Overcoming Public Perception In The Digital Photography Age
Discussion
26 replies
Posted by Sean Bagshaw on October 24, 2007 at 4:40 PM
This post is exerpted from the full text which can be accessed HERE
In a recent discussion with a friend of mine who owns an art gallery, and is herself a photographer, she confided that she finds it much more difficult to sell photography to collectors than other types of art. I attribute this phenomenon, in part, to photography's history as a documentary tool and, in part, to the public perception that it is a product of technology, not a skill of the body and mind. Now that cameras are ubiquitous, there may also be the impression that, while not everyone can paint or sculpt, anyone can take a photograph.
Computer technology certainly has enhanced the ability to do all sorts of interesting things, combining components of various images, adding textures, modifying colors and even entirely and virtually generating an image. However, even though I greatly admire and appreciate this as a completely valid art form, I'm inclined to call this type of art photo illustration or digital illustration, not pure photography. The knowledge that such manipulations are possible may partly be to blame for the public's paranoia that any visually captivating digital image must have been created in this way. However, I strongly believe that digital photography that doesn't require these techniques is equal to traditional photography.
I would like to think that with some education, the art viewing public can learn to have a much greater appreciation for the techniques, skill, craft, creativity and mastery required to produce fine photography, whether it is film or digital.
The public does appear to accept the darkroom processing of black and white film, even though the skill isn't necessarily understood or properly appreciated. I have yet to hear someone ask, "how has this been altered", or "is that what the scene really looked like" in regard to a black and white darkroom print, but these are the most common questions asked of digital photos. However, a great black and white photo wouldn't be nearly as great without superb darkroom skills and creative techniques. I once attended a show of Anel Adams' work that exhibited some of his original prints side by side with ones he remastered 30 years later. There was no doubt in my mind that the latter photos were better and I didn't hear anyone complaining that the remastered images were products of increased technology, not a sign of his matured mastery.
I would like to see digital processing achieve the same level of acceptance and respect as darkroom processing and for fine digital photography to rise above its "anyone with a camera could do that" reputation. I spend a lot of time carefully composing what I hope are visually captivating images, searching out exquisite light and using my knowledge of the physics of photography to get as much quality and detail from my equipment as possible. However, similar to a great black and white film print, the job is not done when I press the button. A digital sensor does not see in the way a human does, with mental filters of emotion, perception, context and experience. A raw digital image can be very flat and lifeless. Not unlike the traditional photographer, nearly every image I take requires some degree of processing using software, such as Photoshop, in my computer or "digital darkroom".
Unless I'm intentionally trying to create a photo illustration or composite, I do not alter or significantly manipulate the content of a photo. I do, however, regularly use technique and craft to adjust the contrast, correct the color, enhance or tone down saturation and vary luminosity in my images. These are very painstaking steps.
It may just be a matter of time, but my hope is that one day digital photography will be respected for the skill, craft and mastery required to do it well in the same way that fine art film photography and other forms of art are. I look forward to a time when a digitial photo is appreciated for its content and the skill involved in creating it instead of questioned suspiciously, as if the photographer had somehow faked his ability to create something pleasing, engaging, controverial or interesting to look at and enjoy.
Should I win a lottery I'm buying a good sailboat and a whack of B&W film! Perhaps it is because it is what I was raised on, my introduction to photography, I'll take the darkroom over the monitor anytime. Photoshop just doesn't have the magic of making a print as far as I'm concerned.
You may recall the debate a few years ago, as digital technology gained ground, in such publications a Scientific American as to whether photographic evidence could now be accepted as photographic evidence in the courts. The debate on the aesthetics of digital is similarly being examined.
One of the most difficult things for me with digital photography was making the transition from the stricter technical requirements of colour film to the range digital post processing allowed. The history of photography, particular colour dictated accuracy not only technically, but in the rendition of a subject.
While there were such controls as camera filtration and expensive post processing techniques, what digital post processing has done is put a greater range of tools and techniques in the hands of the photographer without the expense, time and technical training required for film post processing.
What I perceive is that the thinking behind a technically 'correct' photograph has disappeared for photographers. How many of us have run of several different variations of a digital print and found them all to be acceptable where the technology and expense of doing this in film would have been either impossible or prohibitive.
Your question skirts a bit on the 'has digital improved photography' thread. What I found particularly interesting in the article is that the public seems to find digital photography to be less skilled. In fact digital post processing has placed more control in the hands of a photographer.
My reading of the article leads me to believe the public doesn't yet appreciate that photographers now have greater tools to work with. Rather than regarding a print for its own value, it is being judged on the merits of the limitations of film photography.
I've encountered this in "nature" prints, especially landscapes, but I'm not particularly discouraged by it. There's no doubt photography is in an ongoing technical transition, but I'm encouraged that trends in favor of digital images are emerging among our long term clients. Though not "fine art" photography, I expect the same to start happening in that venue as well. Here's our experience:
When digital capture became comparatively cheap and accessible, lots of people bought their own gear in the belief that they too could be great photographers because they could "fix" anything on their computer. We got lots of reshoots from folks that bought into the digital hype and tried to do their own ad and event photography (such as weddings), as well as scientific and industrial. We're getting lots of repeat business too from folks who say in effect of digital: "It's just too complicated to get good pictures." And meanwhile we're experiencing more sales because digital products are so much more useful than plain old film in meeting the emerging needs of business, industry, scientific, and advertizing clients.
On another front, our long term and very high dollar portrait clients vastly prefer results with digital over film. Photographers whine and argue about the "digital look" and the superiority of images showing real film grain, but our clients don't- especially when it comes to rendering flesh and faces in portraits. We have an open offer to reshoot on film any digital portrait clients aren't happy with. No takers in five years now, and to the contrary, lots of comments about how much better the digital products look than the older film portraits already on their walls. This is especially important to us when we are asking clients to shell out over $1,000 for large canvases.
My wife just finished an extensive portrait project with a client who had lost a lot of weight and wanted diverse portrait products to help celebrate the "new me." My wife proposed using film because the project included BW 1950's style "glamour" shots as well as color. The client really put her foot down: "No way! Film makes me look really OLD!"
Between BW cheesecake calendars and wall portraits, color "modern glamour" calendars and large canvases, soft books (i.e., "magazines") and a large assortment of conventional prints smaller than 16x20, we're talking more than 30 distinct poses in the final package. And if you're approximating the math in your head, the client dumped a little over $7,000 on the project. But wait! There's more! She's so thrilled with the reactions of friends and loved ones, she's asked for an appointment to order more for Christmas.
In those venues at least, I'm really happy with the emerging trend in public perception about digital. I think there's a hidden benefit of all the digital hype and the tidal wave of people buying their own gear. They're tuning into photography and becoming more sophisticated about what is and is not good work. I've had sales of nature prints to frustrated converts to digital photography. They haven't managed to come close to my results, whlie at the same time they appreciate mine even more. I don't think I'm looking at this through rose colored glasses by any means. We simply have to remember that photographers talking to photographers say different things than clients looking at our pictures. And I think a new crop of clients will emerge.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on October 24, 2007 at 9:57 PM
I've done a fair number of art festivals in the last two years and one thing which I have noticed is that a fair percentage of vistors assume that everything I am presenting was shot digitally and excessively digitally manipulated.
Surely, the sunset wasn't that color. Well, no, it wasn't. Film can't record the colors and intensity I saw.
I spend a lot of time explaining things about the natural world that people have never observed, simply because they haven't taken the time to observe. Whether I actually convince someone, I'm not sure.
A large part of the problem is the perception that digital, especially with Photoshop, makes up for a lack of basic photographic skills. I've heard, on more than one occasion, "I could have taken that shot." As Hank points out, there is a lot more that goes into the making of a good photo that just isn't understood by the general public. Thus, we can make money, or even make it our livelihoods.
How we overcome this perception, I don't know.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 24, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Well Hank certainly provided a great view from an established pro. I'd like to add some thoughts from a relative newbie. (And I know this has probably been hashed here before, but I've been thinking - dangerous, I know .)
First some background - I've only owned a camera for about a year and a half. I bought one because I was taking a dream trip to South Africa for safari, and was hoping to get some pictures worth blowing up to 8x10 or so. After some long looking (I'm a computer engineer by trade, so I like gadget hunting), I wound up with a Canon S2 IS. Luckily, I also stumbled upon NPN; And I joined NPN a couple months later, shortly after returning from my trip. A few friend were with me on the trip, but none of them caught the photography bug, and I remain the only one of my close friends who is "into" photography.
Because of this, I've run into quite a few of the questions that you might expect to get from paying customers : Why are you always on the computer? Aren't you making your pictures fake? And just yesterday my roommate said I should "stop photoshopping my pictures". (This was because she'd gotten a few printed from SnapFish - which of course did it's own tone curving and color correction on top of mine, and totally made the images look "fake".)
So what do I say when I face these questions? Well, I never say that I've made something more faithful, or deny if I've altered something beyond what's normal. But I find the most misunderstood thing that I explain is that when you get photos developed (printed for digital), the developer does all (or a lot) of the same things, because your camera probably doesn't record things like your eye sees them. I find that most people think that the photos they get back from Wal-Mart, or online services, are completely and totally faithful to what the camera captured. In other words, they think if I'm doing anything other than letting some print service make prints, I must be making "fake" photos.
Well, if I show them the results of getting prints from some services like SnapFish, versus places like Winkflash, Shutterfly, or MPix, where you can opt not to have them touch the file, it helps. But there's still a lingering doubt that anything Photoshop has touched is "real". This even though I've made what I think are some pretty nice prints. It's almost like if I showed someone something and got them to "ooh" or "aah" (rare though it is), one of my friends would probably say "yeah, it's nice, but he used Photoshop". Seems to me this is simply the state of mind most people have (in my limited experience), and isn't likely to go away, unless, like Hank said, they try it for themselves and see the results.
It's almost like there needs to clear-cut categories - and I'm sure I'm not the one to suggest this : documentary photos, retouched photos, and photo art. (Hey, we seem to have some of that here, and on PhotoPortfolios....huh. ) The problem would still remain that everything but "documentary" would probably be referred to as "fake" by a lot of people.
I think the best way to combat that is to be open and totally honest about what is done to the photos. Hopefully, given enough exposure to enough photographers who use Photoshop (just about all of them by now I guess), they may realize what we already know. If enough people just answer "is this Photoshopped" with "yes", perhaps they'll be skeptical of those who claim that nothing is ever touched in their photos. (I think that was suggested in a previous thread.) I think the ultimate solution is simply time.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 24, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Sorry for the double post, but I'm still thinking. As far as the fine art aspect of it goes, I think that perhaps the problem is that things that are obviously Photoshopped (yeah, I use it as a verb...) are looked at as creative and artistic (we even use the term Photo Art). Things that may or may not have been Photoshopped are looked at skeptically, because often people don't treat them as art. This is simply a problem with people's conception of art, and they probably won't change.
There's been some really good discussion of all of this on The Online Photographer blog, so I'm including some links. But first, here's an obvious art photo that I really like (and interview with the creator).
And other links (the first two in particular, the others only tangentially touching on this subject) :
Posted by Paul DeCesare on October 25, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Short & Sweet: look at our own Marc Adamus... he uses Photoshop to do the same corrections you can do in a custom lab with emulsion. His Velvia shots are equal to his digital. Another case where the medium is just different, with the same outcome: Art.
Not taking away from all the other fine photographers on this site, just grabbing one name to make the point.
Cheers!
Posted by Mearle Gates on October 25, 2007 at 1:53 AM
I guess it's human nature that people like to cut out the middle man to get what they want. It might appear on the surface that just anyone can take great digital photos, given all the bells and whistles on these modern cameras. They may even achieve modest success given enough shutter clicks. But remember they only have to please themselves. So if they want some pretty sunset photos, they are pretty likely to get some without having to pay anyone. That's just the nature of the nature photography market.
However, ask them if they are good enough to photograph someone's wedding and right off the bat, they realize their limitations. You have to play that camera like a musical instrument, if you want to pull that off well. It's too fast paced, under poor lighting conditions, with your subjects always moving at the wrong time. And if you screw up that one single shot they counted on so much you are up s**t creek.
I guess the trick might be to convince your customer that there is more than technology involved in creating a great image. You have to make it clear that without your special knowledge, experience, and talent, he hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of coming up with a photo as good as yours.
But then, you had better be able to conclude your argument with some awesome photography, or all your talk is just so much hot air.
Posted by Kelly Rowe on October 25, 2007 at 6:11 AM
Since the late 1800's there has been a debate between photographers and other fine artists as to whether photography was "art" or "craft". It is a debate that I have often with friend and world renouned pastel artist, Rebecca. She is certain that we are "craftsmen" and not "artists" because we merely take pictures of things, but don't create the things. That is an argument we will carry to our graves.
In my opiniion the advent of digital technology has added a significant layer of complexity to our art. Used to be you would pick Velvia if you wanted a highly saturated image, or Delta 100 for a fine grained black and white. The only witchcraft was in the darkroom, but the film choice largely determined the results. Now, even the best composed and best exposed digital images suck SOOC. It takes a new level of understanding and a new set of skills to render a decent print from a digital capture. The tools are much more complex and versatile than the chemicals in the darkrooms.
This brings up something that I am only beginning to learn; painting digital portraits from digital captures. Take a look at the work by such masters as Jeremy Sutton, Brad Buttry, Fay Sirkis, Marylin Sholin, or Susi Lawson and tell me that's not fine art. They produce some of the most elegant hand painted digital portraits you could ever hope to see.
Posted by Gene Lugo on October 25, 2007 at 6:26 AM
Digital technology certainly offers the general public a significant improvement in the quality of images that can be recorded. Just think about 45 years ago, the defacto standard for consumer cameras was the Kodak Instamatic. While there was one that was made in Germany and had a decent lens -38mm 2.8 and a Compur shutter that was adjustable from 1/30 to 1/500, it was certainly not the norm. They were largely point and shoot. Before the 60s one could purchase a roll film camera, usually based on the consumer version of 120mm film sold as 620, but these were about as much as the non-professional general consumer was conditioned to tolerate. The result of all of this was that billions of images were recorded on this gear, but due to the limitations of the technology, relatively few would match the standard of a professional quality photo.
Today, we have the same photographers, but with much better gear. The result is only technically improved. You have billions of really great looking snapshots taken on consumer or prosumer cameras. Another phenomenon is the prevalence of professional-quality snapshots, made possible by the great value-priced DSLR gear and lenses that are now available. But they are still snapshots.
One only has to look at an image taken by a skilled photographer who is in control of the equipment and the processing (postprocessing) to understand the difference between a snapshot and a professionally created image that would classify as art. A brief look in flickr, webshots or any of the other popular photosharing websites will clearly illustrate this. It's easly to pick out the "keepers."
The use of light to develop texture and mood, controlling the characteristics of the medium (film, paper) to create the desired effect, adjusting the image after the fact in Photoshop and other image manipulation software is really no different than changing film developer concentration and time in the soup to control dmax and avoid blocking up the highlights to extend dynamic range, evaluating the negative and selecting the correct paper and contrast grade to complement the image, and lastly, judicious use of the hand and cardboard masks to to dodge and burn specific areas of the print to have local control over exposure and contrast.
Which brings me to my point. The amount of time required to produce a fantastic photograph that might be regarded as art was phenomenal. At the end of the process you had one print. It was unique. When you produce a prize winning digital image, its the workflow that really counts. If you made one, then you can replicate it - which might be the reason why art galleries are inclined to regard digital photographs as something less than traditional artwork.
If your art gallery has this prejudice, I suggest you not waste your time trying to convince her otherwise - look for another gallery that believes in the medium and technology.
Posted by Richard Wong on October 25, 2007 at 1:02 PM
I don't care what the general public thinks. I only care about what the few people that enjoy my work think. The only gallery I bother with is my own website.
The calls and emails I get are strictly about the content never about the technical side so I think if people are getting flak for using digital then they are probably showing their work in the wrong venues.
There's a lot to what you say Richard. Think about your car---- If you're driving a Chevy, someone is going to criticize you for not driving a Dodge and proving it by citing engine performance on a 1937 Mercedes tied with suspension of a 1955 Porche. You can laugh at them or argue with them, but you sure can't let them run your life. Pick what works for you for reasons that are important to you, and damn the torpedos.
Posted by Sean Bagshaw on October 25, 2007 at 5:12 PM
I'm impressed with the level of discussion people are adding to the mix. The insight and wisdom is certainly helpful.
In response to David P., I wouldn't go as far as to say that digital has necessarily improved photography. However, I would like to think that it has added another dimension and that this dimension deserves the same level of respect as more traditional forms of photography. I'm sure that in the commercial and portrait world everyone appreciates that digital is cost effective, faster, more versitile and great quality. However, when it comes to art, it seems like people think they are not getting what they are paying for, that somehow the photographer has taken a shortcut and is less deserving.
Paul D. mentions Marc Adamus. His work is undeniably great, regardless of how he achieves the final result. There is no getting around the fact that he works hard to be in those places at those moments, and that he knows what to do with his camera once he is there. And yet, he has had to defend himself on other forums against accusations that his images aren't "real"...these are acusations coming from fellow digital photographers, not the uneducated public. Where's the respect for the fact that his images are great regardless of how he does it? (actually, I'm sure he gets lots of that too)
My motivation in posting this topic comes from how often I hear people dismiss great work, like Marc's, not because it isn't good, but because it is digital. Even people who like, and purchase, my modest work unconciously say things like, "You really captured the true essense of the forest. I would never have known it was digital".
Dan B makes my point perfectly, having to endure accusations from viewers that he has digitally fabricated his images, when in fact they were shot on film. In pre-digital times the public would have simply enjoyed his photos because they were beautiful. Today they are still beautiful...does it matter if they were created with either analog or digital techniques, or a combination of both?
Right after posting this thread yesterday, my concern with this issue was immediately reinforced. I delivered a print of the classic tunnel view in Yosemite to a local customer. This is not one of my better images and it is in no way unique (view the image here). It also required almost zero work in Photoshop other than basic adjustments in the RAW conversion. The client said how much she loved the shot and that it reminded her of camping trips as a kid with her father. Then she asked what my Photoshop technique had been to create an image where Half Dome and El Capitan were both visible at the same time. Aparently she had never been to this vantage point or seen any of the millions of images that have been taken there. Instead of wondering how she missed visiting such an amazing vista she assumed that I had invented it in my computer.
I attended the artist reception of a juried photography exhibition in Modesto, California, two weeks ago, where I was showing 5 prints. There was a very large turnout (300 plus) and I had the pleasure of chatting with several people who showed an interest in my photography. Never once during the entire time I was there did anyone accuse me of manipulatons or question if the depicted scenes were "real" or not. We did discuss various things related to art and photography. Some folks inquired about my work-flow and I informed them that I employ a combination of film based capture and digital post-processing to make my prints. Nobody seemed to have an issue with this.
Posted by Steve Foss on October 25, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Admittedly, I am not as accomplished as many, many photographers here, so let that remain in your mind if what follows appears callow.
However, in the four years I've been doing this professionally, I've never been challenged by a member of the photography-loving public that my images aren't real, and I've shot virtually nothing but digital over most of that time period (with five shows so far, including one permanent one at a very high-traffic resort/lodge). I have, however, been challenged by other photographers, and they should know better than to make such moot and catty challenges. Says far more about their hangups than about my work.
While nature photography is undoubtedly my first and deepest love, I am able to scratch out a living (and it should continue to get better as word spreads, one hopes) with wedding and candid portrait photography, which I also deeply enjoy, and guided nature photo excursions. Both these aspects of my business are firmly ENHANCED by digital. Digital certainly makes my wedding photography easier and more self-contained, and I've never heard of a wedding couple or portait subject who cares one way or the other about the format used. As far as the excursions, the recent upsurge in amateur nature photographers needing instruction and inspiration (because of the combination of the Baby Boom generation with disposable income and the proliferation of digital cameras) is what makes that portion of the business viable in the first place.
And so what do those things have to do with nature photography? Well the excursions are self explaining, and they and weddings allow me to pursue my lifelong fascination with nature. Ergo, digital being the enabler for other aspects of my business makes me worry less about whether my nature photography is accepted at face value.
If fine art prints in prestigious galleries frequented by the discerning critics are my goal and my venue, I would take a greater interest in what may or may not be a perception that digital tends to negate the idea of artful photography.
But that's just not me.
For what it's worth, I think public (and professional) sentiment and assessment swings widely and somewhat capriciously, and in time digital capture and post processing will be seen as no more or less artful than film capture. Photography is still in some snooty art circles seen as the red-headed stepchild, and while digital may simply give people who don't think of photography as art one more small bullet for their small-caliber guns, I think it will be fine in the long run.
Red-headed stepchild!!!! One red-head to another, I know where that comes from!
I realize that there's an aspect of our business that I've extended into this conversation which almost certainly changes our experiences from those of you in larger markets and larger communities.
We've run our studio for 17 years in a very small town (Kodiak), so we're well established and our work is recognized. As a result, local folks don't really question our or our work's veracity. We've also had the luxury (or invested the hard work, depending on your POV) of long-established customers. Many are very wealthy, and they have grown to trust us. I have cited the high dollar sales from them, when in fact our average customer and average sales are a lot smaller. Yes, we did a $10,000+ wedding this year, but the average is more like a third of that, and some are less than $1k. Same for print sales. The $7k sale I referenced was by no means an average experience!
But I hope that our positive experiences with digital represent a "microcosm" or sampling of a trend that will surface elsewhere. I think if you're honest and your work speaks well for you, the accusitions of manipulation will fade quietly into the past.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on October 26, 2007 at 1:07 AM
After considering this and a few other recent threads here on NPN, I believe I am beginning to understand where I am coming from. Quite honestly, I think what bothers me more is the unquestioned *assumption* that there was a lot of digital work done to present the images I have. The hard work I have put to get the images I have, both the physical task and a lot of times the research as well, plus understanding of the photographic processes, seems to be tossed out the window for some viewers. I always cringe when I hear "Oh, I'll just Photoshop it!" NOOOOooooooo....
