Technology vs. Purist photography..

F-117HWK wrote in post #8833956
So what do "purists" consider all the legendary film photographers who were masters in the darkroom? Dodging and burning was/is a common practice in the darkroom, as well as many other techniques that are now available in PS or other editing programs. Photoshop is this era's version of the darkroom. It is the digital darkroom, if you will.

Precisely. Ansel Adams invested huge amounts of time and effort dodging and burning. Why did he do this ? Because he had an idea of what he wanted a picture to look like, and it wasn't exactly what it did look like.

So was he a purist ?

I guess not.

samueli wrote in post #8834735
Technology obsoletes skill in many cases, and that plain and simply stinks. Sometimes it feels there is more emphasis on gathering the right equipment then actually perfecting the trade. But you have to if you want to stay on top of the trade. If your a hobbyist, well, you can emerge from a purist shell anytime you want. As an artist, being a purist may help you more than hurt.

But as soon as you mention the word "trade", you are now part of an equipment consumer group that needs the best equipment to provide the customer with the best possible images. If your a wedding tog and a camera comes out next year that gives you an extra step of clean ISO, you simply owe it to your customers to have that camera as soon as you can, for those low light shots. Skill or not, if your competitor has it, he will be better able to capture certain situations. Equipment and technology is at least 50% of this trade, if not way more.

Maybe it's not so much enlightened or superior, but large amounts of skill and practice being trumped by a camera setting, or a PS action. Not everyone live on boards like this or is aware of every technological advancement, but instead practices their craft.

I'm not trying to argue, there are just so many ways to look at the impact of tech on photography. At times it's sickening, and I respect those on all sides.

i think you're trying to read between the lines and you're assuming quite a bit. i completely understand the draw of simplicity, as i use a meterless rangefinder and a full manual film SLR for roughly 40% of what i do. just because i don't use tonemapped HDRs or ultra-saturated scenes doesn't mean i'm a purist though. i just have a different artistic style than those who do choose to incorporate those methods into their work.

my reference to the word "trade" was aimed at photography as a whole. the context of which, was simply alluding to the fact that there is no such thing as purism in the photographic process because there is nothing that you could definitively consider "pure" in terms of digital photography. it's been a muddy wash of techniques and styles from the very start, and digital that mimics (note that i would never equate my digital work to my film work, regardless of how similar they look) analog is a style in itself. i have to work hard in lightroom to make my 5D's images resemble what my F1 creates with a roll of HP5.

by not using lightroom or photoshop, you are indeed just letting your images be altered by canon's presets rather than your own hand. if anything, it's MORE automated and artificial than tweaking and correctly exposure and temperture in post. there is nothing pure about either one.

i shoot portraits and weddings along with my other work. my newest pieces of technological hardware are my 580EXII's, next youngest being the four year old 5D's, and the rest only get older. skill or not makes a massive difference in what my competition can capture and what they can't. by assuming that shooting a wedding is 50% equipment, i think you've already bought into the concepts that you're claiming to distance yourself from.

cdifoto wrote in post #8833206
"I'm a purist" is really just a fancy way of saying "I don't know squat."

It depends.

Some artists still make their own paper for calligraphy,etc instead of buying very high quality paper. They do this because they are experts on how paper is made and how each part of the procedure affects the final quality of the paper. They know much more than "squat".

I'm a "purist" when it comes to vegetables in that I believe the closer the source of your vegetables is the better off you are. I bet that I know more about vegetable gardening than 99.99% of the non-purist.

I don't know squat = newbie. I'll just use part of all the techniques available to get as good or better results = purist.

Watch out. Fifty years from now, you may become a purist.

oaktree wrote in post #8834862
Watch out. Fifty years from now, you may become a purist.

i think the fault i find with the idea of purism is in the semantics itself. it implies purity, and that simply doesn't exist in art.

just food for thought.

yogestee wrote in post #8834117
If anyone is a purist they'd be writing with a fingernail dipped in tar and sending letters via carrier pidgeon..

My real response to this post should arrive in the next seven days or so, keep an eye out!

