DSLRUsers.com

Quite an interesting read, worth the 5 minutes.

One of the most difficult topics to discuss about photography and many other art forms is creativity. Creativity is an intangible that often isn’t recognized until it’s seen and often unappreciated until an artist has passed. This is one of the many reasons creativity isn’t discussed as much as gear. The tangible is always easier to grasp and has finite boundaries of understanding, where as creativity is amorphous and tough to pin down due to its variability from person to person

People aren’t photographing for history any more. It’s for immediate gratification. If you’re photographing to share an image, you’re not photographing to keep it

http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2013/ ... otography/

biggerry wrote:Quite an interesting read, worth the 5 minutes.

People aren’t photographing for history any more. It’s for immediate gratification. If you’re photographing to share an image, you’re not photographing to keep it

Years from now web sites like Facebook, Google+, etc etc will find that they have images that they can sell as memories of the old days. The original photographer (you and I) will be long dead.

"Remember when you had to use a camera to take a picture and then you stored it on a computer hard drive?" That will be the sales pitch.

Doesn't really seem too much different to finding a shoe-box full of photos in someone's garage!

there are some elements of truth to it and an intersting read. overall, personally, i find this sort of commentry judgemental and conceited.

If you’re photographing to share an image, you’re not photographing to keep it

really ? says who ? this sort of thing gets under my skin.

I don't believe digital imagery can be stored forever. There will be massive losses of data due to some unforeseen circumstance or other....nuclear or conventional war...massive sunspot or electromagnetic activity...terrorism or some other human element. Chemical or electrical degradation....Massive weather event. Lack of financial resources. Only galleries or museums have the expertise to protect imagery or data for long periods of time. Hence digital data will always only be transient in my opinion.....so the importance of making hard copies.

I don't believe printed imagery can be stored forever. There will be massive losses of prints due to some unforeseen circumstance or other....nuclear or conventional war...fire or mold/fungus...terrorism or some other human element. Chemical or pigment/ink degradation....Massive weather event. Lack of public recognition of its importance. Only galleries or museums have the expertise to protect prints or paper for long periods of time. Hence physical prints will always only be transient in my opinion.....so the importance of carving into stone.

Daniel, to paraphrase...

Maybe so Daniel, but prints have a proven track record. 900 years and counting so far if you count paintings. What digital file will ever have the value of a Rembrandt....and so be that well maintained and preserved. Just my opinion but electrons are slippery little suckers.

Thank you for sharing this article. Yes, I still suck - a lot.
I find it difficult to be creative all the time. Inspiration just
happens; it is not a thing I can put on demand like a new hat.
And yes, sometimes people like one of my photos because they
can see more in it than I do; while other times, I like a photo
but people don't and it puzzles me.
So it is gratifying to read that we all suck, more or less...

However, the documentary The Da Vinci Shroud points out
that it might be the first photo ever made.

http://www.smh.com.au/tv/Arts/The-Da-Vinci-Shroud-4360401.html

Matt. K wrote:Hence digital data will always only be transient in my opinion.....so the importance of making hard copies.

And yet, everybody is digitising their slides to preserve them for the future, not the other way around.

Cheers
Steffen.

Matt. K wrote:Maybe so Daniel, but prints have a proven track record. 900 years and counting so far if you count paintings. What digital file will ever have the value of a Rembrandt....and so be that well maintained and preserved. Just my opinion but electrons are slippery little suckers.

none of us will be around by the time this question is answered.

Rooz wrote:

Matt. K wrote:Maybe so Daniel, but prints have a proven track record. 900 years and counting so far if you count paintings. What digital file will ever have the value of a Rembrandt....and so be that well maintained and preserved. Just my opinion but electrons are slippery little suckers.

none of us will be around by the time this question is answered.

If it ever is.

Another article popped up this morning, touching on the points that Matt has raised. I'll post a link to it shortly, in a new thread.

i get the feeling we are dinosaurs and just dont know it.
when i want photos printed people look at me like i'm an idiot. i like photo albums, i like printed photos. i like to pull an album out on a weekend with a cuppa, turn pages and have that tactile feel of images. but i'd suggest this has become an antiquated view. i'm not judging that mind you, i'm just saying thats what i prefer. clearly others dont share that point of view and in particualr the younger generation who are far more inclined to want it as strictly digitised so they can see the shots on tv's, ipad's etc. i guess its not far different as pointed above with film and we adapted to digital very quickly, even though i resisted for a while out of sheer stubborness.

Chris,

Nothing wrong with being a dinosaur.

There is something about having the book in your hand - and that's true of whether we're discussing photo albums, a novel, whatever - that the digital equivalent simply cannot put a glove on, so to speak.

