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!

Photography Is Dead! ... Long Live Photography!

Shashin

Well-known member
The virtues of the past will become the vices of the future. The vices of past will become the necessities of today--Joseph Campbell (at least how I remember it)

The world has always been messed up. There was no time in history that was ideal. It might have been ideal for a small group, but it was alway bad for someone--it is a tough time for slave owners in the US, for example. Every opportunity has a down side. Every hurdle has an opportunity. See proceeding sentence.

I really maintain the question. As a photographer, what can you do now? Nothing else really matters. You can only change the realities of your situation. Abstract conditions, whether historical or ideal, just don't exist.

And you have seen this--if only I had that other camera, I had the wrong lens, I was not tall enough, my timing was off, people hate me because I am beautiful. But none of that is really an excuse for inaction. Mostly that points to the condition where you had the "wrong" answer to the situation. Instead of dwelling on what you cannot affect, you really should be worrying about what you can.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
BTW, I think we need a new rule that if you change your avatar, you need to give the community a heads up as it can be disorientating.
 

jonoslack

Active member
BTW, I think we need a new rule that if you change your avatar, you need to give the community a heads up as it can be disorientating.
You speak of me? Sorry . . . . you might be interested to know, that I've changed mine from a picture of me at 18 . . . . to a picture of me at 61, I felt the need to catch up with myself :)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Jono, I just got so used to you as 18. I was just scrolling down the thread and I see someone "new" posting and start reading and it seems familiar...

I had this problem when Guy and Jack updated their avatar. I am just going to have to keep my dog (that is not actually me).
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, I just got so used to you as 18. I was just scrolling down the thread and I see someone "new" posting and start reading and it seems familiar...

I had this problem when Guy and Jack updated their avatar. I am just going to have to keep my dog (that is not actually me).
Hi Will
Well . . . it's taken . . erm. . . . 43 years, before someone else took a snap of me I liked, I guess it would be more poetic if I had been 16 for the other shot. (61/16) but hey. I don't do it very often, and I promise this one will stay.

You should keep the lovely dog though!

all the best
 

Mike M

New member
I am just going to have to keep my dog (that is not actually me).
The dog avatar is perfect. Diogenes is often represented by a dog and our experience together at Get DPI has convinced me that you're a Cynic in the grand tradition.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Right, so nothing has really changed. There is still gold being made today. but the cream will not always rise to the top. If it was not for a few individuals, we would not have the work of Atget, Disfarmer, or Maier. We have no idea how many great photographers and work have been lost to time.

Certainly the ease of taking photographs has added to volume. I don't see more photographs and more people using photography is a bad thing. To say the opposite would be hard to support. Are you going to argue that more literacy and better word processors have been bad for literature?

But that has always been true. Photos get put in boxes and then thrown away or they go moldy. Photographs are not less impermanent today. In fact, you could say the opposite. Load it up on the internet and you photograph could be duplicated and share an unlimited number of times. And as always, photographs will survive if they are valuable to someone. The media does not change that.

What you are saying is the old business model is not viable. Are you going to suggest keeping a business model that no longer works? Photographers, just like everyone else in the world, will need to learn to deal with change. They will have to develop new models and learn new skills.

I think you are forgetting Polaroid.

But my point is convenience and ease of use has always been around. The difference today is simply a matter of degree, not a radical shift.

Actually, the public taste does influence things like commercial photography including wedding photography. They also influence "art" photography--look at all the photographic galleries around the country that sell landscapes. If you are going to separate "real art" from commercial photography, I am going to have a hard time with that as I think you cannot ignore Avadon, Margaret Bourke-White, Gordon Parks, Iving Penn, Horst and a whole host of photographers.

Any creative profession is hard. It is only "easy" if you are independently wealthy. But there is not golden age where it was easier for artists. You are just going to have to figure it out.

But you are also picking and choosing your your data. If you going to say technology is a bad thing, and only bad, you are missing opportunities. Because today, you have the technology and distribution methods to publish your own work--those photo books you talked about. (BTW, don't use Blurb or LuLu, get a real printer.) Self publishing is seeing a huge growth and a very legitimate growth. Photograph is still hard--it was always a difficult part of the book market--but you have the technology in which you can make it work.
I agree to disagree.

More importantly, it'd be interesting to know what printers can make good photographic monographs?

Once one goes through all the agony of editing and compiling a set of images and designing a book, it'd be nice to have them reproduced well. Something with a lower production of 10 or 15 books to share with those in your life who would appreciate it. A more "private" edition so to speak.

BTW, this reproduction subject was part of the original discussion I alluded to in post #1 of this thread.

- Marc
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Marc, if it is run a small run for family and friends, then Blurb and Lulu is fine. I was thinking you were going to release this onto the world. If you enjoy bookbinding and making handmade books, and at 10-15 copies that would be very possible, you could print this yourself with a good inkjet and some really nice paper. You could even use some more exotic bindings like some Japanese varieties.
 

drofnad

Member
I'd wager that the person who takes 100 photos a week, but throws away 99 of them will do a great deal better than the person who only takes one.
Maybe it's the "same" person,
distinguished by time --younger & trying/learning/keen,
then older/wiser/less-keen!?

-d.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I doubt age is a factor. Regardless of age, I shoot more and experiment more than a beginner or a student. And I am with Jono, I would never take just one image if I can help it. Although, I have certainly made that single magical frame, but I would no rely on that approach.

Keenness? I am not sure. I would not describe myself as keen when I work. I just understand it is work and I need to work at it. One reason I can shoot fluidly is I am simply more efficient and I see more compared to someone with little experience--I work with college students and I do see how they work.

The idea that volume of work is somehow a bad thing is just fuzzy logic. Now, if you are running a studio or business, there are economic reasons to limit the number of shots. If you are just going to have someone stand in front of you with the same pose and then take a hundred pictures, then you are crazy and think if you keep doing the same thing it will lead to different results. The number of images is usually a technical constraint. You are simply not going to go out and shot the same number of images with an 8x10 view camera as you are a 35mm--whether film or digital. As you change format and camera, the number of images you shoot changes accordingly. It is not a mark of skill, but a constraint of the equipment and process. I have more of a documentary background and I am not doing myself any favors by shooting less and it has nothing to do with skill. However, when I am in the studio, the number of shots changes accordingly--I don't need hundreds for a simple portrait.

I also find the contemplation argument weak, which is usually brought in (better photography come from contemplation). How long does it take you to contemplate something? An hour? A minute? A second? View cameras slow you down because you are setting up the equipment. You are not contemplating while you are doing that. Most people that goes to large format sees a huge jump in technical qualities, but also have a great loss in experimentation. The contemplation time, that time you are looking at the image in the viewfinder/ground glass does not really change with the camera.
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
Maybe it's the "same" person,
distinguished by time --younger & trying/learning/keen,
then older/wiser/less-keen!?

-d.
Hi There - you must be young if you think people get less keen as they get older!

I'm with Will - I need to keep shooting to get 'in the zone', a single shot doesn't cut it.
 
Top