Digital: Technology over content?

[alun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was reading a post on Jeff Ascough's always entertaining blog recently in which he suggested (and I paraphrase) that one of the down-sides of digital at its present stage of evolution is that for many photogs it has shifted the emphasis away from content -- drama, timing, subject, emotional charge -- to technique and technology. I think he goes on to say something about seeing all too many perfectly rendered, perfectly sharp, perfectly sterile and uninteresting pictures as a consequence.

 

I tend to share this view but it set me wondering whether this was just a prejudice I happened to share or whether, objectively, the technology of photography does at certain times and in certain conditions dominate picture-taking at the expense of other aesthetic, emotional, social and intellectual considerations....

 

Of course, this won't be true for every photographer. I imagine there must be many who have long incorporated digital into their working arrangements and that these photographers see 'through' the technology as transparently as they once did their battered old Leicas or Nikon Fs or whatever.

 

And if this is the case, does this mean that when the technology becomes commonplace, it recedes into the background and people can focus instead on content?

 

What do others think?

[pgk]

Not sure about this being purely technological but I do see too many images which display the 'worst' excesses of modern innovations - the one which springs to mind is the over use of HDR which is often utilised to produce superficially spectacular but ultimately rather ghastly overcooked images. It looks to me as though the fact that something can be done all too often out weighs whether it needs to be done.

 

I do tend to agree about an overemphasis on 'perfect' images at the expense of their composition and lighting.

[georg]

It's normal that message boards are mainly used to discuss technology. Making images itself is a form of art, subjective and not necessarily needs any discussion (or many of us are afraid to show our work to critics ;-).

But technology is fun to discuss, at least for geeks...

 

Our equipment is just a tool, even the best camera won't make good artistic pictures. But good equipment makes your work easier, more enjoyable and enhances technical quality. A weak photographer using high-quality isn't rare and actually doesn't bother me at all, it doesn't hurt the camera, either...

But a good photographer who compromises the technical quality of his work because the lack of interest/money with bad equipment makes me sad. Many artists have shown how they can achieve incredible pieces of art with a special kind of fascination due to the combination of artistic AND technical quality (Ansel Adams, Stanley Kubrick or Norbert Rosing as example for a Leica-photographer).

 

Better technology doesn't limit your possibilities, it's just a matter of self-discipline. But bad technology does limit your possibilities!

[David_Manning]

Technology is so enmeshed in every facet of our lives, that I doubt it will ever recede into the background to allow content to flourish again. Look at the PC...after 30 years, professionals who use them do their work, and then get away from them. Hobbyists upgrade, buy, and argue the merits of their technology and platform, lovingly stroking them the whole way.

 

Amateur digirati have inflamed arguments about the cleanliness of pixels, amounts of noise, they chase resolution (I need 24 MP just in case I have to print out a billboard), and adore the newest, most shiny equipment. I've never seen in my whole life more "test/comparison" pictures of brick walls, kitchen tables, and dogs and cats. Garish cartoony HDR images are becoming more commonplace.

 

If you look at the most interesting amateur images on Flickr, they seem to be from the film groups...interesting content, no tricks.

 

For the hobbyist, content takes a backseat to the process. I don't see it changing.

[dpattinson]

Honestly I think this is something that hasn't changed at all (or at least not due to camera technology). There have always been plenty of photographers producing technically excellent but boring photographs. When HCB said that sharpness was a bourgeoisie concept, I think this is specifically what he was referring to.

 

Where it is a little different is the ease by which such images can now be inflicted on the rest of the world. That certainly is due to 'technology' - internet in particular. Stuff that would never have been published in book form, and probably never seen outside of a camera club projection room - is now pumped out into Flickr and other sites.

 

There is a particular personality that likes to focus on 'objective' and 'technical' merit ahead of creative or emotional content. I think some people just like to be able to measure themselves that way, or at least defend themselves by referring to aspects of the work which they can control absolutely. Arguing about relative sharpness or noise or colour correctness is a safe arena where personal ability cannot come into question.

[msweeney]

I agree with what David said above. Back in the day, there were photographers who produced technically excellent pictures but there was no emotion and life to them. It's the same today. Some photographers (Marc Riboud comes to mind) don't care too much about technical details and simply respond with the heart / mind / emotions. Others are more caught up in the details of things like f/stops, shadow detail, histograms, and MTF curves.

 

Today's fascination with the M9 isn't all that different from those who were fascinated with earlier forms of technology. If the tool works for you, then fine. Just get the best tool you can afford SO THAT your mind is freed up to concentrate not on the technology but on your vision and content. I've found that a Leica M camera is the best tool to do this for my own vision and work. Others are able to best utilize a 4x5 view camera for expressing their own particular vision and creativity. That's really what it's about isn't it? Finding the best tool to express your own self.

 

Realize too that people go through a learning process when they acquire a new piece of equipment or format (such as moving from analog to digital). You have to learn your equipment so well that you forget about it and internalize its functions. For some this takes a long time, either because of infrequent practice or not being disciplined enough. This learning process may explain why some are more fascinated with the technicals than others.