As I think about it, most people I meet at festivals just look at the work and go "Wow!", or just walk right by and ignore my booth altogether. That's fine. The really knowledgable photographers I talk to understand what goes into the photo and realize that PS won't solve the world's problems. Even most of the more knowledgeable artists I've met, who don't know PS or even photographery beyond snapshots, seem to understand its the process and not the technology (with a nod to the technology in a good sense - autofocus, TTL, digital printers, etc.)
It's that small group of people who say "Well, if I had a $2,000 printer and CS3, I could be that good, too!" that seems to really bother me.
I have a few images which have been very heavily manipulated in PS, mostly my black and white flowers. Even those images, for as much work as I have done on them, still require some sense as to composition and tones. All the digital manipulation in the world won't save them if the composition and tonality is goofy. Those are always very clearly labelled as such.
I am fine with some, and sometimes heavy, digital manipulation. A lot of it depends on the context and how it is presented. I've shot a couple of weddings which have had some interesting lighting issues that needed work - think a slightly reflective white dress, outdoors with clear blue skies and green grass which was a nightmare, or indoors with candles for lighting and ISO 800-1600. Or sports shooting under mixed lighting. It paid the bills and made the clients happy.
Okay, I am happier now.
Posted by Steve Foss on October 26, 2007 at 1:34 AM
Hank, you are so bad! And how much of our remaining hair is actually red??? As a boy, my hair was bright new-copper-penny. Now it's . . . well . . .
Dan, I really do think it's all good. I think we as photographers agonize more pointedly over things that don't much interest the general public. Time won't force art snobs to stop looking down on photography, but time (and very little of that, IMO) will pass and this fixation with digital vs film vs manipulation vs art will fade away like all snits we people get into.
I would like to throw my hat in the ring, and hopefully none of you will kick it out! I consider myself an advanced amatuer, whatever the heck that means. But putting all of that aside, I love nature and I have come to love photography, because what better way to remember those special trips to a beautiful beach or to the mountains, or anywhere in between. What better way to remember all of those spring, summer and fall blooms from my garden, and all of the wonderful living creatures that have wandered through my garden during those fleeting moments of beauty. But I have to say that the more I get into photography, regardless of the amount of technology that's out there, the more I know that I have a tremendous amount of respect for all of the professionals on this web forum and the work they are doing. I am fortunate that God gave me an eye for beauty and man has given all of us the means with which to capture this beauty for others to see and enjoy. He also gave me enough of a brain (though this may be questionable to some) to be able to be a "quick study" and I have learned a tremendous amount over the past several months on this forum and the numerous other forums out there where people like you are more than willing to offer your expertise so that people like me can learn and enjoy this "art of photography". There is a huge difference in learning to take "pictures" for the family album, and learning the "art of photography". I would by no means ever attempt to take on anything as complicated as handling a wedding or other special moments in peoples lives, simply because I know I do not have the technical knowledge to do this. But I'm learning more and more about what works outdoors and what doesn't and yes, it's wonderful to be able to take loads of photos and not have to worry about film, make adjustments in all the programs out there, but I have learned, and sometimes the hard way, as have lots of others I am sure, that a bad photo is a bad photo, regardless of how many adjustments you attempt to make.
OK. That's my ramble for the day.
Melinda
Posted by Sean Bagshaw on October 26, 2007 at 4:00 PM
"Time won't force art snobs to stop looking down on photography, but time (and very little of that, IMO) will pass and this fixation with digital vs film vs manipulation vs art will fade away like all snits we people get into."
Steve, I'm glad to hear you say so and I'm in agreement with you. I'm looking forward to it.
I don't seem to be running into the suspicions over the accuracy of my work to the same extent as some of you have expressed. Maybe because I flatly refuse to defend my work and maybe because I don't agree that a photograph, digital or otherwise must be an accurate accounting of the actual scene. If I feel like using an 81a or b or using 6000 degrees K White Balance to shoot a sunset, I'll do it and I'll say so, and I won't give a rat's a-- what anybody thinks.
I'm lucky to have space in my basement for a display of my prints, finished and on the wall. The proof of the pudding for me is the OOO's and AAAAH's from people who come to see my work. "Do you like this print?" "Yes, it's beautiful" "Good, it's your for $xxx.xx.
Some buy, some don't, So what? At least my home is beautifully decorated with nice prints and my wife is really happy with her home. And I'm really happy with my photography.
I do sometimes run into the attudude that anybody with a good camera can do it. I used to challenge such people to a shoot out to see if they indeed can, but it proved to be pointless because so many failed to see even after it was pointed out to them.
I don't know a good way to combat that sort of ignorance except to remember that you'll usually get it from other photographers more that from the general public.
Hank made an excellent point that is so true it should be in the Bible ...
We simply have to remember that photographers talking to photographers say different things than clients looking at our pictures
Interesting topic, but does occur here once in a while. I cannot add much on how to overcome the perception of the public mind, but I might have an explanation why this is so.
I think it is simply the experience people have. Nowadays, almost everyone regardless of his age has a digicam, and quite a few of them use the pc to enhance their photo's. Many consumer point and shoot come equipped with some simply photo-editing programm where people can "enhance" their photo's, some of people also use photoshop. The people "know" how to improve and manipulate a photo, and they "think" they know that this is only done with digital photo's because they do it themselves and they know the processes involved. What they do not seem to grasp is that a mediocre photo will never be a good one - photoshop or not. When they see work of an excellent photographer, and when they understand that he uses digi-equipment to deliver the final result, they go like -ah yes I know I do this to my own images as well, its easy and hence they do not consider it to be hard work.
On the other hand, most people are *not* aware of all the means of manipulation and enhancement in the traditional darkroom. When they see work of the renowned masters, they simply do not know and understand what these guys where doing in the darkroom - hence the "conclusion" is they must be true and skilled artists to deliver such stunning work without manipulation. For them the darkroom is just the process that is inherent along the path from the negative to the visible photo, nothing else.
I had the pleasure to have such a sceptic and ill-informed mind in my family. My father. He has some nice ( but very old) SLR equipment to shoot on vaccations and when hiking in the mountains, but he never was a "photographer". He does enjoy a great landscape photo and knows quite a few big names, of course Ansel Adams among them. However he believed that these guys where good photographers because they had the eye - which is true, they have the eye. But they also do heavy post-work in the darkroom - and it was only recently that he discovered this because we were watching a documentation that was shown during an Ansel Adams exhibition in Vienna. Ansel was shown how he worked on his prints, also some explanations were given by him how the darkened this area to make that other area stand out more etc.
One cannot expect the broad masses to dive into the secrets of darkroom work in order to change their opinion. I do not think that this will ever happen. The masses will not go to an exhibition and watch a documentary about traditional darkroom work. But they will see their kids or themselves in front of a pc, cranking up that contrast and saturation slider.
Just my thoughts on this
Oh yes, something more. My first visit to a Gallery in San Francisco was of similar personal experience - I said to myself - hey this can't be true, impossible to see such colours and contrast, but the compositions were so beautiful and excellent, and the visual stimulation I got from these photo's was beyond the appreciation for just nice colours. It was outstanding good work. Later on I learned about the workflow and I learned that he did "manipulations" - I know that this does not make him a manipulator, but he did not state this in his gallery, because he cannot expect the masses to be photographers.
