Are today's photographers less of a photo craftsman...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dave, Nov 21, 2006.

  1. Dave

    Dave Guest

    Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
    less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
    pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
    just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
    sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
    example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
    at the ready.
    Dave, Nov 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "Dave" <> wrote in message
    news:dIr8h.96$...
    > Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise)
    > are less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in
    > the pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to
    > rescue just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable
    > and/or sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea
    > Lange for example, would have done with their negatives if they had
    > today's software at the ready.
    >


    Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?
    Rudy Benner, Nov 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave

    Annika1980 Guest

    Dave wrote:
    > One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
    > example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
    > at the ready.


    They'd get the same results in 1/100th the amount of time.
    Annika1980, Nov 21, 2006
    #3
  4. "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    > Dave wrote:
    >> One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
    >> example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's
    >> software
    >> at the ready.

    >
    > They'd get the same results in 1/100th the amount of time.


    But think of all the time they saved not responding to internet trolls.

    (Seriously, though, I don't think the number of "keepers" changes much
    between film and digital, at least in the realm of "art" photography.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 21, 2006
    #4
  5. Dave

    Mike Russell Guest

    "Dave" <> wrote in message
    news:dIr8h.96$...
    > Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise)
    > are less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in
    > the pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to
    > rescue just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable
    > and/or sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea
    > Lange for example, would have done with their negatives if they had
    > today's software at the ready.


    It's fun to think about what the great ones would have done with the
    technology.

    I think Adams would have loved all the additional options available with
    something like Photoshop, and he would have printed a larger percentage of
    his negatives. Strand and Stieglitz would also probably have adopted the
    new technology pretty quickly. Steichen would have gone nuts and used
    Photoshop like bromoil on steroids. Read Ctein to get a feel for how a
    painstakingly filmic, articulate, philosopher's soul orients in the new
    digital world.

    Lange, Atget, Abbott, and others were more intent on composition and
    content, and would probably have cared little about the underlying
    technology except as it impacted actual capturing of the image (no film?
    Wheeeeee!!!!).

    Daguerre would have huffed and puffed about the lack of permanence and
    sharpness of anything made since the daguerreotype, but Weston is the one
    who might have been your kindred spirit, were he alive today. Though he
    loathed his time in the darkroom, he would have probably stuck with his view
    camera / contact print workflow, refused to go digital, and griped about
    everyone taking shortcuts.
    --
    Mike Russell
    www.curvemeister.com/forum/
    Mike Russell, Nov 21, 2006
    #5
  6. Dave

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <dIr8h.96$>, Dave
    <> wrote:

    > Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
    > less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
    > pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
    > just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
    > sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
    > example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
    > at the ready.



    Jumped at the chance to use it, very probably.


    Now go back under your bridge, you troll.
    Ken Lucke, Nov 21, 2006
    #6
  7. Dave

    Guest Guest

    On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:23:29 -0500, "Dave" <> wrote:

    >Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
    >less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
    >pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
    >just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
    >sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
    >example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
    >at the ready.
    >

    In my opinion.... YES !

    I took "pictures" with my Minolta SLR.
    I get "snapshots" with my Nikon digicam.

    There was something substantial about
    an SLR and it's many attachments.
    I could envision a picture... then set up and get it !

    I take dozens of shots with my digicam,
    ( it looks like a toy on my tripod )
    do lots of correction "on the computer"
    and I still end up with "snapshots"..

    I guess the best of both worlds would be a
    digital back/digital storage on the classic SLR body.

    <rj>
    Guest, Nov 21, 2006
    #7
  8. Dave

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    <RJ> wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:23:29 -0500, "Dave" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
    >> less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
    >> pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
    >> just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
    >> sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
    >> example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
    >> at the ready.
    >>

    > In my opinion.... YES !
    >
    > I took "pictures" with my Minolta SLR.
    > I get "snapshots" with my Nikon digicam.
    >
    > There was something substantial about
    > an SLR and it's many attachments.
    > I could envision a picture... then set up and get it !
    >
    > I take dozens of shots with my digicam,
    > ( it looks like a toy on my tripod )
    > do lots of correction "on the computer"
    > and I still end up with "snapshots"..
    >
    > I guess the best of both worlds would be a
    > digital back/digital storage on the classic SLR body.
    >


    Not adequately retro. According to one website
    "The Daguerreotype is considered by many to be the
    most beautiful, artistic form of photography ever
    developed." ;-)

    Phil
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 21, 2006
    #8
  9. Phil Wheeler wrote:
    > <RJ> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:23:29 -0500, "Dave" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or
    >>> otherwise) are less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and
    >>> composition than in the pre digital era because the "photoshop"
    >>> safety net is available to rescue just about any image from the scrap
    >>> heap and turn it into a usable and/or sellable product? One has to
    >>> wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for example, would have
    >>> done with their negatives if they had today's software at the ready.

    >> In my opinion.... YES !
    >>

    << Snipped bits out >>
    >>
    >> I guess the best of both worlds would be a
    >> digital back/digital storage on the classic SLR body.
    >>

    > Not adequately retro. According to one website "The Daguerreotype is
    > considered by many to be the most beautiful, artistic form of
    > photography ever developed." ;-)


    Yes, that'd be the one to emulate.

    Ansel Adams actually fortold the digital revolution, but didn't think
    through how to adequately backup his digital negatives.

    --
    john mcwilliams

    Coach: "Are you just ignorant, or merely apathetic?"
    Player: "Coach, I don't know, and I don't care."
    John McWilliams, Nov 21, 2006
    #9
  10. Dave

    Phil Guest

    Dave wrote:
    > Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
    > less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
    > pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
    > just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
    > sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
    > example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
    > at the ready.


