald

20-Oct-2007, 09:42

Apologizes all around, I could not figure out how to edit the last post. Photmax will only run in XP or Vista with the newest updates, sorry, it needs two version 8 .dll files. :mad:

I rebuilt it with VS 6 in Win98SE as a stand-alone and it grew to 56k and runs well. The thought was to make it small enough to run on a PalmPilot :eek:

David_Senesac

23-Oct-2007, 18:26

Quite agree with you Kirk. As a serious color landscape photographer that has been working at it since 1980, technology has relentlessly pushed the boundaries of what can be done. Very importantly it has given we ordinary photographers enormous control over what we create especially after releasing the shutter. In the past much was in the hands of labs and their technicians for all but those that had full dark room and printing setups or pricy commercial process connections. And the Internet has given us a mechanism for bringing our work out to our audiences that I would hope somehow eventually breaks down the old stranglehold traditional gallery and art people have heretofore had in getting our work in front of our public audience. Although there is still some significant advances to come, we are at an important knee in photography history and technology that may never be equalled in any near generation. .

..David

Dirk Rösler

23-Oct-2007, 18:41

We have never had better films, papers, cameras, digital options, vintage options, printing options, publishing venues, exhibition venues, information sharing venues.

This...........right now........

This

is the golden age of photography.

I think the same could have been said 50 years ago (save the 'digital' part). And will be said in 50 years. Obviously, in the industrialised world the present is always 'better' than the past. It's called progress.

Besides, what would be the point of not being happy here & now? The best times are always now - if you disagree you're a miserable old man :D

archivue

23-Oct-2007, 19:03

pro labs are closing !
no more C41 Tungsten film !
very difficult to find some good black and white paper in large size !
otherwise i agree with you !

Kirk Gittings

13-Nov-2007, 21:10

When I started in LF 29 years ago, rigid and lightweight were polar opposites.

Last week I was in Arizona doing HABS and personal work, testing my new 4x5 setup.

My new field outfit, consisting of a Phillips 4x5 and a carbon fiber Bogen 055 CF3 tripod, is half the weight and twice as rigid as any 4x5 setup I have ever owned or used before. This technology is a modern revolution. Add to it readyloads (that don't leak), a single camera belows that will handle anything from a 120 SW to a 450 with full movements, accessories like the Gnass film holder and the improvements are mind boggling over what was available when I started. Can it get any better?