The 'art' of photography
Discussion
Guys, please be kind to me. This is first post in this forum....
Many years ago I had photography as a hobby, doing my own B&W processing and printing etc. Although no longer having the time (and having too many other hobbies) to do this, I'm still a lover of great photography. I've been very, very impressed by some of the work on here. So, two questions for you:
1) has the digital age taken away some of the skill in photography (ie with the ease of swapping colour to B&W etc and anyone being able to take loads of photos and just picking one rather than having to be a pro (or just lucky) and get the shot right first time
2) How many of you make get paid (not the same as making a living) from your photographs? Certainly some of the work on here I would say is as good as some professional books I have.
Sorry for the long post...
Many years ago I had photography as a hobby, doing my own B&W processing and printing etc. Although no longer having the time (and having too many other hobbies) to do this, I'm still a lover of great photography. I've been very, very impressed by some of the work on here. So, two questions for you:
1) has the digital age taken away some of the skill in photography (ie with the ease of swapping colour to B&W etc and anyone being able to take loads of photos and just picking one rather than having to be a pro (or just lucky) and get the shot right first time
2) How many of you make get paid (not the same as making a living) from your photographs? Certainly some of the work on here I would say is as good as some professional books I have.
Sorry for the long post...
cirks said:
1) has the digital age taken away some of the skill in photography (ie with the ease of swapping colour to B&W etc and anyone being able to take loads of photos and just picking one rather than having to be a pro (or just lucky) and get the shot right first time.
I'd say digital has not taken away the skill of photography. It has made it a little more accessible maybe. Looking at some of the work displayed here on PH and also elsewhere the underlying skill of the photographer still comes through in making a great image. For me it matters not a jot that Heather Angel now shoots digital rather than film, she still takes some brilliant wildlife images.
The reason I say I think it has become a bit more accessible is that you do get immediate feedback on your results and so can learn more quickly. I think the immediate review has made people more enthusiastic about taking pictures and this encourages folk who might have not counted themselves as photographers to really learn a lot more and experiment and so actually become photographers by really getting into it.
cirks said:.
2) How many of you make get paid (not the same as making a living) from your photographs? Certainly some of the work on here I would say is as good as some professional books I have.
For me not paid yet. One image licenced and published for a UK wildlife charity I am a member of. However getting paid for my work is a long term objective of mine.
Welcome to the forum BTW, it's a friendly place
Chris
Hi Cirks and welcome. Anyone who's done D&P automatically gains respect 
1) You could argue that, but it frees up the photographer from the chemist. For me the benefit of digital is not to be able to take loads of crap photos and delete them (my time with film prevents me pressing the button if I don't think it's right), but the instant feedback which allows checking and correction if required, and the ability to experiment afterwards in PhotoShop which opens boundless horizons and possibilities. Put it this way, only since going digital have I finally produced, after 25 years of film, something I'm pleased to hang on my wall and that, amazingly, others also spend a few quid to have too.
2) Not a living by any means, but a handy supplement.
Whoops - nearly forgot to mention www.blokewithacamera.co.uk
>> Edited by simpo two on Wednesday 12th October 08:50
1) You could argue that, but it frees up the photographer from the chemist. For me the benefit of digital is not to be able to take loads of crap photos and delete them (my time with film prevents me pressing the button if I don't think it's right), but the instant feedback which allows checking and correction if required, and the ability to experiment afterwards in PhotoShop which opens boundless horizons and possibilities. Put it this way, only since going digital have I finally produced, after 25 years of film, something I'm pleased to hang on my wall and that, amazingly, others also spend a few quid to have too.
2) Not a living by any means, but a handy supplement.
Whoops - nearly forgot to mention www.blokewithacamera.co.uk
>> Edited by simpo two on Wednesday 12th October 08:50
Digital has made Photography different and more convenient in terms if its technology. No more darkroom. No more chemicals.
The image selection and composition is identical IMO.