    I feel that the genesis and process of one's photographic statement is
    irrelevant. When viewing a spectacular image on a gallery wall; If one
    has to be overly concerned about whether or not it is digital or
    shmigital, then he doesn't really understand the nature of an artistic
    statement.
    Phil, Nov 21, 2006
    #10
  11. Dave

    Colin_D Guest

    Dave wrote:
    > Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
    > less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
    > pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
    > just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
    > sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
    > example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
    > at the ready.
    >
    >

    Another somebody who has no idea of what Photoshop can - and *can't* - do.

    You can pick the trolls who have no idea what they are talking about, no
    prizes for guessing which category the OP is in.

    For his information: Photoshop cannot rescue a badly exposed shot and
    render it anywhere near a well-exposed shot. If the shadows are lost,
    or the highlights blown, *no* software can rescue it. End of story.

    Neither can Photoshop alter lighting, or influence composition, other
    than by cropping - which was also done with film. But, IMO if cropping
    is needed then the shot wasn't properly set up (apart from aspect ratio
    considerations to fit a predefined shape).

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Colin_D, Nov 21, 2006
    #11
  12. Dave wrote:
    > Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
    > less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
    > pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
    > just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
    > sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
    > example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
    > at the ready.


    Presumably you're aware that most B&W photographers (including myself in
    the early 1970s) dodged, burned, and otherwise manipulated their prints
    in the darkroom, aren't you? Except for his contact prints, I'll presume
    that Ansel did the same at the time.

    If he had today's digital cameras available, I'll bet he would use one
    with the largest possible CCD array, to get the finest grain in his
    prints, and perhaps Photoshop them to get the desired effect.

    --
    Pat O'Connell
    [note munged EMail address]
    Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
    Kill nothing but vandals...
    Pat O'Connell, Nov 21, 2006
    #12
  13. Dave

    Pete D Guest

    "Dave" <> wrote in message
    news:dIr8h.96$...
    > Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise)
    > are less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in
    > the pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to
    > rescue just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable
    > and/or sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea
    > Lange for example, would have done with their negatives if they had
    > today's software at the ready.
    >


    Were any of yesterdays "photographers" actually craftsman anyway or do you
    only see the good ones.
    Pete D, Nov 21, 2006
    #13
  14. Dave

    Skip Guest

    I don't know about the pros you know, but the ones I know are just as
    concerned with technique because a proper exposure reduces post production
    time. Yeah, you can bail yourself out, but it's better not to have dug the
    hole in the first place.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
    Skip, Nov 21, 2006
    #14
  15. Dave

    Pete D Guest


    > Neither can Photoshop alter lighting, or influence composition, other than
    > by cropping - which was also done with film. But, IMO if cropping is
    > needed then the shot wasn't properly set up (apart from aspect ratio
    > considerations to fit a predefined shape).


    Oh to be the perfect photographer that can always be in the perfect place
    with the perfect range of equipment for every shot, luckilly for the other
    99.99999% of us there are tools that can assist us to improve the print
    after the original shot was taken, sort of just like the olden days really.
    Pete D, Nov 21, 2006
    #15
  16. Dave

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Dave wrote:
    > Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
    > less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
    > pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
    > just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
    > sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
    > example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
    > at the ready.
    >
    >


    I don't believe they are less concerned, they just benefit by greater
    flexibility in their equipment, and post-processing abilities. Now as
    to the quality of the photographs, as always, this depends on the
    ability of the photographer. Some are artists, like Adams, and some are
    just craftsmen. If the intent is to capture the image, then
    craftsmanship is adequate. To produce art, requires either a very lucky
    craftsman, or an artist.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 21, 2006
    #16
  17. In article <>,
    John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >Ansel Adams actually fortold the digital revolution, but didn't think
    >through how to adequately backup his digital negatives.


    Ansel Adams would probably have written a book where he describes how you
    should store copies of your digital files on all continents, that you
    should should replace them every year, etc. And then there is probably some
    high-end system that he uses himself that also checks the files for
    corruption. :)


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Nov 21, 2006
    #17
  18. In article <456274fb$0$21079$>,
    Colin_D <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
    >But, IMO if cropping
    >is needed then the shot wasn't properly set up (apart from aspect ratio
    >considerations to fit a predefined shape).


    That implies that you can only use zooms. Strange.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Nov 21, 2006
    #18
  19. In article <>,
    Pat O'Connell <> wrote:
    >Except for his contact prints, I'll presume
    >that Ansel did the same at the time.


    Yes, for most of the images in 'The Print', he describes what he had to
    do. Just a straight print was nothing more than a starting point.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Nov 21, 2006
    #19
  20. Dave

    bugbear Guest

    Dave wrote:
    > Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
    > less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
    > pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
    > just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
    > sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
    > example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
    > at the ready.
    >


    We had this discussion already, a fornight ago.

    http://groups.google.com/group/rec....b489a?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#be5bf0602d4b489a

    BugBear
    bugbear, Nov 21, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mark
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    279
    Jem Raid
    Sep 6, 2004
  2. Ryan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    299
  3. Wayne J. Cosshall
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    608
    John Turco
    Aug 18, 2007
  4. Bruce Lewis

    cool photo-sharing feature for casual photographers

    Bruce Lewis, Jan 3, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    298
    Bruce Lewis
    Jan 3, 2008
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    329
    RichA
    Sep 10, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page