Jump to content

I know I shouldn't take any pleasure in others' displeasure but...


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 1/15/2022 at 8:06 AM, aksclix said:

technology that has helped make photography better

It has certainly made photography easier but has it made better photographers? Looking at most if not all of the discussions relating to the latest M it seems that people are just relying more on tech and less on their own skill and knowledge.

I use both film and digital but I really prefer to be able to think that a decent photo is down to my own ability rather than that of some skilled software engineer.

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ianman said:

It has certainly made photography easier but has it made better photographers? Looking at most if not all of the discussions relating to the latest M it seems that people are just relying more on tech and less on their own skill and knowledge.

 

I haven't seen any improvement in the standard of cat photography.

As the old saying goes: Crap in, crap out.....

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know plenty of people (especially "reviewers" and beta testers) will claim otherwise, but I haven't noticed any development in Leica digital cameras since live view was provided in the M240 that has made a genuine meaningful difference to the resulting photography. Lots of discussion seems to be had about pixels, dynamic range and shutter sounds but the photographs still look the same. With each iteration of the Leica M, there seems to be the same set of reviews with virtually the same set of accompanying photographs that are neither more or less interesting than the previous set.

Edited by wattsy
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ianman said:

it seems that people are just relying more on tech and less on their own skill and knowledge.

Why is that a bad thing? I used to ponder the same question over and over but finally came to a conlusion that people should just do and use whatever makes them happy.
Even cars drive and park by themselves these days. Nobody is complaining.
And photography has NOT gotten worse because of tech, it just became more widely available. The amount of great photographers is and has always been proportional, be it then and now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Al Brown said:

Why is that a bad thing?

Who said it is a bad thing??? It’s just an observation, whether it’s good or bad is everyone’s personal opinion. As you correctly write, whatever makes the user happy. I know I’m happier when I know that I have had as much control as possible over the image I have made. The satisfaction of knowing that the image I’ve produced is the result of knowledge and experience is far greater than one produced by pointing a computer towards the subject and letting it do the rest. It’s the same as being satisfied by preparing a nice meal from scratch and putting a ready made dish in the microwave. Both result in food and the microwave one may be very good…. But still, it’s not the same as putting together the meal oneself. But again that’s a personal choice.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Even cars drive and park by themselves these days. Nobody is complaining.

They are complaining but let’s consider for a minute that they are not. What happens to the driver, passengers and vehicle when the thing goes haywire? It’s possible a near future generation may not be able to drive or park at all, then what? Do they just leave the vehicle and hope someone comes along to rescue them? The point is that relying on tech is ok in some cases** but when the skill and knowledge goes out of the window and in preference of relying on software to get a decent image, what part does the photographer still play? There is even software that can choose what it thinks to be the best shot.

What I really don’t get - and this point has already been made by Wattsy - is that many users seem to think that getting the latest gear will immediately improve their photography. Sure it can help or be more efficient but any amount of tech cannot improve the person behind the camera, quite the contrary I believe.

** I’m very happy with the invention of GPS, brut can still use a map if required

Edited by ianman
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jeff S said:

I find it equally interesting, if not amusing, that it seems many if not most film photographers these days don’t print their pics, content to scan and view them digitally.

Jeff

I’d be interested to see how you’d support that assertion, Jeff. And it would be even more interesting if you could quantify how many digital photographers print their pics as a proportion of film photographers who print theirs. And perhaps how many who shoot both film and digital print their work.

And why being content to scan and view pictures digitally is amusing.

Which is all off-topic, but still.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

And no Photoshop editing can improve shitty photos, absolutely true.

You’re wrong.

Unless there has  been some sort of catastrophe at the taking stage, we’ll take your definition of  ‘shitty images’ as dull, boring, poorly composed, poor white balance, badly cropped and to a certain extent badly lit, badly exposed and even soft or out of focus.

Images  with any of these  attributes can be easily improved digitally in seconds. 

One side effect of technology is that it allows the average or incompetent M11 wielding  ‘reviewer’ to fake it.  Almost unnoticed. 