I am a total fan of digital - although I'd still rather produce the best possible image "in camera" - before doing whatever post processing in Photoshop. Isn't this the same as film?
Of course - there is also a "new" field of digital image composition - which produces some fantastic work - but the initial "photography" to gather source images for the composition is then only a first stage. Different but highly skilled and can be very beautiful....
I am strictly amateur: I aspire to take the odd image of the quality of Simpo/GetCarter et al. I am pretty sure no-one will every pay for *my* images! (Unless I fall lucky with some "reportage"
.
>> Edited by Don on Wednesday 12th October 08:54
The image selection and composition is identical IMO.
I am a total fan of digital - although I'd still rather produce the best possible image "in camera" - before doing whatever post processing in Photoshop. Isn't this the same as film?
Of course - there is also a "new" field of digital image composition - which produces some fantastic work - but the initial "photography" to gather source images for the composition is then only a first stage. Different but highly skilled and can be very beautiful....
I am strictly amateur: I aspire to take the odd image of the quality of Simpo/GetCarter et al. I am pretty sure no-one will every pay for *my* images! (Unless I fall lucky with some "reportage"
. >> Edited by Don on Wednesday 12th October 08:54
Don said:
I am a total fan of digital
coming from the 'old' school of D&P etc, it took me a while to make the jump to digital. Although I no longer lug around an SLR, the Ixus I have has transformed photography for me in that now I can take loads of piccies of my two young children that I'm sure would not have been taken had I been paying for the processing.
anyone want all my old D&P stuff? ;-)
Strictly a point & shoot snapper here, but from where I'm standing, digital is a godsend. I have literally thousands of images of my little girl, charting her entire life to date. Had I been paying for processing, it would have been more like hundreds, most of which would have been rubbish anyway...
IMHO
1/ I think digital SLRs / Clever software have made it easier to get a good picture. One still has to understand how a camera works mind, and be in the right place at the right times to get good (and consistant)results.
2/ Postcards, CD's and half a dozen prints a month sold. Certainly not a living wage! I make in a year what my 'other' job makes in a few days.
1/ I think digital SLRs / Clever software have made it easier to get a good picture. One still has to understand how a camera works mind, and be in the right place at the right times to get good (and consistant)results.
2/ Postcards, CD's and half a dozen prints a month sold. Certainly not a living wage! I make in a year what my 'other' job makes in a few days.
I don't currently own a digital SLR but I do own a digital camera and have used digital SLR in the past professionally (ususally doing product shots and industrial photography)
As the previous posters have stated - the Digital SLR is a great production aid - it cartainly made my life easier in some difficult (photographic) situations.
I also love my little digital happysnap camera. I always take it on holiday with me. It takes up no room and can even record movies.
However, I find the modern crop of cameras rather sterile they do everything very well but lack the quirkyness and flaws that can give real character to your shots. (I'm sure there's a good motoring analogy here)
For instance; I love my old zenit camera. It's older than I am, totally mechanical, and takes great shots on the odd occasion when I don't cock it up. The one thing digital photography has never done for me, is suprise me with a really great shot.
As a result I have recently re-armed myself with the bits of gear I was missing to develop my own B&W film again. Not really because I want to but because B&W is becoming prohibitively expensive.
I'll probably also buy a film scanner soon so I can still store and fettle them digitally.
The best of both worlds for me. All the plusses of digital and all the fun of using great old cameras with their unique optics.
Remember working to limitations can often bring out the best in people.
Edited to add: In reading the above don't assume I'm any good at phtography or even know what I'm talking about. It's just the way I like to take pictures.
>> Edited by bobfrance on Wednesday 12th October 11:56
As the previous posters have stated - the Digital SLR is a great production aid - it cartainly made my life easier in some difficult (photographic) situations.
I also love my little digital happysnap camera. I always take it on holiday with me. It takes up no room and can even record movies.
