Elliott Erwitt: Digital Photography makes you sloppy :) [Archive]

Juan Valdenebro

10-06-2010, 17:42

gdmcclintock

10-06-2010, 18:02

All of this is sheer twaddle.

Nikon Bob

10-06-2010, 19:18

All of this is sheer twaddle.

+1

Digital photography does not make you sloppy, you make yourself sloppy if you let yourself.

Bob

Steve Ash

10-06-2010, 22:22

I think he hit the nail on the head with this comment. Digital is very help when you start photography as it gives you immediate feedback and helps experimenting. But once you passed your first 10.000 shots I think it is better to leave that track. An analog camera might be the better tool to develop further.

Regards
Steve

gp-ak

10-06-2010, 22:53

If you have one ounce of discipline you can compose the same way with a digital or film camera.

cidereye

10-07-2010, 03:01

All depends entirely on the individual and possibly the camera and mind set behind it as well.

I know with a Nikon D70 I was maybe sloppy at times and took many, many shots but when using my old M8 not so because the whole approach to using a manual focus RF camera is generally more considered and used it like a film camera i.e. Not taking countless shots just because the digital film as it were is free.

I do prefer film though but surely that is a personal preference and has nothing whatsoever to do with good, bad or sloppy photographs. It's the nut behind the viewfinder end of the day pure & simple. :)

Neare

10-07-2010, 04:17

If you have one ounce of discipline you can compose the same way with a digital or film camera.

This is true but most don't have this discipline - why? Because they get sloppy. :angel:

johnwolf

10-07-2010, 04:36

I imagine the same was said of HCB and his little cameras. Nonsense then. Nonsense now.

ebino

10-07-2010, 07:18

Q. Mr. Erwitt. do you think automobiles have corrupted the timeless institution of human transport by carts and so on?

Erwitt: Indeed. Automobiles have made transport too easy.

ederek

10-07-2010, 07:37

Have to agree with Elliott, need to fight the sloppy tendency with digital.

Composition: not so much, it is very similar between film and digital. The viewfinder is essentially the same and framing is approached similarly (at least for me).

Exposure: yes, easy to get sloppy and chimp w/ the added benefit of highlight clipping and a nice histogram. Need to use these features as a "check" and not as a feedback loop to iterate exposure.

Can one be disciplined? Yes.
Is it hard to be disciplined? Very.

His comments on survival of the fittest for street images was interesting, with B&W typically being film and thus a more considered image; therefore, on average the b&w 'survive' to a greater degree.

gp-ak

10-07-2010, 08:08

Everything is sloppier than daguerrotypes. We should have stopped there.

Photography has only gotten easier and sloppier (and more interesting) since day one. Like somebody else posted you could make the same exact argument for 35mm.

For someone like Ralph Gibson or Eliott Erwitt to say that the new, easy way to photography is bad is ridiculous when they were using the easiest way to photograph in their time, 35mm.

JayGannon

10-07-2010, 08:13

I love how people on a forum put down a highly succesful photographer as nonsense and essentially a crank. Maybe people could learn sometime from him...

sonofdanang

10-07-2010, 09:16

"People who are visually apt don't have to have explanations. They just react to (photographs), and that should really be sufficient." - Elliott Erwitt

LeicaFoReVer

10-07-2010, 09:34

Q. Mr. Erwitt. do you think automobiles have corrupted the timeless institution of human transport by carts and so on?

Erwitt: Indeed. Automobiles have made transport too easy.

this has nothing to the with art and photography. In one of his interviews he comments on manuplation of the photos digitally. "Go do painting instead"

gp-ak

10-07-2010, 09:41

I love how people on a forum put down a highly succesful photographer as nonsense and essentially a crank. Maybe people could learn sometime from him...

I enjoy his photography. Doesn't mean I have to agree with is philosphy. You can turn out good photographs with any camera.

jky

10-07-2010, 09:56

+1

Digital photography does not make you sloppy, you make yourself sloppy if you let yourself.

Bob

Yep - agreed.... I went through the "sloppy" phase when I first started with digital.

Initially, the ability to shoot 2000 images haphazardly of the same exact thing was such a revelation.... then the realization that I had 1999 crap images in my hard drive set in...

LeicaFoReVer

10-07-2010, 10:40

I believe using digital photography for art, is like using a robotic hand for painting :)

Nikon Bob

10-07-2010, 11:56

I believe using digital photography for art, is like using a robotic hand for painting :)

Believe what you want but I think your are just fooling yourself in this case. This is another one of those unending arguments that have been around since the beginnings of photography every time there was a change to the equipment and/or process used. Everyone has their own perception of the state of things regardless of what any guru has to say. Everyone is free to create in their own way and none are right or wrong/better or worse.