Frankly, the whole new camera release and ‘review’ circus sickens me and those who shout the loudest usually have the least to say.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Why is that a bad thing? I used to ponder the same question over and over but finally came to a conlusion that people should just do and use whatever makes them happy.
Even cars drive and park by themselves these days. Nobody is complaining.
And photography has NOT gotten worse because of tech, it just became more widely available. The amount of great photographers is and has always been proportional, be it then and now.

If you don't know what you are doing you are at the mercy of automation and given the same situation you will get the same result. Which is why there seems to be a lot of similar material around. If you are happy for everything to go this way then fine, but if you genuinely want to expore how to be creative without being bound by technology then some grasp of technicalitis is essential. Thos who believe otherwise are limiting their vision.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

And no Photoshop editing can improve shitty photos, absolutely true.

First of all, please don’t put words into my mouth.

Second, I was obviously talking about in camera software such as in a smartphone which decides does everything except press the button, even then I think I’ve heard of a smartphone that takes the snap when it decides the best composition is achieved based on its own parameters.

lastly, I can’t speak about photoshop as the last time I used it was on version 2.7 in the 90s. However I disagree that some amount of post processing can undoubtedly improve photos. For example I always deliberately underexpose when using my M9 as I know that the file will give me the best base for outputting a file I can use (jpeg or tiff). The difference is that this is relying on a software process which I know and understand and use to achieve a certain look I like. This is much the same as choosing a certain film, developer and development time, and exposing with that knowledge in mind.

Edited by ianman
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ianman said:

First of all, please don’t put words into my mouth.

Second, I was obviously talking about in camera software such as in a smartphone which decides does everything except press the button, even then I think I’ve heard of a smartphone that takes the snap when it decides the best composition is achieved based on its own parameters.

lastly, I can’t speak about photoshop as the last time I used it was on version 2.7 in the 90s. However I disagree that some amount of post processing can undoubtedly improve photos. For example I always deliberately underexpose when using my M9 as I know that the file will give me the best base for outputting a file I can use (jpeg or tiff). The difference is that this is relying on a software process which I know and understand and use to achieve a certain look I like. This is much the same as choosing a certain film, developer and development time, and exposing with that knowledge in mind.

I am only quoting myself, not putting anything into anybody's mouth - the "absolutely true" attribute in my sentence that you somehow misinterpreted by attributing to you was a mere reference to your statement about tech not being able to improve the person behind the camera.

I was talking about the content, not the color, blur and contrast curves edit in Photoshop. Of course the latter can be improved.

Edited by Al Brown
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ianman said:

It has certainly made photography easier but has it made better photographers? Looking at most if not all of the discussions relating to the latest M it seems that people are just relying more on tech and less on their own skill and knowledge.

I use both film and digital but I really prefer to be able to think that a decent photo is down to my own ability rather than that of some skilled software engineer.

 

It definitely has made it better.. 

- photography is about lighting and being able to capture the moment among everything else primarily.. having no idea if I even got the moment I was going for? Finding out the processed image from darkroom was overexposed or blurry on that subject which wasn’t supposed to be blurry? You can do nothing about it 2 weeks after you shot that except sit and sulk.. with immediate review of what you shot, it gives the photographer a second chance to bring his imagination to reality.. it is STILL the original idea in the photographers mind and the gear was holding this photographer down with its limitations.. 

yes, there are several legendary, award winning, impactful images from the film days.. should we even start to think about those that were NOT taken? We know nothing about those moments because they weren’t captured.. while the photographer was loading a film perhaps or ran out of rolls after capturing 36 images? Imagine memory cards allowing up to 36 images only even now? Thanks to constantly evolving tech a good photographer is able to create art at a much faster rate! 
 

the obsession is also prevalent among film photographers who seem to enjoy the process and the element of surprise (or shock) once a picture comes out of the darkroom over the “art” itself…

the only difference is - film photographers geek out on some other darkroom topic rather than megapixels and phase detect AF and buffer etc.. 

while I have no problems with that as in fact I might enjoy an occasional outing with film cameras.. I do have a problem with getting judgmental about one process over the other.. why is it so “cool” to brag about look how original and genuine I am for sticking to film photography while the world meaninglessly fights over technology bickering about stuff that doesn’t matter… well, if it didn’t matter it wouldn’t exist! Every little component has a purpose and has been put there by engineers who evolved this whole game! My problem is with understanding why it is tough for some to accept different people can have different interests… it maybe true that half of the geeks may not be great photographers.. but the right thing to do is call them out and insult them? Is that the goal? 