Late last year, Leigh went through a project whereby he grabbed photo albums from his mum, his grandparents, and from me; he scanned in a ton of images, and then ... had them printed into a photobook which he gave to all and sundry as Christmas presents.

It was a wonderful idea, very well executed, and brought tears to many eyes, such was the beauty, and the love, that it generated and harvested.

A few comments:

1. Alicia took a photo of Tommy which was as near perfect a photo of an infant that I had seen. This is without bias. She had it expertly printed on canvas; a medium I am not typically in favour of. The physical result is, in my view, far superior to that available from a purely digital format. However, the population that can appreciate it is limited to those who come to our home. I don't have an issue with this, but it highlights the difference between the physical form and its digital equivalent as far as sharing is concerned;

2. Similar to Leigh, I went through the process is digitizing slides and old photos with the purpose of producing physical books or prints for gifts to my parents. The response was similar to Gary's;

3. My new darkroom is about 55% complete. Once fully operational, I will have the pleasure of seeing my prints emerge that I do not believe is comparable on the computer.

My own observations; each to their own

Patrick,

Reschsmooth wrote:Once fully operational, I will have the pleasure of seeing my prints emerge that I do not believe is comparable on the computer.

And for me, that remains truly one of the greatest of all thrills in photography.

gstark wrote:Patrick,

Reschsmooth wrote:Once fully operational, I will have the pleasure of seeing my prints emerge that I do not believe is comparable on the computer.

And for me, that remains truly one of the greatest of all thrills in photography.

And that thrill can quickly turn to thoughts of "shit; stop developing" when you realize you have over cooked the exposure (and I did not mean to put the "z" in "realize")

gstark wrote:Chris,

Nothing wrong with being a dinosaur.

There is something about having the book in your hand - and that's true of whether we're discussing photo albums, a novel, whatever - that the digital equivalent simply cannot put a glove on, so to speak.

Late last year, Leigh went through a project whereby he grabbed photo albums from his mum, his grandparents, and from me; he scanned in a ton of images, and then ... had them printed into a photobook which he gave to all and sundry as Christmas presents.

It was a wonderful idea, very well executed, and brought tears to many eyes, such was the beauty, and the love, that it generated and harvested.

Great post Gary. Robyn's mother passed away last year. I spent many hours dredging through old photos and put together a fairly professional 15 minute video for the funeral. (The music was an old recording of "Until Then" by Stuart Hamblin). I don't think there was a dry eye in the church. I know this is not unusual for a funeral, but the images are powerful. Photography (especally B/W) is a powerful medium indeed.

Its great to see these kinda discussions here, thanks to all that joined it, it is a good read and great to see peoples opinions and experience.

DanielA wrote:I don't believe printed imagery can be stored forever. There will be massive losses of prints due to some unforeseen circumstance or other....nuclear or conventional war...fire or mold/fungus...terrorism or some other human element. Chemical or pigment/ink degradation....Massive weather event. Lack of public recognition of its importance. Only galleries or museums have the expertise to protect prints or paper for long periods of time. Hence physical prints will always only be transient in my opinion.....so the importance of carving into stone.

Daniel, to paraphrase...

For me - I think digital, film, printed copies are all the same when it comes to longeivity. If an effort is made to preserve the image it will last, if not then it won't. Digital can be as permanent as a print. You can convert from one electronic format to another over time or print and preserve it that way. Same as making new copies of a fading negative etc. It's all about the stewardship of the image.

stubbsy wrote:It's all about the stewardship of the image.

This pretty much sums it up.

Nothing will last forever, digital, print, quantum, [inset future tech here].

biggerry wrote:Quite an interesting read, worth the 5 minutes.

One of the most difficult topics to discuss about photography and many other art forms is creativity. Creativity is an intangible that often isn’t recognized until it’s seen and often unappreciated until an artist has passed. This is one of the many reasons creativity isn’t discussed as much as gear. The tangible is always easier to grasp and has finite boundaries of understanding, where as creativity is amorphous and tough to pin down due to its variability from person to person

People aren’t photographing for history any more. It’s for immediate gratification. If you’re photographing to share an image, you’re not photographing to keep it

http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2013/ ... otography/

Perhaps the images are appreciated many years later because then it's history... In the present, well, things are not as interesting I guess.

As to the comment on creativity, I am not sure. I reckon it was really creative science to come up with the LHD and chase a bloke called the Higgs Boson around a large circular circuit. Most people are not interested. Many years from now, it will be hailed as a landmark discovery when we finally uncouple the higgs field to create/bend mass....

To turn the question around, one could ask, who are the most creative people around today? Can someone think of a short list?