Evenmore interesting is, that on his website he shows a photo as an independent image, which in fact is crop from a larger photo that as well is displayed on his online gallery - the two photo's do not only differ in composition because of the crop, but also in slightly in colour, sat. and contrast - the proof that there is "manimulation" going on although this information is omitted. He knows that the public have their perceptions, and it's only wise not trying to educate them.
Posted by David Senesac on October 30, 2007 at 7:10 PM
The public's perception of what pro landscape and nature photographers are doing is only going to continue to get worse as long as the status quo in our community is to provide so little information about what they are doing. There have always been some ordinary people who could care less how an image was made, what, where, or why. Fine and thats great for sales for some. But there have always been some people who do care and will be quick to play the manipulation card whether they actually confront photographers or simply dismiss such and walk away without saying anything. Nothing our community does will change that perception because it is ingrained in what many people have traditionally considered photography to be whether or not such is valid. Those who chime ordinary people must not care because they personally are not receiving any public criticism are thinking small because the overwhelming numbers of people are not confrontational for such trivial matters.
An old friend of mine that has been heavily into the art fair circuit many years relates that most of those in shows that bring up such matters are other photographers. No surprise there haha. But it is true that some customers that are interested in a print will broach the subject once they get down to talking money. His own tendency is to deny such in order to shut them up because sometimes such a conversation bogs down in technical issues the customer is at a loss to understand that leads to ten more questions. That attitude is rather common among his peers in part because most of us just are not too good at articulating some of the issues even though they may have a reasonable understanding of what it is about. Thus I advised him to carefully craft up a page long or so statement for his booth that relates what he is doing in a controlled and careful way that anyone perusing his booth can first read through before starting down the path of whats.
Another issue I continue to hear is from both photographers and ordinary compact digicamera people who apparently don't understand how much images can be manipulated by those with strong Photoshop skills, especially at the graphic arts level of skills. The simple fact is a lot of rather mediocre human visual experiences can be greatly enhanced by post processing. That is especially true for colorful subjects as early and late light shots, colorful flowers, and vegetation. Because the public is now also using some of the readily available packaged consumer editing tools, the reality of that is from their own experience. Jack up contrast and saturation 25% on most dull images and magic! They stand out in front of some soso sunset and put their camera mode into "Sunrise & Sunsets" like on my Coolpix and wallah! The result is lots of pinks, reds, and purples that were never there. So if we continue to keep our lips closed more of this is to be expected. ...David
Posted by William Vrolyk on November 2, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Concerning the skill, craft, creativity, and mastery required to produce fine photography, as opposed to the notion that anyone can take a photograph, consider this. The photographer who pursues his/her form of art cannot produce his works from the comfort of his own home/studio and work at his creation at leisure and whenever the mood strikes. The photographer cannot rely solely on imagination, artistic licence, own interpretation, or memory to create a work of his/her choosing. Instead the photographer is willing to endure all the hardships nature may have awaiting him/her. Only with the effort of being there, often with persistence and patience, can the photographer capture that special moment in time.
No amount of digital hocus pocus or photoshopping is going to release the photographer from the effort he/she needs to expend to get the works of art he wants.
So I already have great respect and appreciation for the work photographers do and hope more will do so as well.
I led an autumn photo workshop last week and had this discussion with some of the participants. A surprising comment was made by one guest which was to the effect that "digital photography's not really able to produce art, but if you process it in the computer it does become art, because then you've worked on it". Pressed on this point they cited as comparison that a negative from a camera's not really anything until you come out of the darkroom with a finished print. Hmm!
A few weeks before at another event I was leading I demonstrated the use of grad-grey on a landscape and underexposing for dramatic effect against the light, showing participants the result on the camera LCD. One man, a recent purchaser of a DSLR , was utterly astounded by this and spoke to me about it, saying "wow you didn't use a computer. I thought you needed a computer. Thats amazing. You're using a digital camera like it was a real camera, like it was film. "
There are some interesting attitudes being developed as a consequence of digital's advance. Bottom line for me - film or digital, it's all down to hard work, observation, application and luck.
Discussion
26 repliesIn a recent discussion with a friend of mine who owns an art gallery, and is herself a photographer, she confided that she finds it much more difficult to sell photography to collectors than other types of art. I attribute this phenomenon, in part, to photography's history as a documentary tool and, in part, to the public perception that it is a product of technology, not a skill of the body and mind. Now that cameras are ubiquitous, there may also be the impression that, while not everyone can paint or sculpt, anyone can take a photograph.
Computer technology certainly has enhanced the ability to do all sorts of interesting things, combining components of various images, adding textures, modifying colors and even entirely and virtually generating an image. However, even though I greatly admire and appreciate this as a completely valid art form, I'm inclined to call this type of art photo illustration or digital illustration, not pure photography. The knowledge that such manipulations are possible may partly be to blame for the public's paranoia that any visually captivating digital image must have been created in this way. However, I strongly believe that digital photography that doesn't require these techniques is equal to traditional photography.
I would like to think that with some education, the art viewing public can learn to have a much greater appreciation for the techniques, skill, craft, creativity and mastery required to produce fine photography, whether it is film or digital.
The public does appear to accept the darkroom processing of black and white film, even though the skill isn't necessarily understood or properly appreciated. I have yet to hear someone ask, "how has this been altered", or "is that what the scene really looked like" in regard to a black and white darkroom print, but these are the most common questions asked of digital photos. However, a great black and white photo wouldn't be nearly as great without superb darkroom skills and creative techniques. I once attended a show of Anel Adams' work that exhibited some of his original prints side by side with ones he remastered 30 years later. There was no doubt in my mind that the latter photos were better and I didn't hear anyone complaining that the remastered images were products of increased technology, not a sign of his matured mastery.
I would like to see digital processing achieve the same level of acceptance and respect as darkroom processing and for fine digital photography to rise above its "anyone with a camera could do that" reputation. I spend a lot of time carefully composing what I hope are visually captivating images, searching out exquisite light and using my knowledge of the physics of photography to get as much quality and detail from my equipment as possible. However, similar to a great black and white film print, the job is not done when I press the button. A digital sensor does not see in the way a human does, with mental filters of emotion, perception, context and experience. A raw digital image can be very flat and lifeless. Not unlike the traditional photographer, nearly every image I take requires some degree of processing using software, such as Photoshop, in my computer or "digital darkroom".
Unless I'm intentionally trying to create a photo illustration or composite, I do not alter or significantly manipulate the content of a photo. I do, however, regularly use technique and craft to adjust the contrast, correct the color, enhance or tone down saturation and vary luminosity in my images. These are very painstaking steps.
It may just be a matter of time, but my hope is that one day digital photography will be respected for the skill, craft and mastery required to do it well in the same way that fine art film photography and other forms of art are. I look forward to a time when a digitial photo is appreciated for its content and the skill involved in creating it instead of questioned suspiciously, as if the photographer had somehow faked his ability to create something pleasing, engaging, controverial or interesting to look at and enjoy.
Should I win a lottery I'm buying a good sailboat and a whack of B&W film! Perhaps it is because it is what I was raised on, my introduction to photography, I'll take the darkroom over the monitor anytime. Photoshop just doesn't have the magic of making a print as far as I'm concerned.
You may recall the debate a few years ago, as digital technology gained ground, in such publications a Scientific American as to whether photographic evidence could now be accepted as photographic evidence in the courts. The debate on the aesthetics of digital is similarly being examined.
