Digital photography came the other way around

[Guy Mancuso]

That's what I don't understand in the whole digital vs analog debate. There is *no* difference in degree of difficulty between a digital and analog camera. You can go as shallow or as deep with either one. If you want to go beyond a simple analog point&shoot.. you can learn everything there is to know about the operation of a manual camera in a weekend class. It's not rocket science. As far as analog vs digital output.. also none. I can push though as many darkroom prints /hour as my 24" HP z3100 printer. I can, if I choose, spend days working on the output for both as well. I probably go back and change my 'final' digital files as often as I would change the look of my analog prints.

My guess would be that the decrease in quality of photographic output has more to do with cultural changes (attention spans of a flea, instant gratification, decrease in importance of 'quality') than on the tools being used.

Your last line says it all. The new culture simply wants everything for free. We want free apps. For our iPhone , free Facebook ( NO ONE will ever pay for it). Free this and free that. Free service and repair, don't want to pay for warranties. I have two children and all the friends that comes with that here in my home. The attitude of the young generation is simply this I deserve it be it I earned it or not and I want it for free . The key here is they are simply saturated with technology and the new social media attention and they pay nothing for social media but want everything else to be free like Facebook . It's the work ethic that's slipping away along with the cultural change of if I whine enough I'll get what I want.

I'm not saying my kids are lazy or anything like that and there great kids but there whole life around them has radically changed from when I was that age. Simply this we would ride 10 miles on a bike to a friends house today it's hey dad give me a ride. LOL

Hell maybe they are the smart ones.

 

[gazwas]

Those pesky Kids!

Sorry, this blame the new culture/youth just doesn't sit well with me. I've recently just become a Dad and a whole new world of wonderment and worry has just opened up. I know it has been said a million times but there is only one person to look towards for a child's behaviour and that is their parents.

The youth wants everything yesterday but who is to blame for that? A child sat in their bedroom trying to connect with friends or the child's farther, a fatcat business man who thought it would be a good investment to fund research into a world wide information network?

IMO, as we get older we loose touch with our youth and forget our kids are only building on the legacy that we, their parents leave them. Guy, why is it that your kids don't ride 10 miles to a friends house?...... Because they are lazy or because you don't expect them to and just give them a lift........ ?

 

[fotografz]

It's difficult for me to have an opinion on such a debate since I grew up shooting digital but as time goes on and I am constantly dealing with photography to improve myself, I came to my own personal conclusion: When it is about photography itself there is absolutely no difference in digital and analog capturing. Let me explain:

There is this german word called "Gestaltung" that describes the key element in photography aswell as other arts quite well. I have yet to find an adequate translation for it. Maybe the Gestaltung is similiar to what some would call "vision". An idea that is being visualized. I don't like the term vision as it it is very hard to grasp (less so is Gestaltung at least for me). What is vision and is there a way of learning it? Or are you either born with it or not?

If I look at the images I took just a year ago, I'd say they sucked bigtime. In five years from now I'll probably be thinking the same about the images I take today.
At the same time I feel that the images I take today are so much better than what I've done a year ago.
I'm trying to say that an important aspect to photography is also experience and how it is influencing yourself and improving the images you create. It is this experience that helps me "gestalt" an image.

What I'm trying to express is: Your comprehension of Gestaltung based on your photographic experience creates an image. Therefore it is completely irrelevant whether this image is being captured digitally or on film.

Back to the technical aspects of photography:
Sure things got smaller but there is still a differentiating look between formats.

Regarding my wallet:
There is a series of images I'd like to create that require view camera movements.
-Back in the days of film I would have to spend thousands on a view camera plus lenses and enough film.
-Today I got the view camera and lenses for next to nothing but have to spend thousands on a digital back (Yeah I know I could be shooting film ).

