Whatever happened to Camera-craft?

Pookeyhead said:
It depends what you shoot. IMHO (I'm gonna get bored of doing that... so consider it my default position) Wildlife is more about patience, luck and gear. Some photographers ARE artists. It's nothing to do with vanity at all. They produce art, so they are artists. I just find that some people are bitter, angry and resentful because imagery they see as technically flawed and not as "good" as theirs gets praised, exhibited, published and acclaimed, and shots of birds on twigs, or sentimental lendscapes do not.

I also find it strange that people who know nothing about art are able to make statements regarding what is, or is not art. They'd not pretend they know a great deal about other things they're not involved in, yet because they're photographers they suddenly feel they have a right to comment on what's art and what's not.. usually in a very negative, derisive way towards photographers who are artists.

If you have 10fps, do you NEED a decisive moment any more? Would a photo that captures a decisive moment not still have worth, even if it was captured by firing off 10 frames before, and 10 more after just to make sure you have it in the bag? Or is that kind of photography redundant, old, and pointless now? With billions of images being taken every year, there are millions of great images that capture the decisive moment now - they're usually vernacular or journalistic, and the decisive moment is no longer something that's a pre-requisite for a good photograph if you ask me. It's too easy now. When Bresson was using a Leica, one frame at a time to do it... sure... that was cool... but no biggy any more... any fool can do it now, so those kinds of images were of their time, and that time has passed.. except in the curious time loop of the amateur, where it's still held up as some kind of super-sense that mystically makes an image wonderful. It doesn't.

Photography has changed. It's saturated with decorative, aesthetic imagery to the point where it makes me physically sick to look at it any more. I feel like a foie gras goose being force fed this high calorie diet of hyper-aesthetic, super-sensory overload of post processing, and it makes me want to scream in frustration. The bickering, cynical competitiveness of amateurs has gone into over-drive, all trying to out DO each other, and out KNOW each other... for what? That 10stop waterfall image, or that shot of a famous landscape.. already done... but done BETTER by you? What for? No ****er else is gonna care who's is best... no one will buy it, hang it, exhibit it... Work has to be either innovative, or it has to DO something. That's all that matters now, which is why amateurs are just left bewildered, and blinking like myopic owls in confusion at how "this art farty b******s" sells for so much money. It reminds me of 70s light entertainment has-beens being bitter and angry that they're not relevant any longer, and mourning the loss of the good old days of Tarby, Brucie and Paul Daniels. Tough ****. Move on.

Times change. No one really gives a **** about how "good" you are by obsessing over metrics such as sharpness, composition, exposure... why should we be? Those skills are easy now. Either the camera does it for you, or there's a million you tube videos to get you where you need to be, How can THAT still be a relevant measure of what's good any more? If anyone can do it... it's worthless. I'm not suggesting no one expects those things to be present... of course we do.. even MORE than ever (if it's relevant), but not because they're so important, but because they are so EASY!

Amateur photography has it's head up it's own arse even more firmly than it ever has at any time I can remember, and that's both sad, and ironic when you consider it's easier than ever to access a wide range of lens based art now than it's ever been.

Wagon circling.
Click to expand...

You should put that rant in the new prospectus.
 
I am reminded of the statement the chairman of the ICA, Ivan Mascow made a few years ago talking about contemporary art...

"pretentious, self-indulgent craftless tat that I wouldn't accept even as a gift",


Steve.
 
Steve-T said:
Yes but given 11 fps it must make the artistic vision of a wildlife photographer easier to achieve than 4 fps for example. Some of the best modern day wildlife shots were very difficult given fps and the price of film.
Click to expand...
Sure, but 1000fps won't make the shot 'better' if there's no artistic vision.

Cameras are just tools, they can make our lives easier, but they can't take photographs.
 
Laudrup said:
Q. What's the difference between an artist and a large pizza?



A. A large pizza can feed a family of 4
Click to expand...


I'm sure Andreas Gursky agrees with you.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm sure Andreas Gursky agrees with you.
Click to expand...

Fools and their money are soon parted. If you had taken Rhein II you wouldn't even have got a grand for it. I admire these people for taking the p*** out of art-snobs though.
 
Laudrup said:
Fools and their money are soon parted. If you had taken Rhein II you wouldn't even have got a grand for it. I admire these people for taking the p*** out of art-snobs though.
Click to expand...


Typical response. A mere grand huh? Like that's chump change? When did YOU last sell a print for a grand?

Burtinsky, Soth, Bartos, Dicorsia.... I could list artists all night long who earn more money than you do, without attracting the big bucks that make narrow minded people like you spit their dummy out.. People who DO sell their work for a grand a pop. What's wrong with a grand a pop anyway? More than YOU'LL ever earn NOT as an artist despite how many crap jokes you make about it.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're showing extreme ignorance and prejudice. You spend a fortune of your gear, and you'll never sell a print for a grand. You're quite simply not qualified to comment on something you know nothing about.

