“Taking Pictures” and the Death of “Photography” in the Digital Age

This article probably makes me sound more like a jaded, pretentious, and bitter old man who still remembers using glass negatives than a twenty year old college student, but the field of photography has changed dramatically over even the last 10 years, and I’m not sure I like where it’s going.

I say ten years because that’s about when the Nikon D1– the first “affordable” digital SLR– came out, and digital photography started its slow but exponential take-off. But we don’t even have to go that far back; let’s just go back 5 years to my freshman year in high school. At this point, when I started photography, we had a decent darkroom setup with about 30 enlargers, as well as rolling rooms, a developing room, and a color darkroom for the “advanced” students. There wasn’t even a computer in sight. Now jump ahead to my junior year, 3 years ago. The school bought a mac and an Epson 4800, and opened up a digital photography class. Most people were still working with film, but the change was happening.

Now jump ahead to the present. A few months ago, I went back and visited the school, only to find the photo department in the middle of some remodeling. They were taking out the darkroom, leaving only one enlarger for the truly hardcore, and replacing the enlargers in all of the other slots with computers. One of the few places new photographers still had the opportunity to get their hands dirty with real film and real, careful, developing processes was going out of business.

Some might argue the rise of digital photography has helped make “photography” more easily accessible to everyone, but I don’t think this is true. I think it has just given more people the ability to “take pictures.” You would be hard pressed to find someone coming out of my high school’s photography program now who even knows how to manually focus a camera, or who takes the time to carefully adjust the composition and exposure of his photograph in the field because he will be able to so easily just “photoshop it” later. In making this diluted, snapshot form of photography so easily accessible, I think the rise of digital has drastically lowered public appreciation for the work of truly talented photographers.

Back in the “good old days,” I think it was fairly common to think of Ansel Adams as a skilled and masterful artist. Now, when I go to a photo gallery with my friends, the contemporary photographer on display might have taken some nice photos, but most of my friends “could have taken that same photo if they were just there and had a better camera.” Things like Photoshop filters have enabled them to make even their poorly executed photos look neat. So now, rather than simply appreciating the time and effort the other photographer has put into his work, they sit around stroking their egos, trying to convince themselves that the photographer isn’t all that great and that they could have done better. If you don’t believe me, let’s take a look at some examples from flickr.

Here are two photos which I believe are really beautiful. At the time of this writing, one had 19 views, 5 comments, and 2 favorites. The other had 7 views and 3 comments, one of which was my own.

By efemerydy

Merveillous sunset at the sustenpass by Abderhalden Sandro

In short, that’s real photography that took time and effort, and might not actually be so easy to duplicate; i.e. my friends probably couldn’t have taken them. And people don’t like these.

Now here are some examples of, simply put, bad photography that people love.

Back Hill by n.s.c.

That is a ridiculously over-processed image with nothing of interest going on, so it is probably true that anyone could have taken this photo. It has 104 views, 19 comments, and 3 favorites.

Just enjoying the day by mystafied

Another uninteresting, easily reproducible photo. 44 views, 25 comments, 1 favorite.

It almost seems like photography has lost its status as an art (I would guarantee that “art” galleries outnumber photography galleries at least 5:1). Professionalism no longer seems to have any value. Rather, people seem to seek out amateur qualities in artwork so they can comment on how they could have done better. Sadly, true beauty means nothing when competing with self-interest and narcissism.

Photography is, without a doubt, changing right now. It’s just not clear whether it will become something new and amazing or merely a shadow of its former self.

Which HDR Software is Best? A Quick Review of (Almost?) All the Options Out There

You’ve all probably seen an HDR (High Dynamic Range) image, whether you recognized it or not. They’re those highly dramatic, often very stylized, photos that can be either beautiful or ugly as sin, and they’re all a result of software technology that came out about 3-4 years ago. I first read about (and subsequently started, then fell in love with) the process in a May 2007 article in Popular Science. The article listed a few options for HDR programs, and since then I’ve tried out all those options, and then some. So, is it worth giving all of the software out there a try, or will you just be wasting your time?

Qtpfsgui: Free

A really strange name for a really strange program. It is free, open source software, so of course I tried it first, but I found it’s not even worth the download. It can do a rudimentary job of merging images into an HDR, and you might even be able to do something that vaguely resembles tone-mapping them, but you simply are not going to get usable results. My first images with this program were just a very crude estimation of the examples I had seen in the article. In short, though it is free, it will probably just turn you off HDR entirely.

Adobe Photoshop CS2+

Photoshops CS2, 3, 4, and 5 all have some form of HDR generation in them. I only have CS2, so I can only speak for it, and unfortunately, CS2 is not very useful for HDR processing. It can generate an HDR that might be fine for all I know, but it doesn’t have any dedicated tone-mapping tools, so unless your monitor can display 64-bit images (chances are, it can’t) you won’t be able to see a final product using CS2. Additionally, it simply won’t allow you to merge an HDR from a single RAW file. This isn’t technically “true HDR,” but I find it works fine in most cases, and it is your only option with fast moving subjects. So again, the lesson is you need dedicated HDR software, not just Photoshop.

FDRTools Basic/Advanced (Free/$50)

I tried the “Advanced” (full) version of this software. This might not be a fair review, but even after spending some time with it, I was not able to produce an image. I’m not sure if it was just because the interface was too confusing and unclear, or if the program was actually lacking necessary functionality. Whether it had the processing tools I needed or not, I wasn’t able to find them, so I have to give it a thumbs down for being poorly designed and hard (impossible?) to use, at the least.

HDR Expose: $150

This one’s getting expensive, and its feature list is so pretty, it must be good, right? Not as far as I could tell. It’s relatively new software that seemed very promising, and the company (Unified Color) is releasing even newer software (32 Float) at the end of August. Rather than simply tone-mapping the image, like any other software, it tries to have you work directly with the HDR image using “32-bit floating point precision.” Yeah, I’m not really sure what that’s supposed to mean either, but what ends up happening is: the image looks really bad, like any HDR before tone-mapping, because you’re still trying to look at the HDR. Additionally, the software is incredibly slow, taking more than twice as long to create an HDR than my favorite software.

Dynamic Photo HDR: $55

There are only two HDR programs out there that actually work, and that I could recommend. This is one of them, though it comes in second place. The software works decently, you can make good HDR photos with it, and there are a lot of developing/tone-mapping options. Too many in fact. And that’s really my only complaint about this software: there are two or three times as many options and sliders to play with in Dynamic Photo HDR as there are in my favorite program, so you can easily spend a lot more time playing with the images. However, this extra time seems to end up becoming wasted time. I processed the same photo in both programs, and though I spent a lot more time on it in Dynamic Photo HDR, the final product was almost identical. This happened multiple times too (not just a fluke). So which program is my favorite?

This one -> Photomatix Pro: $100

One of the oldest programs out there is also the best. Though the $100 sticker might seem a little expensive, you can also probably find some good discounts on it (I got a student version for $40). The program merges HDRs just fine, and during tone-mapping, you have enough options to be able to do whatever you want, without having so many that they become excessive and distracting. The only real complaint I’ve had about it is that I haven’t been able to get batch processing to work (if I try to generate the HDRs first, save them, then come back and tone-map them, the process never works. When I open a saved HDR file, it’s always severely damaged.) Despite this, the program is perfectly functional, and the interface is also very intuitive without sacrificing features.

In short, Photomatix Pro is still the HDR software to beat, and, for the time being at least, you can’t go wrong with it.

Shown at Stella’s Coffeehaus

Just a little update from the world of Robobodo, three of my photos are being shown at Stella’s Coffeehaus (1476 South Pearl St., Denver, CO 80210) from now until September 29th. These are the three photos:

I also do want to say thank you to the owners of Stella’s and their artwork curator, Susan Bell. It’s always nice to get an excuse to print and frame some of my images :) Additionally, if you do live in the Denver area, you should consider submitting your artwork to the coffee shop. They are very supportive of emerging and amateur artists (photographers, painters, etc.) and it is a nice venue. They also often have live performances by unsigned musical artists and small bands. If you are interested in displaying artwork there, you can pick up submission guidelines in the store (they are unfortunately not available on the website) or contact Susan Bell with questions.

http://www.stellascoffee.com/

http://www.susanbellfineart.com/

1476 S. Pearl St.

Incredible Documentary Photography by James Nachtwey

James Nachtwey has been a documentary photographer since 1981, when he went on his first foreign assignment to cover the IRA hunger strike in Ireland. Since then, he has worked in Afghanistan, South Africa, Rwanda, and Bosnia, among many others. The severe cost of many of the wars and social issues he has covered is clearly reflected in his incredible– and shocking– images.

http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

"Pakistan, 2001 - A rehab center for heroin addicts."

"Afghanistan, 1996 - Mourning a brother killed by a Taliban rocket."

"Guatemala, 1983 - Clergy traveled in military helicopters to the mass of Pope John Paul II in the war zone."

http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

77 Beautiful Examples of Photography

This is not new content from me today, but I saw this post over at InstantShift and really wanted to share it with all of you. They title it somewhat strangely as “Mix Collection of 77 Brilliant Photography to Refresh your Mind” but a lot of the photographs are truly beautiful and surprising, and they cover a wide variety of subjects. I think they would be worth a few minutes of your time. All the images link back to the artists’ pages. Take a look!

http://www.instantshift.com/2010/08/06/mix-collection-of-77-brilliant-photographs-to-refresh-your-mind/

Phantoms of Ancient Times: Some Photos from my Latest Trip to Hungary

I realized that, for a photo blog, there weren’t many photos up here yet. So, without further ado, here are some of my images from my trip home to Hungary in July. Bear with me, the urban setting was a little different from my usual subject matter…

Bullet Holes from World War II in a Building in the Old Jewish Quarter of Budapest

Protected from Harm

Beautiful Thoughts

Nameless King

Housing of St. Istvan’s Hand

The Hand of St. Istvan, First King of Hungary

The Hungarian Parliament Building

The Chain Bridge, One of Ten Bridges over the Danube in Budapest

View of the Royal Castle

Buying a New Camera? Why Not to Wait for EVIL to Rule the World

This is another topic inspired by my friends thinking about getting into serious photography. When I say serious photography, I don’t mean getting a compact Coolpix or Powershot and taking snapshots of random events, people, and places in your life. I mean getting an SLR (Single Lens Reflex) or d(igital)SLR where you can control everything about the camera, and where it is up to you to take properly exposed and carefully composed images.

So let’s say you’re like my friend– thinking about seriously getting into photography. I’ll explain in an upcoming post why I (heavy-heartedly) recommend going digital over analog, but let’s say you are planning on getting a digital camera. You’re really just trying to decide between the EOS 50D and the D40 when you hear about a new kind of camera: EVIL. It’s kind of a silly acronym that stands for Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens. The Electronic Viewfinder part of that means it’s more like a compact camera, in that a prism and mirrors don’t reflect the light from the lens to the viewfinder (like in an SLR) but rather the sensor is constantly recording information and the scene is shown on a screen somewhere. And I don’t think I need to explain what interchangeable lens means.

Why should you worry about this kind of camera? Well, another blog thinks it is promising enough to provide 5 Reasons to Ditch your dSLR. No offense, but I would disagree with them. They’re five reasons are:

1. “They’re small.” This is really the only thing they have going for them. Yes, they’re closer to the size of a compact than a dSLR, so they are more portable. But put on a 200-400mm lens and suddenly the whole package is just as big as a dSLR, probably with worse weight balance.

2. “They take great pictures.” This is debatable. I have friend who think iPhones take “great pictures,” but I would still take my D2x over an iPhone any day. Furthermore, this point is based on the fact that they have larger sensors, similar to those in dSLRs, rather than the miniature kind in compacts. But if sensor size were the only contributing factor to image quality, why are there five cameras in the Nikon dSLR line with the same, DX size sensor? And why do their prices range from $500 to $1700?

3. “You can change lenses.” You can do this with a dSLR too. This is not a new benefit.

4. “They’re fast.” So are dSLRs. Again, nothing new.

5. “They don’t scream ‘Look at me!’” This is just another way of saying “they’re small.” Because they don’t have a mirror, they are admittedly quieter as well, but these two benefits don’t outweigh…

The Cons

As of right now, there are only two EVIL camera lines out there: Olympus Pen and Sony Nex. The first big con is that they are so new that there are relatively few lenses available for either. But more importantly, the cameras in these lines retail for about $600-1200. This is the price range for a decent dSLR, which is fine if you accept the EVIL camera as a product of comparable quality. But take a look at the Sony Nex 3 (images from this CrunchGear page on Nex-3 features:

The thing simply looks like someone jammed a lens on the front of a compact camera. In many features, it resembles a compact more closely than a dSLR as well. First of all, I notice that there’s not actually a viewfinder; you’re taking the photo through the screen, like a compact. Secondly, the only important controls on the camera are the shutter button and the wheel on the back, which means the only way you can control ISO, aperture, shutter speed, white balance, and other such things generally considered critical to serious photography is through screen menus and options. Most dSLRs have easily accessible wheels and controls dedicated to changing these settings on the fly.

In short, EVIL cameras, at their current stage, seem like a step up from compacts, but definitely not like dSLR competitors.

So why am I giving them any attention at all? Because this could all change if Canon or Nikon took a crack at them, and it just so happens that rumor has been circulating about a Nikon EVIL camera after one of their patents showed up on the internet a few days ago.

Unfortunately, all we have is that patent (which includes some more images and a low quality Google translation of the patent’s text, which seems to focus more on an internal, protective barrier that will close automatically to protect the sensor when the lens is removed). The patent seems to show an EVIL camera with a true viewfinder, in which optics reflect and magnify the image from a small internal screen. This is all we really know about the camera.

The expectation is that it will be officially announced at Photokina on September 21-26. However, it may not go into production until 2011.

So is it worth waiting until 2011 to get your first camera? Or, if you’re not a beginner, is it worth waiting until then to upgrade your body? Until the end of September, there’s no way to know what kind of features these cameras will have– whether they will more closely resemble dSLRs or just compacts like the current models– or whether they will be outrageously expensive or not. There’s not even any guarantee that they will be announced at Photokina; they might just be concept models planned for production in 2012 or later.

This makes me say no: it’s not worth the wait. Right now, we can’t know how long the wait will even be, and though EVIL cameras might end up “revolutionizing” the industry, they might also end up being an expensive way of doing nothing new. If you really want to get into photography, you should not hesitate to buy a dSLR. I don’t think you have to worry about them becoming obsolete any time soon, and most of your lenses and gear should eventually be usable on EVIL cameras, even if they do end up taking over the world.

What are your thoughts on EVIL cameras? Have you used the Sony Nex or Olympus Pen? What were your impressions? How did they compare to professional or pro-sumer dSLRs? I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions!