Posted by Patrick Wall on December 29, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Most of the "icons" have been visited but images are subjective of course. In today's world of "instant gratification" many rush to get where everyone else has been and miss the unknown "icons" along the way.
Fortunately, in our lively technical world, technology has made "good" photographers and writers better but, unfortunately, "poor" photographers and writers "worse" and there are significantly more of the latter.
I'm not following your train of thought. Care to elaborate? I don't know what an unknown icon is.
Posted by Kenn Leonhardt on December 29, 2009 at 8:00 PM
I don't see how technology has made "'poor' photographers and writers 'worse'." Technology has made it easier for more people to take up such hobbies and given them a larger platform to share their work with others. These so-called "poor" photographers and writers may be becoming more visible, but I fail to see how they're getting "worse."
Photography, writing, painting, music, or any other art form is a constantly mutating thing that doesn't get better or worse. It just changes. You may not like the way it changes, but other people will.
Posted by Stan Rose on December 30, 2009 at 1:07 AM
I'm not following your train of thought. Care to elaborate? I don't know what an unknown icon is.
c'mon, Hank, get with the program--if you knew then it wouldn't be unknown, now would it?
Posted by Jim Bullard on December 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM
"Unknown icons"? Galen Rowell said that we photographers shoot the extraordinary to represent the ordinary. I don't have access to the extraordinary, at least in terms of the "known icons" of landscape photography like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, etc. so I spend my time trying to bring out the extraordinary qualities of the ordinary. Everything has its moments of beauty. The trick is to be there and recognize it when it happens.
As for "technology has made "good" photographers and writers better but, unfortunately, "poor" photographers and writers "worse" and there are significantly more of the latter" I believe that technology has expanded the available tools set but the only thing that really makes any photographer better is the drive to be better. Today's digital tools allow us to do things we couldn't before but they still require the photographer to learn how to use them. And the "poor" (those whose work is of low quality) photographers are simply more visible today because of the Internet and the ability of anyone to post work for the whole world to see. You encountered them less often when they had to shove a photo album under your nose.
OTOH I think that an argument can be made that digital technology has made many casual photographers better (less bad?). Certainly modern metering systems have reduced the volume of poorly exposed images but I believe the pocket camera with a live screen instead of a viewfinder has frequently improved their composition as well. The reason? Composing with a viewfinder, the tendency is to look at the primary subject through the frame and pay scant attention to the rest of the frame. Composing with the live screen however, the entire frame is what the photographer is looking at and thus he/she is more likely (though still not certain) to visualize the image as a whole. That's my hypothesis at least. Thoughts?
I think Jim's right that the key is to possess a drive to get better. Today, virtually having a digital camera makes you a better photographer just by pointing and shooting it. When you add instant LCD feedback and low cost per shot regarding film, even if you're only somewhat serious about it you can improve your photography quickly.
Better lenses and other equipment can make your photos better too. A fast 500mm with a great tripod and head for example, can get you photos that you couldn't have obtained any other way. And lets not forget Photoshop! With Photoshop your pictures can look exactly how you envision them or as good as the original subject looked to you when you shot it, or even improving on the real thing if only to add a blue sky with puffy clouds. But, once again, it all comes back to the vision of the photographer and whether he or she has one or chooses to cultivate it.
I think the best photographers are those who come naturally with an artistic eye.
But, I also believe that the best shots are those that you do not have to "Photoshop". In other words, we poor slobs that used to use 35mm fillm cameras, in which what you took was what you get. You develop an intuition when something is out of place in the pic.
Discussion
7 repliesFortunately, in our lively technical world, technology has made "good" photographers and writers better but, unfortunately, "poor" photographers and writers "worse" and there are significantly more of the latter.
Cheers,
P.J
Photography, writing, painting, music, or any other art form is a constantly mutating thing that doesn't get better or worse. It just changes. You may not like the way it changes, but other people will.
c'mon, Hank, get with the program--if you knew then it wouldn't be unknown, now would it?
As for "technology has made "good" photographers and writers better but, unfortunately, "poor" photographers and writers "worse" and there are significantly more of the latter" I believe that technology has expanded the available tools set but the only thing that really makes any photographer better is the drive to be better. Today's digital tools allow us to do things we couldn't before but they still require the photographer to learn how to use them. And the "poor" (those whose work is of low quality) photographers are simply more visible today because of the Internet and the ability of anyone to post work for the whole world to see. You encountered them less often when they had to shove a photo album under your nose.
OTOH I think that an argument can be made that digital technology has made many casual photographers better (less bad?). Certainly modern metering systems have reduced the volume of poorly exposed images but I believe the pocket camera with a live screen instead of a viewfinder has frequently improved their composition as well. The reason? Composing with a viewfinder, the tendency is to look at the primary subject through the frame and pay scant attention to the rest of the frame. Composing with the live screen however, the entire frame is what the photographer is looking at and thus he/she is more likely (though still not certain) to visualize the image as a whole. That's my hypothesis at least. Thoughts?
Better lenses and other equipment can make your photos better too. A fast 500mm with a great tripod and head for example, can get you photos that you couldn't have obtained any other way. And lets not forget Photoshop! With Photoshop your pictures can look exactly how you envision them or as good as the original subject looked to you when you shot it, or even improving on the real thing if only to add a blue sky with puffy clouds. But, once again, it all comes back to the vision of the photographer and whether he or she has one or chooses to cultivate it.
But, I also believe that the best shots are those that you do not have to "Photoshop". In other words, we poor slobs that used to use 35mm fillm cameras, in which what you took was what you get. You develop an intuition when something is out of place in the pic.
Lucy