All the gear... no idea.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
Higher ISOs with digital, and better image quality at the same ISO. In my case (as I use black and white film in a 5x4 camera) reduced image quality and lower subject brightness range that can be captured with digital.
Click to expand...

Steve Smith said:
If you are getting better resolution and dynamic range with digital then you are doing something wrong with your 5x4 film!!


Steve.
Click to expand...

Very badly expressed in the interest of brevity. Possible even said the exact opposite of what I meant. Spelled out as what I intended to say:

Digital can outperform film with much higher ISOs than film ever reached, and better results than you get with fast film.

Film outperforms digital with resolution, and ability to hold detail over a larger subject brightness range than digital can. N.B. note that my caveat on resolution was because I use 5x4 film.
 
Sorry, I can't resist this one....

Q. What's the difference between a photographer and a painter?


A. Two painters can meet without discussing brushes.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Typical response. A mere grand huh? Like that's chump change? When did YOU last sell a print for a grand?

Burtinsky, Soth, Bartos, Dicorsia.... I could list artists all night long who earn more money than you do, without attracting the big bucks that make narrow minded people like you spit their dummy out.. People who DO sell their work for a grand a pop. What's wrong with a grand a pop anyway? More than YOU'LL ever earn NOT as an artist despite how many crap jokes you make about it.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're showing extreme ignorance and prejudice. You spend a fortune of your gear, and you'll never sell a print for a grand. You're quite simply not qualified to comment on something you know nothing about.

All the gear... no idea.
Click to expand...

You're the Pied f*****g Piper of churning out everything you supposedly hate and you are making a living from it. A bums on seats cash cow your institution are milking and then you are blaming amateurs for the death of photography? I bet they even run photo editing courses for beginners and charge you handsomely for it.

As for artists they are better marketers than they are artists. Put your name to Rhein II and you'd be lucky to give it away because you are a nobody. Put a famous name on it and you can get $4.3 million or '$6.5 million' if you are Lik. Then we could hear why we 'don't get it' or 'aren't qualified' to know why you couldn't give it away and Gursky could sell it for $4.3 million because we haven't got that magical artistic insight of a BA(Hons) in Photography.
 
Going back to the OP , I have IS/VR switched off when shooting action/candid etc as per advice recently given in the Canon Profeesional Newsletter. If your shutter speed is fast enough (and for BIF it will certainly be) to counteract camera shake andl it will do is use up battery power
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
You're the Pied f*****g Piper of churning out everything you supposedly hate and you are making a living from it.
Click to expand...

? I think you'll need to explain that one.

Laudrup said:
A bums on seats cash cow your institution are milking and then you are blaming amateurs for the death of photography? I bet they even run photo editing courses for beginners and charge you handsomely for it.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me if someone's doing that there, but what's that got to do with me? However, have you seen the graduate work we "churn out"? Clearly you haven't.


Laudrup said:
As for artists they are better marketers than they are artists. Put your name to Rhein II and you'd be lucky to give it away because you are a nobody. Put a famous name on it and you can get $4.3 million or '$6.5 million' if you are Lik. Then we could hear why we 'don't get it' or 'aren't qualified' to know why you couldn't give it away and Gursky could sell it for $4.3 million because we haven't got that magical artistic insight of a BA(Hons) in Photography.
Click to expand...

Who cares about Gursky or Lik though.. especially Lik. I'm talking about every other artist out there who earns a living from what they do. Every industry will have it's celebrities who just happen to become a marketable commodity. Would you describe all writers as talentless hacks just because E.L James is so terrible, yet so popular? The fact is, you don't know what you're talking about. You have an opinion. You can't seriously hold Gursky up as representative of a typical artist... not if you want to be taken completely seriously. He's a celebrity. All fields have their celebrity, and it doesn't necessarily follow that they are the best at what they do. Is E.L James a good example of the best writing available at the moment? Is all writing a cynical attempt to make money from celebrity because one of the worst books ever written has made a fortune? Happily... Gursky is at least talented, unlike that idiot who wrote 50 shades... which, if you read it, you'd realise is probably the worst book ever written. I don't hear you accusing the publishing industry of making money out of idiots. Or TV, or the Movie industry... or even non-lens based art... but photography? Sure.... that's just selling crap to idiots. Hmmm... Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Your problem though, is you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

Whether you like it or not.... camera skills are not what makes a great image. Camera skills are quickly becoming redundant. I reckon in 10 years, the only hard skills you'll still need are lighting skills, as that's the only thing impossible to automate.

