Interesting NYTimes Article on the Photo Biz 3/30/2010

[Brian Ellis]

I remember quite well back in the 1980s when I worked at a Camera store hearing pros complain that the new SLRs with autofocus, and advanced autoexposure would kill their business, then a few years later when P&S 35mm cameras came on the scene that had pretty decent lenses and one hour mini-labs started popping up everywhere once again working pros would complain about how that was going to kill their business.

I think these conversations have been going on ever since Mr. Eastman introduced the Kodak where you pushed the button and they did the rest

I think those conversations went on even before that, when wet plates gave way to dry plates and older photographers grumbled about all these newcomers who could make photographs without having to hitch their mule up to a portable darkroom and haul it into the field.

There's lots of ways to view the digital revolution. I view it as a good thing for photography in general, there's no question that the ready availability of pretty decent digital cameras and photo editing software that comes with them has vastly increased the interest in photography.

George Lepp told a story the other day about scouting out an area in which to make a sunrise photograph, picking just the right spot for his tripod so that reflections of the distant mountains would show up well, and arriving around 5:00 a.m. the next morning only to find three other photographers already set up at his exact spot and about 40 others nearby. Ten years ago there might have been one or two other photographers in the area.

Whether that's good or bad depends I guess on your viewpoint. If I were a pro photographer I'd certainly not be thrilled though as the NY Times article points out, there are other factors besides digital (e.g. the internet) that have affected their business. But for the general hobbyist/serious amateur I think it's a good thing, more and better photographs of all kinds are being made today IMHO than at any time in the past and it costs less and less to do it.

[Brian Ellis]

Mr. Denny, this is a very telling observation, but I am wondering if technology is not blurring the need for vision as well. For example the high end Canon and Nikon have video capability that produces a stream of high resolution frames.

George Lepp in the latest issue of Outdoor Photography demonstrated the use of this capability by "videoing" the flight of a bird landing on a branch and then selecting the frame that had the best compositional impact. In other words, Mr. Lepp selected the 'decisive moment' after the fact.

True, he had to have a vision when he began filming, but the timing of the shot was not critical to his vision. In panning with the bird, for example, Mr. Lepp was not likely concentrating on other elements such as depth of field or background. He does not have to snap the shutter when the image in the viewfinder suits his vision.

Consider the photo by H. C-B where the man is jumping over a puddle. The 'decisive moment' creates a suspense for when the man splashes in. With today's technology Mr. C-B would video the man as he takes off on his jump and select the frame with the most 'decisive moment'. Maybe after reviewing all of the frames there would be one he liked better that was not part of his original vision.

So here is a instance where technology can replace skill (at least the aspect of timing), as you refer, and to a certain extent blur the need for vision as well.

I doubt very much that H. C-B really picked a "decisive moment" for the man jumping over the puddle and then made only a single photograph of that one moment. If he made that photograph like he made most, he made a whole bunch of frames before and after the guy approached the area and then picked that particular one later. In fact the whole "decisive moment" business sounded good but was practiced rarely if at all by H. C-B. As his published contact sheets often show and as stories told by others who watched him photograph confirm (see, e.g., A.E. Hotchner, "Sextet - T.S. Eliot & Truman Capote & Others," for a delightful description of H. C-B at work), he photographed like most 35mm photographers, i.e. he a made a bunch of photographs and then picked the best one later.

I mention this here not to denigrate H.C-B as a photographer (while he used the same technique as most others, most others didn't make the photographs he did) but to point out that what you mention being done with the video isn't really a case of a new technology replacing skill. What H. C-B did with a 35mm Leica and what later users of 35mm cameras did with motor drives isn't anything that different from what users of video cameras may start doing. The difference is just the number of frames from which to later choose.

[rdenney]

So here is a instance where technology can replace skill (at least the aspect of timing), as you refer, and to a certain extent blur the need for vision as well.

No, the vision is knowing which of those images is the decisive moment. Show 30 frames to an unartistic person, and they'll likely miss the image with the greatest power.

The skill is punching the button at the right time, having predicted that the action will achieve that vision when the shutter is open. And let's not underestimate the luck involved--that the motion goes where it seems to be going when the photographer pushes the button.

But your example is a good one--it provides a pretty good distinction between skill and vision even though you presented it as an example of where these blur.

The two most important aspects of photography are where the camera is pointed and when the image is captured. These take vision, but that vision can be applied after the fact. For example, I can postulated a camera that photographs in all directions creating a full inside sphere of image. Given enough resolution and software power (which are matters only of technology), I can choose the framing, and even the subject, after the fact. And the high-speed imaging handles the timing part. It still takes vision, however, to find that worthy frame in that sphere of image, and to find the image that captures the decisive moment. But it is taking less and less skill.

There are those who believe that skill difficulty imbues the vision with greater profundity and depth. I think that's true for some, but I don't think it is a law.

As for me, I rather like Tolkien's Ents, whose language is slow that they require days to make a point. They justify that inefficiency by explaining that they prefer to say things that are worth taking so long to say. I think that attitude describes many large-format photographers, but I don't think it is either required for or that it always results in good artistic vision. And professionals in particular are subject to being out-competed by those who are more efficient and whose quality is still...adequate.

Rick "noting that for pros, the great is the enemy of the good" Denney

[QT Luong]

I doubt very much that H. C-B really picked a "decisive moment" for the man jumping over the puddle and then made only a single photograph of that one moment. If he made that photograph like he made most, he made a whole bunch of frames before and after the guy approached the area and then picked that particular one later. In fact the whole "decisive moment" business sounded good but was practiced rarely if at all by H. C-B. As his published contact sheets often show and as stories told by others who watched him photograph confirm (see, e.g., A.E. Hotchner, "Sextet - T.S. Eliot & Truman Capote & Others," for a delightful description of H. C-B at work), he photographed like most 35mm photographers, i.e. he a made a bunch of photographs and then picked the best one later.

From looking at his own recently published "Scrapbook", some times he even didn't know which one to pick. On the other hand, I think there was only one photograph of the man over the puddle, as he said "it presented himself to him". The framing was imperfect, so this was only one of two images he decided to crop as soon as he made the shot.

[rdenney]

There will never be a machine or program that automatically dodges or burns a print...

Sure there will. There already are. They may not do it well, or make the choices you or I would make, of course.

And as technology improves, the aesthetic decisions you make might someday be modeled by an expert system of some sort. It won't be as good, but it may be good enough to fulfill requirements. Remember that fulfilling requirements is an engineering objective, not an artistic one. It appeals to those who are setting standards, not to those whose standard is as good as it can possibly be.

We already have piano simulators that model the phrasing of great pianists. They aren't very good, but they are much better than they used to be. That improvement will continue, perhaps eventually far enough to exceed the ability of nonartistic people to discern without a direct comparison.

I think we are going to find out for sure the difference between vision and skill.

Rick "absolutely not undervaluing skill" Denney

[rdenney]

I think clients will continue to accept whatever is good enough, and pick the lowest cost alternative that meets the criteria. And why shouldn't they?

What needs to happen is a program of education, get the clients to learn to see the difference, be educated in what they are looking at, and what value the image can have to them. The danger here is that we are no longer in direct contact with the clients, and have little opportunity to educate them.

I can offer no solution to this problem. I can only try to do the best I can, if not for them, for me.

Good stuff, especially the last.

Rick "in full agreement" Denney