La Jolla Cove
I didn't feel as productive as normal last week as I traveled from Santa Barbara to San Diego along the California coast, perhaps in part because I shoot so many natural landscapes I don't quite know what to do with semi-urban environments.
I'll make the fashionable comment to mention that this is a single exposure, no HDR, although i can't imagine why anyone would care. If I were selling a house I wouldn't mention the types of saws or hammers used to construct it. Either you like the result, or you don't.
I guess I don't view the technical process of capturing the image as the end goal or point of what I'm doing (I'm trying to portray a thing, place or concept with a resulting image), so I wouldn't pursue or brag about some technical nit along the way (such as single exposure) as if it were some sort of achievement. Even many pros have their gallery salespeople claiming (often deceptively I'm afraid) that "No Photoshop was used... this is exactly as the photographer saw it." Frist of all, baloney. No camera "sees" like a person does, so the entire premise is a blatant misrepresentation. Second, even film and slides are scanned and "color corrected" (typically with Photoshop) to create a digital file which can be consistently replicated to print. There are so many changes in technology and color maps throughout that process that it's pointless and in my opinion disingenuous to claim that the result is identical to the original (my first job out of college was to work as an applications engineer for the world's leading color printer manufacturer). Third, the entire topic is a diversion in the sales process to prevent the buyer from asking whether the photographer truly has any skill as an artist. If we settle for the goal of merely reproducing of a scene, than we've just decided that the person carrying the camera is entirely irrelevent... since all that matters is a passable result that seems like a realistic carbon copy. If that's all we value, nail a solar powered, high resolution webcam to a tree and you'll get your simple refelctions of time and place.
What's the alternative? Value, and evaluate, the result. Sure... kudos to the images not displaying a lot of distracting postprocessing artifacts, but there are so many more aspects that are equally, if not more, important. Does the image achieve its goals (such as a documentary time and place, portrait of an item or person in a certain context, or some variation of those that's a more artistic rendering)? Surely it's the "what" and "did the artist succeed" questions that are far more important and interesting than "how"?
I'm not saying that I know all the answers. Some of the professional photographers whose sales people are using those tactics are finding buyers for prints priced at $4000 or more. And if those buyers are satisfied with their purchase at that price and with what's hanging on their wall, who am I to say that they didn't get their money's worth? Still, I can't help but be offended when film photographers advocate or tolerate disrespect of digital photography or postprocessing (which they actually engage in behind the scenes). I also can't help but feel a little sorry for the people they hoodwink with their B.S.
I'd like to offer apologies in advance to any avid film purists. To clarify and reduce the potential for misunderstanding, I'd like to emphasize that I don't mean in any way to disrespect film... it's the heritage of photography and there are still advantages to film for certain applications and under certain conditions... I only mean to focus solely on any misguided positioning that a few film photographers seem to engage in (perhaps out of insecurity about the advancing digital age, and to cover up their lack of motivation to understand or accept modern techniques).
Instead of process (film vs. digital, HDR/Photoshop vs. not), it makes far more sense to me to focus on the success of the intent of the photo and the contribution of the artist (the extent to which the photographer DOES add his or her unique contribution to the result).
La Jolla Cove
I didn't feel as productive as normal last week as I traveled from Santa Barbara to San Diego along the California coast, perhaps in part because I shoot so many natural landscapes I don't quite know what to do with semi-urban environments.
I'll make the fashionable comment to mention that this is a single exposure, no HDR, although i can't imagine why anyone would care. If I were selling a house I wouldn't mention the types of saws or hammers used to construct it. Either you like the result, or you don't.
I guess I don't view the technical process of capturing the image as the end goal or point of what I'm doing (I'm trying to portray a thing, place or concept with a resulting image), so I wouldn't pursue or brag about some technical nit along the way (such as single exposure) as if it were some sort of achievement. Even many pros have their gallery salespeople claiming (often deceptively I'm afraid) that "No Photoshop was used... this is exactly as the photographer saw it." Frist of all, baloney. No camera "sees" like a person does, so the entire premise is a blatant misrepresentation. Second, even film and slides are scanned and "color corrected" (typically with Photoshop) to create a digital file which can be consistently replicated to print. There are so many changes in technology and color maps throughout that process that it's pointless and in my opinion disingenuous to claim that the result is identical to the original (my first job out of college was to work as an applications engineer for the world's leading color printer manufacturer). Third, the entire topic is a diversion in the sales process to prevent the buyer from asking whether the photographer truly has any skill as an artist. If we settle for the goal of merely reproducing of a scene, than we've just decided that the person carrying the camera is entirely irrelevent... since all that matters is a passable result that seems like a realistic carbon copy. If that's all we value, nail a solar powered, high resolution webcam to a tree and you'll get your simple refelctions of time and place.
What's the alternative? Value, and evaluate, the result. Sure... kudos to the images not displaying a lot of distracting postprocessing artifacts, but there are so many more aspects that are equally, if not more, important. Does the image achieve its goals (such as a documentary time and place, portrait of an item or person in a certain context, or some variation of those that's a more artistic rendering)? Surely it's the "what" and "did the artist succeed" questions that are far more important and interesting than "how"?
I'm not saying that I know all the answers. Some of the professional photographers whose sales people are using those tactics are finding buyers for prints priced at $4000 or more. And if those buyers are satisfied with their purchase at that price and with what's hanging on their wall, who am I to say that they didn't get their money's worth? Still, I can't help but be offended when film photographers advocate or tolerate disrespect of digital photography or postprocessing (which they actually engage in behind the scenes). I also can't help but feel a little sorry for the people they hoodwink with their B.S.
I'd like to offer apologies in advance to any avid film purists. To clarify and reduce the potential for misunderstanding, I'd like to emphasize that I don't mean in any way to disrespect film... it's the heritage of photography and there are still advantages to film for certain applications and under certain conditions... I only mean to focus solely on any misguided positioning that a few film photographers seem to engage in (perhaps out of insecurity about the advancing digital age, and to cover up their lack of motivation to understand or accept modern techniques).
Instead of process (film vs. digital, HDR/Photoshop vs. not), it makes far more sense to me to focus on the success of the intent of the photo and the contribution of the artist (the extent to which the photographer DOES add his or her unique contribution to the result).