Lost Art?

[gturner]

Originally Posted by sabianq

i was talking to a photo historian for the smithsonian institute the other day and she commented on digital photography saying something along the lines of
"in digital photography, nothing really exists until the image gets printed"...\

I agree with her.

At the same time - all the wishes and digital equipment does help if you have a lack of talent.
The eye of photographer is still the important part. That skill has moved from darkroom to PC, but it still sees the same thing

[drr0b]

I think you're missing the craft, not the art. I think developing film is an admirable skill,and I applaud people who can do it, but I don't think that the outcome is necessarily better because extra work went into producing it.

In fact, I think that the fewer obstacles between you and your creativity, the better the artist you will become, because exploring new ideas is less arduous. Digital photography removes a huge barrier, and opens up possibilities to people who would otherwise be too daunted.

I'm a research astronomer, and I've just taken a new job to go hunting for black holes in hundreds of observations of the Andromeda galaxy. The telescope is new to me, so I spent the first few months looking at the observations by hand, taking great care with every measurement, just to make sure that I undertsand every step of the process, and it's all going according to plan. Then, using that knowledge, I wrote a program to do the exact same things automatically, and much much faster. My results obtained painstakingly by hand are no better than the ones done automatically (a good thing too, or I haven't done it properly).

[Littlebarn]

The purpose of photography is to capture an instant of reality. 150 years ago, photographers would coat a plate with light-sensitive emulsion, carefully slide it into a massive 8 x 10 camera, open the lens and wait an estimated number of seconds to capture - something. After messing around with chemicals, focussing an enlarger and printing the image, he would finally see what he hoped to get - or not. Eighty years ago, George Eastman supplied 35 mm roll film to be exposed in a lot less light. This was the chief method of photography until the 1980s, when digital photography became popular. The art/craft changes as the years go by. The aim is the same: to capture an instant of reality. The end justifies the means. I don't care what I have to do to get a representation of the scene I saw, as long as I can get it. To claim that dealing with chemicals and enlargers is a lost art seems to me making a virtue of necessity. Now that the scientific stuff is receding into the background, I can concentrate on recreating reality or extracting beauty from the mundane. Wet plates at first, then 35 film, now memory cards - who knows what the future will bring?

[faeriegodess612]

Originally Posted by sk66

The only negative I see is that for many the "care" has been lost..(or is never learned)

Back in the days of film every decision you made was "permanent" and it cost you money. Shot setup was critical...you had to have an idea of what "changes" to make in order to get the results you wanted prior to pushing the button..Pretty much the same when working in the darkroom...

Now you don't have to have any idea...click-chimp-adjust-click-chimp-adjust-----until you get it close...then dink with it all you want in PS.

There's good and bad to this...

+1......I agree with this totally. Even though I've never had to develop film in a darkroom, so I have no concept of the hassles involved. So many people just point and click, point and click, without giving much thought to what theyre doing. I've even taken a picture, and without even realizing it, its followed the Rule of Thirds. My thing has always been,... get it right in the camera first,... then post processing is just giving it that extra mile. NOT,... oh, I can just fix that in Photoshop later.

[nickbedford]

Originally Posted by faeriegodess612

+1......I agree with this totally. Even though I've never had to develop film in a darkroom, so I have no concept of the hassles involved. So many people just point and click, point and click, without giving much thought to what theyre doing. I've even taken a picture, and without even realizing it, its followed the Rule of Thirds. My thing has always been,... get it right in the camera first,... then post processing is just giving it that extra mile. NOT,... oh, I can just fix that in Photoshop later.

And I totally agree. I think I've done one photo in high school in the darkroom and that was it.

I totally agree that to be a great photographer you still need to be a great photographer, regardless of the medium your results end up on. Whatever happens before the darkroom or lightroom, you still need to be taking the shot properly. It's just a lot easier to guarantee results when you know what is being produced when you hit the shutter.

In fact, maybe digital photography has raised the bar because the barrier to entry is so much lower.

The ability to take some sample shots at the beginning of a shoot to get your settings (I shoot manual all the time) is invaluable. There is no guesswork, especially when working for someone.