So in the end I totally agree that there are some technical differences between digital and film but the things we should care about have not changed. To create astoni... oh wait, to please the client. :facesmack:

Not sure it's the same, but the German concept of Gestaltung or Gestalt is used in art, design, and photography:

"Gestalt means when parts identified individually have different characteristics to the whole (Gestalt means "organised whole")
e.g. describing a tree - it's parts are trunk, branches, leaves, perhaps blossoms or fruit. But when you look at an entire tree, you are not conscious of the parts, you are aware of the overall object - the tree. Parts are of secondary importance even though they can be clearly seen."

To me "Vision" in this context is intuitively different. Less to do with how something is viewed in part or as a whole, and more about imagining the end result before you do anything.

Sometimes this intuitively happens in a split second like with spontaneous candid photography where what I call "emotional anticipation" is at work that requires what a former Boss once referred to as "tuned antenna" to the world around you. People who are dead to their surroundings often have a very difficult time with consistently doing insightful and often subtly revealing candid work ... worst yet, the general public has become less adept at recognizing it (for a number of reasons that would require its own thread).

Other times, one's "Vision" is played out with a great deal of planning ... HOWEVER, it all starts with imagining the end result. For projects like these I actually draw the ideas so I can determine what is needed before it is required (my art director experience).

As one's vision matures, a body of consistent work emerges into a recognizable style ... once that plays out, you do it all over again.

Yet, I suppose those imaginings could be considered a form of Gestaltung because we think of a complete image and then make it happen by assuring the parts.

-Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Those pesky Kids!

Sorry, this blame the new culture/youth just doesn't sit well with me. I've recently just become a Dad and a whole new world of wonderment and worry has just opened up. I know it has been said a million times but there is only one person to look towards for a child's behaviour and that is their parents.

The youth wants everything yesterday but who is to blame for that? A child sat in their bedroom trying to connect with friends or the child's farther, a fatcat business man who thought it would be a good investment to fund research into a world wide information network?

IMO, as we get older we loose touch with our youth and forget our kids are only building on the legacy that we, their parents leave them. Guy, why is it that your kids don't ride 10 miles to a friends house?...... Because they are lazy or because you don't expect them to and just give them a lift........ ?

Cause my parents never did. It's real simple you want the best for your kid so you go out of your way. Mine never paid attention. I don't want to be my parents. But sorry your going to have to get used to the new culture as soon as they hit school with other kids with a very very mixed bag of upbringing which frankly as I see it pretty damn poor too. In our day for example divorced families where kind of rare at least in my sons case 15 tomorrow actually about 70 percent of his friends the parents are divorced. Not saying just because they are divorced it is a big cause but I don't care what freaking any research says it DOES affect the kid in some way that is not helpful for them. Honestly I never want to be what my parents where , I want to be better and I am a great deal.

But obviously big topic here so don't want to get away from the thread. But my point is things are expected now and they feel deserved and want it all for free or they will whine until they get it or try too.

The problem in this business just ask any dealer is basically the same thing. People dont want to pay but they certainly want to be taken care of for the peanut profits that are made. People have no clue on what it really takes to run a business and the money behind it running a business. Employees , insurance, rent etc etc etc etc all the stuff no one even considers when dealing with these retailers. I'm on there side, I get it. Most people could care less as long as they get it for free.

 

[BANKER1]

Guy,

Don't forget, he said "I've recently just become a dad". Give him a few years, and he will have a totally different outlook. My youngest son is a chemical engineer with 20-25 patents to his credit and is very successful. My other son was just promoted to full bird colonel, a graduate of the US Air Force Academy, an aeronautical engineer, an F-15C pilot, and is headed for war college at the national war college in Washington, DC. And, he isn't even 40 years old. Let's see what he has to say when his children are reaching that age. (Of course I won't be around then.)

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Greg

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'm more referring to this newer generation under 18 area. I just see this whole social media gen. Looking at things a lot differently than like my 22 year old daughter even. Oh well it's going to be interesting. Have a great weekend

 

[Uaiomex]

Wow! This has become a very interesting thread covering many other issues including the philosophy of photo making and how we relate to them.
Sashin, I apologize too for going a little over board. Now that you mentioned that you used to work for the industry, I understand why you were sensitive about it.
Actually, the reason of writing my op was a mixture of things. I did rant a little about the industry but not in a dismissing way. I felt that my criticism was constructive although I must admit, I was definitely rough.

