Is Digital The End of "Photography?"

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looking at contact sheets provides some insights into the working methods of some famous film photographers. In particular, this blog currently has a good series of contact sheets: Chasing Light . Scroll down the blog page and you get a sense of how slow and deliberative the work was, or not. Looking at the contact sheets from Garry Winograd, Robert Frank, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Tom Palumbo, Richard Avedon and Phil Stern, I gather that their method (sometimes at least) was to shoot pretty freely. For example, Robert Frank made 15 exposures of the woman in the elevator!

 

It is interesting that Robert Frank made some 28,000 exposures over 2 years on his road trips for The Americans book. That doesn't sound like slow photography. Of those, 83 ended up in the book. It seems to me that the slow and deliberative part of his process was the editing of the 28,000 exposures down to a final sequence for the book. Apart from the film processing and proofing, that huge editing task would not be much quicker with digital today; it would still be a slow, deliberative task.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[MarkP]

None of us are a Robert Frank but we couldn't get 81 great photographs out of 28,000 we would be really upset

 

...btw that was an average of 5 rolls of film per day.

[erl]

 

...btw that was an average of 5 rolls of film per day.

There was a time in my life when I would shoot 20 rolls in say 3 hours!

 

Quantity is no measure of what's important. It only matters if you know you can get what is required from whatever the quantity shot.

 

Other times I have made one exposure and it counted.

[leicaphilia]

I think the slowness of analogue comes after the shutter is pressed. We still have to develop and edit, and these are discreet things in a timeline that yltimately produces a finished product, the print.

 

Yes, Winogrand and Frank et al tripped the shutter a lot, but we never were privey to the ones they did'nt choose from their contact sheets. The editing was an integral part of the process that allowed for critical reflection.

 

Today, with digital technology and instantaneous transmission via social media, that step in the process has died. And with it comes a lack of critical review and thoughtfulness that used to be inherent in the process. That time of critical review was important for the quality of what we produced. That was my point.

 

My training is as a documentarian. I have never had to work under the constraints of time limits like those who worked for newspapers in the film age. The argument breaks down somewhat in that context, but I think it still applies as a general observation.

 

I do think that digital has further pushed photography primarily as a means of communication and is further diminushing its function as an expressive medium. And thise who still use it as an expressive medium have ro constantly fight the medium's inherent tendency to speed as opposed to the slowness and ruimination built in to the analogue process.

[AlanG]

I shoot tethered to a 16" laptop using numerous electronic flash units. It is a slow, critical and deliberate process... more so than using 4x5 chromes and Polaroid for the same work. At the end of a day shooting interiors, I may have 10 finished shots for my client.

 

So how is photography dead a we know it?

[Jeff S]

….Today, with digital technology and instantaneous transmission via social media, that step in the process has died. And with it comes a lack of critical review and thoughtfulness that used to be inherent in the process. That time of critical review was important for the quality of what we produced….

 

Many of us follow the same critical thought….and print…process, carried over from the film world, only using different technology. What's new is that there are millions of others who are new to photography…via cell phones, other mobile devices, etc…who have a different mindset and end goal. They don't bother or influence me. There's room for everyone.

 

Jeff

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The editing was an integral part of the process that allowed for critical reflection.

 

Today, with digital technology and instantaneous transmission via social media, that step in the process has died. And with it comes a lack of critical review and thoughtfulness that used to be inherent in the process. That time of critical review was important for the quality of what we produced. That was my point.

 

Yes and no. There are many types of photographers. Some who transmit via social media edit & adjust, and some don't. The software tools are available, so quite a lot can be done on a phone or tablet before transmission. At a minimum, there is some selection process, even for a casual snapshooter. But some who shoot digitally spend a great deal of time on editing. I use digital and always spend more time on editing than I do on shooting. Editing is always very time consuming. Part of the editing would be easier & shorter if I shot film, because I would shoot less. But I wouldn't shoot less based on a notion that slowing down is a virtue, but rather based on the significant cost-per-click and the regular need to rewind & reload.

[LocalHero1953]

I think the slowness of analogue comes after the shutter is pressed. We still have to develop and edit, and these are discreet things in a timeline that yltimately produces a finished product, the print.

 

Exactly what I do with digital.

Edit: I import, review, cull, make preliminary PP to apply to groups of similar shots, pick my best shots, do detailed PP, then post on facebook, post on my website, and/or print. Printing is still a distinct process requiring an additional skill set, as it always was.

 

Today, with digital technology and instantaneous transmission via social media, that step in the process has died. And with it comes a lack of critical review and thoughtfulness that used to be inherent in the process. That time of critical review was important for the quality of what we produced. That was my point.

 

For anyone who is engaged in thoughtful PP, the process has not died. That applies to most people who use LR, PS or whatever. Critical review is a vital part of my PP.

 

My training is as a documentarian. I have never had to work under the constraints of time limits like those who worked for newspapers in the film age. The argument breaks down somewhat in that context, but I think it still applies as a general observation.

 

I do think that digital has further pushed photography primarily as a means of communication and is further diminushing its function as an expressive medium. And thise who still use it as an expressive medium have ro constantly fight the medium's inherent tendency to speed as opposed to the slowness and ruimination built in to the analogue process.

 

I, and many others would be upset to be told that they were no longer using photography as an expressive medium. Ever since Kodak came on the scene there have been those who pointed, shot and just looked at the factory-produced prints - the equivalent of the iPhone, Instagram, etc etc. The expressive, creative photographer is not a threatened species, though the point and shoot variety may have increased in number as the marginal cost has reduced.

 

Back to the fast and slow......

I could generalise and classify different genres as fast and slow:

Fast: photojournalism, street photography, sports, BIF, family/holiday/party snaps.

Slow: portraits and studio, fashion, landscape, much environmental and nature photography, still life

 

Perhaps our perception of whether past photography was fast or slow depended on the genre we shot, and the photographic community we inhabited.

[AlanG]

It may be dead as we "knew" it because now we have fewer limitations and can do way more with photography. It is up to the photographer what to do with all of the possible options.

[tobey bilek]

We still have to frame properly and know when to push the button. Some technical aspects are easier, others have become more difficult because many do not know what a good print is supposed to look like and they have trouble finding good ones.

[wildlightphoto]

Betterlight scanning backs for large-format cameras are digital and clearly not for the instagram/facebook crowd.

 

Better Light Large Format Digital Photography - The World's Finest Digital Camera System

 

IMHO this would be appropriate digital equipment to compare with 4x5 film.

[250swb]

It may be dead as we "knew" it because now we have fewer limitations and can do way more with photography. It is up to the photographer what to do with all of the possible options.

 

Options for options sake is the difference between diarrhea and a healthy diet.

 

 

Steve

[pico]

Betterlight scanning backs for large-format cameras are digital and clearly not for the instagram/facebook crowd.

 

Better Light Large Format Digital Photography - The World's Finest Digital Camera System

 

IMHO this would be appropriate digital equipment to compare with 4x5 film.

 

Just as long as the subject does not move. My card: "I photograph dead things."

[AlanG]

Options for options sake is the difference between diarrhea and a healthy diet.

 

 

Steve

 

OK be closed minded just for the sake of being close minded... that is your choice.

Eat the same kind of food all the time if you prefer. Anything that disagrees with your digestive system and preferences must be bad for everyone?

 

So when it comes to photography, which options are bad ones? And I mean universally, not just your own limited preferences.

 

Meanwhile countless people are looking for new ways to use photography. Great tools for shooting and post processing are readily available at very affordable prices for anyone who is interested. Printing at home and slideshow/video with sound presentations are easy to do. There are all kinds of instructions and tips on-line and many communities where you can share your work and get feedback. This is the best time to be a photographer.

[Jaybob]

Many of us follow the same critical thought….and print…process, carried over from the film world, only using different technology. What's new is that there are millions of others who are new to photography…via cell phones, other mobile devices, etc…who have a different mindset and end goal. They don't bother or influence me.

 

There are many people who don't follow any critical thought.

[pop]

There is no correlation between originality in photography and technical capabilities that I am aware of. It's how it's used.

[pico]

There are many people who don't follow any critical thought.

 

The phrase, "Living on automatic" becomes more literal every day.

.

[Jaybob]

There are many people who don't follow any critical thought.

 

...regardless of device, digital or film.

 

Lord knows we try, but for everyone of us, there are thousands of the completely clueless.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear