Can you claim to be a great photographer when using modern high tech gear ?

It seems to me that the most significant achievement of high - tech gear is that is has allowed people effectively to demonstrate the total lack of originality, and creativity in the typical human being. These shortfalls, to a large extent, used to be masked by technical "know how" and mysterious chemistry but not so much today. Mind you we still try with our pixel obsessions agonising over RAW conversion, and pointless arguments about the merits or otherwise of the new Sony Alpha or whatever wonder- gadget is coming up next.

I also strongly suspect that the gear and the tinkering with it catches a lot more photographers than does the pursuit of excellence.

It's mostly bowllox my friends.
 
Last edited:
I don't normally get involved in these types of debates / discussions, and probably won't again.
Seeing as this thread has devolved into a debate as to what art is, and the assertion of some that education and intelligence qualifies them to decide what is or isn't Art, irritates me somewhat.
Having left school at 16 I can not in any way describe myself as well educated, nor a deep thinker.
I have a very curious mind though, and have always wanted to understand things, as opposed to just knowing things.
So for the most part I suppose I have educated myself. (Not to any great degree / extent)
Art being the subjective beast it is, I know what I like and what I don't, but I don't always understand why, does the fact that I don't always understand why I like or don't like it, mean that it is or isn't Art, or merely that I am ill qualified to comment.

I generally just take snaps, a type of record, of lots of differing subjects, (mostly macro of late).
Sometimes though I get an idea in my head to try and be creative, to try and capture something that can't be seen by the naked eye, that would otherwise remain hidden. With macro it's in the details. I am not suggesting my macro shots are art, just giving some background on where I am coming from, as context and background seem to play a part in determining what is Art, from what I have read in previous posts.

A while ago, I was on a creative bent (for me) and started experimenting with light trails.
I was fascinated, by the concept of being able to make an image, as opposed to capturing a scene.
It existed nowhere other than in my head until the moment I opened and closed the shutter.
The resulting images were, to me, Art.
They don't have any deep meaning to anyone other than me, (and not even that deep to me) it's just that I envisaged, planned and created them.
They bring me something when I see them. Are they Art, they are to me.
Might not be Art to everyone though.
Just a few examples, make what you will of them, but I doubt you'll convince me they're not Art.

IMGP3158ed2sm by dr.shutter, on Flickr


Infinity light trail by dr.shutter, on Flickr

Light Art by dr.shutter, on Flickr

IMGP3124ed1sm by dr.shutter, on Flickr
 
Derek897 said:
I don't normally get involved in these types of debates / discussions, and probably won't again.
Seeing as this thread has devolved into a debate as to what art is, and the assertion of some that education and intelligence qualifies them to decide what is or isn't Art, irritates me somewhat.
Having left school at 16 I can not in any way describe myself as well educated, nor a deep thinker.
I have a very curious mind though, and have always wanted to understand things, as opposed to just knowing things.
So for the most part I suppose I have educated myself. (Not to any great degree / extent)
Art being the subjective beast it is, I know what I like and what I don't, but I don't always understand why, does the fact that I don't always understand why I like or don't like it, mean that it is or isn't Art, or merely that I am ill qualified to comment.

I generally just take snaps, a type of record, of lots of differing subjects, (mostly macro of late).
Sometimes though I get an idea in my head to try and be creative, to try and capture something that can't be seen by the naked eye, that would otherwise remain hidden. With macro it's in the details. I am not suggesting my macro shots are art, just giving some background on where I am coming from, as context and background seem to play a part in determining what is Art, from what I have read in previous posts.

A while ago, I was on a creative bent (for me) and started experimenting with light trails.
I was fascinated, by the concept of being able to make an image, as opposed to capturing a scene.
It existed nowhere other than in my head until the moment I opened and closed the shutter.
The resulting images were, to me, Art.
They don't have any deep meaning to anyone other than me, (and not even that deep to me) it's just that I envisaged, planned and created them.
They bring me something when I see them. Are they Art, they are to me.
Might not be Art to everyone though.
Just a few examples, make what you will of them, but I doubt you'll convince me they're not Art.

IMGP3158ed2sm by dr.shutter, on Flickr


Infinity light trail by dr.shutter, on Flickr

Light Art by dr.shutter, on Flickr

IMGP3124ed1sm by dr.shutter, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I love them personally and far more pleasing to me than the 'Two Blue Buckets' I am not educated in art so don't know if my compliment will be of any use though!
 