Without reservations I say that I don't get limited in my photography for not having the best equipment there is (MFD). I cope pretty good with what I have. I print larger and produce better and more work than ever. This site and especially this same forum is one of my favorites in the whole internet. I come here almost everyday and read patiently most posts. Sometimes I get ideas from other posters and use them combined with my own thoughts. At times I decide to write about them. When I think I understand enough to write or rant (lol) about it, I do it. I could not ever compete with the brightest minds sharing this site of course. But thanks God, it is not about competing but about sharing.

Jim Collum said that he doesn't understand the debate analog/digital. I agree with him. And that's also part of my point. The entrance ticket to digital MF shouldn't be so hard to acquire either. Somebody here blame it on photographers buying cheap equipment instead, so making the MFD market a niche. I believe it's the other way around. In the beginning I thought I was about to ex-change my film 35 camera for a digital 35 camera, my film 6X6 for a digital 6X6, etc. It didn't happened this way. The digital tsunami moved the crust in very unexpected ways. I'm not alone in this. I know there are millions thinking the same thing. I know also, this kind of posts won't get many warm welcomes in a forum like this one. It is understandable. I'm not dismissing the advantages of MFD but the opposite. You that can afford these great instruments without mortgaging your lives away are privileged. I know I can't tell manufacturers how to construct a better and cheaper back. That's their job to find out. I know by experience that writing directly to manufacturers is total sterile action or so it seems. At least we have some forums like this one where we can ventilate our dislikes about the industry and perhaps, very perhaps, they are listening.
Have a nice weekend all.
Eduardo

 

[fotografz]

I'm more referring to this newer generation under 18 area. I just see this whole social media gen. Looking at things a lot differently than like my 22 year old daughter even. Oh well it's going to be interesting. Have a great weekend

Guy, IMO you are spot on with your observations ... but I think it has impacted society in the 18 to 28 year old segment already, and will only get worse.

While there are anecdotal exceptions to anything, I've seen it have a direct relationship on the wedding photography business as much or more than the poor economy. Even those with money have a sense of "entitlement" expecting more and more for less and less ... meanwhile, social media etc. has devalued photography to an almost commodity level.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

Wow! This has become a very interesting thread covering many other issues including the philosophy of photo making and how we relate to them.
Sashin, I apologize too for going a little over board. Now that you mentioned that you used to work for the industry, I understand why you were sensitive about it.
Actually, the reason of writing my op was a mixture of things. I did rant a little about the industry but not in a dismissing way. I felt that my criticism was constructive although I must admit, I was definitely rough.

Without reservations I say that I don't get limited in my photography for not having the best equipment there is (MFD). I cope pretty good with what I have. I print larger and produce better and more work than ever. This site and especially this same forum is one of my favorites in the whole internet. I come here almost everyday and read patiently most posts. Sometimes I get ideas from other posters and use them combined with my own thoughts. At times I decide to write about them. When I think I understand enough to write or rant (lol) about it, I do it. I could not ever compete with the brightest minds sharing this site of course. But thanks God, it is not about competing but about sharing.

Jim Collum said that he doesn't understand the debate analog/digital. I agree with him. And that's also part of my point. The entrance ticket to digital MF shouldn't be so hard to acquire either. Somebody here blame it on photographers buying cheap equipment instead, so making the MFD market a niche. I believe it's the other way around. In the beginning I thought I was about to ex-change my film 35 camera for a digital 35 camera, my film 6X6 for a digital 6X6, etc. It didn't happened this way. The digital tsunami moved the crust in very unexpected ways. I'm not alone in this. I know there are millions thinking the same thing. I know also, this kind of posts won't get many warm welcomes in a forum like this one. It is understandable. I'm not dismissing the advantages of MFD but the opposite. You that can afford these great instruments without mortgaging your lives away are privileged. I know I can't tell manufacturers how to construct a better and cheaper back. That's their job to find out. I know by experience that writing directly to manufacturers is total sterile action or so it seems. At least we have some forums like this one where we can ventilate our dislikes about the industry and perhaps, very perhaps, they are listening.
Have a nice weekend all.
Eduardo

Eduardo, it is good that you spoke your mind. Only in that way do people respond with their beliefs and bring new thinking and ways of looking at the same subject(s).

In that spirit ... I think there is one aspect that is missing from your discourse related to "money" ... specifically, the "cold turkey" entry cost of MFD. Your POV is predicated on buying new, at which point the cost is indeed breathtaking and can even be ruinous if one is not careful. For the "privileged" as you suggest? Perhaps. In fact, most likely. Or, in some cases, for the dedicated few who make it a priority and sacrifice in other areas to follow their passion. However, no matter why, "new" is stunningly expensive compared to the MF analog media past.

In response I'd argue that we've become sucked in by the digital black hole of "new". If, like some, one subscribes to the notion that the Medium Format aesthetic is more than just resolution, whether film or digital, and that MFD is more than pixel count ... then the possibilities expand exponentially, and "new" isn't as compulsory.

I've watched as a number of members on Get DPI have explored MFD with more "modest" gear that exhibited that MFD aesthetic. Quite beautiful images with a unique look and feel, and a different working methodology ... and then moved on to other things that lost something in the transition (maybe for practical reasons, maybe for business reasons), but lost none-the-less.

I've also followed the work of some MFD users that reached a specific point in the medium's evolution, extracted themselves from the "new" merry-go-round, and have gotten better and better and better with their art.

New MFD may indeed have to respond to market pressures to produce a less expensive, and better product. However, it'll always be a relative thing ... and if it comes to be that no one buys into the aesthetic difference of MF anymore, or do but aren't willing to pay for it, it'll simply disappear as an option. Nature always takes its course.

-Marc

 

[dchew]

Part of me wonders if we are just getting too emotional about this whole MF thing. It's really just another format, no? In equivalent formats, the amount of detail provided by digital is much more than scanned film, so most photographers are experiencing improvements over what they were used to in equivalent-sized film captures.

As a result, some people have migrated from MF to 35mm dslr's. Well, lots of people are using M4/3 who used to use 35mm dslr's. And lots of people are using iPhones where they used to use P&S's or - evil thought - where they used to use 35mm dslr's!

Jeeze, we all used to use V8's too. Now there are 4 cylinders that make more power. Still, there is nothing like hopping into a 67' GTO and going for a spin, eh? And in the midst of all this, some people migrated the other way, like me! When technology is changing rapidly I think this bi-directional movement is normal.

In regards to camera design, in my mind there have been two impacts of digital: the above-mentioned format factor, and the no-longer-absolutely-necessary viewfinder. Formats are still in flux, and they might be for a long, long time. I bet that drives camera makers crazy; at least the ones that have to deal with interchangeable lenses.

The viewfinder factor is more complicated. The mirror box is not so definite any more. Different types of shooting and different subjects shine with different types of field workflows. It's all mixed up and jumbled; even my technical camera has three viewfinder options: LCD screen, goofy looking traditional viewfinder, and an iPhone!

Ciao,
Dave

 

[Uaiomex]

Marc, as usual you are spot-on. I have contemplated for years now, buying a used back. I've seen many of them but have not found the right combination of features, resolution and price. (I want it all, lol!)

I'm passing through a very peculiar time of life in which I need to make a change in my life. I'm about to close a sale on 2 properties in order to move closer to the ocean. I'm 60 in a few months. It feels to me that this time is the right time to do the things I haven't done about my life and my photography or soon it could be too late.

So, once again I am in the quest of finding that back that fullfills all my needs. I'm into long exposure landscape photography and planning to re-open my studio to do portraits. I want those portraits to give an edge over all the other different studios ran by much younger photographers.
So far, the only used back I could afford in order to do these 2 things is the P45+. I've been thinking about the P25+ but the moire risk is high when shooting portraits. So, the P45+ it is.