I only posted this digitally, so that you'd know it was coming.

I have to go wash my hands now.

:p

A good craftsperson knows how to reach an end most efficiently. If I have to reduce the size of a block of wood, I can sand the heck out of it, I can plane it down with a hand plane, or I can use a hand or power saw. One of those ways will reach my desired end most effectively and efficiently, and if I know my craft, I will use that way.

Some things can be done either in the camera or in post processing, but are likely better done in one or the other--and that could change depending on other circumstances. A good craftsman will know.

RDKirk wrote in post #8834991
A good craftsperson knows how to reach an end most efficiently. If I have to reduce the size of a block of wood, I can sand the heck out of it, I can plane it down with a hand plane, or I can use a hand or power saw. One of those ways will reach my desired end most effectively and efficiently, and if I know my craft, I will use that way.

Some things can be done either in the camera or in post processing, but are likely better done in one or the other--and that could change depending on other circumstances. A good craftsman will know.

qft.

I think "pure" is simply a nonsensible term when we are talking about a relative degree of technology in what is--from the very beginning--a technological craft. It's like being a "purist" aircraft pilot who disdains anything other than flying by the seat of his pants. Sorry, bud, but to be a "pure" flyer, you'd have to be born with feathers.

An old joke: A well-known billionaire approaches an attractive young lady in a nightclub. He asks her, "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
She thinks a moment, then says, "Yes."
He replies, "Then, would you sleep with me for twenty dollars?"
She sniffs indignantly, "Just what do you think I am?"
"We've already established what you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."

A photographer sniffing at advanced technology is just about the same way.

alt4852 wrote in post #8834757
i think you're referencing teenagers from sitcoms in the 80's and 90's. hahaha, i honestly haven't heard "talk to the hand" since i was in elementary or middle school.

Yes, I think now it's just hit the "delete key" when you get that text message...

Technology does sometimes obsolete a skill. That does not "stink." That simply forces the art and craft forward and upward.

Carpenters once had to cut their own nails. That was a skill. Then they developed a machine that could cut nails more quickly, more cheaply. When a machine can do a task as well or better than a human, that task is no longer a "skill," and certainly not an "art." If a machine can do it, it becomes mere drudgery--letting a machine do it frees the human to elevate his craft. The carpenter who no longer has to cut his own nails can spend more time with the more creative aspects of his craft.

Before autofocusing, a sports photographer had to spend years perfecting the ability to follow-focus a 300mm f/2.8 lens on a football, hockey, or basketball player. Yes, that was a skill, and an enviable one--some people never had the DNA to develop that kind of dexterity--it was kind of an athleticism that not everyone could attain even with great practice.

But a machine now does it with greater success than the best sports photographers ever attained, which frees them to pursue the higher elements of art and craft.

RDKirk wrote in post #8835032
I think "pure" is simply a nonsensible term when we are talking about a relative degree of technology in what is--from the very beginning--a technological craft. It's like being a "purist" aircraft pilot who disdains anything other than flying by the seat of his pants. Sorry, bud, but to be a "pure" flyer, you'd have to be born with feathers.

An old joke: A well-known billionaire approaches an attractive young lady in a nightclub. He asks her, "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
She thinks a moment, then says, "Yes."
He replies, "Then, would you sleep with me for twenty dollars?"
She sniffs indignantly, "Just what do you think I am?"
"We've already established what you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."

A photographer sniffing at advanced technology is just about the same way.

hahaha, long analogies usually end up being nonsensical, but i think this one is a pretty good analysis of the spectrum we're dealing with.

gkarris wrote in post #8835290
Yes, I think now it's just hit the "delete key" when you get that text message...

in the opposite timeline direction.. you had kids who listened to elvis since ragtime and jazz weren't cool enough, and people who avoided each other on the street. so.. what's changed?

What I'm saying is that as you approach 70 or so, and can't fully keep up with all the new features of your Canon 1DsmkXXIV and Photoshop CP25, someone may call you a purist. See my definition of a "purist". It's a shifting moving target. We may all come into its site one day.

My problem was equating a "purist" as someone "who knows squat". There may be many reasons why someone may not want to use all the technological advances available, besides not knowing how to use it.

Another definition: Someone who uses all the technological advances available = an advanced amateur (since it takes more than technical knowledge to be a good/great photographer).

If you can combine technical knowledge with that other stuff (creativity, drive, wisdom, humbleness, vision, etc), then we'll have a chance to become a good/great photographer.

FWIW: Just heard Flickr adds 3 million photos per day! That's technology for you.

Edit: Hmm. What happened to the quote? Technology screws me again.

RDKirk wrote in post #8835365
Before autofocusing, a sports photographer had to spend years perfecting the ability to follow-focus a 300mm f/2.8 lens on a football, hockey, or basketball player. Yes, that was a skill, and an enviable one--some people never had the DNA to develop that kind of dexterity--it was kind of an athleticism that not everyone could attain even with great practice.

But a machine now does it with greater success than the best sports photographers ever attained, which frees them to pursue the higher elements of art and craft.

That's funny you mention it. That is a skill that I practice as much as I can, since autofocus really disappoints me more times then not. I think it would be useful to know that you've nailed your focus every time, because you've dialed it in yourself.

As far as the nail cutter example goes, most pursuits for the average person have a skill set. definite floor and ceiling. Advancements can expand those limits either way, but more often I see technology simply shrinking the skillset.

I can see it now with photography: "This guy can point the camera better than that guy, so we should hire him." "No, I just found this guy who can shoot totally one handed!"

Years ago when outsourcing was big talk at our company. The reasoning was they could outsource the mundane and low skill work... Like application design and programing, database design and administration, network architecture, etc. Free up folks to pursue more interesting and challenging career paths. It was great. We where then left with only the mundane work with many folks way over qualified. The next step in the career path was the cheese line.

Thankfully the outsourcing thing didn't pan out well, but the reasong sticks with me and is relavent to technology.

They got that straight from the top. In 2001, President Bush said outsourcing was no problem--outsourcing jobs would free workers to be retrained into better jobs. This was in response to the uproar over computer programming being "offshored." What "better jobs" was he thinking about? Rocket science? Brain surgery?

Unfortunately, there appears to be a brain-sucking monster lurking in the White House, because not long ago President Obama stated that only "unskilled" jobs were being exported. I guess he also rates anything less than rocket science and brain surgery as "unskilled." But from what I can see, the "unskilled" jobs are the ones least likely to be offshored...and being filled by "undocumented workers."

That's only part of the job issue, though. The fact is that our education system is designed to create scads of sociology majors and corporate cogs, but society doesn't need very many sociology majors and corporate cogs. We need a much greater proportion of people who know how to build things and keep them operating...which our education system is actively working to prevent.

I have a slide rule hanging right here beside my computer. I learned how to use it in 1966, and that was a useful skill right up until around 1975, at which time it was dumb not to use a pocket calculator. I don't know anyone who needs to make calculations every day who still believes a slide rule is a better tool than a pocket calculator.

But we are ultimately talking about an art that is supported by a craft. Once upon a time, painters had to compound their own paints--and that was an intricate craft. There are very few painters these days compounding their own paints, and I don't think any of them (even the ones that do compound their own paints) believe painting has suffered for it.

chopper5654 wrote in post #8833137
i dont know where i stand on the digital era in this regard.

i guess i am a purist.....that is slowly coming around.....reluctantly​.

to me, layers, transparencies, multiple image shots, and heavy pp all fall into the category of "faking" an image that didnt really exist. or, using technology to manipulate something that couldnt otherwise be captured with only the camera. so, i have a bit of an issue with all the HDR shots that are all the rave right now. i almost view them as "cheating."

the purest form of purist would be to break a stick with your bare hands and somehow set fire to it, then go find a cave and draw what you remember seeing. Everything that has come after that has been a new technology designed to help humans create more and more life-like images to share with other humans.
All this talk of 'Purism" is totally without merit. I didn't walk to work today and I am not going to bathe in the creek tonight, I think I will probably leave my film bodies on the shelf tomorrow.