Is technology ruining landscape photography? - FM Forums

Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Landscape Posting Guidelines

FM Forums | Landscape Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 5 6 end

Archive 2013 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

Jul 04, 2013 at 10:27 PM

Todd Warnke
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

I don't know - I prayed to St. Ansel of the 10 Step Darkroom Program and all he offered was this from 1941.

http://rcodaphotography.blogspot.com/2010/01/inspirations-24-moonrise.html

Seems to me that technology is the very reason we have photography. Sure, it can misapplied, as it can be in any field. But in the end the stuff that employs it seamlessly and to a real artistic end will win out.

As for me, I HATE poor HDR and love HDR that doesn't look like HDR. I usually find in my own work that means not using HDR at all and instead getting a great in camera image and then trying to process it so it looks "natural" but with extended DR and lots of contrast. As for the technology side of things, having a D800e with fantastic native DR helps a lot.

Peace,

Todd

Jul 05, 2013 at 10:18 AM

roman.johnston
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Nope...not at all. I think if anything it is leaping it forward. Sure, some take it to extremes. but others really have started to hone the craft to a new level. Mark me down as one that appreciated all that digital has afforded us in control of the process from start to finish print.

Roman

Jul 05, 2013 at 10:42 AM

ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

It's like anything.

Some will embrace the evolving technology, spend the time learning it, and developing their skills to a level that they are comfortable with. Other's will learn just enough to get by... just like the real world too. Like a person that never learns more than adding a column of numbers in Excel.

Whatever that level, on a bell curve, is going to be no different that anything else in this world. Some will lean to the left, others to the right with the skills of most spread around the middle. We are all not equal with skills, with photography, software expertise, equipment used when processing, or even our eyesight when sitting in front of a monitor. The variables are so many with each individual (I can't imagine processing on a laptop, but some do it) that thee is a lot of compensation occurring.

It's like playing a guitar, some have it, others will never write "Classical Gas." You can have a PhD in a field and that won't make your photography good. (It might be a detriment actually). I'd submit there is no correlation between a persons education and photography, other than a learned self discipline.

So in the end, that person ends up posting what they think is their "best" shot, and even that may not be true... This board is many things to many people, we are not all lockstep with our photographs. Heck, some are posting 20-30 year old travelogue shots, they aren't here for advice or learning.

After that blather, and starting to take the train down the wrong track, I submit that pointing a finger at technology as a culprit is missing the bigger picture. As someone said, technology is neutral.

Jul 05, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

ckcarr wrote:
..... I submit that pointing a finger at technology as a culprit is missing the bigger picture. As someone said, technology is neutral.
Nicely stated.

It is not the capability of technology that is the problem. Rather it is the application and maybe even the idea that the new technology needs to be used at all. Do I really need to point my camera at the sun and then use HDR or blending to bring out the foreground? Maybe once or twice but the novelty wears thin quickly. As someone else said, just because we can, does not mean we should.

Jul 05, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Phrasikleia
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

ckcarr wrote:
You can have a PhD in a field and that won't make your photography good. (It might be a detriment actually). I'd submit there is no correlation between a persons education and photography, other than a learned self discipline.

You kind of drifted into the topic of another thread running here today (on educational background), but I think I see the connection you're making. At any rate, a PhD would not be the first degree that I would recommend to anyone who wanted to embark on a career in photography. A PhD is a research degree that typically culminates in a written project. It could certainly help prepare a photographer for writing about photography or for certain academic positions, but for everything else an MFA degree would be the most practical one for any aspiring photographer who wishes to pursue higher education.

Jul 05, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

I was the one who started the other thread. Actually it is a poll. I was intentionally trying to avoid any discussion and instead collect some data, valuable or not.

It is interesting to see that photography remains an unusual discipline somewhere between technology and the arts. The balance seems to be highly on the side of technology. Art training hardly seems to be valued or considered important. Certainly much less important than demonstrating good Photoshop skills.

Jul 05, 2013 at 12:20 PM

andyjaggy82
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Me thinks we spend too much time worrying about other people's work and not enough time exploring nature. Personally most of my favorite landscape photographers are mountaineers, backpackers and explorers who just happen to enjoy taking pictures and are good at it.

That said I don't begrudge anyone who shoots icons and 'gasp' might even shoot from their car window. They are doing what they enjoy, they are getting out into nature in the way that they are comfortable with, and I can't hold that against them. Weather it's someone shooting 40 miles up a trail in the wilderness, or someone shooting out their car window, they are enjoying nature and appreciating our beautiful earth, and that makes me happy. If it somehow offends you that they are doing this, and that they might be cranking up the saturation a bit high, then I would suggest that reflects more on you than them.

Photography does not have to be an extreme sport, contrary to popular opinion these days.

Jul 05, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Scott Kroeker
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

andyjaggy82 wrote:
If it somehow offends you that they are doing this, and that they might be cranking up the saturation a bit high, then I would suggest that reflects more on you than them.

BINGO!!!!!!

Jul 05, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Phrasikleia
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Camperjim wrote:
It is interesting to see that photography remains an unusual discipline somewhere between technology and the arts. The balance seems to be highly on the side of technology. Art training hardly seems to be valued or considered important. Certainly much less important than demonstrating good Photoshop skills.

Very true, particularly at the levels where most of us are operating. It's not until you look at the very highest echelons (e.g. Andreas Gursky, Cindy Sherman, Jeff Wall, Jerry Uelsmann, Dorothea Lange, Annie Leibovitz, etc.) that you really start to see a strong pattern of art education.

Scott Kroeker wrote:
BINGO!!!!!!

You beat me to it, Scott. Very well stated, Andy!

Jul 05, 2013 at 01:16 PM

schlotz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

andyjaggy82 wrote:
... then I would suggest that reflects more on you than them.

+1

Jul 06, 2013 at 09:27 AM

JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

andyjaggy82 wrote:
Me thinks we spend too much time worrying about other people's work...

+1

Jul 06, 2013 at 09:48 AM

ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Last year we had a long discussion on what is and isn't appropriate for the landscape board. However that discussion was geared more toward content, fake moons, and subjects shot. But, no one pretended to try and tell someone how they should develop (process) their images. It's an honest question that can be asked however (I suppose).

Now, if it's way over the top, garish, or to the other extreme, quite bland and ordinary - well the audience here will let you know. Doesn't mean you can't use tools as you see fit however. And it's your art, pleasing masses of people means compromise, pleasing yourself means taking risks.

So when you post an image, you know there will be some that will hate it, some will love it. And most will be just accepting of it. It's just different tastes is all. Some are traditionalists, and others want to push the boundaries. Actually the worst thing is usually no reaction at all! Which is also a "silent comment" by the way... And it can be entertaining when someone gets huffy because no one commented on their picture, when to most of us the answer was obvious... A standout image is going to have some "magic", where it all comes together. A synergy. If a picture is good, it's good.

But it's been said before "The more I shoot the luckier I get." (Tom Till)

Technology is like a TV. In the 50's & 60's people were content with what they got, because it's all they got and there was no real choice. Three networks broadcast onto tiny screens, that really were not that good. Fast forward to now, and choices are unlimited, with both TV type and content... Same is true with photography. You can do as you see fit.

What's interesting to me is why these type threads originate from individuals who don't typically post landscape shots. Perhaps if they consistently worked at it, and did it for years, they might understand more why some like to push boundaries.

Edited on Jul 06, 2013 at 04:33 PM · View previous versions

Jul 06, 2013 at 10:12 AM

fcarucci
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

My opinion is also no.

There is no such thing as "how the scene really looks", so any technology that helps the photographer achieve the vision of a scene he has in mind and helps him carry across the message he wants to communicate is very welcome to me.

To make my argument more practical, if in front of a scene I feel a sense of drama and I want to express it by saturating reds beyond what is natural, as an example, I'm happy I can do it. If, on the other hand, I feel a sense of calmness that I want to express through the image and I do it by muting colors further in post, I'm happy the technology allows me to relatively easily.

An image should stand on its merits and/or message (or lack of), not if it looks like "how the scene really looks", which can not even been defined uniquely.

Jul 06, 2013 at 03:35 PM

John S. Hudson
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

I'll add my 2 cents here.

I recently upgraded to a 6D with 24-105 from a 20d and various lesser lenses. The difference in the files I am now taking is jaw dropping. Thanks to the sensor cleaning, the dynamic range, the bump in MP, the quality of the lens, the size of the sensor, my images are WAY better than they ever have been. I am really hardly needing to do any editing at all these days. So for me, technology has made things much better for me.

I am relatively young, so I frankly don't know what landscape photography looked like 50 years ago. I do however know that 20 years ago you could spend a ton of time with tripods and large format cameras and velvia and filters and all manner of "technology" for those days.

I imagine at some point there was this conversation, probably in the 70s or 80s (whenever this was invented).

"Is autofocus ruining photography?"

and in the early part of the last decade:

"Is color film ruining photography?"

You get the point.

Jul 06, 2013 at 04:48 PM

daskibum
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

If one doesn't try to pass anything off as "this is what it looked like" when it obviously has hours of work, I see no issue. It is art.

My problem comes when someone pushes an image, over cooks it, adds colors, and spends hours tweaking a shot to make it amazing, then tries to pass it off as "this is what it looked like." Know a guy that is pretty popular on a lot of sites that has based his entire "photography career" off doing that. And he thinks because he can use technology to make his photos "great" he is "on another level" (his words). If he didn't push everything so far in post, most of it wouldn't be anything special. One of those things that probably shouldn't bug me, but it does.

Jul 06, 2013 at 08:36 PM

beanpkk
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Good discussion here. I just have a couple of things to say:

Very successful nature photographer/author David Middleton says, somewhat tongue in cheek, that the reason some people get so good at photoshop is that can't make a good image in the camera to save their lives! :-) He also says he has a personal limit of three minutes of post processing....if it takes more than that to make the image satisfactory he discards the image. Coming from the film era, I tend toward this sort of journalistic approach to post processing -- as someone pointed out when you got a slide back from Kodak (or whoever) you got what you got! I like images to show what the scene looked like.

But there are exceptions, even for us journalistic types, and I think there is room in "art" for practically anything, and that everyone has a right to process images as they see fit. Ansel Adams did much, from what I understand, of his work in the darkroom (!) playing with different chemistries etc. The lucky guy even got paid to live in Yosemite for (several?) years to do photography! What a gig.

I think that when a person looks at a landscape image, there exists some expectation that if they had walked up to that spot at that time and looked, they would have seen something pretty much like what the image portrays.

So we have journalistic landscape images, whose goal is to show as closely as possible what the scene actually looked like, and art landscape images which take a scene as a starting point and produce something potentially gorgeous that may not represent what a person would have actually seen.

The easy way, and a very educational way for those of us interested in improving our post processing knowledge and abilities, is for all of us to post not one image but two: the image pretty much straight out of the camera, and the image after post processing. This would let us see what is possible in post processing and perhaps show us a bit about how to do it, and it would also let us appreciate what the scene actually looked like. I would really like to see both because they teach different things. And this goes for more than just landscapes.

My $.02.
Keith

Jul 07, 2013 at 01:21 PM

ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

That's good for David Middleton. However basing anything that you do on a time limitation doesn't take into consideration a persons own expertise and skill set. Or, their general approach or difficulty performing any task in life. I had a friend once that we would kid "Life's a battle." For him, everything was difficult. So one man's 3 minutes is another's 3 hours.

Since most here shoot in raw format, posting a raw image coupled with a final edited version shows us nothing. Nor should it really. Taking a picture technically correct is but one in a long series of steps. And raw files are typically dull, bland, unsharpened captures of data. With no in-camera processing whatsoever. And what in-camera processing would be correct? Assume you post a jpeg that was processed straight out of camera. Would there be a standard starting point? Would it be using Nikons "neutral" "standard" "portrait" "landscape" "vivid" settings?

There's no point of that other than the "gotcha" a few might embrace.

This is really a presentation board, not a "how to" board.

Jul 07, 2013 at 01:44 PM

BluesWest
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Art training hardly seems to be valued or considered important.

+10. Most of the images I see posted on the internet -- whether landscape or wildlife -- seem to be taken by people who have no understanding of the basic artistic concepts of perspective and composition. Furthermore, they don't seem to grasp how the various elements of a photograph need to work together to guide the eye of the viewer. Lastly -- and most surprisingly -- most amateur photographers haven't learned the importance of light.

Note that none of the above has anything to do with technology.

John

Jul 07, 2013 at 01:46 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

beanpkk wrote:
Very successful nature photographer/author David Middleton says, somewhat tongue in cheek, that the reason some people get so good at photoshop is that can't make a good image in the camera to save their lives! :-) He also says he has a personal limit of three minutes of post processing....if it takes more than that to make the image satisfactory he discards the image.

There are many paths to making great photography. One is to make great images in camera and then use skillful and effective technique in post. This is the most common method.

The "three minute" thing seems like a odd and inexplicable "rule" - I'll have to assume that he really was speaking "tongue in cheek." There are photographers whose work most here would regard as some of the best available who have spend weeks or months working out the best way to print a particular image - and I'm speaking here of photographers who worked with film and optical/chemical post production processes. I guess if someone wants to set up arbitrary and meaningless rules like "no more than three minutes work on a photo," that is fine for them - perhaps it is some sort of display of photographic macho? Perhaps they don't sufficiently understand how to do effective and expressive post processing work? I don't know...

Some people "get so good in photoshop" for the same reason that some classic photographers became utter masters of the darkroom - as Adams said so famously, the negative is the score and the print is the performance. Just as in the most brilliant musical performances, those who don't pay attention to both components of the work are likely to fall short of what the medium makes possible.

From the perspective of a person whose goal is to make great photographic prints, I fail to see how it is nobler to ignore the important work of post production and imagine that you can "do it all in camera" than it is to ignore the important work of "capturing" the initial image and imagine that you can do it all in post.

We keep coming back to this bizarre and fruitless notion that photography is a thing done solely in the camera or that there is something ignoble about using skill in the darkroom or in digital post as part of the process of producing brilliant photographs. For the life of me I cannot figure out where that comes from. It certainly has no basis in the work of great, classic photographers. It has no basis in the work of the best contemporary photographers.

As much in post as in camera, the questions are those of taste and intent and integrity - not of what technique is used.

Dan

Edited on Jul 07, 2013 at 03:34 PM · View previous versions

Jul 07, 2013 at 02:16 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Landscape Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.