Old Dogs can teach Young Whipper Snappers?

Discussion in 'Ethics and Philosophy' started by Mainecoonmaniac, Mar 20, 2013.

  1. Mainecoonmaniac

    Mainecoonmaniac Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,960
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  2. Jeff Kubach

    Jeff Kubach Member

    Messages:
    6,930
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Location:
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sounds great

    Jeff
     
  3. winger

    winger Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,898
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Location:
    southwest PA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My favorite line - We didn’t embrace this passion to become Xerox machines.
     
  4. blansky

    blansky Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,985
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Location:
    Wine country, N. Cal.
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I think there are many things in play here.

    Firstly the trend from a studied portrait style to a more photojournalistic/documentary style was happening before digital came into being. In my opinion it started when automatic/autofocus cameras hit the scene. People were ready for a less formal looking type of photography and the style permeated everything from fashion to downtown portrait /wedding studios and it caught on.

    So formal studio type knowledge of lighting was slowly being replaced with available light and many looked like little more that better printed snapshots.

    When digital hit the scene and every Tom, Dickhead and Harriet now has a camera, photoshop-like post processing and then cellphone picture manipulation, this informal, lack of technique snapshot became the norm. I have no idea where it's heading but since people do become bored, I think that more formal lighting styles will become again recognized and appreciated.

    The problem is that once there were 50 good photographers in a city of 100,000, now there are 50,000, and they have the sheer power in numbers to dictate where the trends are.

    I'm not even sure if analog people really realize the massive shift in the professional market that happened because of digital, and how the game has changed so incredibly. They see that everyone has a digital camera and marginalized their preferred capture/print medium, but in reality everything, I mean everything, about photography and professionally photography has changed, from the style, to the market for selling it.

    As for taking years to master lighting, if you look at cinematographers who work in major motion pictures, with massive budgets, a need for perfect lighting and no room for fuckups, you will find that almost all are white haired old gentlemen doing the work.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2013
  5. Mainecoonmaniac

    Mainecoonmaniac Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,960
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Blansky is very insightful. People used to hire photographers because they can focus and expose a piece of film and knows the ins and outs of analog film. Digital democratized the mechanics of photography but not the art. It takes time to develop an eye for lighting. No photoshop filter, no digital camera gizmo can substitue a good eye. So with that in mind, how are photo schools preparing the next generation of pros? Is it still relevant for Brooks to teach H&D curves?
     
  6. Jim Jones

    Jim Jones Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,393
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    Rural NW MO
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    A few fortunate photographers can grasp in a year or two what Blansky says takes 20 years. Most never really get it. Some artists in the abstract and complex field of music displayed mature talent in their teens: Mozart, Schubert, Bizet, and Rossini for example. The artist Aubrey Beardsley had a mere quarter century to develop and promote a distinct style. Such artists built on the creations of their predecessors via schooling. Today's schools can do as much for the future. Of course it is relevant to teach students H&D curves to provide them with the understanding of photographic technique of the past century so they can best project their own interpretation of that technique in these times. In my lifetime photography has dramatically evolved: Kodachrome, automatic exposure, electronic flash, instant prints, auto focus and exposure, and of course digital photography. Understanding these revolutions enables us to at least provide a continuity with the past in our own works. Perhaps a few of today's photographers can also add that spark of genius like Beethoven did for music, Ford did for automobiles, Beardsley did for art, and Ansel Adams did for photographic technique. These photographers will continue to revolutionize imagery in the future. The rest of us can struggle to keep up.
     
  7. greybeard

    greybeard Member

    Messages:
    377
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Cal
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    The problem is that once there were 50 good photographers in a city of 100,000, now there are 50,000...

    Well, if my town of 89,000 is representative, there were once 50 good photographers and now there are 5. And probably 50,000 people who own cameras of some sort, and constitute the "market" for each other.
     
  8. vpwphoto

    vpwphoto Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Location:
    Indiana
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    She says 1.4 bohka "is the best". ---- I am just walking around in a stuppor muttering this.
     
  9. blansky

    blansky Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,985
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Location:
    Wine country, N. Cal.
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Yeah when I wrote that I should have said 50,000 that produce pictures that people somehow accept. Pretty sad really.

    Where do you live?