One of the most difficult things for me with digital photography was making the transition from the stricter technical requirements of colour film to the range digital post processing allowed. The history of photography, particular colour dictated accuracy not only technically, but in the rendition of a subject.
While there were such controls as camera filtration and expensive post processing techniques, what digital post processing has done is put a greater range of tools and techniques in the hands of the photographer without the expense, time and technical training required for film post processing.
What I perceive is that the thinking behind a technically 'correct' photograph has disappeared for photographers. How many of us have run of several different variations of a digital print and found them all to be acceptable where the technology and expense of doing this in film would have been either impossible or prohibitive.
Your question skirts a bit on the 'has digital improved photography' thread. What I found particularly interesting in the article is that the public seems to find digital photography to be less skilled. In fact digital post processing has placed more control in the hands of a photographer.
My reading of the article leads me to believe the public doesn't yet appreciate that photographers now have greater tools to work with. Rather than regarding a print for its own value, it is being judged on the merits of the limitations of film photography.
When digital capture became comparatively cheap and accessible, lots of people bought their own gear in the belief that they too could be great photographers because they could "fix" anything on their computer. We got lots of reshoots from folks that bought into the digital hype and tried to do their own ad and event photography (such as weddings), as well as scientific and industrial. We're getting lots of repeat business too from folks who say in effect of digital: "It's just too complicated to get good pictures." And meanwhile we're experiencing more sales because digital products are so much more useful than plain old film in meeting the emerging needs of business, industry, scientific, and advertizing clients.
On another front, our long term and very high dollar portrait clients vastly prefer results with digital over film. Photographers whine and argue about the "digital look" and the superiority of images showing real film grain, but our clients don't- especially when it comes to rendering flesh and faces in portraits. We have an open offer to reshoot on film any digital portrait clients aren't happy with. No takers in five years now, and to the contrary, lots of comments about how much better the digital products look than the older film portraits already on their walls. This is especially important to us when we are asking clients to shell out over $1,000 for large canvases.
My wife just finished an extensive portrait project with a client who had lost a lot of weight and wanted diverse portrait products to help celebrate the "new me." My wife proposed using film because the project included BW 1950's style "glamour" shots as well as color. The client really put her foot down: "No way! Film makes me look really OLD!"
Between BW cheesecake calendars and wall portraits, color "modern glamour" calendars and large canvases, soft books (i.e., "magazines") and a large assortment of conventional prints smaller than 16x20, we're talking more than 30 distinct poses in the final package. And if you're approximating the math in your head, the client dumped a little over $7,000 on the project. But wait! There's more! She's so thrilled with the reactions of friends and loved ones, she's asked for an appointment to order more for Christmas.
In those venues at least, I'm really happy with the emerging trend in public perception about digital. I think there's a hidden benefit of all the digital hype and the tidal wave of people buying their own gear. They're tuning into photography and becoming more sophisticated about what is and is not good work. I've had sales of nature prints to frustrated converts to digital photography. They haven't managed to come close to my results, whlie at the same time they appreciate mine even more. I don't think I'm looking at this through rose colored glasses by any means. We simply have to remember that photographers talking to photographers say different things than clients looking at our pictures. And I think a new crop of clients will emerge.
Surely, the sunset wasn't that color. Well, no, it wasn't. Film can't record the colors and intensity I saw.
http://www.danborzynskiimages.com/landscape%20images/large/Lake%20Sunday.htm
Waterfalls aren't blue like that. Well, yes they are - here's why...
http://www.danborzynskiimages.com/landscape%20images/large/Bond%20Falls%201.htm
That background blur has to be done digitally...
http://www.danborzynskiimages.com/flora%20images/large/Drop.htm
(these were all shot on Velvia 50)
I spend a lot of time explaining things about the natural world that people have never observed, simply because they haven't taken the time to observe. Whether I actually convince someone, I'm not sure.
A large part of the problem is the perception that digital, especially with Photoshop, makes up for a lack of basic photographic skills. I've heard, on more than one occasion, "I could have taken that shot." As Hank points out, there is a lot more that goes into the making of a good photo that just isn't understood by the general public. Thus, we can make money, or even make it our livelihoods.
How we overcome this perception, I don't know.
First some background - I've only owned a camera for about a year and a half. I bought one because I was taking a dream trip to South Africa for safari, and was hoping to get some pictures worth blowing up to 8x10 or so. After some long looking (I'm a computer engineer by trade, so I like gadget hunting), I wound up with a Canon S2 IS. Luckily, I also stumbled upon NPN; And I joined NPN a couple months later, shortly after returning from my trip. A few friend were with me on the trip, but none of them caught the photography bug, and I remain the only one of my close friends who is "into" photography.
Because of this, I've run into quite a few of the questions that you might expect to get from paying customers : Why are you always on the computer? Aren't you making your pictures fake? And just yesterday my roommate said I should "stop photoshopping my pictures". (This was because she'd gotten a few printed from SnapFish - which of course did it's own tone curving and color correction on top of mine, and totally made the images look "fake".)
So what do I say when I face these questions? Well, I never say that I've made something more faithful, or deny if I've altered something beyond what's normal. But I find the most misunderstood thing that I explain is that when you get photos developed (printed for digital), the developer does all (or a lot) of the same things, because your camera probably doesn't record things like your eye sees them. I find that most people think that the photos they get back from Wal-Mart, or online services, are completely and totally faithful to what the camera captured. In other words, they think if I'm doing anything other than letting some print service make prints, I must be making "fake" photos.
Well, if I show them the results of getting prints from some services like SnapFish, versus places like Winkflash, Shutterfly, or MPix, where you can opt not to have them touch the file, it helps. But there's still a lingering doubt that anything Photoshop has touched is "real". This even though I've made what I think are some pretty nice prints. It's almost like if I showed someone something and got them to "ooh" or "aah" (rare though it is), one of my friends would probably say "yeah, it's nice, but he used Photoshop". Seems to me this is simply the state of mind most people have (in my limited experience), and isn't likely to go away, unless, like Hank said, they try it for themselves and see the results.
It's almost like there needs to clear-cut categories - and I'm sure I'm not the one to suggest this : documentary photos, retouched photos, and photo art. (Hey, we seem to have some of that here, and on PhotoPortfolios....huh.
I think the best way to combat that is to be open and totally honest about what is done to the photos. Hopefully, given enough exposure to enough photographers who use Photoshop (just about all of them by now I guess), they may realize what we already know. If enough people just answer "is this Photoshopped" with "yes", perhaps they'll be skeptical of those who claim that nothing is ever touched in their photos. (I think that was suggested in a previous thread.) I think the ultimate solution is simply time.
There's been some really good discussion of all of this on The Online Photographer blog, so I'm including some links. But first, here's an obvious art photo that I really like (and interview with the creator).
And other links (the first two in particular, the others only tangentially touching on this subject) :
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/08/stories-behind-.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/08/the-article-by-.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/09/so-what-did-you.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/09/take-a-long-loo.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/08/by-dave-sailer-.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/08/an-oh-sh-moment.html
Not taking away from all the other fine photographers on this site, just grabbing one name to make the point.
Cheers!
However, ask them if they are good enough to photograph someone's wedding and right off the bat, they realize their limitations. You have to play that camera like a musical instrument, if you want to pull that off well. It's too fast paced, under poor lighting conditions, with your subjects always moving at the wrong time. And if you screw up that one single shot they counted on so much you are up s**t creek.
I guess the trick might be to convince your customer that there is more than technology involved in creating a great image. You have to make it clear that without your special knowledge, experience, and talent, he hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of coming up with a photo as good as yours.
But then, you had better be able to conclude your argument with some awesome photography, or all your talk is just so much hot air.
In my opiniion the advent of digital technology has added a significant layer of complexity to our art. Used to be you would pick Velvia if you wanted a highly saturated image, or Delta 100 for a fine grained black and white. The only witchcraft was in the darkroom, but the film choice largely determined the results. Now, even the best composed and best exposed digital images suck SOOC. It takes a new level of understanding and a new set of skills to render a decent print from a digital capture. The tools are much more complex and versatile than the chemicals in the darkrooms.
This brings up something that I am only beginning to learn; painting digital portraits from digital captures. Take a look at the work by such masters as Jeremy Sutton, Brad Buttry, Fay Sirkis, Marylin Sholin, or Susi Lawson and tell me that's not fine art. They produce some of the most elegant hand painted digital portraits you could ever hope to see.
Today, we have the same photographers, but with much better gear. The result is only technically improved. You have billions of really great looking snapshots taken on consumer or prosumer cameras. Another phenomenon is the prevalence of professional-quality snapshots, made possible by the great value-priced DSLR gear and lenses that are now available. But they are still snapshots.
One only has to look at an image taken by a skilled photographer who is in control of the equipment and the processing (postprocessing) to understand the difference between a snapshot and a professionally created image that would classify as art. A brief look in flickr, webshots or any of the other popular photosharing websites will clearly illustrate this. It's easly to pick out the "keepers."
The use of light to develop texture and mood, controlling the characteristics of the medium (film, paper) to create the desired effect, adjusting the image after the fact in Photoshop and other image manipulation software is really no different than changing film developer concentration and time in the soup to control dmax and avoid blocking up the highlights to extend dynamic range, evaluating the negative and selecting the correct paper and contrast grade to complement the image, and lastly, judicious use of the hand and cardboard masks to to dodge and burn specific areas of the print to have local control over exposure and contrast.
Which brings me to my point. The amount of time required to produce a fantastic photograph that might be regarded as art was phenomenal. At the end of the process you had one print. It was unique. When you produce a prize winning digital image, its the workflow that really counts. If you made one, then you can replicate it - which might be the reason why art galleries are inclined to regard digital photographs as something less than traditional artwork.
If your art gallery has this prejudice, I suggest you not waste your time trying to convince her otherwise - look for another gallery that believes in the medium and technology.
The calls and emails I get are strictly about the content never about the technical side so I think if people are getting flak for using digital then they are probably showing their work in the wrong venues.
In response to David P., I wouldn't go as far as to say that digital has necessarily improved photography. However, I would like to think that it has added another dimension and that this dimension deserves the same level of respect as more traditional forms of photography. I'm sure that in the commercial and portrait world everyone appreciates that digital is cost effective, faster, more versitile and great quality. However, when it comes to art, it seems like people think they are not getting what they are paying for, that somehow the photographer has taken a shortcut and is less deserving.
Paul D. mentions Marc Adamus. His work is undeniably great, regardless of how he achieves the final result. There is no getting around the fact that he works hard to be in those places at those moments, and that he knows what to do with his camera once he is there. And yet, he has had to defend himself on other forums against accusations that his images aren't "real"...these are acusations coming from fellow digital photographers, not the uneducated public. Where's the respect for the fact that his images are great regardless of how he does it? (actually, I'm sure he gets lots of that too)
My motivation in posting this topic comes from how often I hear people dismiss great work, like Marc's, not because it isn't good, but because it is digital. Even people who like, and purchase, my modest work unconciously say things like, "You really captured the true essense of the forest. I would never have known it was digital".
Dan B makes my point perfectly, having to endure accusations from viewers that he has digitally fabricated his images, when in fact they were shot on film. In pre-digital times the public would have simply enjoyed his photos because they were beautiful. Today they are still beautiful...does it matter if they were created with either analog or digital techniques, or a combination of both?
Right after posting this thread yesterday, my concern with this issue was immediately reinforced. I delivered a print of the classic tunnel view in Yosemite to a local customer. This is not one of my better images and it is in no way unique (view the image here). It also required almost zero work in Photoshop other than basic adjustments in the RAW conversion. The client said how much she loved the shot and that it reminded her of camping trips as a kid with her father. Then she asked what my Photoshop technique had been to create an image where Half Dome and El Capitan were both visible at the same time. Aparently she had never been to this vantage point or seen any of the millions of images that have been taken there. Instead of wondering how she missed visiting such an amazing vista she assumed that I had invented it in my computer.
I attended the artist reception of a juried photography exhibition in Modesto, California, two weeks ago, where I was showing 5 prints. There was a very large turnout (300 plus) and I had the pleasure of chatting with several people who showed an interest in my photography. Never once during the entire time I was there did anyone accuse me of manipulatons or question if the depicted scenes were "real" or not. We did discuss various things related to art and photography. Some folks inquired about my work-flow and I informed them that I employ a combination of film based capture and digital post-processing to make my prints. Nobody seemed to have an issue with this.
However, in the four years I've been doing this professionally, I've never been challenged by a member of the photography-loving public that my images aren't real, and I've shot virtually nothing but digital over most of that time period (with five shows so far, including one permanent one at a very high-traffic resort/lodge). I have, however, been challenged by other photographers, and they should know better than to make such moot and catty challenges. Says far more about their hangups than about my work.
While nature photography is undoubtedly my first and deepest love, I am able to scratch out a living (and it should continue to get better as word spreads, one hopes) with wedding and candid portrait photography, which I also deeply enjoy, and guided nature photo excursions. Both these aspects of my business are firmly ENHANCED by digital. Digital certainly makes my wedding photography easier and more self-contained, and I've never heard of a wedding couple or portait subject who cares one way or the other about the format used. As far as the excursions, the recent upsurge in amateur nature photographers needing instruction and inspiration (because of the combination of the Baby Boom generation with disposable income and the proliferation of digital cameras) is what makes that portion of the business viable in the first place.
And so what do those things have to do with nature photography? Well the excursions are self explaining, and they and weddings allow me to pursue my lifelong fascination with nature. Ergo, digital being the enabler for other aspects of my business makes me worry less about whether my nature photography is accepted at face value.
If fine art prints in prestigious galleries frequented by the discerning critics are my goal and my venue, I would take a greater interest in what may or may not be a perception that digital tends to negate the idea of artful photography.
But that's just not me.
For what it's worth, I think public (and professional) sentiment and assessment swings widely and somewhat capriciously, and in time digital capture and post processing will be seen as no more or less artful than film capture. Photography is still in some snooty art circles seen as the red-headed stepchild, and while digital may simply give people who don't think of photography as art one more small bullet for their small-caliber guns, I think it will be fine in the long run.
I realize that there's an aspect of our business that I've extended into this conversation which almost certainly changes our experiences from those of you in larger markets and larger communities.
We've run our studio for 17 years in a very small town (Kodiak), so we're well established and our work is recognized. As a result, local folks don't really question our or our work's veracity. We've also had the luxury (or invested the hard work, depending on your POV) of long-established customers. Many are very wealthy, and they have grown to trust us. I have cited the high dollar sales from them, when in fact our average customer and average sales are a lot smaller. Yes, we did a $10,000+ wedding this year, but the average is more like a third of that, and some are less than $1k. Same for print sales. The $7k sale I referenced was by no means an average experience!
