The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The art of Photography: Subverted by science?

V

Vivek

Guest
If there was blog at that time-how the traditional wet plate photographers would have felt like when Eastman introduced the Box Brownie and industrial production, development and print of photographs- that was my thought after glancing through it.

Can't change the tide. ;)
 

jlm

Workshop Member
Marc, feel free to expound even more on this forum. Your insights offer a clear perspective on our times in general where the mundane seems to overfill our view. How many versions of survivor and dancing with the stars does it take?

love your blog
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Excellent, Marc. You just added considerable value to the very good cup of oolong tea that I consumed while reading it :)

I've come to a point where most technical camera discussions are mainly good for the entertainment value. Most of them can be boiled down to something like, "It's new, it's brand X, it can be used to take photos with, must be good."

That's a gross oversimplification of course, but compared to the search for "The Image", the importance of the technical aspect is diminishing with the increasingly good gear available for most of us these days. When looking at the sheer volume of camera discussions around the web compared to those with a creative view, one can certainly wonder what the objective of those discussions are.

Kudos then to the participants of this forum, yourself obviously included, who can have fun with the technical aspect without forgetting photography as an art form. Sometimes, it's even possible to see a connection between the two.

Thank you for taking time to share your experiences.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I appreciate the comments one way or the other, and urge more discussion on the topic.

I'm not sure I'd agree that this is anything like the transition from wet plates to the box Brownie. Previous milestones in photographic technology tended to happen decades apart as opposed to being a relentless onslaught. Plus, the reason I posted a link on Get Dpi is because there are folks here that are well beyond being the consuming public wielding the modern version of the Brownie.

To be clear, I most certainly am not against the consumption of new developments, I do have some pretty nifty gear myself. However, this subject has been an on-going concern, and not particularly linked to the more recent technical advancements being debated on gear forums, or endless wall test blogs to prove one point or another. If 500 years from now some "digital archeologists" were to pour over all the thousands of threads and tens of thousands of posts with well excused mundane images showing how many pixels can form the head of a pin, I fear they'd think us an artless lot. ;)

"Hey, Milo, what chisel did you use when carving that Venus?" :rolleyes:

"Love the Mona painting Leo, but you didn't list the brush widths and paint you used in your post!"

I've been working/consulting with a number of photographers in the past year, more as an art/creative coach than a fellow photographer. The subject rarely has been about gear ... (except perhaps lighting). It is NOT an easy subject to deal with, nor easy to do something about ... blabbing about gear is a lot easier.

Frankly, it is also a personal struggle. As one creative purpose wains, one longs for the next in order to get to work on something of meaning. That isn't driven by what gear you have. Yet the gear infection is quite viral ... it really is hard to avoid the distraction.

What I really do think is that we have approached the level of fetishism with all this, and it is becoming the center of attention to an overwhelming degree. Thus the concern about "balance" and promoting the notion of gear in the service of "what" art?

I think it was Jack that recently prioritized the importance of content over perfect execution (not that they are mutually exclusive), yet I wonder how many actually believe in and practice that ... or even know where to start?

-Marc
 

jlm

Workshop Member
just to move the conversation forward: my background is in science (hard-core) and design, formally educated in grad schools in both. My wife id a full time fine art painter, equally educated and supports herself. we are constantly discussing the art world, art market, etc.

it is a lot easier to discuss physics and math or engineering (or camera technical) details than to be specific in art discussions. nature of the subjects
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I have very mixed feelings about a completely stark comparison.
I have made photos, watercolors, oils, and pastels, and they are all different media for sure.
EACH of these media have their own technical challenges.
Take watercolor for example.
Choice of paper and surface sometimes encourage or discourage certain techniques.
Watercolor painters get into all sorts of heavy discussion if it is best to start with dry paper or wet (I am on the wet camp for most subjects)
I have seen a painter throw a brush across the room because it just did not feel right, or stroked badly.
All artists are in a quest I believe to find materials and tools that get out of their way.
We looks for pigments that stain or do not, that are opaque or transparent, which are smooth or which granulate or do any number of pigment tricks when applied with water.
So it is with photography as well.
No artist that I know well has ever been completely satisfied with her work, either artistically or technically; but they keep trying and if we need to resort to science, so be it.
-bob
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>it is a lot easier to discuss physics and math or engineering (or camera technical)

Because there is most of the time a right or wrong. Nothing like this in art. On top there is the commercial aspect of art.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
No artist that I know well has ever been completely satisfied with her work, either artistically or technically; but they keep trying and if we need to resort to science, so be it.
-bob
Beautifully said! :clap:
 

jonoslack

Active member
Marc
I really enjoyed that - - and I think it's honourable and interesting to have a thoroughly split personality between 'art' and 'artifice' . . . 'image' and 'equipment'. But it's the image that's worthwhile, and almost everything that's discussed on these forums is capable of delivering the image.


Kudos then to the participants of this forum, yourself obviously included, who can have fun with the technical aspect without forgetting photography as an art form. Sometimes, it's even possible to see a connection between the two.

Thank you for taking time to share your experiences.
Exactly (Jorgen is the person one can always agree with!)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I have very mixed feelings about a completely stark comparison.
I have made photos, watercolors, oils, and pastels, and they are all different media for sure.
EACH of these media have their own technical challenges.
Take watercolor for example.
Choice of paper and surface sometimes encourage or discourage certain techniques.
Watercolor painters get into all sorts of heavy discussion if it is best to start with dry paper or wet (I am on the wet camp for most subjects)
I have seen a painter throw a brush across the room because it just did not feel right, or stroked badly.
All artists are in a quest I believe to find materials and tools that get out of their way.
We looks for pigments that stain or do not, that are opaque or transparent, which are smooth or which granulate or do any number of pigment tricks when applied with water.
So it is with photography as well.
No artist that I know well has ever been completely satisfied with her work, either artistically or technically; but they keep trying and if we need to resort to science, so be it.
-bob
Well Bob, that may be anecdotally true to some extent ... I actually was trained as a painter ... and my first jobs in advertising (to make enough money to feed my family) was as an illustrator ... only later did I migrate to Art Direction as a career. I still painted on for many years and had sponsored shows ... until the ad career became so dominate there wasn't time or grey cells left to do anything else. Painting is very time consuming. I picked advertising because I was better at it and was still creatively full-filled ... or at least I made a LOT more money at it ;)

However, discussions of whether one uses wet technique or dry brush isn't exactly science and technology centric, nor has it changed much since the dawn of man ... we still use crushed earth colors (or surrogates for them) and animal hair stuck to a stick ... and I'm sure some cave man grunted and threw a crummy brush/stick across the cave :ROTFL:

IMO, you are talking about "creative technique" ... which we all have to learn when using our tools to express ourselves. Fundamentally, camera technique hasn't changed much in 100 years+, lens, f-stop, shutter speed, light hits the media ... it isn't rocket science.

I'd also propose that no artists I've ever known became more creative because they resorted to science as a backstop. It may "refresh" their enthusiasm to some degree, but I think that is simply a diversion until they get their creative mind back on track. This doesn't preclude the creative mind from selecting certain tools to accomplish their vision ... of course that is necessary ... but what is the vision that dictates those choices?

People want desperately to believe science will be their savor rather than doing the hard work required to become better ... and I think it is a mass epidemic of this sort of thing these days ... with all kinds of people hanging on every hint of yet more technical advancements that might spur on their own brain and creative spirit ... why some think that will happen when it didn't with past "game changing" tech I have no idea.

Again, I'm not excluding myself from this form of odd thinking, nor positioning myself as some sort of paragon of creative thought ... but I'm finally catching on ... at least I hope I am :)

-Marc
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>People want desperately to believe science will be their savor rather than doing the hard work required to become better

They have to train their eyes more than their camera skills.
 

robertwright

New member
I think the thing that has changed photography most is not exactly technology (the gear) but is the technology of social media.

Photography is now a performance more than it is the creation of discrete objects.

Looking at instagram, fb, tumblr, pintrest, what is important is garnering a following, getting likes, also acting as a "curator" and re-blogging other work (usually from your friends) all in the name of elevating your status as someone who has taste, is connected, has beautiful friends, is successful.

It is a performance and demonstration of lifestyle and attainment.

Photography has long been a certification of a kind of status- ie family vacation snaps, "I was here" etc, but this is now operative on a moment to moment basis- you have to be constantly flexing the social muscle and promoting others that do the same.

This is what I see as the primary technological change in photography. Most photos are not even taken with a "camera" by normative definition.

All other considerations, beauty, art, education, all the traditional uses of photography are now hardly part of this performance of status conversation.

just what I see.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
>People want desperately to believe science will be their savor rather than doing the hard work required to become better

They have to train their eyes more than their camera skills.
Yep.

Reminds me of a favorite copy line from a Minnesota writer's portfolio who was interviewing for a position I had open ... "See your Optometrist while you still can." (Great writers out of Minnesota). Learn (or relearn) to see while you still can.

In my travels on behalf of "art in the service of commerce", I had the good fortune to work with some truly remarkable talents. Some that I worked with when young went on to fame and fortune, and have made great movies and such. Honestly, it was an experience that had a profound impact on my own career and what success I enjoyed.

One mentor in NYC, whom I still visit on occasion, had the most acute eye I've ever witnessed at work. I rarely saw a camera in his hand, he just looked and studied and looked some more, then wham it was over. His only real interest in science or technology was lenses and then only for the character that matched his vision. He did know what was going on and what was the latest thing, often so he could avoid it because everyone else would be using it. He did an astounding campaign for a major international electronics giant, images with an incredible sense of human perception ... and shot the whole thing with a point & shoot.

How these people thought and how they "see" was/is a revelation.

In a very small, but related manner, I've watched my assistants or second shooters failing to "see" all the time. They are so tuned to their camera they become isolated from the events around them and take snap-shots rather than something that goes beyond ... even though it's right in front of them. I use those experiences to help train their eye.

-Marc
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
I'm teaching a photography class in a local art college. It's hugely refreshing. The students are serious art students, the photography is just a side course, once a week for 5 hours. I told them in the first class, the camera is your brush, the light is your paint. They don't know about the techy side, they couldn't care less. A camera to them is an annoying to use tool which they would usually prefer to swap for a pencil so they don't give a bleep about anything other than getting from the picture in their mind to the finished image on paper. Suits me as I've always thought that way. Most have nothing but a p&s, one only has a phone camera. They are still creating some georgous work.

Can I put a point of order in though Marc? Given your gear changing history during the digital revolution which pretty much matches that gear whore to end all gear whores, Guy, should you not be giving yourself a serious spanking after reading your own essay? :ROTFL::ROTFL:

I am rather proud of owning the same two cameras for the past 7 years and they are, to this day, still my workhorses. I've wittled down my lens collection to two primes and a UW zoom oh and a 1960's pentax 50mm. My wedding partner is exactly the same, two primes and a UW zoom. Oh and my photography is IMO better than it has ever been.

That said, until I got the camera which for me would fill my needs, the previous equipment could not have been used to shoot weddings the way I do today, period. I could not shoot the kind of ambient light weddings I am booked for using the minimal of gear I bring to weddings today (two off camera speedlites and that's it) with the 1Ds or 10D I owned before buying those 5D's all those years back. However I've found my tool and even today with the super incredible D800 or super high iso 5DIII, I can't justify the expenditure as a tool as I cannot see that the new cameras features will increase revenue over the next few years to justify the amount of expenditure vs depreciation. Not when I can do it with the gear I already own.



Example image we shot in 'class' to teach the concepts of the use of DOF to tell a story, in this case an image for the schools Passover brochure coveying the idea of coming up to Jerusalem for the festival.
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
I'd also propose that no artists I've ever known became more creative because they resorted to science as a backstop. It may "refresh" their enthusiasm to some degree, but I think that is simply a diversion until they get their creative mind back on track. This doesn't preclude the creative mind from selecting certain tools to accomplish their vision ... of course that is necessary ... but what is the vision that dictates those choices?

People want desperately to believe science will be their savor rather than doing the hard work required to become better ... and I think it is a mass epidemic of this sort of thing these days ... with all kinds of people hanging on every hint of yet more technical advancements that might spur on their own brain and creative spirit ... why some think that will happen when it didn't with past "game changing" tech I have no idea.

Again, I'm not excluding myself from this form of odd thinking, nor positioning myself as some sort of paragon of creative thought ... but I'm finally catching on ... at least I hope I am :)

-Marc
Hmm - I think it's all interesting, and I enjoyed your blog. However, your thesis does seem to hinge around the notion that people buy new kit because they think that it will allow them to make better images. . .. . . . . .

That's not why I buy new kit, I know it won't make any difference to the artistic quality of my images, and I suspect that's true of lots of people around here.

Personally, I buy new kit because I like experimenting with it, and because I like the 'thingness' of it all. Just occasionally I might buy something because it will allow me to take pictures in situations where I couldn't otherwise (like a long macro lens for bugs, or a camera with better high ISO for poor light). But I don't think I've ever even considered that it might improve my art.

On the other hand, a look at the quality of amateur work available on the internet today, compared to 5 or 6 years ago would suggest to me that, quite to the contrary, the advent and development of digital equipment has dramatically improved the average artistic quality of images.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Hmm - I think it's all interesting, and I enjoyed your blog. However, your thesis does seem to hinge around the notion that people buy new kit because they think that it will allow them to make better images. . .. . . . . .

That's not why I buy new kit, I know it won't make any difference to the artistic quality of my images, and I suspect that's true of lots of people around here.

Personally, I buy new kit because I like experimenting with it, and because I like the 'thingness' of it all. Just occasionally I might buy something because it will allow me to take pictures in situations where I couldn't otherwise (like a long macro lens for bugs, or a camera with better high ISO for poor light). But I don't think I've ever even considered that it might improve my art.

On the other hand, a look at the quality of amateur work available on the internet today, compared to 5 or 6 years ago would suggest to me that, quite to the contrary, the advent and development of digital equipment has dramatically improved the average artistic quality of images.
No Jono, that isn't the "thesis" of the blog thinking ... just the direction it took in response to the admittedly expected discussion here. It doesn't matter what the motivation may be for the heavy shift to technology that occupies so much time, and saps so much energy. ... it is the seemingly unequal emphasis on that technology compared to realizing ones creative vision and what that vision may be ... or more importantly ... could be.

However, I don't agree that "stuff" can't make a difference in one's art ... it will IF you have a vision or idea that requires it. I'm just pointing out that one "should" proceed the other.

As far as the general or average level of photographic work having improved, I agree, and said so in the blog. That was the point to some degree. Specifically, that advancing technology has impacted many photographic endeavors for enthusiasts and pros alike ... industries such as weddings specifically have been impacted a great deal, so has portraiture, and with everyone carrying cell phone camera/video, a portion of photojournalism has been effected. Technology has leveled the playing field as far a relatively competent image making is concerned. Many Pros went out of business because they relied on the mystery of photographic technology and technique, which newer technology de-mystified to a great degree ... in contrast those with a great vision kept going and thrived.

Is it all advancing the art of photography? I'd argue no. I'd say, it is swelling the middle ranks of average, with a few bright spots beyond that. Perhaps the bright sparks are worth it all ... but I'm not sure it is when one realizes all the creative potential and skill hinted at out there ... but seems to be stuck in second gear.

The whole thing hinges on whether one is happy as is ... if so, then it is all a moot point. If "could be" isn't of interest, then there is little more to say. The last line of my blog opinion was ... "So can you." If one doesn't "want" to, oh well. But the point is that you "can".

So, on the other hand, I believe there are many who aren't satisfied with status quo ... have reached a point in their trek where all they are doing is repeating themselves ... but don't know quite how to go about moving forward creatively. There-in lies the rub ... you can get every nano detail of technical data your brain can absorb, even plenty of applications of that technology (lighting forums or how to seminars, or location gatherings for example), but how does one "personally" develop a more meaningful purpose, sharpen their seeing, work from the basis of an idea, learn to be more creatively sensitive? ... in short, take it to the next level.

My pal Irakly teaches this to packed groups of creatively starved photographers all over the world ... many of his students are pretty accomplished photographers or talented enthusiasts who have reach a ceiling. While he is technically adept, that isn't what he teaches, it is how to unlock the potential he sees in so many photographers and sometimes his methods are quite startling. The log jam is quite stubborn and sometimes needs a stick of creative dynamite to bust it loose ... and Lord knows that man is a big stick of dynamite. No one that enters his presence, exits the same.

However, every one, even the more reluctant or skeptical at first, admitted down deep that "could be" was their objective.

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'm teaching a photography class in a local art college. It's hugely refreshing. The students are serious art students, the photography is just a side course, once a week for 5 hours. I told them in the first class, the camera is your brush, the light is your paint. They don't know about the techy side, they couldn't care less. A camera to them is an annoying to use tool which they would usually prefer to swap for a pencil so they don't give a bleep about anything other than getting from the picture in their mind to the finished image on paper. Suits me as I've always thought that way. Most have nothing but a p&s, one only has a phone camera. They are still creating some georgous work.

Can I put a point of order in though Marc? Given your gear changing history during the digital revolution which pretty much matches that gear whore to end all gear whores, Guy, should you not be giving yourself a serious spanking after reading your own essay? :ROTFL::ROTFL:

I am rather proud of owning the same two cameras for the past 7 years and they are, to this day, still my workhorses. I've wittled down my lens collection to two primes and a UW zoom oh and a 1960's pentax 50mm. My wedding partner is exactly the same, two primes and a UW zoom. Oh and my photography is IMO better than it has ever been.

That said, until I got the camera which for me would fill my needs, the previous equipment could not have been used to shoot weddings the way I do today, period. I could not shoot the kind of ambient light weddings I am booked for using the minimal of gear I bring to weddings today (two off camera speedlites and that's it) with the 1Ds or 10D I owned before buying those 5D's all those years back. However I've found my tool and even today with the super incredible D800 or super high iso 5DIII, I can't justify the expenditure as a tool as I cannot see that the new cameras features will increase revenue over the next few years to justify the amount of expenditure vs depreciation. Not when I can do it with the gear I already own.



Example image we shot in 'class' to teach the concepts of the use of DOF to tell a story, in this case an image for the schools Passover brochure coveying the idea of coming up to Jerusalem for the festival.
Refreshing student POV indeed Ben ... and while thinking about the blog, you were one of the artists I mused about ... your private work in particular. Don't exactly remember what you used if I ever knew, and actually don't care. Just liked a lot of the work because the use of light and how you applied an artist vision that moved me, made me feel something. I also thought about Jim Collum's work from Get Dpi for similar reasons ... a very personal artistic vision. Discussions with my friend Irakly, and of course his often satyrical thinking weighed in. Plus all the contact with influential photographers over my professional AD career.

I'm not sure how much gear or how little, or how old it may be has any bearing on the subject. IMO, that's a private decision based on what one wishes or needs to accomplish and how refined one's aesthetic sensibilities may be as it applies to accomplishing that vision ...or conversely how little may be needed. I still use the same old Sony's because I finally fit a tool to the purpose and see no need what-so-every at this time to change that (and yes, I've spanked myself for some indulgences because some in past made absolutely no difference).

The subject I'm trying to broach is the emphasis on one over the other. When we were shooting a $2,000,000 elaborate TV commercial, we didn't realize the vision with a hand-cam, it was a ARRI and Zeiss optics that cost more than my house. They are just tools as applied to the need at hand.

-Marc
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Marc, not sure I remember myself what gear for most of the pics! Apart from the stuff with the lensbaby or the Pentax lens wide open but that stuff has a very distinctive signature. I really have to get out shooting again, not shot personal stuff for too long as I've been busy setting up this studio and trying to learn $80,000 worth of gear, make it all work together (it doesn't at the moment) oh and learn the retro business all in one go! :D Of course not an excuse at all. I shot a whole bunch of stuff while recovering from an operation on my foot, it was the drive to go out and shoot nevermind how much agony the walking was causing me. I always find that diversity brings the very best out of me artistically.

After I did the session outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem which the image above was part of, we sat down on the grass in a semi circle and just talked about art in photography for an hour or so till the schools bus came to collect us again. While I talked about the upcoming project three of the students had pulled out notebooks and were sketching. We have had some of the students as guests of ours over the past 6 months, the college is near and we love entertaining, they are constantly doing that. They cannot see a scene without sketching it! It's a wonderful lesson in art and hopefully the correct kick in the rear for me as a photographer to not allow anything to stand in my way of constantly, almost helplessly and uncontrollably expressing myself with art.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Recently, I was asked to write a blog on any subject I wanted.

I chose to deliberately engage in a fairly controversial subject regarding the balance between science and art as it applies to photography.

I'd be interested in your take on it ... as is the way here on Get Dpi, keep it civil please, since I'm sure it'll piss off a few folks :rolleyes:

Greetings, and welcome to my first blog post for The Classic connection, LLC. | Classic Connection LLC

Marc
I've been saying similar things for the past year too. Nicely written.

Similar in intent to the message promoted by CJ Chilvers in his "A Lesser Photographer - A Manifesto"


My own journey towards simplicity and re-focusing on Photography has been interesting as my equipment kit expanded as I worked through to what equipment I was going to use. However, I'm very much settled on what I will use now and find myself becoming increasingly disinterested in discussions of the gear, what's new, etc. What I have is certainly good enough for my photo work.

onwards!
G
 
Top