Once upon a time...

[BobYIL]

I do not know if this site has been posted before however I found it interesting enough to share with you; at least from the point of how we came to these days. Most of the photographers there were some fascinating persons with amazing stories behind; for us young photographers then they were the legends to admire.

Please note the equipment they use, how cumbersome the Graflex looks in the hands of Ms. Bourke-White. Tough situations, primitive gear, underrated lenses, conservative ISOs, limited number of frames... and despite these all they turned out some photographs hard to erase from our memories.

Then imagine them with the same gear we use today..

http://annakrentz.blogspot.com/2012/...ssignment.html

[Moriturii]

One word: Respect.

Pro-Photographers today are spoiled and I see no evidence of better pictures (or even as good, let alone better) today with ye Nikon D4s than those we saw during these folks' era carrying TLR cameras and rangefinders with turret-viewfinders.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by Moriturii

One word: Respect.

Pro-Photographers today are spoiled and I see no evidence of better pictures (or even as good, let alone better) today with ye Nikon D4s than those we saw during these folks' era carrying TLR cameras and rangefinders with turret-viewfinders.

The culinary arts does not change as long as our taste buds remain the same. Cooking a fine dish was more or less the same recipe + process 50 years ago as what it is today. These guys have afforded with their best to end up with fine dishes by "compensating" of what their gear and means lacked through their mastery. And the results are decorating the books, walls of exhibitions and museums since then.

Our photography today is based on and dictated by the conveniences supplied by the industry and it's slowly turning into a norm-to-follow; not unlike what fast-food had "occupied" the portion in our nourishment style. These years preparing a fine dish turned to be a "luxury" of time and effort to devote rather than cost, for those who know how to cook well fine cooking is possible also with low-cost ingredients.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Moriturii

Pro-Photographers today are spoiled and I see no evidence of better pictures (or even as good, let alone better) today with ye Nikon D4s than those we saw during these folks' era carrying TLR cameras and rangefinders with turret-viewfinders.

Why would you expect there to be better photos? The fundamental composition device is the same... put the frame around what you want in your photo. No new camera helps with that.

[Bike Tourist]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

Then imagine them with the same gear we use today..

http://annakrentz.blogspot.com/2012/...ssignment.html

If they had the same gear they would turn out the same stuff we do. The manipulations, adjustments and accomodations to the limitations of the equipment were part of the creative process. Real thought went into a small number of exposures.

Later, the road to the future was paved by 35mm photojournalists who would shoot countless rolls to get the image they wanted. Now, with digital, we can shoot images by the thousands and hope for a good one.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by Bike Tourist

Later, the road to the future was paved by 35mm photojournalists who would shoot countless rolls to get the image they wanted. Now, with digital, we can shoot images by the thousands and hope for a good one.

(Fact, whether we like it or not..)

[Phantomas]

For every photographer that is spoiled by digital xxx-frames-per-second gear there is one that is compensating for their photographic non-tallent to take crappy photos on film just so that people can go "wow, what a vintage looking photo! you shot it on film?! developed it yourself?! everything manual?! wow, you are SO TALLENTED!"

[daveleo]

Technology has always (generally) made tasks easier.
The camera made image making much much much easier than painting a picture (if you haven't tried painting, you should, just to get calibrated to that).
New cameras and computers (for those who want to learn to use them) take the image-making possibilities to another level.

If we are not seeing "improved" images it may be because (1) really everything has been done to death by millions of previous photographers and (2) we (as viewers) keep wanting to see the same old stuff we grew up looking at (our stuff isn't "better" because we don't want it to be different)

If there is a lack of imagination and courage in our images today, it is not due to advancing technology.

[Steve M.]

What, no Luigi cases? No handmade Artisan straps? How did they ever get by?

Wonderful photos.

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by Steve M.

What, no Luigi cases? No handmade Artisan straps? How did they ever get by?

Wonderful photos.

Ah, Steve...that is the only thing they are missing. The accessories!!! I agree, how can anyone get by these days without the leather cases, straps and, of course, bags!!!?

Sometimes I think I like my accessories too much.

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

there is one that is compensating for their photographic non-tallent to take crappy photos on film

Could you explain what "non-talent" means in that context? Who decides what talent is?

I'm really curious about this.

[Phantomas]

Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus

Could you explain what "non-talent" means in that context? Who decides what talent is?

I'm really curious about this.

By THAT context, I assume you mean context of this thread. Fine. According to this thread talent is defined by the simplicity of the gear one uses. The simpler the gear the more talented you are. Who decides who is talented and who is not? I do.

[bobbyrab]

Sorry, but there are some really disappointing photoessays in there as well, the Royal wedding, Krushchev's visit, the beagles on the Whitehouse lawn.
If anything it's made me realise we generally see the best of the best from Life magazine's output and maybe the overall output wasn't quite as high a level as we think.
It certainly doesn't show today's photojournalists in a bad light, even allowing for the technical advances they enjoy. Compositionaly some of those images are really poor.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by bobbyrab

Sorry, but there are some really disappointing photoessays in there as well, the Royal wedding, Krushchev's visit, the beagles on the Whitehouse lawn.
If anything it's made me realise we generally see the best of the best from Life magazine's output and maybe the overall output wasn't quite as high a level as we think.
It certainly doesn't show today's photojournalists in a bad light, even allowing for the technical advances they enjoy. Compositionaly some of those images are really poor.

Disappointment is inevitable if you were expecting they would show some "level" comparable to today's with the camera and film technology of the '40's. The year the Royal Wedding happened, I was born; today I'm 65. What about the photographs of Steichen, Stieglitz or Ewans then?

[bobbyrab]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

Disappointment is inevitable if you were expecting they would show some "level" comparable to today's with the camera and film technology of the '40's. The year the Royal Wedding happened, I was born; today I'm 65. What about the photographs of Steichen, Stieglitz or Ewans then?

I'm disappointed in the poor composition rather than the technical shortcomings.
Contrast the Royal wedding story on your link with HCB's Royal Coronation photos from 1937, ten years earlier than those in the Life link but compositionally not even close.
I think todays photojournalists biggest advantage is the wealth of great images from the past to learn and take inspiration from much more than better equipment.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by bobbyrab

I'm disappointed in the poor composition rather than the technical shortcomings.
Contrast the Royal wedding story on your link with HCB's Royal Coronation photos from 1937, ten years earlier than those in the Life link but compositionally not even close.
I think todays photojournalists biggest advantage is the wealth of great images from the past to learn and take inspiration from much more than better equipment.

Very true that they have learned a tonne! Look at the new generation Magnum photographers work.. and compare them with the first generation ones. I wonder why (or what happened) that the great majority of the photographic legends fell upon the lot of low-technology decades.

(BTW, I recall some of those pictures from actual Life magazine issues. They were not bad at all, actually they were excellent as many elder members here would remember. Life with its large format has been also a show place of pictures decades long, for Philippe Halsman's impeccable photography for example. The reproduction methods employed by such sites are really killing the original quality.)

[Phantomas]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

I wonder why (or what happened) that the great majority of the photographic legends fell upon the lot of low-technology decades.

You got old, that's what happened. Everything old is great, everything new sucks. Heard that before. The reason why you had so many "legends" in the past is that photography was not as accessible as it is today. With prolifiration in photography one has to fight a lot harder to stand out. In those days it was easy. Got a camera? Attended an event of significance? You're the man. That is not to dismiss importance or effectiveness of the images of that era, but I'm much more impressed by the reportage photos of modern photographers than those of Capa, for example (no disrespect to Robert).
You had great old photographers, you have great modern photographers. Maybe you should open your eyes a little and look around. Of course they might not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't mean they are less valid.

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Who decides who is talented and who is not? I do.

Interesting, so this is purely a personal opinion, with no other context?

[Phantomas]

Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus

Interesting, so this is purely a personal opinion, with no other context?

Quite. I don't think talent, beauty, etc can be judged objectively. In the eye of the... as they say. However, one thing that is objective is that talent can't and shouldn't be defined by the tools an artist uses. Spartan conditions don't always mean good results, and just like one can "cheat" with digital, one can "cheat" with film.

[L David Tomei]

"According to this thread talent is defined by the simplicity of the gear one uses. The simpler the gear the more talented you are." ...Phantomas

Actually, I would say the exact opposite. The more complex the gear, the more time consuming the process to make a final print, the more difficult the methods, the more constrained the protocols, to say nothing of costly, the more talented the person is considered when a photo is produced that is considered to be good. That is no less true today than it was 40 years ago when we admired the photographer who shot a dozen frames to get that one remarkable print, versus one of us who had their pockets stuffed with a dozen rolls of 36 exposed frames in the hope of finding one good one to put on the wire.

[dave lackey]

Ah, yes, the simple life that I so admire.

Thanks for this thread Bob... I for one, prefer a home-fixed meal with everything, including biscuits, vegetables and real meat rather than a visit to McDonald's. Even a quickly prepared meal of spaghetti, marinari and french bread is a delight at home.

I never saw a Happy Meal that made me happy, just fat.

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Quite. I don't think talent, beauty, etc can be judged objectively. In the eye of the... as they say.

Seems fair enough to me.

[BobYIL]

I admire these guys also for their ability to work essays by seeing thru some mediocre viewfinders like the one on the Contax RF, or micro-viewfinders of the Leica III-series by focusing thru one first and then framing through the other one or having to use seperate or turret viewfinders (I have them...Try to shoot with a 135 Hector thru a turret by changing focus! )

Ah, today if we see a little flaring through our M6's finder, then Arrrrgggghh!

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I'm disappointed in the poor composition rather than the technical shortcomings.

One thing people did, far more often than now, it seems, was to crop in the enlarger. If you look at books on photographic technique from the 'thirties to the 'sixties, you'll see a great deal of space devoted to topics, such as how many different images can be made from a single negative.

Some of the most iconic images, such as Alberto Korda's 'Che' and Ron Case's "Three Queens" are crops from much wider images.