Kev Pugh
Well-Known Member
This popped up in the Worcester News FB page this morning..thought it may be of interest..
BBC News - Today - Has high tech killed pro photography?
BBC News - Today - Has high tech killed pro photography?
BBC News - Today - Has Tech Killed pro photography??
- Thread starter Kev Pugh
- Start date
Davie Hudson
Well-Known Member
it's an interesting question, there was a debate on facebook and an american girl claimed that anyone could be a great photographer by throwing money at it.... i have to admit my answer wasn't pretty 
Larry Bolch
Well-Known Member
Never once in a long career did I receive an assignment because I could properly operate a camera. That is not a goal in photography—it is a prerequisite for photography. No one is interested in process—an editor or art director don't care how you get the picture, only that it full meets their needs and criteria.
A camera can record, but it can not see—camera operator is insufficient. You need a photographer. People mistake process for results. One will not impress a potential client by demonstrating how well you know a camera—the portfolio alone gets you the work.
People who only think process miss the essence of what makes art art. When synthesizers came on the music scene, it was the end of music to hear people tell it. On one hand, it meant that no one would ever hire acoustic musicians again—wrong. On the other hand, it was said that digital music was cold and had no soul—wrong. Synthesizers are now mainstream and no one notices them as something separate.
A decade back, I was asked to keynote a new-media conference, and talk about digital photography. Being fairly newly back in Canada, I assumed a lot there would not know my work, so I put together a slide-show of my stuff. A mix of film and digital images. After my talk, I opened the floor to questions and discussions. The creative director of one of the major ad agencies stood up and practically screamed "I HATE the digital look!!!" I waved my hand at the screen and asked her to point out and explain what offended her. She watched a dozen or so image pass, and grew more and more agitated. Finally she sputtered, "Some of those are digital?"
I began image processing on an Amiga in the late 1980s, so by 2002 was well into the digital era. What she saw was the work of people who had recently made the move. Many had not worked in a fume-room and their understanding of the underlying theory meant they were really starting at square one. Even for one who understands, learning Photoshop is not an overnight thing. Another who was at least a part-time shooter complained that what he got out of his 35mm camera was great, but his digital camera results were all over the place. I asked him if he did his own 35mm printing. No, he took it to a lab. Did he realize the technician sitting at the big machine was doing corrections to each and every exposure? Then it dawned on him.
Those who said that synthesizers lacked soul were blaming the players who were just learning. A synthesizer is no more difficult to learn than a violin, but it is no easier either. A musician spends years playing the instrument, before playing music. Much the same is true in photography. A beginning photographer on a shoot, is struggling to get the camera set to even come close to what they want. Just trying to understand what f-stops, ISO, shutter speeds, focal lengths and so on are is difficult enough but understanding how they come together as an expressive medium takes a while. It is complex enough that there is little attention left to put on creating the photograph.
Just as with an instrument, in time fluency is achieved and the player becomes a musician, making music, and the camera operator becomes a photographer, making photographs. No machine can play passionate music without the direct control of a musician. No camera can see, so requires the direction, control and passion of a shooter.
A camera can record, but it can not see—camera operator is insufficient. You need a photographer. People mistake process for results. One will not impress a potential client by demonstrating how well you know a camera—the portfolio alone gets you the work.
People who only think process miss the essence of what makes art art. When synthesizers came on the music scene, it was the end of music to hear people tell it. On one hand, it meant that no one would ever hire acoustic musicians again—wrong. On the other hand, it was said that digital music was cold and had no soul—wrong. Synthesizers are now mainstream and no one notices them as something separate.
A decade back, I was asked to keynote a new-media conference, and talk about digital photography. Being fairly newly back in Canada, I assumed a lot there would not know my work, so I put together a slide-show of my stuff. A mix of film and digital images. After my talk, I opened the floor to questions and discussions. The creative director of one of the major ad agencies stood up and practically screamed "I HATE the digital look!!!" I waved my hand at the screen and asked her to point out and explain what offended her. She watched a dozen or so image pass, and grew more and more agitated. Finally she sputtered, "Some of those are digital?"
I began image processing on an Amiga in the late 1980s, so by 2002 was well into the digital era. What she saw was the work of people who had recently made the move. Many had not worked in a fume-room and their understanding of the underlying theory meant they were really starting at square one. Even for one who understands, learning Photoshop is not an overnight thing. Another who was at least a part-time shooter complained that what he got out of his 35mm camera was great, but his digital camera results were all over the place. I asked him if he did his own 35mm printing. No, he took it to a lab. Did he realize the technician sitting at the big machine was doing corrections to each and every exposure? Then it dawned on him.
Those who said that synthesizers lacked soul were blaming the players who were just learning. A synthesizer is no more difficult to learn than a violin, but it is no easier either. A musician spends years playing the instrument, before playing music. Much the same is true in photography. A beginning photographer on a shoot, is struggling to get the camera set to even come close to what they want. Just trying to understand what f-stops, ISO, shutter speeds, focal lengths and so on are is difficult enough but understanding how they come together as an expressive medium takes a while. It is complex enough that there is little attention left to put on creating the photograph.
Just as with an instrument, in time fluency is achieved and the player becomes a musician, making music, and the camera operator becomes a photographer, making photographs. No machine can play passionate music without the direct control of a musician. No camera can see, so requires the direction, control and passion of a shooter.
Paul Lange
Moderator
I believe that part of the problem is that expectations of quality are low. This is fueled in some part by adverts that seek to convince Joe Blogg that all he needs to take professional looking photographs is a cheap camera/phone/whatever. Once marketed item is appropriated he has access to his new exciting and bright sugar topped life that he can save and share the memories forever, or at least until something more interesting pops up on Facebook. Oh! wait, his friend has just called and they have been magically transported to a lush meadow in the middle of nowhere (but still have fast internet connection) where they roll about and laugh. We are constantly being sold technology with ideas that tap into our notions on being wanted, sentimentality, nostalgia, sharing experiences and saving memories. This is paradox to the relentless push for us to never keep or value anything for long, get everything cheaper, faster, better and that premium gets you kudos, not quality.
These ideas are not new (there is very little new under the sun) and when cameras were first made available to the masses many years ago the same issues were raised. The result of the onslaught of images was blase. Nowadays photographs can be shared even faster and can be visible worldwide in minutes, even seconds with live uplinks such as those that are planned to be used in the Olympics. The onslaught has increased in magnitude and so has peoples attitudes of blase. I don't know for sure that it is "Tech" that has caused this rather than how our society has bumbled along down a dark alley.
These ideas are not new (there is very little new under the sun) and when cameras were first made available to the masses many years ago the same issues were raised. The result of the onslaught of images was blase. Nowadays photographs can be shared even faster and can be visible worldwide in minutes, even seconds with live uplinks such as those that are planned to be used in the Olympics. The onslaught has increased in magnitude and so has peoples attitudes of blase. I don't know for sure that it is "Tech" that has caused this rather than how our society has bumbled along down a dark alley.
Chris Dodkin
West Coast Correspondent
I think easy access to technology is great.
I think more people accessing the technology means that we discover more photographers.
I think that the majority of people will still take photographs, rather than become photographers.
I think more people accessing the technology means that we discover more photographers.
I think that the majority of people will still take photographs, rather than become photographers.