 

I'm in the process of moving "backwards"-- from a viewing things through Canon digital SLR to viewing the world with a Leica MP-- and that is a learning curve too, although one I've done before.

 

Best regard, Mike

Flickr | Portfolio

[giordano]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's happened in the past, for sure. An exciting new technology temporarily eclipses content. In the very early days, just making a photograph was marvellous enough. Then there was the stereo boom later in the 19th century, and a rather later the first Kodaks. Likewise with the early days of the various colour processes (compare the colour and B&W photos in 1930s and 1940s National Geographic), and with Polaroid.

 

Older readers will remember the recordings of steam locomotives and racing cars that were released in the early days of stereo - not to mention Flanders & Swann's 'High Fidelity'.

 

But I feel that digital photography is mature enough to be past that stage. The reason we see so many bad photographs is surely just that there are so many more photographs around.

[chris_livsey]

Jeff was also commenting recently, I think on the Canon masters video, about machine gun shooting which is also a digital side effect. The whole subject of the sheer volume of images mentioned above was well put I thought in another regular blog read of mine.

 

Quote

with all of the images that exist, is their continued proliferation necessary especially in a time now where cell phones now have cameras? We are producing more images than ever, could the reliance on images and visual material alter our vocabularies and the evolution of our ways of communication? Is this all just one more metaphoric example of how we do things impulsively and fill our lives with objects that we tend to store away and ignore until we decide to clean house? So the next time you aim the cell phone camera or put the Leica to your eye, consider what it is that you are bringing into this world. Is it necessary? Will you love it and take care of it? Or will they fall into the hands of others to see what we can no longer see?

Unquote

 

Source:

5B4

5B4: When Boredom Strikes by Joachim Schmid

[alun]

Interesting responses -- thanks to those who have commented.

[dpattinson]

I have a kind of 'reverse example' for this.

 

I have owned a couple of large format cameras, a Sinar P2, and a Nagaoka 45 field camera. I love the image quality that large format offers, and happily acknowledge that it's 'better' than 35mm (both in some objective ways and also in my personal opinion).

 

I no longer own either of these cameras, primarily because I realized a couple of things about myself: I like to be able to walk abound and spontaneously 'find and shoot' my photos; I dislike having the camera on a tripod because it impedes me finding the right viewpoint.

 

These two personal preferences mean that although I definitely agree that the image quality from 45 is better, I don't use those cameras. Essentially, the mechanical considerations of transporting and using 45 meant that I could not make the spontaneous kind of images that I personally prefer to make, in the everyday flow of my life. What I ended up with were very technically nice photos with great image quality that were to me at least - extremely boring to make and boring to look at.

 

Obviously there are many photographers who do use large format cameras to great effect, however I hazard a guess that there are/were many who only used large format for it's 'image superiority' or 'perspective control' and ended up with the same result as me - technically great but very boring images.

 

I think the same goes for any technology - or even shooting approach, you can try many tools or techniques, but the ones that fit your personal preferences are the ones that will work for you - irrespective of any 'objective' measures of effectiveness or quality.

[KM-25]

As a life long maker of images, I sure hope photography survives the onslaught of free content, photoshop and the technological race, but I honestly have my doubts. Not much seen in the digital age has really improved upon the powerful message of the photos made in the past 60-70 years.

 

If I ever win the lottery, I will be rid of digital forever, I just can't stand what it has done to everything, not just photography.......and I have been using it for 16 years by the way.

[haris]

Good photograher will make good image either with photo camera or digiimage tool.

 

Technology does make difference, and situation here shows that. Maybe elsewhere is different, but here is like this:

 

Before digital, people worked hard to get skills, according to that they had fair prices, client accepted those prices, and only those who were really interested in photography did that job, exactly because there was lots to learn and practice to be good. Then digital become affordable. Now every boy or girl who bought 6MP compact camera go to market and say they will do job for fraction of price of pro photographers. Clients, who are here in early stage of first acumulation of capital, and want everything cheap become to accept lower quality for lower price, and things went down. Now, photographers who are 30 years in business, and who learned past 10 years their digital equipment, photoshop, colour profiles, postscript language, etc, can't compete with those 6MP compact camera users, and photography in general go down. I have friends in business, as photographers and as lab owners, and I see that every day. One lab owner, my friend, gladly accepted digital, he first in this country bought Canon 5D for example. Talking to him years ago, before digital was affordable to general consumers here, I told him few things will happen:

 

1. people will stop paying for processing film, he will lose profit.

2. people will stop to make prints, they will save thousands of images on CDs and DVDs and never make prins from them, and with drop of prices of printers, ink and papers will make their prints, and he will lose profit.

3. he will lose profit from making portraits for IDs, passports, etc.

4. clients will hire cheap people and accept losing of quality.

 

He didn't belive me.

 

First point 3 happened to him. Then point 1. Then point 4. And now point 2 happens to him and his lab/business. Now he is telling I was right, but it is too late.

 

That why conversion from film to digital is not the same as from LF to MF to 35mm, or from glass plates to film.

 

And with cameras that focus on face or on smile without user need to focus it, who needs to learn how to photograph? That instant resullt without effort way of thinking is spreading and people don't think and try anymore, they want their equipmnet to do job for them. There are exceptions that only confirm the rule.

 

Yes, digital do harm photography, however digital imagers try to say it isn't true.

[cmatter]

Actually, I believe this happened way before "digital". I think it started happening when camera mfgs started bringing out "advanced" features.. 3-4 different kinds of auto focus... 4-5 different kinds of metering options... 3-4 different "automatic" settings; all in the same camera body. I use Leica M-2's for my art, as well as a trusty Nikon F. Here, my light meter is in my brain, my auto focus is in my experienced eye.

However; I'm a working pro; and I make most of my living with Nikon D3's and D700's, and a Hasselblad HD3II-39. The advanced metering and auto focus features in these great cameras really carried over pretty much from their film predecessors. But they've now reached a point where it becomes a challenge to get around them. With my F3 and F4 bodies.. I could still easily shoot completely manually.. intuitively, if I wanted to. This new (and newer) technology often reaches bewildering heights and sometimes it becomes a bit of a challenge to apply my years of honed instincts to either co-ordinate (or even override) these 'magical' features to get the results that I want, rather than those that Nikon of Hasselblad thinks I should get. Maybe it's in how the mfgs explain it?? (i.e. Nikon SB800 and SB900 flashes completely bewildering.. at first..."Creative Lighting System".. huh??). And.. that, is exactly the rub, I believe. It's sort of like shooting RAW in the digital world. If you don't shoot RAW, you're accepting a Nikon (or Canon, etc.) engineer's idea of the best JEPG algorithm, which is then applied to everything you shoot (unless, of course you can figure out how to load your own custom curves). Point is... I believe.. it's these advanced camera features, not digital technology that potentially stifle individual creativity and produce the 'perfect' uniform (bland) images you describe ...and the camera mfgs advertise.

 

I began to see this problem years before digital imaging was an option... with my students.

I was fortunate enough to learn Basic Photography from Harry Callahan. We started with view cameras.. paper negatives to learn the concepts of exposure vs development.. dynamic range. Learning to "see', and translating what we saw to photographic medium. Later, when we actually started using 35mm, or med. format cameras and film to apply this learning.. the most 'automatic' feature in a camera was (an occasional) built-in light meter. I'm not even sure there was an option of "automatic exposure".. LOL.

Today.. these basic concepts of photography have not changed, but cameras have. I see basic students struggling with how to figure out camera metering.. autofocus. etc. just to be able to use their cameras; and rightly so. One really can't easily operate the cameras without it. Cameras are no longer simple. One has to figure out a menu to even set f stops ISO and shutter speed (if the cameras still has f stops, that is..:-) )

So; learning photography inevitably becomes bogged down into equipment and technology... first, and individual creativity of application second. *sigh*. The first stop in the learning process now has to be the camera manual (s?)... not the creative process.

 

This is neither right nor wrong... it just is. Camera mfgs have really produced 150% to come up with this technology.. It's mostly pretty amazing; and once one somewhat understands what they're talking about, very useful.. in a lot of settings. I can't blame them for the spirit of (revenue motivated) competition that drives all of this, too. Modern lenses are truly awesome; and digital technology is.. well, for me, at least...has been a complete artistic re-birth... (I scan my Tri-X Leica negatives, for example). But...I know for sure that some of the advanced features on my cameras (that I've paid for).. I'll never use.. nor need to use. In professional seminars.. the Hasselblad tech (sales) reps who so smoothly rattle off the various menu options and available feature combinations that drive this amazing camera; freely admit that most pros will never need to use a lot of these same features. Yet to be able to even use the cameras.. I have to get through these features.. even if I want to just turn them off... and keep them off.

 

I still believe, too, that cameras don't take pictures.. people do.. (in spite of it all). Cameras are still... fundamentally the same 'light boxes' that Edward Weston used. Digital technology doesn't "harm" photography.. at all. That's a silly assumption. It's really probably the most important development in photography, since the invention of photography. Problem has become trying to figure out camera engineering magic.

I do wish that camera engineers had left, or could leave a bit more of the application of this magic to individual application, rather than trying to re-invent Photography... in their own image.

 

 

 

CDM

NY. NY

[Guest darkstar2004]

 

What do others think?

 

I think David Vestal was right:

“Compensating for lack of skill with technology is progress toward mediocrity. As technology advances, craftsmanship recedes… The one thing we’ve gained is spontaneity, which is useless without perception.”

[ismon]

At the risk of sounding like a Luddite, I fell in love with Leicas as instruments of exquisite simplicity. There was nothing as a barrier between the photographer and the subject. The photograph was created before the camera was even raised to the eye. Leica was not so much a camera as it was a state of mind, a way of seeing. On the other side, there was the gimmicky SLR world. They walked around like techno-cyclopses, searching for compositions on their focusing screens. I cringe at the memory of Spiratone ads, touting all manner of crap--including kaleidoscopes, to create artistic photography. It has been my experience that Leica enthusiasts ( both rfdr & reflex) have maintained that unique state of mind, that way of seeing. Even digital capture and post-processing will not impact that culture. After all the evolution from Elmax to Summilux, there has always been a "Leica-look".