Bob

sonofdanang

10-07-2010, 12:07

Believe what you want but I think... This ... unending argument...since the beginnings of photography ... Everyone has their own perception ... is free to create in their own way and none are right or wrong/better or worse.

Bob

Well put, Bob. Too many people looking for rules and constraints. And, when people deride a process, usually all it does is illustrate how little they know of the process.

As for Mr. Erwitt, he remains one of my favorite photographers. That doesn't mean that he's above enticing people. He is, after all, possessed of a keen eye for the absurd, ironic, and "interesting" situation.

Chris101

10-07-2010, 13:59

If you have one ounce of discipline you can compose the same way with a digital or film camera.

If this were true (and I contend that it isn't) then the only reason for digital photography is convenience and ease.

I am in the camp that digital photography and film photography are two different media. Yes, they can be mixed and matched (what we call hybrid photography), but they have fundamental differences, not just that one is easier but equivalent.

Chris101

10-07-2010, 14:00

I believe using digital photography for art, is like using a robotic hand for painting :)

Earlier this year, I did a project that involved painting uranium salts onto silver images. I wish that I had one of those robot arms for my analog photography.

LeicaFoReVer

10-07-2010, 14:04

Earlier this year, I did a project that involved painting uranium salts onto silver images. I wish that I had one of those robot arms for my analog photography.

So you liked my idea! Thanks :)

Well it will be still art! as you are holding it...

By the way I gave that example for comparison purposes, you interpret in your way. I dont mean anything.

The time will show I think which photos will last longer in the history of art...

wolves3012

10-08-2010, 04:12

Not sure I agree with this. Digital offers two advantages over film, the chance to check the shot and the negligible cost of extra shots. I don't see why that makes you sloppy unless you let it.

What makes people sloppy is the automation that's included in a typical digital camera - auto exposure, colour-balance, focus and so on. For myself, if I'm using digital I still apply the same effort and tend not to use more automation than I need to get the shot. The chance to verify I got what I wanted is very handy. I still prefer the look of film though, since I can neither afford nor justify a digital that approaches film's characteristics (full-frame etc).

The other point about digital is the simple availability. With P&S cameras now so cheap and one built-in to most mobile (cell) phones, people tend to "snap" away at anything and post the results on all-pervasive internet. In the days of film, peoples' "snaps" were fewer and got tucked away in a drawer. So now we are bombarded at every turn by the mass-photography brigade. Most of it is of low standard, low quality and not what "photography" used to mean. It dilutes the "art" side.

ederek

10-08-2010, 05:02

<snip>
What makes people sloppy is the automation that's included in a typical digital camera - auto exposure, colour-balance, focus and so on. For myself, if I'm using digital I still apply the same effort and tend not to use more automation than I need to get the shot. The chance to verify I got what I wanted is very handy. I still prefer the look of film though, since I can neither afford nor justify a digital that approaches film's characteristics (full-frame etc).
<snip>

Absolutely!

It is possible that the "A" mode used with a film system leads to a "sloppier" photographer than the "M" mode with a digital shooter.

That said, one of these days I'll just set it to A with Auto ISO and go get sloppy!

shadowfox

10-08-2010, 08:28

Who says that sloppy can't be art? :)

I've seen quite a few of Holga photos that are artistically well-done. Those are sloppy, by definition.

jsrockit

10-10-2010, 04:49

Oh, he's so sweet... Honestly I think anyone with an opinion being really different from his, for sure has not lived film photography deeply enough... Ralph Gibson says it loud too: "Digital photography is not photography"... I think it's like being an athlete and running a marathon... You can do it by car too, but should both things share the same name, even if driving requires some visual attention and physical effort too?

Cheers,

Juan

Bull****... I've burned through thousands of rolls of film and I prefer digital. I see no difference in application. Photography is photography. Sounds a lot like that old argument that Painting is real Art and Photography is a science. We all know this is not true.

Brian Sweeney

10-10-2010, 05:12

Digital, J-3 close-up and wide-open on the M8, modified for 0.8m close-focus:

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/gallery/data/517/closeup_f15.jpg (http://www.seriouscompacts.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=437&title=new-close-focus&cat=517)

Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5, wide-open on the Canon P, converted to LTM using a J-3 focus mount.

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=162&pictureid=1534

Nikkor 5cm F1.4, wide-open on the Nikon SP:

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=166&pictureid=1559

I can assure you, having used film cameras and Digital cameras to modify and adjust lenses, my photography is not sloppier using the M8.

sepiareverb

10-10-2010, 05:46

It may make the average joe sloppy, but I find exposure just as important even with RAW files as it is on film. Having the ability to develop something more than once is nice, but that doesn't help if the exposure is crap.

Not what he's talking about, but I don't have dedicated clothes for working in the digital darkroom like I do in the wet one...

jsrockit

10-10-2010, 07:47

It may make the average joe sloppy, but I find exposure just as important even with RAW files as it is on film.

I'd say it is even more important with digital.

CSG123

10-10-2010, 08:57

As someone, like many, who grew up on film and has also moved into digital, I like both. Digital makes photography accessible to the masses, for better or worse, because the cost of film and processing is out of the equation. Most of the time, I shoot digital but even though my cards might hold a few hundred images, I still seem to shoot like there's film in the camera.

As to what this fellow claims, he's no more right than wrong. There are thousands of equally talented photographers out there who simply haven't achieved recognition who shoot digital and/or film. Their opinions are just as valid as his. Or mine.

Keep in mind when discussing how digital photographers can burn through images like crazy because there's no cost and so it makes them sloppy that professionals in the past and those shooting film today burned through dozens of rolls on assignment and most of their work was crap too. They simply were using the client's money to pay for film and processing.

Bottom line? Like was said earlier in this thread, it's a load of twaddle.

CSG123

10-10-2010, 09:11

I should add that I respect Erwitt's work and accomplishments tremendously but think he's wrong in this case.

igi

10-10-2010, 09:15

Some people will always say that the harder way is better... even if they live their whole lives with the convenience of the civilized world.

I bet painters said that photography is without soul and can't capture emotion during the early 1900's.

We just have to take lightly the old people and their ego-fueled ramblings and live today just as how they lived yesterday with the ego-fueled ramblings of the older generation.

jsrockit

10-10-2010, 10:47

I bet painters said that photography is without soul and can't capture emotion during the early 1900's.

You bet they did? It is well known that they did... :)

Neare

10-11-2010, 06:40

clayne

10-17-2010, 03:42

These types of threads always crack me up.

An acclaimed and accomplished photographer will share their (actually qualified) opinion and people will jump out of the wood-work to tell them how their opinion is basically nonsense - all the while ignoring the main fact that they are not Elliot Erwit, they are not Ralph Gibson, and instead of speaking how they're full of it should instead consider the opinions of photographers who've done a hell of a lot more than they have.

tomtofa

10-20-2010, 14:37

Most of what I've posted on RFF is digital, and I've been fairly satisfied with my 'keeper' rate for my digital cameras. Maybe, for a typical walkabout, 8-10 shots out of 20-30 taken (including the exposure/focus bracketing).

But recently I was going through some old film slides and negatives (some of the negs are posted here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96499&highlight=tomtofa). I was kind of amazed at how many were one-offs. So maybe in that sense I've gotten sloppier; it seems I used to come across a shot, take it, often get it, and move on. Now I'll see something, take a bunch of images of it, and choose one from them...

Dwayneb9584

06-02-2011, 19:54

Man I remember back in college in my history classes talking about daguerrotypes, chemical processing, film, digital. Back when they were doing daguerrotypes they were trying to innovate photography. Making it easier to do. daguer and Niepce were both working to push this. So now that we got it, it's just to easy. Ha, Isn't it about the technology? BTW I shoot 35mm film :)

jwc57

06-03-2011, 04:06

If we take this off the sensitive topic of photography...
What if Erwitt was instead talking about the good debate of Paperbacks vs. E-Books?

Do the film defenders accept only paperbacks and the Digital's feel alright embracing E-books?

As in, does this 'digital is scum' ideal transfer into all new technologies?

No, unless you're talking about auto-spell correct and auto-grammar. That is probably a more accurate comparison than whether the final result is analogue or digital. I've heard my daughter's friends say that they don't worry about spelling, Word will fix it.

Likewise, at another forum, a pro photographer posted an image of a couple, shot for their engagement session, and wasn't worried about the pole sticking out of the groom's head because they could fix that in photoshop. There is a very large group of pros now that don't worry about the small details because they can clone out anything that offends them later. All they really had to do was move---left, right, up, down---but, instead, they decide to fix it later.

Chris101

06-03-2011, 11:53

...
Do the film defenders accept only paperbacks and the Digital's feel alright embracing E-books?
...

No. I shoot a fair amount of sloppy digital, but do not like pleasure reading from electronic devices.

Unless I'm reading this forum that is!