However, I find the modern crop of cameras rather sterile they do everything very well but lack the quirkyness and flaws that can give real character to your shots. (I'm sure there's a good motoring analogy here
) For instance; I love my old zenit camera. It's older than I am, totally mechanical, and takes great shots on the odd occasion when I don't cock it up. The one thing digital photography has never done for me, is suprise me with a really great shot.
As a result I have recently re-armed myself with the bits of gear I was missing to develop my own B&W film again. Not really because I want to but because B&W is becoming prohibitively expensive.
I'll probably also buy a film scanner soon so I can still store and fettle them digitally.
The best of both worlds for me. All the plusses of digital and all the fun of using great old cameras with their unique optics.
Remember working to limitations can often bring out the best in people.
Edited to add: In reading the above don't assume I'm any good at phtography or even know what I'm talking about. It's just the way I like to take pictures.
>> Edited by bobfrance on Wednesday 12th October 11:56
bobfrance said:
However, I find the modern crop of cameras rather sterile they do everything very well but lack the quirkyness and flaws that can give real character to your shots. (I'm sure there's a good motoring analogy here
I hadn't thought about this until you mentioned it but you are right. In my chemical days the occasional mistake would come out as a fantastic shot for completely the wrong reasons. I have yet to have this happen with a digital.
How about Chemical Camera = TVR, sometimes a bit more oversteer than required but may be more fun because of it. A pro can keep it on-line and be fast but not the car for the newby.
Digital SLR = Impreza, yes a pro will go faster more consistently than the amateur but the amateur will still be quick most of the time and be saved by the car from most minor indiscretions.
rustybin said:
Digital SLR = Impreza, yes a pro will go faster more consistently than the amateur but the amateur will still be quick most of the time and be saved by the car from most minor indiscretions.
..except of course my Nikon isn't pig ugly with a drainpipe stuck to the back (apologies to all scooby drivers).
>> Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 12th October 13:48
GetCarter said:
Digital SLR = Impreza, yes a pro will go faster more consistently than the amateur but the amateur will still be quick most of the time and be saved by the car from most minor indiscretions.
..except of course my Nikon isn't pig ugly with a drainpipe stuck to the back (apologies to all scooby drivers).
>> Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 12th October 13:48
You wanna bling it up a bit innit my man, get dat Nikon wikkid an' slammin. Check my profile if you iz afta some low down on it innit. Get yourself some under battery grip neons and a spoiler for the hot shoe and it'll look well tasty.
rustybin said:
GetCarter said:
rustybin said:
Digital SLR = Impreza, yes a pro will go faster more consistently than the amateur but the amateur will still be quick most of the time and be saved by the car from most minor indiscretions.
..except of course my Nikon isn't pig ugly with a drainpipe stuck to the back (apologies to all scooby drivers).
>> Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 12th October 13:48
You wanna bling it up a bit innit my man, get dat Nikon wikkid an' slammin. Check my profile if you iz afta some low down on it innit. Get yourself some under battery grip neons and a spoiler for the hot shoe and it'll look well tasty.
Rusty - If you are 17, great looking, and can balance on your head, I have a record contract ready to sign.
Edited to add... I think you might consider a name change to RustyBling
(Nice car by the way Richard)
>> Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 12th October 18:59
Think of photoshop as the digital darkroom and you're thinking on the right lines . . .
I've recently re-started monochrome processing from colour digital images . . . you use the same techniques, burning and dodging areas (not using dodge and burn tools tho . . ), changing contrast, etc . . . everything you do in a wet lab . . . only difference is it's simpler, you do not need a darkroom, no chemicals, much less hassle . . . just a different tool . . .
I would not be doing mono stuff if I was using film, because you really need to do it yourself (used to spend days in darkrooms in years gone past - even won some compos with my monochrome prints) but I don't have the room or time for a real darkroom . . .
I really don't think digital makes getting a good photograph any easier really . . . only more cost effective . . .
You'll miss real grain and exposure lattitude, other than that you'll never look back . . .