Anyone who relies on "camera" skills at the moment, will therefore become redundant themselves as more and more of us can achieve the same results without them.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
Put a famous name on it and you can get $4.3 million or '$6.5 million' if you are Lik.
Click to expand...

Pookeyhead said:
Lik though.. especially Lik.
Click to expand...


Lik was recently exposed in the NY times as never having sold a photo for anything approaching the sums he claims to have. The point being he's never sold an image for $100,000 let alone several million
 
Last edited:
Hence "especially Lik".
 
StephenM said:
Sorry, I can't resist this one....

Q. What's the difference between a photographer and a painter?


A. Two painters can meet without discussing brushes.
Click to expand...

I once saw two bricklayers discussing trowels on another (non-bricklaying) forum.:)
 
Ed Sutton said:
I once saw two bricklayers discussing trowels on another (non-bricklaying) forum.:)
Click to expand...

I wonder who would make the best wall... the bricklayer who is obsessed with his tools, the bricklayer who is obsessed by bricks.... or the bricklayer who is obsessed with walls?
 
Pookeyhead said:
I wonder who would make the best wall... the bricklayer who is obsessed with his tools, the bricklayer who is obsessed by bricks.... or the bricklayer who is obsessed with walls?
Click to expand...
I dunno. But the two in question were both in work. So I'm guessing their walls were fit for purpose.

What's more both were getting paid for it without having to build walls for exposure. ;)
 
Ed Sutton said:
I dunno. But the two in question were both in work. So I'm guessing their walls were fit for purpose.

What's more both were getting paid for it without having to build walls for exposure. ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe the wall (the artefact they produce) is not what should be critically analysed any way, but the overall building that wall forms part of - so that would be the architect then. Maybe the bricky isn't that important because essentially, the bricky is just doing what he's trained to do and isn't producing anything worthy of critical analysis: It's just a wall.

[edit] Loads of photographers are in work too. Doesn't mean much. You could just as easily earn money as a photographer without ever taking your camera out of programme mode... which is my point here. Camera skills are not actually as important as many think they are.
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
:LOL: please let's not get into the Equivalent VIII argument chaps ;)
Click to expand...


Then why bring Carl Andre into it? LOL It was YOU who just did that, not me :)

Seriously though... in post-modernity, the skill and craft is just not important. It's about concept.
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
pre-emptive strike ;)
Click to expand...

Or releasing the worms.. depending on how you look at it :)

Just remember people.. it was a moderator/staff that poured the petrol on the embers ;)
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
I am reminded of the statement the chairman of the ICA, Ivan Mascow made a few years ago talking about contemporary art...

"pretentious, self-indulgent craftless tat that I wouldn't accept even as a gift",


Steve.
Click to expand...


You mean the ex-chairman of the ICA? :)

[edit]

As usual, the most outrageously controversial examples of art will be trotted out in this thread, and then held up as exemplar to try and demonstrate how the art world is so ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
You should put that rant in the new prospectus.
Click to expand...


Just saw that...

If I could get away with it, I would do exactly that. It may dissuade the slew of people who want to apply for a degree and only have an interest in shooting weddings. I direct such people to institutions who deliver HNDs instead. They refuse to listen though, and insist they want a degree, the college will over-ride any decisions the team make because they only see pound signs. They often drop out before long (which is of course the team's fault ;)), because the course doesn't deliver what they want (they even complain about how teh course doesn't give them what they want), even though it was made perfectly clear that the course is not what they want or even need. They like the idea of having a degree, but they want it on their terms (which is impossible). It's like buying a mercedez SLK when what you need is a range rover, then complaining about the fact that the SLK isn't doing what you wanted it to do, despite being told in no uncertain terms that it will not do what you want it to do. They needed a range rover, but liked the idea of owning a SLK.

If you'd read anything I've written on this subject, you;d realise I'm just as critical of art education these days as you are. However, the course is run, delivered and designed by us... not the institution. The problem is trying to get the right people on the course.
 
Last edited:
can you really get a degree in photography?

Is that an "art" degree or a "photography" degree

would be great for bankers ... if they went back to film they could show a little more transparency

can you teach camera craft?

artists are born not created ...............shirley ........ b****r, I mean't surely
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
LOL.
Click to expand...

now, you can see why I have problems, (at least one of them), ...... art was my life ....... and then I discovered Accountancy and the answers to my craving were resolved
 
Last edited:
There's such a thing creative accountancy... which I'm sure you are aware of :) Are creative accountants born?
 
BillN_33 said:
am I took old to get one - I have been a member of ICA since 1970 - the year I qualified as a Chartered Account?
Click to expand...

Institute of Contemporary Arts in London.

Incidentally, the first time I went, I couldn't find it although I was sure I was in the right place. I asked a policewomen if she knew where it was and she pointed out that it was right behind me. I was never very good at finding places.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top