Fraser Euan White said:
I love them personally and far more pleasing to me than the 'Two Blue Buckets' I am not educated in art so don't know if my compliment will be of any use though!
Click to expand...

I'm not educated in art either, so I don't know if I'm qualified to know if your compliment is of any use either :angelic::angelic::angelic:

So I will take it as I see it and thank you for what it is, a compliment

Thank you (y)(y)(y)
 
Back to the original post (this saves you going back to the start)

BADGER.BRAD said:
A random question really but if using the modern high tech camera with all it auto functions do you feel you can claim to have taken a great photo when the camera has done some of the work for you ? Is photography now just down to composition ? Would you say a photographer achieving a great result using a vintage film or glass plate camera is a better photographer as he has to judge light thus shutter speed aperture and focus ?

No shouting please
Click to expand...

Here is the context of my original post

I was sat at work having my dinner when someone asked me this question, What is the best camera for me to get for my daughter as she is taking photography at school ? I will not bore you with my answer. The conversation went on for one of the people to ask why I would want to take photos with such old tech then the following comments were made by a different people.
One person said that modern digital photos don't look real as they look too real ! ( I sort of understand what he meant !) Unlike how the human eye sees things and went on to say that high def TV also looks unreal, another made the comment that anyone can take great photos with the modern gear as it's so good and then another comment was that like most things making great photos depends on how much money you have ! This comment was made by a guy who had in his own words played with cameras a little some time ago. I can see the point about having plenty money as I could never afford to travel the world with the sole intention of getting to great photographic locations and like most things in life having plenty money makes things much easier, I can also to some point understand the point about high def images looking a little unreal. The original comment is a little different for me and not quite so black and white. For me using my modern digital (High tech gear !) doen't have the same enjoyment of using my old low tech gear, the images created seem a little more throw away and I miss having to focus and think about how to set exposure, I enjoy the mechanical nature of this rather than menus in the modern stuff when set to manual. I'm not saying I never use digital gear or do not enjoy it but it's not quite so enjoyable. That said I like old things in general , I cannot understand technology for technologies sake an example here is. I had to replace my windscreen in my car recently the guy brought the wrong one and said mine has the auto windscreen wipers and rear view mirror ! In my view I can see when it's raining or when I'm being blinded in the rear view mirror so why would I wish to lace very expensive electronics into my windscreen costing me a fortune. (I suspect most of this is just so they can make more from you !) I like things that do exactly what I want/need them to do, thats just me. As to which.I would agree that a good photo is a good photo irregardless of how it was produced and whether the photo is any good will be judged by who is looking at it !
 
Is it the wait,
for a roll to finish, to drop it off for developing, returning to collect and then getting to look at the photos, that because of the delay, the actual taking of the shot is a memory, and the photo brings you back to it.
Where as with digital, it's instant review, and has lost some of the mystique.

I mix old and new, my bellows is older than I am. And I'm nearly 50. I use the aperture ring on the lens, as no info is passed through the bellows . I thoroughly enjoy the process of shooting, and being out shooting, nearly as much as the shot itself .
I never really shot much film, other than the old auto cameras, so I can't claim to miss it.
 
Thats me exactly Derek ! As I have quite a few cameras (Mainly 35mm) Sometimes I have almost forgot what was on the film and it brings back all the memories connected with the shot. There is also mystique as you say to whether you got it right and this is unknown until you develop it. I am also 50 in a few days but remember my dad playing with his cameras ( most of which I still have and use) and as he wanted us to take it up so we had some basic russian cameras so did get to play film in it's hay day although I have to admit sometimes it was against my will !
 
I imagine it would feel nice, to be able to recapture that sense, nostalgia, memories of youthful shooting, even if it wasn't always fun.
But for anyone who does have that history with film, then I think having a film slr and some lenses as being a great thing, but it doesn't need to be one or the other.
They both have their own merits and flaws and are capable of coexisting.

It's good to get to the meat of your original post (y)(y)(y)
Derek
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Here is the context of my original post
Click to expand...

Some people who know nothing at all about photography we’re talking [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].