I'm kind of heavily invested in Canon glass, so I don't consider the D800, at least not yet. I'm sure Canon will eventually come with a body to compete in the megapixel race. It is unavoidable. I still have a few months to decide but I think that if Canon comes with a D800 competitor I won't e able to restrain myself and will immerse me and my practice with this camera and the finest glass from Canon.

I already sent both DT and CI emails requesting information on the P45+. DT responded back already but didn't quite understood my questions so I emailed back again. Still waiting for CI response.

Best
Eduardo

Eduardo, it is good that you spoke your mind. Only in that way do people respond with their beliefs and bring new thinking and ways of looking at the same subject(s).

In that spirit ... I think there is one aspect that is missing from your discourse related to "money" ... specifically, the "cold turkey" entry cost of MFD. Your POV is predicated on buying new, at which point the cost is indeed breathtaking and can even be ruinous if one is not careful. For the "privileged" as you suggest? Perhaps. In fact, most likely. Or, in some cases, for the dedicated few who make it a priority and sacrifice in other areas to follow their passion. However, no matter why, "new" is stunningly expensive compared to the MF analog media past.

In response I'd argue that we've become sucked in by the digital black hole of "new". If, like some, one subscribes to the notion that the Medium Format aesthetic is more than just resolution, whether film or digital, and that MFD is more than pixel count ... then the possibilities expand exponentially, and "new" isn't as compulsory.

I've watched as a number of members on Get DPI have explored MFD with more "modest" gear that exhibited that MFD aesthetic. Quite beautiful images with a unique look and feel, and a different working methodology ... and then moved on to other things that lost something in the transition (maybe for practical reasons, maybe for business reasons), but lost none-the-less.

I've also followed the work of some MFD users that reached a specific point in the medium's evolution, extracted themselves from the "new" merry-go-round, and have gotten better and better and better with their art.

New MFD may indeed have to respond to market pressures to produce a less expensive, and better product. However, it'll always be a relative thing ... and if it comes to be that no one buys into the aesthetic difference of MF anymore, or do but aren't willing to pay for it, it'll simply disappear as an option. Nature always takes its course.

-Marc

 

[yaya]

I know I can't tell manufacturers how to construct a better and cheaper back. That's their job to find out. I know by experience that writing directly to manufacturers is total sterile action or so it seems. At least we have some forums like this one where we can ventilate our dislikes about the industry and perhaps, very perhaps, they are listening.
Have a nice weekend all.
Eduardo

We're here to advise, share and listen. If what some people ask for can be done with the financial and human resources we have and meet our goals and business model/ targets then we will of course endeavour to develop such products.

There's no harm in wiring directly. Personally I have never, ever ignored an email from anyone unless it was pure spam

Bear in mind however that the market for large sensor imaging devices extends far beyond what is represented on these forums and therefore any trends shown here do not necessarily reflect on the actual state of our industry...

Good luck with your new plan, sounds exciting :thumbs:

Yair

 

[Mammy645]

I've been thinking about the P25+ but the moire risk is high when shooting portraits. So, the P45+ it is.

For what it's worth the risk of moire is extremely overblown, I've been shooting with the P25 for 7 years, mostly fashion and portraits but also textiles and still life. In that time I've only had moire issues on a handful of photos when shooting products for a textile manufacturer, and of those only one photo needed cleanup in photoshop. Something I probably could have avoided altogether if I had been more careful while shooting, but it was one of 600+ images and I had to shoot fast. Only once did I see it when shooting fashion, the model was wearing a blouse made out of a fine net-like fabric and it cleaned up nicely with the moire tool. I've never ever seen it when doing portraits though. Still, seeing how you want to do long exposure landscapes the P45+ is probably your best bet.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Eduardo,

I'm sure many photographers share your sentiments. There's never a need to apologize for an opinion, but yet some here seem to disagree.

The Hasselblad H1/H2 and the Mamiya RZ, should be considered, IMO. The P25+ is a fantastic DB for either camera. There's a photographer here ( Jeff Mosier), who has shot portraits with the P25+, and his creative ability with that camera is inspiring! Film is also becoming more popular as it's incorporated into more commercial projects.

 

[T.Karma]

That's what I don't understand in the whole digital vs analog debate. There is *no* difference in degree of difficulty between a digital and analog camera. You can go as shallow or as deep with either one. If you want to go beyond a simple analog point&shoot.. you can learn everything there is to know about the operation of a manual camera in a weekend class. It's not rocket science. As far as analog vs digital output.. also none. I can push though as many darkroom prints /hour as my 24" HP z3100 printer. I can, if I choose, spend days working on the output for both as well. I probably go back and change my 'final' digital files as often as I would change the look of my analog prints.

Sure. You can always go deeper. As far as the "spirit" aspect is concerned.
But when it comes to crafts aspect ..... You developed a techique for a long time until you see someone else has written a plugin for that and those who have found it earlier know already how to use it better than you.
There is a big devaluation of personal effort going on with all things connected to digital tech.

My guess would be that the decrease in quality of photographic output has more to do with cultural changes (attention spans of a flea, instant gratification, decrease in importance of 'quality') than on the tools being used.

These trends and the tools being used cannot be separated here. Looking at the big picture, I dare to say humans are not ready for the speed of digital. Just IMHO.

 

[dougpeterson]

My guess would be that the decrease in quality of photographic output has more to do with cultural changes (attention spans of a flea, instant gratification, decrease in importance of 'quality') than on the tools being used.

Sampling bias.

You're not seeing the crappy photos of previous decades.

In the old days sharing output was harder. Most crappy photos were only seen by close family/friends (e.g. your Uncle's vacation slide show). And the images that are still shown from that period now are almost all going to have been filtered for quality by time.

If you have any local newspapers lying around the house from the 80s just open it up and look at the quality (aesthetic and technical) of the images. That's a better random sample than looking through an Art History text book or major gallery collection.

If anything if you took 100 random serious hobbyists* now and a 100 random serious hobbyists in past decades I bet you'd find the quality was higher now than ever before.

Of course unless you have a time machine or a million dollar research grant to give me I can only call this a hunch ;-).

*I'll define that here as simply being someone who spends a large amount of their free time doing something photographically related

 

[GrahamWelland]

If anything if you took 100 random serious hobbyists* now and a 100 random serious hobbyists in past decades I bet you'd find the quality was higher now than ever before.

I'm sure that a lot of this general raising of the quality bar has to do with the instant feedback that hobbyists get from digital capture and the ability to work and hone a scene in situ vs the old shoot, hope, review and forget what you did approach of old with film (unless you meticulously kept shooting notes of course!).

My concern about digital is more of a historical nature - I suspect that later generations will lament the loss of so many important family snapshots that'll be lost in the bit bucket vs sitting as prints in shoe boxes or albums to be rediscovered later. I know all about archiving etc of digital but I would wager that for the vast majority of people shooting casually their photo albums last only so long as their hard drive/current computer lasts or while their social media platform of choice is still in business. After that, lost to the bit bucket.

 

[fotografz]

Sampling bias.

You're not seeing the crappy photos of previous decades.

In the old days sharing output was harder. Most crappy photos were only seen by close family/friends (e.g. your Uncle's vacation slide show). And the images that are still shown from that period now are almost all going to have been filtered for quality by time.

If you have any local newspapers lying around the house from the 80s just open it up and look at the quality (aesthetic and technical) of the images. That's a better random sample than looking through an Art History text book or major gallery collection.

If anything if you took 100 random serious hobbyists* now and a 100 random serious hobbyists in past decades I bet you'd find the quality was higher now than ever before.

Of course unless you have a time machine or a million dollar research grant to give me I can only call this a hunch ;-).

*I'll define that here as simply being someone who spends a large amount of their free time doing something photographically related

I understand the concept of "sampling bias" quite well after sitting in endless advertising research tests.