Edited by aksclix
Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, aksclix said:

but the right thing to do is call them out and insult them?

Where did I insult them? That in itself is insulting so thanks for that. If anything telling others that they are geeks and bragging is pretty insulting too.

I wasn’t neither talking about “art” nor the benefits of digital vs analog, nor one being “better” then the other… just that relying on technology only to get a decent image is IMO not demonstrating ability or knowledge and believing that technology is going to somehow fill in that void and is going to improve people as photographers is a pipe dream.

Anyway if you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that I am not “sticking to film photography”. In fact most people I know  I’ve seen posting here use both fill and digital bodies.

Talking of photos not taken… how many photos have been I taken due to empty batteries or slow autofocus, slow startup time, etc. So that non argument can work both ways.

I’m out.

Edited by ianman
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stray cat said:

I’d be interested to see how you’d support that assertion, Jeff. And it would be even more interesting if you could quantify how many digital photographers print their pics as a proportion of film photographers who print theirs. And perhaps how many who shoot both film and digital print their work.

And why being content to scan and view pictures digitally is amusing.

Which is all off-topic, but still.

The topic is in part based on the move from film to digital, and whether Leica has ‘lost touch with analogue photography’ (last sentence of original post).  Scanning and viewing pics online is part of that digital shift in general.
 

I have no stats, hence my comment that “it seems”.  Two things are certain: nobody looked at film pics via computer in early days; and today almost everyone does (certainly most all digital based photos). Printing SEEMS to be a lost activity, even for some who  still embrace film.  All part of the shift in use of technology that the OP is amused by.  Simple as that. If less than a majority of film users scan film and still print, my point still holds, although my impression is that darkrooms are rarer these days (most all of the stores I frequented have closed), and that a much smaller percentage of film users still print. More sad than amusing, actually, to me.

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aksclix said:

the obsession is also prevalent among film photographers who seem to enjoy the process and the element of surprise (or shock) once a picture comes out of the darkroom over the “art” itself…

Sometimes the surprise or shock is the Art.

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

Seems to have worked for him - his pictures are in books and galleries and museums (and now the internet) all over the world. ;)

Edited by adan
Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ianman said:

Where did I insult them? That in itself is insulting so thanks for that. If anything telling others that they are geeks and bragging is pretty insulting too.

I wasn’t neither talking about “art” nor the benefits of digital vs analog, nor one being “better” then the other… just that relying on technology only to get a decent image is IMO not demonstrating ability or knowledge and believing that technology is going to somehow fill in that void and is going to improve people as photographers is a pipe dream.

Anyway if you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that I am not “sticking to film photography”. In fact most people I know  I’ve seen posting here use both fill and digital bodies.

Talking of photos not taken… how many photos have been I taken due to empty batteries or slow autofocus, slow startup time, etc. So that non argument can work both ways.

I’m out.

Apologies.. my comments are never directed at one person.. I didn’t try to accuse you of any comment either.. they’re all very general statements.. so, sorry if it came across that way.. I shouldn’t have put all my comments as a reply to yours which is why you felt I was directly accusing of something 

Edited by aksclix
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, adan said:

Sometimes the surprise or shock is the Art.

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

Seems to have worked for him - his pictures are in books and galleries and museums (and now the internet) all over the world. ;)

Thank goodness that people were able to appreciate and see his perspective.. or, there would’ve been arguments in forums about his crooked compositions.. he was spared of today’s brutal online forums 😌

Edited by aksclix
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Winogrand.  Sorry (again), Andy.

Jeff

Fixed...

Don't know why I have that blind spot. I swear I check it each time. ;)

Maybe something to do with Garry's contemporary Geoff (Winningham) - I got them confused a lot in the 70's.

Edited by adan
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...