But I hope that our positive experiences with digital represent a "microcosm" or sampling of a trend that will surface elsewhere. I think if you're honest and your work speaks well for you, the accusitions of manipulation will fade quietly into the past.
As I think about it, most people I meet at festivals just look at the work and go "Wow!", or just walk right by and ignore my booth altogether. That's fine. The really knowledgable photographers I talk to understand what goes into the photo and realize that PS won't solve the world's problems. Even most of the more knowledgeable artists I've met, who don't know PS or even photographery beyond snapshots, seem to understand its the process and not the technology (with a nod to the technology in a good sense - autofocus, TTL, digital printers, etc.)
It's that small group of people who say "Well, if I had a $2,000 printer and CS3, I could be that good, too!" that seems to really bother me.
I have a few images which have been very heavily manipulated in PS, mostly my black and white flowers. Even those images, for as much work as I have done on them, still require some sense as to composition and tones. All the digital manipulation in the world won't save them if the composition and tonality is goofy. Those are always very clearly labelled as such.
I am fine with some, and sometimes heavy, digital manipulation. A lot of it depends on the context and how it is presented. I've shot a couple of weddings which have had some interesting lighting issues that needed work - think a slightly reflective white dress, outdoors with clear blue skies and green grass which was a nightmare, or indoors with candles for lighting and ISO 800-1600. Or sports shooting under mixed lighting. It paid the bills and made the clients happy.
Okay, I am happier now.
Dan, I really do think it's all good. I think we as photographers agonize more pointedly over things that don't much interest the general public. Time won't force art snobs to stop looking down on photography, but time (and very little of that, IMO) will pass and this fixation with digital vs film vs manipulation vs art will fade away like all snits we people get into.
You young punk, you.
The remaining hair doesn't change color before it leaves, but my beard is mostly white.
But then again, I have reasons for not letting my beard grow ...
OK. That's my ramble for the day.
Melinda
Steve, I'm glad to hear you say so and I'm in agreement with you. I'm looking forward to it.
I'm lucky to have space in my basement for a display of my prints, finished and on the wall. The proof of the pudding for me is the OOO's and AAAAH's from people who come to see my work. "Do you like this print?" "Yes, it's beautiful" "Good, it's your for $xxx.xx.
Some buy, some don't, So what? At least my home is beautifully decorated with nice prints and my wife is really happy with her home. And I'm really happy with my photography.
I do sometimes run into the attudude that anybody with a good camera can do it. I used to challenge such people to a shoot out to see if they indeed can, but it proved to be pointless because so many failed to see even after it was pointed out to them.
I don't know a good way to combat that sort of ignorance except to remember that you'll usually get it from other photographers more that from the general public.
Hank made an excellent point that is so true it should be in the Bible ...
Bob
I think it is simply the experience people have. Nowadays, almost everyone regardless of his age has a digicam, and quite a few of them use the pc to enhance their photo's. Many consumer point and shoot come equipped with some simply photo-editing programm where people can "enhance" their photo's, some of people also use photoshop. The people "know" how to improve and manipulate a photo, and they "think" they know that this is only done with digital photo's because they do it themselves and they know the processes involved. What they do not seem to grasp is that a mediocre photo will never be a good one - photoshop or not. When they see work of an excellent photographer, and when they understand that he uses digi-equipment to deliver the final result, they go like -ah yes I know I do this to my own images as well, its easy and hence they do not consider it to be hard work.
On the other hand, most people are *not* aware of all the means of manipulation and enhancement in the traditional darkroom. When they see work of the renowned masters, they simply do not know and understand what these guys where doing in the darkroom - hence the "conclusion" is they must be true and skilled artists to deliver such stunning work without manipulation. For them the darkroom is just the process that is inherent along the path from the negative to the visible photo, nothing else.
I had the pleasure to have such a sceptic and ill-informed mind in my family. My father. He has some nice ( but very old) SLR equipment to shoot on vaccations and when hiking in the mountains, but he never was a "photographer". He does enjoy a great landscape photo and knows quite a few big names, of course Ansel Adams among them. However he believed that these guys where good photographers because they had the eye - which is true, they have the eye. But they also do heavy post-work in the darkroom - and it was only recently that he discovered this because we were watching a documentation that was shown during an Ansel Adams exhibition in Vienna. Ansel was shown how he worked on his prints, also some explanations were given by him how the darkened this area to make that other area stand out more etc.
One cannot expect the broad masses to dive into the secrets of darkroom work in order to change their opinion. I do not think that this will ever happen. The masses will not go to an exhibition and watch a documentary about traditional darkroom work. But they will see their kids or themselves in front of a pc, cranking up that contrast and saturation slider.
Just my thoughts on this
Oh yes, something more. My first visit to a Gallery in San Francisco was of similar personal experience - I said to myself - hey this can't be true, impossible to see such colours and contrast, but the compositions were so beautiful and excellent, and the visual stimulation I got from these photo's was beyond the appreciation for just nice colours. It was outstanding good work. Later on I learned about the workflow and I learned that he did "manipulations" - I know that this does not make him a manipulator, but he did not state this in his gallery, because he cannot expect the masses to be photographers.
Evenmore interesting is, that on his website he shows a photo as an independent image, which in fact is crop from a larger photo that as well is displayed on his online gallery - the two photo's do not only differ in composition because of the crop, but also in slightly in colour, sat. and contrast - the proof that there is "manimulation" going on although this information is omitted. He knows that the public have their perceptions, and it's only wise not trying to educate them.
An old friend of mine that has been heavily into the art fair circuit many years relates that most of those in shows that bring up such matters are other photographers. No surprise there haha. But it is true that some customers that are interested in a print will broach the subject once they get down to talking money. His own tendency is to deny such in order to shut them up because sometimes such a conversation bogs down in technical issues the customer is at a loss to understand that leads to ten more questions. That attitude is rather common among his peers in part because most of us just are not too good at articulating some of the issues even though they may have a reasonable understanding of what it is about. Thus I advised him to carefully craft up a page long or so statement for his booth that relates what he is doing in a controlled and careful way that anyone perusing his booth can first read through before starting down the path of whats.
Another issue I continue to hear is from both photographers and ordinary compact digicamera people who apparently don't understand how much images can be manipulated by those with strong Photoshop skills, especially at the graphic arts level of skills. The simple fact is a lot of rather mediocre human visual experiences can be greatly enhanced by post processing. That is especially true for colorful subjects as early and late light shots, colorful flowers, and vegetation. Because the public is now also using some of the readily available packaged consumer editing tools, the reality of that is from their own experience. Jack up contrast and saturation 25% on most dull images and magic! They stand out in front of some soso sunset and put their camera mode into "Sunrise & Sunsets" like on my Coolpix and wallah! The result is lots of pinks, reds, and purples that were never there. So if we continue to keep our lips closed more of this is to be expected. ...David
No amount of digital hocus pocus or photoshopping is going to release the photographer from the effort he/she needs to expend to get the works of art he wants.
So I already have great respect and appreciation for the work photographers do and hope more will do so as well.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
A few weeks before at another event I was leading I demonstrated the use of grad-grey on a landscape and underexposing for dramatic effect against the light, showing participants the result on the camera LCD. One man, a recent purchaser of a DSLR , was utterly astounded by this and spoke to me about it, saying "wow you didn't use a computer. I thought you needed a computer. Thats amazing. You're using a digital camera like it was a real camera, like it was film. "
There are some interesting attitudes being developed as a consequence of digital's advance. Bottom line for me - film or digital, it's all down to hard work, observation, application and luck.