IMO, I'd agree that the general level of photography has risen as you say, what I question is whether the upper percentile has advanced at anywhere near the same rate. Generally, I think the bottom and top is collapsing in toward the middle. Photography seems to be getting very homogenized.

So, in a manner I agree with Jim, the cacophony of images, coupled with short attention spans and surface involvement is getting worse.

It takes a huge amount of personal commitment and persistence to create something with depth and unique character, or insightful revelations ... something that uncovers new beauty or explores a new perspective to an idea. Likewise it takes more than 3 seconds to see it ...

since we see to like stats, 3 seconds is how much time on average most people spend deciding on whether to move on to the next distraction ... which has lead to more surface impact in images as opposed to subtile discoveries often found in better work. It just never gets noticed, or at least by fewer and fewer as the cacophony gets visually louder.

-Marc

 

[JimCollum]

Sampling bias.

You're not seeing the crappy photos of previous decades.

If anything if you took 100 random serious hobbyists* now and a 100 random serious hobbyists in past decades I bet you'd find the quality was higher now than ever before.

I'd agree that the quality of the best is getting better... but my observation is that 'the best' doesn't matter any more.. in general, 'quality' is a lower priority than it used to be. fast and 'good enough'. Sure, there are still some who appreciate quality... In photo journalism, Magnum still exists and does business... But the direction of that industry isn't in the direction of Magnum.. it's crowd sourcing.. someone passing by with a cell phone has replaced the staff of many newspapers and news agencies.

I had mid-level architects offer either $50/day (the best rate), or the honor of having my name attached to the images as what they were willing to pay for magazine quality work. They admitted they used to pay $1500 day rates... but they can usually get 'good enough' for free now.

I understand there are still architects that demand the quality of someone like Tim Griffith... but that number seems to be decreasing.


People *are* creating better and better work (although i don't seem to be following that trend ).

But fewer care.

 

[MaxKißler]

Not sure it's the same, but the German concept of Gestaltung or Gestalt is used in art, design, and photography:

"Gestalt means when parts identified individually have different characteristics to the whole (Gestalt means "organised whole")
e.g. describing a tree - it's parts are trunk, branches, leaves, perhaps blossoms or fruit. But when you look at an entire tree, you are not conscious of the parts, you are aware of the overall object - the tree. Parts are of secondary importance even though they can be clearly seen."

To me "Vision" in this context is intuitively different. Less to do with how something is viewed in part or as a whole, and more about imagining the end result before you do anything.

Sometimes this intuitively happens in a split second like with spontaneous candid photography where what I call "emotional anticipation" is at work that requires what a former Boss once referred to as "tuned antenna" to the world around you. People who are dead to their surroundings often have a very difficult time with consistently doing insightful and often subtly revealing candid work ... worst yet, the general public has become less adept at recognizing it (for a number of reasons that would require its own thread).

Other times, one's "Vision" is played out with a great deal of planning ... HOWEVER, it all starts with imagining the end result. For projects like these I actually draw the ideas so I can determine what is needed before it is required (my art director experience).

As one's vision matures, a body of consistent work emerges into a recognizable style ... once that plays out, you do it all over again.

Yet, I suppose those imaginings could be considered a form of Gestaltung because we think of a complete image and then make it happen by assuring the parts.

-Marc

Interesting Marc, to me Gestaltung is very equal to what you'd describe as "tuned antenna", even more so than to your definition of Gestaltung. To me Gestaltung is more of a creative process that is permanently and intuitively happening, being able to produce appealing work in every situation. In the example of candids through anticipation and composition or in stillife and product photography through the arrengement of objects etc.

Thinking about it now, I guess you are right that vision is more focussed on the end result than on the details of getting there. Vision is a vague glance at what shall be while gestaltung is the implementation of getting there.

Maybe my dislike for the term "vision" arose from the many "photographers" portfolios I've seen that contained mediocre work but was advertised with the overuse of a strong word like vision.


Anyway, it's late so have a good night.
Max