Simple answer, don’t fall for the modern idea that just because everyone’s allowed an opinion all opinions are valid.

Go back and ask the guy who’s dabbled a bit and reckons anyone can take great pictures with modern gear to show you his great pictures. When he starts to blubber excuses, tell him he’s a knob and get on with enjoying your hobby.
 
Derek897 said:
I imagine it would feel nice, to be able to recapture that sense, nostalgia, memories of youthful shooting, even if it wasn't always fun.
But for anyone who does have that history with film, then I think having a film slr and some lenses as being a great thing, but it doesn't need to be one or the other.
They both have their own merits and flaws and are capable of coexisting.
Click to expand...
You can recreate the 'sense, nostalgia and memories of youthful shooting' with a modern DLSR quite easily. Meter selectively. Take time to compose your shot. Take fewer photos of each composition. Don't chimp. Wait a while before you view/curate/edit them in Lightroom.

But, for me at least, that completely misses the point. If you want to 'recapture' the 'nostalgia' of 35mm film, buy a 35mm SLR. Don't use modern technology to try to mimic something when the original equipment is so readily available. And while you're at it, buy a pinhole camera, an instant film camera and a plastic lens camera. Presets are a simulation. Nothing more. Life needs to be lived and the light is there to be captured. Even if it's on out-of-date film.

The engineer in me believes that you need the right tools to do the right job. Your toolbox contains all you need to get the job done. If the precise tool isn't there, then cobble something together. Photography isn't a black art. But the artistry that makes a great picture is something I personally find worth striving to attain.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Steve; can I ask why the photo confirms I like the technology of Photography but have little interest in the Art?

I entitled the the Photo 'A refreshing tipple' as i was hoping to convey the fact that I find JD a refreshing drink and the 'shower of water' was hopefully to give the impression of refreshment. I have obviously 'missed this' completely?

Thanks

(Apologies - I realise this is not a critique area but it may help me understand where I am going wrong.)

Anybody; please feel free to comment.
Click to expand...
Were you actually interested in what my answer might be? It seems not, which leads me to the conclusion that these forums are, for you and perhaps many others, just a way of having a social chat. We humans need that, but we usually muddy the ideal by pretending to have another reason for the interaction. Not for you. You admit to having little interests in the results of your photography, with your primary or only focus being on the process. You almost strayed from the ideal by asking a question about your photography, but fortunately corrected yourself by ignoring the answer. :naughty::help::runaway:
 
Bollygum said:
Were you actually interested in what my answer might be? It seems not, which leads me to the conclusion that these forums are, for you and perhaps many others, just a way of having a social chat. We humans need that, but we usually muddy the ideal by pretending to have another reason for the interaction. Not for you. You admit to having little interests in the results of your photography, with your primary or only focus being on the process. You almost strayed from the ideal by asking a question about your photography, but fortunately corrected yourself by ignoring the answer. :naughty::help::runaway:
Click to expand...

Sorry Steve,

no, your answer wasn't ignored; hence the 'like' I put on it very shortly after you posted it. ( I wrongly assumed that would show you I had read it and confirmed i found it useful). I thank you for your response. (Not quite sure what else you wanted me to do?)
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
Sorry Steve,

no, your answer wasn't ignored; hence the 'like' I put on it very shortly after you posted it. ( I wrongly assumed that would show you I had read it and confirmed i found it useful). I thank you for your response. (Not quite sure what else you wanted me to do?)

However, I am still at this stage:
Click to expand...

Is you avatar photo meant to convey something about you?
 
My avatar was a cat peeping over the side of of a garage roof for months, I'm not sure what that said about me :thinking::LOL:
 
Wayne Els said:
A Freudian voyeuristic protagonist of high art. But only if it was done with an old camera. :pompous:
Click to expand...

It may well have represented my super ego, looking down on all the peasants, and they're all naked obviously. The gear, of course, doesn't matter, because I'm the cat
 
(n)(y) With all this fancy software, spellcheckers and what else it must be really easy to write a book. Maybe I should become a writer

soeren said:
I can honestly sat im a lousy Photoshop.
Click to expand...

Phil V said:
I can confirm you’re a lousy typist :LOL:
Click to expand...

or maybe not :LOL:

I feel that sometimes this new technology gets in the way more than helping out.
We have to manage af points and mode metering pattern and exposure mode filmemulations and RAW files etc instead of just keeping our minds on the actual picture taking step. years ago people coplained it was to dificult to make sharp focussed pictures because camera was manual focus. now people complain about the autofocus not working as expected resulting in out of focus subjects. before we would sometimes fail to get the correct exposure now we have TTL auto to f... that up for us. we had blurry pictures because of camera shake now its only the subject thats blurry because IS didnt take into account that was moving too (n)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fraser Euan White said:
Hi Steve,

it is the only picture I've got, was taken whilst messing around with studio strobes I bought.
Click to expand...
Really, the only photo you have of yourself? Well, let's look at that. Why did you assume that pose for the only photo of you? If you should go missing tomorrow, then this will be the photo that is used to recognise you. To some degree, this will be you.
Perhaps you should take some more, so as to show you have other sides to your personality.
 
Oh great, now we are into amateur coffee book table psychoanalysts, this thread just keeps on giving!;)
 
Bollygum said:
Really, the only photo you have of yourself? Well, let's look at that. Why did you assume that pose for the only photo of you? If you should go missing tomorrow, then this will be the photo that is used to recognise you. To some degree, this will be you.
Perhaps you should take some more, so as to show you have other sides to your personality.
Click to expand...
You mean he should have one of his right side? ;)
 
The most interesting thing arising from this discussion is that the swear filter prohibits the word " [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]" but does allow "knob". Fascinating.
 
Bollygum said:
Really, the only photo you have of yourself? Well, let's look at that. Why did you assume that pose for the only photo of you? If you should go missing tomorrow, then this will be the photo that is used to recognise you. To some degree, this will be you.
Perhaps you should take some more, so as to show you have other sides to your personality.
Click to expand...

Struggling to answer TBH Steve, didn't consider pose or how the picture would even convey a personality as it was - to me it was just a picture and the only one I've got really.
 
RichardC27 said:
I don't know what qualifies as art or not, but I do know I would be happy to hang any of these images on my wall. There is real planning and creativity in these, and the third one in particular really grabs me for some reason.
Click to expand...

Yes, No.3 is spectacular IMO.
 
Bollygum said:
Really, the only photo you have of yourself? Well, let's look at that. Why did you assume that pose for the only photo of you? If you should go missing tomorrow, then this will be the photo that is used to recognise you. To some degree, this will be you.
Perhaps you should take some more, so as to show you have other sides to your personality.
Click to expand...

And why not? I do not have any photos of me - I am always on the other side of the camera. The one picture I do use of myself was taken by myself in 1972 when trying out the Sabatier effect on faces (it improves mine).
 
RichardC27 said:
I don't know what qualifies as art or not, but I do know I would be happy to hang any of these images on my wall. There is real planning and creativity in these, and the third one in particular really grabs me for some reason.
Click to expand...
Fraser Euan White said:
Yes, No.3 is spectacular IMO.
Click to expand...


Cheers guys, Much appreciated.
No 3 is my favorite one of of all of the light trail shots I took during that time, and I'm not sure why either :D:D:D
 
Modern cameras don't make it easier to capture a great photograph. But modern post-production software makes it much easier to create one.
 
All righty. I would argue that Derek's pictures - which I enjoy and admire - are examples of craft not art. Art to me expresses something other than being nice/interesting to look at. I'm not going to argue about whether one discipline is better than the other but they are different. Most ( but not all, by any means ) photographs are craft. Rothko on the other hand .....
 
Last edited:
wooster said:
All righty. I would argue that Derek's pictures - which I enjoy and admire - are examples of craft not art. Art to me expresses something other than being nice/interesting to look at. I'm not going to argue about whether one discipline is better than the other but they are different. Most ( but not all, by any means ) photographs are craft. Rothko on the other hand .....
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no problem with that.
The whole concept of art is subjective, and open to interpretation.
I wouldn't dream of trying to force my opinion of what is art and what isn't on anyone else, but neither should anyone else,
( not referring to you Wooster :) )

I am wondering what you are calling craft, technical ability ?
Being able to envision an image or shot ?
Just not sure about the term craft and what it encompasses (y)
 
FujiLove said:
Modern cameras don't make it easier to capture a great photograph. But modern post-production software makes it much easier to create one.
Click to expand...

Next question then if you have to use post production software to make a photo good/great then was it really any good in the first place ? Wouldn't a good/great photographer have got it right first time ? Is it really a photo anymore if a computer was used to mess with it ? Could you create a great photo using software without ever having taken a photo ? I bet the last is possible !
I'm not knocking post production here just asking the question ? I personally only lighten or darken my images or do a contrast stretch on Black and white stuff to make up for the fact my Digi cameras in particular are are old and were basic in the first place, this is mainly as I don't really enjoy sitting in front of a PC and in no way am I making out my photos are so great they don't need it or couldn't be improved !

ps there seems to be two discussions in one on this thread how did this happen and lastly all art is naff (joke)
 
Last edited:
BADGER.BRAD said:
Next question then if you have to use post production software to make a photo good/great then was it really any good in the first place ? Wouldn't a good/great photographer have got it right first time ? Is it really a photo anymore if a computer was used to mess with it ? Could you create a great photo using software without ever having taken a photo ? I bet the last is possible !
I'm not knocking post production here just asking the question ? I personally only lighten or darken my images or do a contrast stretch on Black and white stuff to make up for the fact my Digi cameras in particular are are old and were basic in the first place, this is mainly as I don't really enjoy sitting in front of a PC and in no way am I making out my photos are so great they don't need it or couldn't be improved !

ps there seems to be two discussions in one on this thread how did this happen and lastly all art is naff (joke)
Click to expand...

Lightroom...Darkroom.

If you can’t edit then you can’t develop and print.
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Next question then if you have to use post production software to make a photo good/great then was it really any good in the first place ? Wouldn't a good/great photographer have got it right first time ? Is it really a photo anymore if a computer was used to mess with it ? (joke)
Click to expand...

For me the processing of an image, whether its digital or analog, is an unavoidable and essential part of making a photograph that is indivisible from the actual taking of the photograph. I struggle with this idea of what is meant by "getting it right first time". The "first time" an image is an image is only after its been processed, whether its digital or analog.

If you look at the prints by people like Ansel Adams, there is often a tremendous amount of "messing about" with both the film processing and the print production in pursuit of a print that matched the image the photographer had in his or her head at the time of clicking the shutter.

So its only after the processing that you can judge whether the photograph was any good. I used to work with someone who was a far better printer than I was, but I would argue I was a better photographer and used to put more effort than he did at the taking stage. In terms of the final product, the client would be just as happy with the results from either of us. BUT, if I ever had to print his negatives, I really struggled to get good prints from them, and they were never as good as his prints.

Personally, I don't think its any less a photograph because the messing about that I used to do in the darkroom is now done in photoshop.

To the extent, that in over 50 years of making prints, I have never produced a print that didn't involve some messing about, then I would run with the idea that "every" photograph needs work at the processing stage to make it a good photograph. Even when I had to use transparency film for publication work, those images would still be manipulated by the printers, to get them to look as good as possible in the magazine, brochure, book etc.
 
myotis said:
For me the processing of an image, whether its digital or analog, is an unavoidable and essential part of making a photograph that is indivisible from the actual taking of the photograph. I struggle with this idea of what is meant by "getting it right first time". The "first time" an image is an image is only after its been processed, whether its digital or analog.

If you look at the prints by people like Ansel Adams, there is often a tremendous amount of "messing about" with both the film processing and the print production in pursuit of a print that matched the image the photographer had in his or her head at the time of clicking the shutter.

So its only after the processing that you can judge whether the photograph was any good. I used to work with someone who was a far better printer than I was, but I would argue I was a better photographer and used to put more effort than he did at the taking stage. In terms of the final product, the client would be just as happy with the results from either of us. BUT, if I ever had to print his negatives, I really struggled to get good prints from them, and they were never as good as his prints.

Personally, I don't think its any less a photograph because the messing about that I used to do in the darkroom is now done in photoshop.

To the extent, that in over 50 years of making prints, I have never produced a print that didn't involve some messing about, then I would run with the idea that "every" photograph needs work at the processing stage to make it a good photograph. Even when I had to use transparency film for publication work, those images would still be manipulated by the printers, to get them to look as good as possible in the magazine, brochure, book etc.
Click to expand...

:agree::agree::agree::agree::agree:
All of the above
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top