Fd
I've recently re-started monochrome processing from colour digital images . . . you use the same techniques, burning and dodging areas (not using dodge and burn tools tho . . ), changing contrast, etc . . . everything you do in a wet lab . . . only difference is it's simpler, you do not need a darkroom, no chemicals, much less hassle . . . just a different tool . . .
I would not be doing mono stuff if I was using film, because you really need to do it yourself (used to spend days in darkrooms in years gone past - even won some compos with my monochrome prints) but I don't have the room or time for a real darkroom . . .
I really don't think digital makes getting a good photograph any easier really . . . only more cost effective . . .
You'll miss real grain and exposure lattitude, other than that you'll never look back . . .
Fd
los angeles said:
My worry is that the digital age will lose us an invaluable historical record. If pictures are stored on computer hard drives and CD's it doesn't make them very accessable to historians.
Pictures stored in people's cupboards and drawers aren't accessible either. But put photos on the internet and the whole world can see them.
Simple example - how many of Get's landscapes or Matt's cars would I have seen if it was not for digital? None. In fact, this whole community ('pixelheads.com') wouldn't exist.
I don't think that Digital Capture makes much
difference to the 'art' of photography at all.
You still need the same 'gift' to be able to
catch the moment; the same 'eye' to be able to say graphically & with impact what you want to say within the frame and, and has been said here before, to know how your camera works and also what your lenses do.
I've earned money consistantly from photography
for many years but like somebody else on this thread,
it took me about a year to earn from photography what
I can earn in a week in the music industry.
difference to the 'art' of photography at all.
You still need the same 'gift' to be able to
catch the moment; the same 'eye' to be able to say graphically & with impact what you want to say within the frame and, and has been said here before, to know how your camera works and also what your lenses do.
I've earned money consistantly from photography
for many years but like somebody else on this thread,
it took me about a year to earn from photography what
I can earn in a week in the music industry.
los angeles said:
plus the worry that when folk think a shot is crap they will delete it.
Yes, but when I had a 6x4 print I thought was crap, I threw it away too
I suppose my only concern regarding digital for the long term is what happens in 2012 when I put my 'Digital Pix 2004' CD in the drive and it says 'Please insert disc' or 'unrecognised file format'.
Shudder.
los angeles said:
Pictures stored in people's cupboards and drawers aren't accessible either. But put photos on the internet and the whole world can see them.
I'd argue they are more difficult. I've yet to see a hard drive or CD come up at an auction described as a "invaluabe record of the local life of this town, circa so-and-so." It is that serendipidy that's missing, plus the worry that when folk think a shot is crap they will delete it.
>> Edited by los angeles on Wednesday 12th October 21:16
But how old does a collection have to be for it to qualfy as an invaluable collection? (And by whose assessment?)
In many ways the same can be said for e-mails vs writing a diary (to make a very rough and undeveloped analogy.)
Or perhaps the difference between an author's idea development books or jotting pads and files on their Mac. Indeed that may be a worse scenario if no other steps are being taken to ensure such information is identified and retained.
On the other hand it muight be that there is no 'great art' these days but plenty of average art copiously and injudiciously blunderbussed at the world.
So old photographic records have values because they are both old, representing formative technologies in many cases and rare, in that there were relticvely few practitioners AND the technology was not always robust enough for the results to survive the tests of time
Modern photographic records, at least those which my end up hidden as they were produced for mainly personal motives rather then commercial motives, may never achieve the same rarity value simply because there is so much material, both still and video, archived officially already. On the amateur front undoubtedly huge numbers oif images will be lost, but equally undoubtedly little of that loss will be of any importance whatsoever.
My digital/digitised shots are far more accessible to me than any prints or albums. Potentially they are more accessible to others as well should I wish to show them.
Quite what effect that will have in the future remains to be seen. However I could see the digital revolution allowing all snappers to generate one or two specifically interesting images during their activities which, if collected somewhere, could provide and incredibly accessible record of our life and times. Pretty much the equivalent of a larg nuber of monkeys at typewriters hammering away and eventually producing the works of Shakespeare.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff