Do we take them like they used too?

[rockman525]

I often marvel at the power of B & W photography from the time before digital, and even color film. Are the photographers of that day..........., Aw **** I don't know......, are we taking the shots that someday people will look back and marvel at the same qualities, or will they be unable to separate the wheat from the ubiquitous modern cultural chaff that pervades most of what we shoot.

This wonderful set of B & W photos in this piece from the NYT Lens blog http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/surplus-and-solitude-in-the-breadbasket/. makes me ask the question. I just hope something that comes out of my camera can have the power, heart, and zen silence that George Tames's photos have.

[Godfrey]

Simple answer, not trying to be snappish, "work harder, edit more."

I shoot about the same number of exposures with digital as I used to at the height of my film shooting days. But I've become a much better editor in recent years. Through editing you learn how to see what you're making photographs of, it helps focus your work.

Whether your work becomes timeless and reknowned is a matter of luck and how much promotion you put into it. Whether your work becomes satisfying and enriches your life, and delights the audience you want to talk to, depends on how much effort and energy you put into it.

[benlees]

Have a look at the work of Larry Towell. Similar vein of the NYT article mentioned but modern and good.

[driver]

Sure "we" do. George's photos were a result of capturing light, subject matter and ones own personal vision. It still happens today.
We can all take a stroll down memory lane and look at excellent black and white images from the past but that will take us only so far.
I'm by no means pro-digital but I do find the digital black & white thread on this very forum proof that the power of black & white imagery is alive and well in 2012. I hope to contribute an image to marvel at - in the meantime, I have a great hobby to learn and grow with.

[rockman525]

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Ilove this (and the photographs) from Larry Towell's Tumbler.


"I just don’t shoot digital. I won’t. I like film. Photographers today have to compete. If a picture is six hours old, it’s too old to use. If you look at the coverage of the tsunami you can go on to any of the websites and there’s a catalogue there of 400 photographs all taken in the past 30 minutes for you to look through. And none of them will stay with you. They’re just news pictures. They’re not even good news pictures.
They’re nothing — they don’t have any meaning. There’s no time put in them, no thinking that’s put into them and when there’s no time and no thinking put into still photography or into photojournalism what does that say?
I think that’s damaging, and I think it also it destroys the notion that photography is reflective, that it’s about history, that it’s about self-contemplation. And it’s all being replaced by a sort of philosophy of speed which is only of fleeting significance. I think the news is killing journalism."

[Mattco26]

The world is changing. Photography is changing with it. I'm tired of hearing how everything from the past was better and had more meaning. Things change, it's up to you to make the best of them.

We took plenty of horrible photos 20 years ago, we just didn't have such an easy avenue to display them.

If anything is killing journalism it's the 24 hour news channels, not digital photography or camera phones.

[sparrow6224]

Michael --
Some of the answers you've been given (work harder! etc) are pat. Sure, work harder, get better. And there is something in the "time" argument. The George Tames photos from the 1950s are medium format -- 6x6 it looks like, unless he just happened to crop them all square which, being a news photographer, he would not have. MF is traveling light by the standards of those days: a lot of papers and magazines still required their photographers to use the Speed Graphics and other 4x5 view cameras out there. In any case he was likely using a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad or something very close -- folding rangefinder 6x6 (most were 6x7 or 6x9 in any case) outfits were generally not a newsman's choice. Now, those cameras gave you the image backwards. They require very careful composition. And not only did he know how to compose a picture, each of them handles the light, which is quite powerful, flawlessly. Is he using filters? probably not. In any case he knew his film and his camera and the exposures are perfect (with help from a superb lab, I might add; the NYT lab was not as good as Time-Life's but it was pretty damn good). So you can work your ass off but if you don't actually learn these technical skills, you're out of luck. I'm a dumbass photographer. I take a lot of pictures. I am forty rolls behind in processing them. Do I take notes? No. I look at a picture that really works and do I know what the hell I did? Not likely. I haven't learned to slow down and think. Take notes. As a journalist he had to take notes for all those photos so they could be properly identified and used. Time. thought. Look at picture 15 in the Tames lineup. You think he just happened upon that? Look at the lighting! He'd have needed a set of full blown studio lights to do that on his own. He saw the light and saw the man and put him there -- no way the guy was just standing perfectly lighted waiting for a New York Times photographer to walk by.... that is a great photograph.

Now, the other thing. There's time. And there's place. There's an old expression, attributed to various photographers, as the secret to success: F8 and be there. In other words you have to be where the picture is; you have to move. You have to search. Home, comfort, daily routines, favorite coffee place: forget it. Go to Afghanistan and get your ass shot. Go to the vast wheat fields and stinking broken down trailers of the Great Plains wheat fields. Take risks. Get to know people and take their pictures. And, regarding the F8 part: be in focus.

Lastly the Larry Towell: I went to the images search engine in Google, put his name in, a page of amazing shots sprang up, and I thought: Magnum. The look is unmistakable. Go check out Magnum's website and read its history if you are unfamiliar. These masters of the past have much to teach us, both about the craft of art and also about the vivid moral uncertainties -- the dangerous unknowing -- at the core of our experience.

[Godfrey]

... So you can work your ass off but if you don't actually learn these technical skills, you're out of luck. I'm a dumbass photographer. I take a lot of pictures. I am forty rolls behind in processing them. Do I take notes? No. I look at a picture that really works and do I know what the hell I did? Not likely. I haven't learned to slow down and think. ...

So learn. You sound like you already know all you need to know, you just have to learn it and do it.

[jsrockit]

Good (great) photography has been done in every decade since it was invented. You just have to look to different sources than in the past.

[Paul Jenkin]

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

There are world class exponents of street and reportage photography out there now, much as there were back in the day. Their images are the ones that you remember and the medium, in my view, is an irrelevance - other than those photographers who need to have their shots on their editor's desk seconds after being taken, rather than a few days afterwards.

It's simply a matter or supply and demand and the money sloshing around the system as a result of the world's seeming obsession with "celebrity".

[emraphoto]

the internet has been a real blessing for photography. it has also been a bit of a problem.

keep in mind i say this with the utmost respect for all.

wire service photojournalism is only one segment of photography. the idea that a photograph isn't worth anything 6 hours after it is taken is not in touch with the reality of things. therein lies the problem with the internet. things that are said take on a momentum of their own and before you know it, they become law. lots of the work you see is indeed rapid-fire wire service work. shoot it one minute and file it the next. there are lots of folks working on assignment (well maybe 'lots' is a stretch) and their work is not under this model. photojournalism is a very broad term and there are numerous models to work under. there is a lot of work shot perspectively that doesn't see the light of day until after the whole project is complete and well edited. there are also situations where filing under strict time lines is just not possible. as photographers become more of target and the technology they use becomes more of a liability, you will see these scenarios multiply.

i might also point out that during the 'good old days' there was still a push in wire service for very quick turn around times. the only difference now is that the gear to transmit is considerably smaller, cheaper and faster. i don't need to spend my evenings souping in the bathroom of my hotel and then firing up some behemoth of a device attached to the rotary phone.

as others have mentioned, there are extraordinary photographers every decade, every year. just like the film days, one has to sort through the noise to find the right signal. what concerns me about the idea that the photographers of the past were the only ones worth paying attention too is the self fulfilling prophecy that follows. if we don't celebrate and support the talented photographers who are out there now, indeed we will be left with the past.

if you can't find a photographer working now, who equals the talent of Capa or HCB, you aren't looking hard enough.

edit: might i add that there have been people here at RFF who have gone out of their way, in tough times, to support my work and i am indebted to them.

[emraphoto]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Good photography has been done in every decade since it was invented. You just have to look to different sources than in the past.

amen and thanx for pointing it out

[emraphoto]

Originally Posted by Mattco26

The world is changing. Photography is changing with it. I'm tired of hearing how everything from the past was better and had more meaning. Things change, it's up to you to make the best of them.

We took plenty of horrible photos 20 years ago, we just didn't have such an easy avenue to display them.

If anything is killing journalism it's the 24 hour news channels, not digital photography or camera phones.

what is killing journalism is the fact that people aren't paying for it. there are many issues in between but the fact remains, people aren't supporting it financially.

not making a judgement, just stating a fact.

[Dana B.]

Originally Posted by emraphoto

what is killing journalism is the fact that people aren't paying for it. there are many issues in between but the fact remains, people aren't supporting it financially.

not making a judgement, just stating a fact.

It wasn't long ago our newsroom had 17 photographers; we now have five. It wasn't long ago our newsroom had 135 people; we now have scarcely 30 -- to cover an urban 2.5 million. There are many reasons for this, a long and dreary discussion. While hard editions still pay the bills, the Internet points to the future. But while analogue customers remain most loyal, hope now rests on digital fly-by-nights. And while Internet news gets tossed for free, only marginal ad revenue supports it.

[Paul Luscher]

Well, let me put it to you this way: I've seen a lot of Robert Capa's work besides the famous photos. And frankly, a lot of what he shot was not very good. I can think of one, in fact, that was horribly out of focus (and I'm not referring to the Normandy beach shots). In fact I think a lot of what made Capa was not necessarily because he was such a great photographer, but because he just happened to be at the right places at the right time in history.

Ditto for many of the other Great Photographers. It's really likely only because of a few dozen or so images that we think they're so great--they also shot many ho-hum images, as I've seen, likely because they were on assignment and HAD to shoot something, even if it wasn't that good.

I think the other thing which makes us think they were Great Photographers is that they DID shoot back in the old days--so their photos now have the golden glow of "retro". A modern Pepsi vending machine and a 2009 Nissan Sentra in your photo may not seem to add much, but a B&W shot from way back when, which includes an old Pepsi sign and a 1957 Chevy, somehow becomes "timeless" and "iconic".

So yeah, I think editing and selection has something to do with whether one is perceived as a Great Photographer or not. And yeah, digital has made it so that it becomes very easy to shoot--and to display hundreds of images which are mainly dross--but that doesn't necessarily mean that there are less good photographers and photographs today. Just a case of separating the wheat from the chaff--and I'm sure it was so even back in the days of Eisenstadt and Cartier-Bresson.

.....Besides, in about thirty years or so, that shot of yours with the Pepsi machine and the Nissan Sentra will be "timeless" and "iconic" too....

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Paul Luscher

.....Besides, in about thirty years or so, that shot of yours with the Pepsi machine and the Nissan Sentra will be "timeless" and "iconic" too....

Something most people seem not to think about. I agree.

[sparrow6224]

Paul Luscher -- did you actually look at the 20-odd pictures on the times blog, to which the OP linked? Do you really not see exceptional technical skill and intelligence -- even wisdom -- present in those pictures? Obviously, it's in the nature of photography, that every photographer takes bad pictures -- the success rate is not every frame, or even 1 out of two. So that doesn't prove anything. It's when you see exceptional image after exceptional image. Te link shows you ONE assignment this guy went on. The dude was very very very good.

[Pherdinand]

Seriously, i think nowadays most photographers try to make up for the missing content and inspiration with some deep philosophy and overabstractized titles/messages.
Like this title that you refer to. Seriously, do you think HCB or Capa or Newton or Adams or whoever your classic favorite is, would come up eith a title like "surplus and solitude in the breadbasket"? Not trying to be an asshole here, but seriously.

[Pherdinand]

And now that you asked; what the heck is "zen silence" and which great old master shot it on film ?)
U see what i mean?
Just my two cents worth, of course, and take it with a grain of salt etc etc

[btgc]

Originally Posted by emraphoto

what is killing journalism is the fact that people aren't paying for it. there are many issues in between but the fact remains, people aren't supporting it financially.

I have thought why news portals (more concentrating on local ones) are mediocre at everything except speed of adding and updating articles. Articles are lousy and full of typos, twenty pictures are lousy and differ in minor nuances instead of three stong ones. Is this the same issue? I mean, in days of past when people bought newspapers to read what new has happened, they voted for journalism with money each day, or each other day. Today people pay for internet and expect using content for free.

Sometimes I think - who pays for this portals, what are their goals? Their owners have communication channels, it's like a honey coated spoon - put it on the ground and bugs and ants will come for free lunch. If ants aren't used to find their own food they depend on spoon (owner of it) and after some time they will either accept lower class honey, then sugar syrup or just....die hungry? So masses got free news and mediocre journalism - that's in general.

[Pherdinand]

Thats a good comment btgc, and i can agree with it.

[paulfish4570]

bt, you are a sage.

[Gabriel M.A.]

"No time to be good. Good enough, if possible. Gotta cash in."


And that fits in a Tweet, too.

[zuiko85]

Godfrey's first post nailed it I think. Remember that old saying; 'The difference between amateur and professional photographers, professional's have bigger wastebaskets.'

Oversimplification to be sure but basically true.

[emraphoto]

Originally Posted by btgc

I have thought why news portals (more concentrating on local ones) are mediocre at everything except speed of adding and updating articles. Articles are lousy and full of typos, twenty pictures are lousy and differ in minor nuances instead of three stong ones. Is this the same issue? I mean, in days of past when people bought newspapers to read what new has happened, they voted for journalism with money each day, or each other day. Today people pay for internet and expect using content for free.

Sometimes I think - who pays for this portals, what are their goals? Their owners have communication channels, it's like a honey coated spoon - put it on the ground and bugs and ants will come for free lunch. If ants aren't used to find their own food they depend on spoon (owner of it) and after some time they will either accept lower class honey, then sugar syrup or just....die hungry? So masses got free news and mediocre journalismU - that's in general.

I am not sure if this is true about all of the market. The New York Times, The Guardian, GEO, The Daily Beast (Newsweek online), The LA Times etc. are all supporting some super talent. With that said, your comments do seem 'sage like' when one considers the bulk of the market.

Again, I don't blame those unwilling to pay. There are many reasons behind this. 'Not paying' does remain a fundamental problem though and I highly encourage all to consider supporting those they feel are worth it. However little they can.