Hallelujah to that. I don't mind seeing what's out there to some extent but the ranting and raving about the number of card slots, new lens mounts and pixel count is done to death and beyond. I stopped buying photography magazines because they became thinly-veiled adverts for the latest cameras and lenses and contain very little about photography. I'll do the same with the YT channels that can't see further than pushing their fanboy reviews of (insert name of gear here).
Maybe just a third of the way through the video so far, but needed to pause for a moment to comment on how refreshing this discussion and topic is. Thank you, Ted. ❤️
you all prolly dont give a damn but does any of you know a method to get back into an Instagram account?? I stupidly lost my login password. I appreciate any help you can give me
@Zane Lucca i really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and Im in the hacking process now. Looks like it's gonna take quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
starting out a decade ago I used to think that I would just find amazing things to photograph, unfortunately that rarely happened the photos did not look how I wanted. but learning the technical side and now I understand the cameras limitations as well as how to get exactly what I want.
@@Minoritynomad ...assuming that creativity is, in part, defined by gear. I don't really agree. Artists start with a concept and the gear isn't really important. It probably doesn't even enter their heads. So the difference in artistic value starts well before and is far more fundamental than equipment.
@@thethirdman225 why? with every idea you got you have to have the possibilities to actually create it in mind. There is no creative spark thats not based on the possibilities
One of my favorite videos in a while Ted, felt like an old-school Art of Photography. Your opinion and knowledge combined in something I can think of for many times to follow.
I'm amazed at the sports shots Munkacsi produced with what looks like a 4x5 camera. I was a newspaper photographer in the mid-70's and I had a hard enough time with a couple of thumb-wind Nikons and manual focus lenses. I thought some of the old guys still using TLR's were nuts, but they were getting the job done. Not long ago I was showing a young man with his new mirrorless camera with a zillion autofocus points some of those old pictures, and he asked me what they were taken with. When I showed him a well-used Nikon F, he simply didn't believe me, and suggested it was "impossible" to shoot sports without autofocus and a high frame rate. When I explained to him the idea of knowing something about the game you were shooting so that you could guess where the play was going and pre-focus in that area, he looked at me like I was from Mars. I had to smile when you mentioned instantly posting photos to the internet. In the old days, our version of that was having photos ready by a deadline for use in the paper. I can well remember coming back from an event, developing film under time pressure, and then covering your still-wet film with acetone, hanging it up, and lighting a match to the bottom. Flame would shoot up the strip of film, and it was instantly dry enough to print from. It wasn't great for the film, but it got the job done in time. Fortunately we no longer have to resort to things like that to have immediacy.
For me, the biggest thing that digital photography did for the field is shorten the learning curve. With film, you'd have to write down (or try to remember!) settings when taking a shot, develop the film, then see what you did right and what you needed to improve. The advent of that back screen meant you could immediately course correct. We talk smack about chimping, but it's critical in the beginning phases of photography. I may have cut my teeth on film, but I only started to really progress once I began using digital. You're right in saying that it's hard to figure out what the standout thing will be from where we are now. My dad was an artist; a sculptor and painter. But he painted with fire. Painted with it like a brush on thick watercolor paper. I suppose it's my life's goal to find my own angle in art that would do him proud.
Great video and discussion, during the lockdown, basically 5 months at home, I shot on almost a daily basis my faithful Nikon D700 with a 50mm f /1.8, that's almost welded to the camera. I got thousands of images of my kids, I do have newer cameras, more Megapixels, better autofocus yadda yadda yadda, but I rather use my D700, hand it to my kids sometimes (5 and 1 years old during lockdown). That's the tool I want them to learn on, later when they have newer cameras, they'll already know the basics, and what the camera is doing, or going to do when presented a certain scene. Keep this videos coming Ted!
The irony is that all art forms, to some extent have the same same issues between technology and creativity, but photography the issues seem to be more amplified because photography is more obviously technology based than other art forms. Its hard to argue there is no technology in glass blowing or ceramics, but we do not really think of art forms such as painting as based on technology. The truth is that before tube paint, painters rarely if ever went out into the field with their paints, because paints had to be mixed in the studio and were less portable. Painters might go out and sketch a landscape and come back and use the sketch, but that is different than having your paints and all their colors out in the field. The invention of tube paint allowed painters to take their easels into the field easily for the first time. But another invention freed up painters even more: photography. Before photography, painters were focused on trying to paint portraits and landscapes in a more realistic way. Painting was photography, in a sense, before their was photography. When photography came along, it actually freed painters to explore things like impressionism. In fact, the two greatest technology advancements that enabled or influenced impressionism were the invention of tube paint and the invention of the camera. There is a lot creativity in photography that the technology allows, and although it is easy to get caught up in the technology as an exercise, it is also important to remember that the painter's brush is also a tool or technology. The question is: "has the technology been used to push forward the art or the creativity, or has it been used gratuitously like a special effect in a movie that does not push the plot forward, but has just been put there for the wow factor?"
You don't really need all that technology. Like you said Ted, look at those amazing images photographers made in an era without all this technology. Camera companies make you believe that you need that faster autofocus and panorama features. You don't, but at the other hand its so tempting and buying gear is so satisfying. Sometimes new gear can spark a new interest or motivate you to start looking at your subjects in different perspectives. So, do you need it? No. Is it fun? Yes. ;)
People shouldn't resort to paying loads of cash just to reignite their spark for photography
5 лет назад+3
I think reading books new to you can do the same as buying new gear, giving you new perspectives and reigniting the passion. At least for those who love to read.
Thanks Ted, this needs to be said more often. Like most photographers I am fascinated by gear, but when I interact at my local club and enter competitions its the image that counts, its creativity and emotional content. At that point no one care what the camera or lens was, and when all is said and done its the image that counts.
I am a broke, self taught photographer, i have been shooting for some 8 years now i think, i ve stopped watching videos about new cameras and photo gear for a long time now because i know, i cant afford them, i have a now old canon 700D, a cheap ass tripod, a ripped camera bag...so basically i am a broke photographer, but whenever i got out to shoot, i try my best to make the best of what i have...i dont go out as much as i want to, i ve live in my room for months now, the last good photo i took was last year, i dont go out much anymore...i am depressed by everything around me but like i said, when i i go out to shoot, i try to plan everything...last year, i saw a photo a guy made with a super expensive cam...prob worth around 5k, the cam he used...but you see, the end result was not that good to me, so i decided to go to that same place and to a better shot that he did with his super expensive cam...i of course planed evrything but in the end, yeah...i kinda got the shot i wanted and it was way, better than that expensive 5k cam...the cam i have now may be cheap compared to almost everything there is on the market today but at least, i know that when i want, i can. I just hope now, that i can get out from my depression and my room so, i can continue doing what i like most. Cheers.
Irukandji Nakano that Canon is still a camera that can create amazing images. Creating can help with depression, you can even start shooting in your own room. I hope you find the way to start shooting again and feel better.
Irukandji Nakano - try not planning just explore your area town, the little less obvious things. Subjects Will come to you and before realise you will be creating satisfying images as You see them. Expensive cameras mostly just get in the way of seeing, good luck 🙂
@@stuartbaines2843 I thought about that, taking my camera and just walk around my block without planing anything, i would probably find lots of hidden things to shoot. Small steps first...Thank you.
@@jdebultra You re absolutely right, the gear is not the main thing really when it comes to photography, the most basic entry level DSLR today is way better and more advanced than what the old masters used back in the day...so yeah, of course we can do a lot of things with what we have, its just that i have to find a way to enjoy simple things again, as simply as going out first...i am gonna eventually go back to shooting by starting with small steps first...Thank you for your kind words.
your right on point! there will be someone who will blow the photography off the walls . but most of us have a hard time doing this because most human being follow rather than develop new ideas. the one who does come up with a new way will be followed by most. I'm talking digital photography. there is also a possibility that it will go back to film .what goes aroung comes around.
the problem with gear is everything is focused away from the art side of the medium . the medium of photography it is easy to execute , you dont need to study alot to just snap a picture , unlike painting. You just pick the phone and you snap , bam internet content not a photograph . A photograph is really difficult to do , to have like a personal meaning mark etc. These examples were about either sports or fashion , which is nice and etc but they just to things technically , sports for example right now you get a camera with fast autofocus and a couple of super powerful lenses and you can do it no big deal , just money (and maybe get the good spots on the event you want) . But if we focus on the autofocus and the camera capabilities we are losing the forest and the tree and the branches because whoo cares about the autofocus , its what you want to make because nobody will ask you about the autofocus . The ultimate goal is to express your self through a medium that it is violated by the technological advantages , which at somepoint it was insane the turn from film to digital , but for us the people focusing on the expressive side , provoke images or the high end fine art , or shooting staged documentaries or doing deadpan photography it doesnt matter . because in the end you need to be true to your self and you will find a camera that will do the job , that is either film or digital what ever . I hope i made sense make more of these videos
Because of this channel I was introduced to John Free. When I get a little discouraged because I only own some entry level equipment, I remember John Free speaking of his go to camera, a simple Nikon F4 and a lens he bought for $40. He uses that simpler equipment by choice, and WOW... His stuff is tremendous. Love your work Mr Forbes. It has been an asset to me.
I’ve been wanting to create more content lately and found myself so submerged and focus on wanting to get the newest and latest tech that I’ve lost sight of what really matters: my creativity. Of course I need tech to create content but just yesterday I saw someone on RUclips using his phone as a camera and while anyone could argue the lack image “quality”, his content was enough to keep me and my kids entertained. In other words and just like you mentioned, the camera is still just a tool. In my opinion and as goal, instead of pushing the capability of my tools, I’ll be pushing myself! Thanks for your video!!
I think you nailed the "immediacy" thing with digital photography. Shooting digital lets you learn orders of magnitude more quickly from your mistakes. Plus, since you don't have to worry about spending money on things like film, developing, prints, etc. you have much more liberty to fail, and those failures can be both fantastic teachers and wonderful inspirations. All of my favorite photos, both visually and educationally, were ones that I took a risk on. Were I shooting film I may not have taken those risks.
I agree with many of the comments, it's nice to see a video here that's not solely about gear! It's important-and necessary-to use gear with photography, but it's also too easy to focus on it too much. I've always seen photography as finding a balance between the creative and technical. The best position to be in is when the technical is second nature, and almost "muscle memory", and then the creative part can come through without having to think about the gear too much (or at all).
Finally, someone said it! Who needs the most accurate fastest autofocus and for what? As the world of photography moves forward with new sensor technology everyday, I move backwards to film photography and manual focus and manual exposure. It is so liberating to finally be outside the race to have the latest and greatest camera or the sharpest lens. Thank you for affirming my beliefs with this video and thank you for speaking out what’s on all of our minds and too scared to say it.
Getting back to that classic Art of Photography. Anyone else remember the pre-RUclips days when we had to subscribe to iTunes for the latest video podcasts? - those were the days...
Randomly came across the video - absolutely loved everything about it. Only halfway so far but man, the way you speak is an art in its own self. You have me hooked with your flow/detail. So interesting and it's got me thinking about my genuine passion for photography - thank you for encouraging us to focus on us/discovering what us is.
The biggest business in the 21st century is mind influencing. And the manufacturers are very good at it. Videos like this try to pull back us to the ground. Thanks.
This video is where I was a few months ago and I’m so glad you made this. I went back to a Canon DSLR because it’s what I’m most comfortable with and I realized there was always something better. More focus on image making and less on gear.
Thought-provoking as usual, Ted! All I have to say is: A.I. haha but no to be serious I think the further and further technology advances, especially in the creative arts, humans will eventually fall behind and not be able to keep up or will be so overwhelmed by what they've created that it will end up stifling their creativity. I like this quote from Edward de Bono: "This simple process of focusing on things that are normally taken for granted is a powerful source of creativity." I think we as a community get so excited by the newest technology rapidly evolving before our eyes that we struggle to commit ourselves to one piece of it (likely in [subconcious] anticipation of the NEXT best thing), and, therefore, fail to truly focus all our energy and imagination on what we could possibly create with it. Really appreciate these breaks from all the 'tech talk' and gear reviews! Helps brings us back to reality. haha
Little added example: I've been contemplating for MONTHS about upgrading my current gear (Still have the a6500+18-105) even though I REALLY shouldn't spend the money, then I quickly realize, "Wait, Seth, you've hardly utilized what you already have, focus on what matters. Getting that 'better' camera or lens isn't going to instantly make you a better photographer. lol It's a real problem for me since I'm also a tech junkie and gamer. haha
Please don't worry about tech developments as they quickly outpace the need for them and they then end up in the rubbish. The great advantage we have over technology is our creative abilities. Tech can copy us but not create. AI is still limited by the algorithms that programmers develop and they are not the artists of the future.
Well, someone has to set the AI to enable it to take good pictures. Maybe photographers in the future will no longer be taking pictures with their camera but by writing an AI code or something. In any case, there's always a room for photographers.
Ted, Thank you for posting this. I found it very refreshing. More than half of the RUclips videos I see being posted are review about new camera bodies and lenses. It does get tiresome to see the same piece of camera equipment reviewed by a countless number of people. You are absolutely right that a camera is a tool and maga pixel count, auto focus are just bits and bites to add to the photographers tool box. I like to visual the end image and try to take and use the minimal amount of equipment to capture that image. Being with the end in mind! Keep these videos coming! I really enjoy your old videos about film cameras! Keep up the good work! 👍
I’m older, I’ve shot a lot of film and then switched to digital and now for fun I’m shooting film again. I have a list of a few digital cameras I’d like to buy, maybe by the end of the year. In my opinion digital photography is going the way of the old VCR. People were excited at first to record shows. Then they never watched them. In the end it was just used to watch movies. People today take digital photos, thinking they’ll fix them in Photoshop or Gimp later and they never do. That’s why a lot of camera manufacturers are adding a lot of filter effects in the cameras. So there will be no need for post processing. Because in the long run more time was spend post processing images than actually creating them and that’s not photography.
Print it!! That’s were the rubber hits the road. I think it was Weston that said something like even on a bath mat as long as it’s a good print. Fun thing. I play Banjo. Haha
Really love this! Love getting back into the philosophical conversations with you, Ted! And now I’m off to check out this Bela Fleck (sp?) you mentioned.
Check out David Grisman too. Saw he and his band once, mandolin, guitar, bass, fiddle, and for their third encore they did Giant Steps by John Coltrane.
I find myself playing with older technologies, because that is where I think a true photographer will stand out. As you said everyone has a cellphone, and editing software but not everyone can replicate the beauty of a film camera.
Love the hammer analogy. Digital has allowed the photographer to hit more than nails. As a nature photographer, I walked away from realism years ago. Digital feedback allowed that. So happy that camera corporations are fighting it out for the next-best-thing. More tools are good, and all of them are relevant when it comes to function. Everyone should have fast focus if available....you just might need it in your next work.
It's so interesting that you should post this, I just was having this conversation with some friends. I call it "gear-itis". When we catch Gear-itis, we are moving on to the next camera, before we even begin to explore the potential of the one we have in our hands. The current cameras have so many features, modes, functions, and I believe many go unexplored-which is a shame-as the creative capabilities are astounding. We basically have a powerful computer in our hands that we can program to see how WE want it to see. Even if we take the time to thoroughly learn and use all our camera has to offer, when we switch it for a new camera, there sometimes is a huge learning curve to go with the switch (especially brand to brand). Then time is spent re-learning new menus, modes, etc. I think the creativity expands after we learn the technical functions of our gear ( and operation almost becomes rote). Also, I have nothing against post processing, but I realized a few years ago it was making me into a lazy photographer. When I used film and processed in the darkroom, my work was almost meditative or at least contemplative-it had to be, or I was wasting money and time. So, for the most part I decided to ditch post processing and focus (no pun intended) on getting back to the intimacy of becoming one with my camera. I feel my old self coming back, switching my AF lenses to manual, taking more time and thought, I am remembering all that I forgot from my film era days. If I shoot with the attitude of taking it into post processing to fix anything that could have been done right in the camera, I am not improving my photography skills. I was listening to a well known photographer give a review on a camera that was released the day of the review. I said to my husband after listening to him bash the camera "I don't think it's POSSIBLE to fairly review ANY camera until you've LIVED with it a while!"
I wholeheartedly agree with your comments, so many photographers obsess over technology rather than self progression! It does make me wonder whether we will see another photographer(s) pioneer as the likes of Munkacsi, Penn and Avedon. It is a very different world today, as soon as someone were to start pushing the boundaries, with the likes of social media, everyone else would be in like a flash doing the same thing in no time!
Thank you Ted, this is important. I mean let's be honest, no straight and definitive answer could be achieved, but it's very important for each and everyone of us to face this questions and there are no wrong answers. I will make my answer as a vlog. The title itself will point to the direction of my thinking and the title will be: Photography as a ritual.
TO ME IS VERY CLEAR, A photography always is made first for you and then to the public, this wont change with more technology but will grow exponensally with democratization of photography. Great video, thnks!!!
Well done and much needed. The glut of gear-oriented RUclips channels obscures the more important question, for what purpose are we using these cameras? Eric Kim once recommended, "Buy books, not gear," by which he referred to the practice of buying and studying the hard bound books of the classic photographers. Cheers!
Technical is the tool, creative is in the heart of the photographer. I think learning to balance those two things is what will bring you to the top of your game. it's cool that you have the option to shoot 20 frames per second with continuous eye af but it's important to remember that it is not a necessity and that you can still make a hell of a lot of beautiful work without it. Great topic Ted - thanks for sharing!
All these new releases make me not regret at all stiking to film photography and playing around in my dark room : tri-x, medium format camera, chemicals and enlarger! All you need 😉
I was just thinking about this exact topic today! I am always torn between taking beautiful pictures for aesthetics or trying to express a feeling or tell a story. Seems like people are more interested in “pretty” pictures these days. There’s something about the b&w film photography era that cannot ever be replicated. I love the oldies. :)
BillXCIII for sure, I’m one of those people who still shoots b&w film and develops it myself.. it’s so intimate and it really makes those pictures special because you actually had to work for it and so carefully take each shot with intention. :)
Due to financial constraints I'm primarily a mobile phone photographer, but I still very much enjoy watching videos about photography as an art as well as technical discussions about how all these things work because it's frankly interesting. You raise a lot of excellent points about how the basic fact of cameras being as ubiquitous as they are now changed the public perception of photography as an acquired skill, not to mention there've been few things that've genuinely revolutionised camera technology over the last two hundred or so years since its inception that as things stand people can take stellar photos with more modest equipment, and by virtue of the same the vast volume of consumers have the liberty of taking the technical aspects of photography for granted while gaining more licence, for lack of a better term, to experiment with art photography.
We now have cameras that can discern individual photons as they travel through physical space, sensors that can capture swaths of the colour spectrum that humans cannot discern but that may influence matter in such a way as to allow photographers to set up amazing shots, hell, we even have cameras that can discern _heat_. The technology is there and dear Lord is it more sci-fi than anything people from before might have dreamed of. All that's left is to make art with it.
I really appreciate that you started this conversation. I think it is a very important one to have these days. I also appreciate your acknowledgement of the physical sciences behind the art form. Imagine that though, I am a chemist!
Love the Bela Fleck example and it's a great question. I'm guilty of this as are all of us I'm sure, just nerding out on the new auto focus systems of the canon r6 and r5 and drooling, and then going.... wait why do I need all of this? haha. Love your videos Ted! I'm a full time professional musician and photography has become my pandemic hobby with the lack of gigs and such, but I find your perspective refreshing and really appreciate the music analogies in this and several of your other videos. Keep it up brother!
One of my favourite cameras is a 65 year old manual focus, meterless, fixed lens Rolleiflex. One of my other favourite cameras is a manual focus, mostly manual Leica M7 rangefinder. Both are film cameras and both bring me more joy than any digital camera. I also feel a lot more for my film work than digital. I think there's something to that.
I love your Bela Fleck example, I’m a musician as well as a hobbyist photographer and I see a lot of parallels as well. And like music, the tools to me are only a means to an end. Yes, the tools make it easier for anyone to create, but to me there’s no substitute for studying the art and learning how to truly be creative in using the tools to allow the artist to express themselves. A technical musical example: auto tune. A lot of people thought auto tune would ruin music. It didn’t, it actually became another “sound” producers and artists used in a creative way. Then it became overused and now it’s just another tool that’s used sparingly. That’s how I see all these new photography technologies. Photographers will use them as a crutch, that’s inevitable. But truly great photographers will emerge who can use the tech to its full advantage and beyond. I don’t have any names of current photographers off the top of my head, but Chase Jarvis was one guy about 10 years ago really pushing photographic tech to make stunning photos.
Great video, love it!! I have been using manual lens since a year or so, and what I discovered is, I enjoy the process of photography so much more than before. I get less hits, but when I nail something, I NAIL it. Very enjoyable, very satisfying. I recommend using manual lens to everyone who just wants to enjoy taking photos!
When I was in photography school back in the early 80's ("Le 75", Brussels, Belgium) in the first year I had this wonderful teacher who was influancial to me. His name is Yves Auquier (dear man is still alive) and he told us something like: "Just take a basic Kodak plastic box (6x6), go out and take pictures. Don't worry about technique, it will come later, in time." Said Kodak box didn't have any settings appart maybe ASA number. It was completely mechanical, no aperture selection, no speed selection, no focus, not even a light meter. The idea was for us to first learn building our gaze, the way we could look at things, the rest is incidental. He was saying that technique depend from what you want to say and not the reverse. I never forgot that. Glad to see that this primary lesson in photography keeps on being told.
WOW. You nailed it. As a contractor, i have seen lots of people with hammers do some fine work, and I have seen some with the finest tools do "crappy" work. and the other way around. The tool does Not define the artist. Thats inside of you. I have known people with thousands of dollars of the latest equipment who can't frame a good composition to save their life or use the light properly , while some on a very restricted budget with an "entry level" camera take some of the most incredible, moving photographs. My brother and I were having this exact conversation last night. If we aren't careful, we can easily become "gear sluts"...always chasing the latest and greatest gadgets , instead of working on technique. Working on artistry. Perfecting our craft. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!
I know for me, some standout portrait photographers who are doing really interesting things and trying techniques that were not around in the past are Sam Hurd (freelancing, "ring of fire" technique, "epic portraits", prisming) and Ryan Brenizer (popularizer of the "Brenizer method" or "Bokehrama" or "Panoramic Stitching"). I now see lots of photographers use these same techniques (myself included), but I believe those two guys are what started these movements. And I believe they will continue to discover new ways of using their equipment that others have not thought of.
Oh, and to answer your question. I have been photographing full time for 6-7 years now. And since I've started, I've always been looking for newer cameras, newer models, other cameras, analog cameras, cameras that would maybe change my style or add something to it. I've been shooting with pro level Nikon DSLR's ever since. The past year I really came to realize that all I need are the tools to make the exposure and composition I want. Aperture, shutter speed, ISO. If I could acces them quick I could shoot what I want the way i want. I can do this on an analog format with my Nikon F3 and digital with my Fujifilm X-E3. Sure an M6 would look good around my neck, and yes really quick eye autofocus would come in handy. But I don't feel like I need it, frankly I don't think we've needed al lot of things we've had for the past few years. It's the same as with phones, it's refinement more than innovation. Now there is things to say for press and sports photographers who I can really see benefiting from performance. But it's like picking up your analog camera after not using it for a while. you come to realize that pushing the shutter button at the right time is just as effective but even more satisfying than releasing a 12fps burst. I literally feel like I don't need to buy another camera for the next 10 years, my goal is to work on my style and technique and become a better photographer through that.
That's actually a really good question. Since I would like it to be versatile enough to handle all of my commecial/professional work ánd personal work it would be the Nikon D850. You'd have, resolution, speed, good high iso and great autofocus for an affordable price. If I'd only be shooting personal work or not be a professional it would definitely be the Fujifilm X-E3.
Great video, Ted! One can't fully enjoy and truly realize the full beauty of Photography without knowing the history of Photography and experiencing some of its older techniques to better understand what others did (as you mentioned Murkoski) and understand the limitations they work through!
The average person will take a group snapshot with the heads in the middle of the image and a lot of sky about the heads. While the camera can take a technicality correct image, the image lacks the vision that causes us to say, WOW! A good photographer knows how to use his or her tools AND when to apply the right tools to give the impact they chose. It's that vision and knowledge that work together that gives us really good images.
A video like back when I subscribed to this channel. Great quality stuff! You may not think of yourself as a historian but your knowledge and interpretation of photography history has shaped a number of people here and I'm sure I'm not the only one who really appreciates those very inspirational videos a lot. I'm glad to know you think about such questions and look forward to seeing more videos like this! My opinion about this is that art is what lives on as a person's expression of their feelings, surroundings and cultural background. Brand new technology just gets old and useless after a while, now faster than ever. I agree that the first recorded photography is an amazing technological achievement but a new autofocus system will never have this kind of historical impact, so why do we even bother?
Just saw this one. Great topic and indeed 'what it is all about' or should be. Before most of us start feeling guily aboutnot inventing new ways of doing things let's not forget that artists like Munkácsi where unique in their expression . We can aspire but will fail, otherwise we would already bé those artist. But great idea to inspire everybody to push the artistic envelope instead of fuzzing about gear
I'm a 57 year old serious amateur photographer since hitting my teens in 1974. In the early days, I was lucky that my dad was also a keen photographer and he taught me the way the exposure triangle works. After that, it was a case of practice, practice and more practice - and trying every film I could get my hands on and finding what worked for me.We didn't have a darkroom at home but I found a camera club nearby that had one and started developing and printing my own B&W. That was the "craft" / technical part. OK, I have never been Ansel Adams but I got by okay. Improvements in technology were mostly limited to improved grain and colour rendition of film stock. Occasionally, someone would produce a new metering pattern and then autofocus turned up. Skip forward to the advent of digital and the lid came off Pandora's box. Rather than learning the craft, many chose to set auto everything and switch to high speed continuous mode. No problem with that - each to their own - but technology has been a double-edged sword, in my opinion. Pros: 1. It allows the photographer to concentrate on getting the photos they want (assuming they know what they want) without being bogged down in the technical aspects. 2. Feedback is immediate. 3. Share your photos with friends on whatever media floats your boat. Cons: 1. It convinces people they are better than they actually are. 2. When the auto / program function doesn't cut it, they haven't the knowledge or experience to know how to improve results. 3. It make the camera the star when the camera will only do what you tell it / allow it to do. I'm all in favour of making things as simple as possible; but no simpler. I believe that if Ansel Adams were alive today, he'd be shooting film and digital - but his mastery of the technical / craft aspects combined with his artistic eye would still put him light years ahead of the majority. I like technology but it has to have a real purpose. Unfortunately, most of the so-called enhancements these days are, IMO, no more than window dressing. (BTW - I'm talking about still photography as I have zero interest in video / vlogging).
Hardware revisions seem to come out annually now for cameras that are so complex a ‘user’ could spend 80 hours in thoughtful study about the camera and still not know half the functions. By contrast, the Nikon F3 was sold for about 20 years. The Olympus OM-3 and OM-4 were sold for about 15 years. The Canon F1, Nikon F, and Leica M3 were all sold around 10-13 years. Those cameras were far easier to master. Knowing your tools capabilities and limitations is essential, as you explained. Now, I mostly use digital to prepare or check for film shots. For me, I just enjoy film more. I want to take pictures, not spend weeks learning the menu system of the month or using the latest software update for post production. Others do, and more power to them.
Thank you! I get so tired of all the technical talk. It's refreshing to talk about the art of photography. Great photographs don't come from the camera you're holding they come from somewhere deep inside. That being said the science of photography is important but I feel to much emphasis is placed on it by average photographers - if only I had this or that piece of equipment, then I would be a better photographer. This is from a book I recently read - "Photography is a blend of art and science, of intuition and analysis. It's the classic right-brain, left-brain activity. It is a medium in which the tension between the two becomes resolved. The science is there to serve the art, and the art can only be truly realized through an application of the science."
I’ve spent the last year shooting with no autofocus, as my old camera and lens was stolen, the only lenses I had left were Olympus OM ones and a Tamron Nikon fit on my Sony that I replaced it with. One thing I’ve found, is that now I shoot less, because I’ve become more patient and I wait for the right shot, rather than shooting and hoping for the best. All these tools in modern cameras are wonderful, and if you shoot for a living, I’ve no doubt they make life easier. But I definitely believe that limitations are one of the biggest ways to improve yourself, and it’s great to be able to do with the bare minimum, so that you can make the most out of something that has more
I recently went on an amazing trip to Iceland and shot all my photographs on my 5Dmk II. It's still a very capable and powerful camera to this day. When I told people I shot the entire trip on a 10+ year old camera they were blown away!
Fantastic video Ted. This is why I subscribed and watch your channel. I think that one of the modern day photographers that uses technology to push his photography to limits is Dave Black. He’s a “light painter” using anything from a small pen light to a large 100,000 watt light to create beautiful photograph. Dave was (and still is for that matter) a noted Sports Photographer. He knows about the decisive moment and his work in that arena is very well known. If you have never seen his work please check him out.
Hi Ted, always good to rethink photography as a passion. For me personally the goal is to print my images and hang them in my home so I can enjoy them day by day. I do not place them online. There for me personally and the people that come into my home. Lot’s of greetings, Dennis 🇳🇱
Great discussion topic and is certainly something I think of a lot when I watch and read all of the new camera reviews. We live in a world of technology that is moving at rapid pace and think technology is good but also think we shouldn’t get carried away with the hype and the snobbery. We shouldn’t forget that using all of this fabulous technology it will not make us better photographers. Thank you for this great video Ted 👍👍
I've followed camera tech over the past 10-15 years, fading in and out as needed. Unfortunately, I view technical photography discussions as a flooded market that I'm much less interested in. I think it's partly due to: my technical background, the naturally technical media of the internet, and the need for frequent content churn due to consumers purchasing the most recent. In my mind, creative photography discussions from people with strong backgrounds are diamonds in the rough on the internet. I'll never tell people that fancy technology makes their photography or their skills deficient, but I do thirst for more people to focus on creativity than the means.
I really love all your videos man, but these videos on Photo history and the ‘art of photography’ are really what makes me more pumped about shooting and photography in general
I really respect and support your creative choices, whatever they are, but from a personal perspective I have to say that I really missed hearing you talk about the history of photography, the philosophy behind it, the ART of photography, thank you Ted 😍
Holy crap! This is exactly what my colleagues and I have been discussing lately. What are we as photographers doing with this technology that we weren't able to do even a few years ago? I think most of us, myself included, are not exploring these possibilities. Forget autofocus for a moment, mirrorless cameras have solved the problem that has faced camera design since the beginning, the ability to see what is going on in terms of focus and composition at the focal plane! This is a big deal! Not to mention the ability it gives us to pre-visualize the image before taking it. Ansel Adams used to hold up a filter to his eye to approximate how various colors would be rendered in black and white, can you imagine what he'd think about film simulations right there in his viewfinder. But I believe the impress question we should be asking, is what can we do with this technology? How exactly do we push that envelope further? Great video!
Ted, I think we may be in one of those moments when ironically, it's not about the technology, it's about recording the here and now. Getting back to what you've said earlier...make photographs that matter (to paraphrase). We are in an era of social, political and likely economic upheaval. I think the photography from our era that will be remembered will be that which somehow represents our present, this tumult and whatever becomes of us on the other side.
Excellent video Ted. I started with the Canon film cameras and now Canon digital cameras. I remember buying the EOS 3, a film camera that had autofocus. Had to buy new lenses and had to let the camera focus for you, it didn't have a manual focus screen and that was a BIG deal. The idea of letting the camera focus for you was just scary. Fast forward to today, after the EOS R release I am not sure I will still be shooting Canon this time next year (story for some other time). I still occasionally pull out my old EOS 1Ds Mk II, and it still takes excellent photos, one of Canons better portrait cameras, the rendering on skin tones was better than many of their newer cameras. There is so much focus on specs and features, and the fanboys (any brand) all seem to think this feature or that feature makes their camera the best and act like this awesome feature now defines photography. The FF snobs act like bokeh defines photography. I still believe the photo your looking at defines photography at that moment. A photo creates its own context, if it is a good photo it will be about the story it tells or the breath-taking view and nobody will care about camera, lens or any of that. The art of photography I believe is directly linked to the LOVE of photography and the individual photo and not the love of a camera. When I switched to digital and it no longer cost me money every time I pushed the shutter release, I started shooting a lot more photos. I soon realized I had a lot more photos but not near as many good photos. The film made me more deliberate and made me pay more attention to every frame, digital cameras didn't help my photography at all at first they actually made it worse. Sometimes I think all these new features have us taking more photos but not necessarily better ones.
When you have an eye for a good photography , good photo story, you do not need the latest camera, but such camera can help you to achieve the desired result more easily. I'm trying to quit with the pixel-peeping but it is really hard! :) :)
I have always felt Erik Johansson is the greatest exponent of modern digital photography at the moment. Imaginnative, technical and progressive. His images transend current photography and I feel like that's what you are talking about. I also feel that a photographer now is less about technical prowess and is more a beacon of a particular style, mood or idea.
Something I've noticed is a sort of role reversal with the growth of photography. It used to be that those who deviated from a purely technical form were the ones that stood out. Now we have a 'point and shoot' culture, and a drive to make something artistically different. The photographers that stand out now are the ones who stay closer to the rules of composition; those that pay closer attention to the technical details.
You bring up an excellent point with this video. Even with all of the advances that have occurred with cameras & lenses, I still love shooting with manual everything film cameras. Since each and every exposure costs me money, I tend to take more time and really work the creative aspect. But shooting film also provides a technical aspect I really enjoy. Processing the film then working in the darkroom to produce prints is therapy for me. Plus, I end up with unique art I can hang on my walls. I also love shooting digital images because I don't think so much about the technical aspects and really work the creativity. I can hardly wait to see the upcoming technology that will be announced over the next year or two. I've seen more good photography made by amazing photographers since digital cameras first came out than I did for decades before that. The creative opportunities of the future will be amazing!
Love this video... I believe that today's standout photography needs both. Great equipment with a very creative eye or soul to make that image come to life. Art is still a form of life being molded by a collection of ideas put into motion and not always caught as the artist intended. But that's the best part of the game. Attempting perfection and achieving it. The ultimate dream.
I think creativity is about making uncommon things that have either a high degree of technical skills and/or high degree of sensibility (the Holly Grail being to have both). Having an uncommon tool that helps producing uncommon things may of course help a lot :). All the recent announcement on the camera market, however, only help accuracy on a very narrow subset of the technical skill (e.g. focus, exposure metering, handheld long exposure stability).
Great video Ted. You are so right. This is the type of content I expect from you. I look forward to further videos on this topic. My 2 censt contribution to the conversation will be the following : Everybody (or quasi everybody) looks how to make sharper, perfectly focused images with the new cameras available. But a boring, perfectly sharp and perfectly exposed image will still be boring while an image that creates emotion or tells a story, will still be interesting and get my attention even if not technically pefect.
I remember buying my first camera some years ago, it was a fixed lens, 18-700mm or so Canon and I was blown out by the images I could get of my dog with the blurry background and all the detail... Years passed and now I am working on a series of photos of firefighters near where I live...I think we all need to realize that the camera is just a tool to achieve what we picture in our minds. Maybe the fact of wanting more gear is just a way to deflect because we are limited by our own abilities and we are too lazy to start learning and stop guessing.
Great stuff and I am thrilled you are addressing it. I love technology and all the cool stuff that has been coming our way. But lately I have been trying to evaluate when I actually need to use a feature like autofocus. I feel like I have gotten lazy as a photographer by over relying on it. In a way I have been over relying on using zoom lenses as well. So I kind of rediscovered photography when I started using manual focus prime lenses that were 40 years old. Today’s mirrorless cameras with great EVF’s make using manual focus so much more accurate. They really become fun to use. It was like how using a manual transmission can help you stay more engaging in driving. Auto features and tech marvel stuff is undeniably cool. But how much are we losing when we start letting the camera do do much for us?
Great talking as always! I was thinking the other day about the democratization of photography, which i see nothing wrong about it, but i thought that maybe there is actually a good chance that particular works could stand out from the crowd, if people get stuck on one way of taking pictures. So to people who think that today creative photography is dead, i would tell them to think more about it...
I'm so glad someone is raising this subject for discussion. I think as you say 'you need technology (in some form or other) to take photos' that's a given, but I also believe that photography has become stagnant due to the law of diminishing returns, tech companies are cramming so much into each camera that the actual difference across each camera is absolutely minimal, unfortunately Joe public is being fed this menu of technology, companies keep the pot boiling by adding another camera, then another, they keep dangling the carrot just in front. We are also confused by experts telling us that 'we must not take photos like this,' 'we must use that to take a photo', 'if your photo doesn't look like this,' 'then your nothing', 'a photo must be arranged thus.' 'if you take a photo like that then, your wrong!' The industry is crying out for people to break the rules! We have been brainwashed, we have a whole field to play in, but we are working our socks off right on the edge because clever people tell us this is where the good people work, I am tired of being told that grain = bad, really, go and have a look through David Baileys Archive one, see how much grain is visible, the pictures are still stunning, or, we must focus on the leading eye! Oh yes? Have a quick look at Steven Mcmurrys portraits, from National Geographic, count up how many are actually not in focus, talking of focus, 'we must have pro lenses that are tack sharp from edge to edge!' should we go and have a discussion about the subject of picture clarity within the impressionist movement? The 1960s was a somewhat revolutionary period for photography, what with the coverage of the Vietnam war etc, some iconic photos derived, but they used technology that you can buy for a couple of dollars now, but we still insist on paying ££££s on lenses that have ultra special coatings on precision ground super high grade glass in custom designed barrels for use in extreme temps, it's madness, as you say, a hammer won't build you a house, it's the person with the flair to use the hammer, it's the same with cameras, apart from a relative few pixel peepers, most of the public won't know a photo from a Sony A9 from a photo out of a canon 550d but they will recognise someone who knows how to use a 550 against someone who doesn't know an A9 from a barn door, someone who can USE the tech compared to someone who simply HAS the tech, unfortunately we don't have many people at all who have the innovation to go and use the tech in a new way just now.
Great discussion. I agree with the person(s) who proposed that Ted is an historian. I have been introduced to many great photographers, present and past, through this channel. It would also be interesting to compare to other arts like painting, vis-a-vis accessibility of high quality materials ( paints, canvases, brushes) nowadays. Also I quite like that “first” photograph purely aesthetically. Whether it captured the artist’s intent or was too technically limited is a separate question to me.
Thanks Ted, for a great discussion. I would like to think that there are people more creative and knowledgeable than me fully utilizing this new tech in ways that will surprise and delight us.
I like to think of the meeting between the technical and creative as, the technical is the canvas, the creative is the painter. You can paint on anything, but the quality of the canvas, the type of paper, the color...can make or break what the painter creates.
A great painter can make a masterpiece with literal dirt and stone, while the finest pigments and canvas in the world will in no way improve the work of a bad painter (like me). Good media makes your life easier, but an artist can achieve greatness within whatever limitations he or she is working. When I shoot portraits for a client though, no autofocus system is good enough. The best expression always somehow appears on one of the blurry frames. I wouldn't call those portraits art though.
Thinking about technology and art... My composition teacher at uni was fond of vague one liners, one of which was that "the technology informs the aesthetic". As a musician and in other creative pursuits I find myself always being repelled by technologies that tell me what it is that I want to do. Whether it's recording to a tempo grid in protools, perfectly reproducing the sound of a 50s B3 Hammond Organ with a Nord Keyboard, or even autofocus on a DSLR. I'm not a very proficient photographer by any means, but I think there's a point at which something like autofocus functions to teach you that your photograph has to be 'in focus', or 3X3 gridlines on the viewfinder or when cropping in software get between your aesthetic intuition and the final work to in a way subconsciously enforce a rule of thirds. It's not an inherent problem with digital technologies as such, but for me as an artist it's more a problem with any tool that tells me what I want and then gives it to me perfectly.
Great subject! One of the reasons I keep using film is to challenge myself by not depending on the tech of modern cameras so much. It's really frustrating when you miss a moment because your focus was not on point or when you can not change your iso etc etc. But all of this also makes you more careful on what you are doing and forces you to do things in a diferent way. Moving all of this method to the digital part is for me a fun and creative way of shoting.
When I bought my Nikon F in 1973, it came with a instruction book that basically explained the interplay between ASA (DIN), aperture and shutter speed. My Nikon D7000 has a user manual that's 367 pages.
Great analogy with taking a plain and ordinary instrument and creating something extraordinary with it. Photographers are not limited to their equipment and can do extraordinary things with the creative process. After hearing you reference Bela Fleck I was expecting to hear 'Sinister Minister' as the outro, but realized it would probably get a flag for copyright and demonetize the video
Great video Ted. I think we're at a point in time where most people are way too focused on the gear and the capabilities of their equipment. Frame rates, burst rates, megapixels, etc are the absolute least important aspects of the creation of a solid photo - but it seems as if this is all people care about nowadays. Get out there with whatever gear you have and start being creative, people! Thanks again for a solid video, Ted. These chats are my favorite videos of yours.
Great topic Ted! Well, I'd like to add one more thing to your final questions: what if we - meaning who is trying to insert himself in a ideal lineage which includes historic photography masters and so keeping himself out from all those who just shoot for utilitarian/commercial purposes - what if we actually don't need all these new amazing options and technologies? What if we could define a kind of end-point of photography technology in which we have already reached the peak of what we really need so we don't gain any other real benefit from a brand new electronic tool? What if all this unrestrained market were just the effect of something else, like, for instance, an unrestrained market itself? You can see people still shooting films (e.g. me) or 10 years old digital camera (e.g. me), since their purpose is not demonstrate anything more than just describing the world around them with essential/basic technologies - that does not mean "bad". Maybe this is why you don't see a new Muncáksi today, because maybe there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Perhaps, we might divide the world in different categories of people: people who see an unconditional sense of constantly update themselves...and people who like things slightly out of focus.
I like the discussion you are doing, and items related to the history of photography. I hope you will do more book reviews, discussions, artist series, mail day, etc. I am not a big fan of the camera and lens reviews, since I will never (at least not any time soon) be able to afford the best camera gear. It is great to get back to the ART of photography. Thank you.
HI nTed, Thanks for this video. I strive to marry both the Creative and the Technical sides of photography in my work. In my journey, I have found that the fundamentals of light, exposure and composition, once understood, then open up more opportunities and capacity for creativiity. Like any craft, understanding the technical gives way to creating better work.
We are no longer limited technologically, but we can still be limited artistically. It no longer requires a 'professional' to produce a correctly exposed and focused image, but it still requires an 'artist' to produce an aesthetically pleasing one.
It's an interdependency, one can't work without the other.. But every generation has its rare talents that come around and change the game!! That being said probably every generation thought that they art had reached a peak of sorts (maybe). But I believe, that in this time where creators are more and more prominent, the art form of photography can only be pushed to higher summits!! Has you said, the "democratasition" of photography now allows anybody and everybody the chance to experiment with this art form (to different degrees), and that can only lead (in my humble opinion) to pushing it further and further, both technically and artistically!!! Thanks again for opening such a great conversation!!!
What a good video. No geekness, just real photography, the why's and why not's. Mind you I still enjoy a good tech video (like Tony and Chelsea's usually are)
I wonder if Henri Cartier-Bresson would have found the decisive moment too easy with 20 frames a second and not bothered. These videos make us think, rather than pixel peep. Well done.
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
This is the kind of videos I wish to find when I open the RUclips app. More about photography and less about cameras.
Hallelujah to that. I don't mind seeing what's out there to some extent but the ranting and raving about the number of card slots, new lens mounts and pixel count is done to death and beyond. I stopped buying photography magazines because they became thinly-veiled adverts for the latest cameras and lenses and contain very little about photography. I'll do the same with the YT channels that can't see further than pushing their fanboy reviews of (insert name of gear here).
*A M E N*
I agree. I'm just done with all these tech nerds making me want to buy something I'll never be able to afford. 😂
Sean Tucker might be another person to watch.
Damn right.
@@michaelbenoit9240 2 pretentious for my taste
Maybe just a third of the way through the video so far, but needed to pause for a moment to comment on how refreshing this discussion and topic is. Thank you, Ted. ❤️
Thanks Matt!
@@theartofphotography Have to agree, one of my favorite of your vids in a long time. Great topic.
Yes please. More of this.
Couldn’t agree more. Was just watching some of the older videos from this channel. So much better than *another* gear review.
The Art of Photography Well said Matt Day. I love your channel as well!
I think this might be fitting: "Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist"
you all prolly dont give a damn but does any of you know a method to get back into an Instagram account??
I stupidly lost my login password. I appreciate any help you can give me
@Dallas Heath Instablaster =)
@Zane Lucca i really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and Im in the hacking process now.
Looks like it's gonna take quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
starting out a decade ago I used to think that I would just find amazing things to photograph, unfortunately that rarely happened the photos did not look how I wanted. but learning the technical side and now I understand the cameras limitations as well as how to get exactly what I want.
“The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.”
--Orson Welles
Well if art becomes limited by the absence of limitations then doesn’t that itself create a limitation to be overcome?
some of the greatest pieces of art have been created defying limitations to said art. limitations are one of the greatest driving forces behind art
Dana Williams ohhhhhh
@@Minoritynomad ...assuming that creativity is, in part, defined by gear. I don't really agree. Artists start with a concept and the gear isn't really important. It probably doesn't even enter their heads. So the difference in artistic value starts well before and is far more fundamental than equipment.
@@thethirdman225 why? with every idea you got you have to have the possibilities to actually create it in mind.
There is no creative spark thats not based on the possibilities
One of my favorite videos in a while Ted, felt like an old-school Art of Photography. Your opinion and knowledge combined in something I can think of for many times to follow.
Yay, finally not another gear review. This is the kind of content i have been always looking forward to.
I'm amazed at the sports shots Munkacsi produced with what looks like a 4x5 camera. I was a newspaper photographer in the mid-70's and I had a hard enough time with a couple of thumb-wind Nikons and manual focus lenses. I thought some of the old guys still using TLR's were nuts, but they were getting the job done.
Not long ago I was showing a young man with his new mirrorless camera with a zillion autofocus points some of those old pictures, and he asked me what they were taken with. When I showed him a well-used Nikon F, he simply didn't believe me, and suggested it was "impossible" to shoot sports without autofocus and a high frame rate. When I explained to him the idea of knowing something about the game you were shooting so that you could guess where the play was going and pre-focus in that area, he looked at me like I was from Mars.
I had to smile when you mentioned instantly posting photos to the internet. In the old days, our version of that was having photos ready by a deadline for use in the paper. I can well remember coming back from an event, developing film under time pressure, and then covering your still-wet film with acetone, hanging it up, and lighting a match to the bottom. Flame would shoot up the strip of film, and it was instantly dry enough to print from. It wasn't great for the film, but it got the job done in time. Fortunately we no longer have to resort to things like that to have immediacy.
For me, the biggest thing that digital photography did for the field is shorten the learning curve. With film, you'd have to write down (or try to remember!) settings when taking a shot, develop the film, then see what you did right and what you needed to improve. The advent of that back screen meant you could immediately course correct. We talk smack about chimping, but it's critical in the beginning phases of photography. I may have cut my teeth on film, but I only started to really progress once I began using digital.
You're right in saying that it's hard to figure out what the standout thing will be from where we are now. My dad was an artist; a sculptor and painter. But he painted with fire. Painted with it like a brush on thick watercolor paper. I suppose it's my life's goal to find my own angle in art that would do him proud.
Some of us use light meters!
Great video and discussion, during the lockdown, basically 5 months at home, I shot on almost a daily basis my faithful Nikon D700 with a 50mm f /1.8, that's almost welded to the camera. I got thousands of images of my kids, I do have newer cameras, more Megapixels, better autofocus yadda yadda yadda, but I rather use my D700, hand it to my kids sometimes (5 and 1 years old during lockdown). That's the tool I want them to learn on, later when they have newer cameras, they'll already know the basics, and what the camera is doing, or going to do when presented a certain scene. Keep this videos coming Ted!
The irony is that all art forms, to some extent have the same same issues between technology and creativity, but photography the issues seem to be more amplified because photography is more obviously technology based than other art forms. Its hard to argue there is no technology in glass blowing or ceramics, but we do not really think of art forms such as painting as based on technology. The truth is that before tube paint, painters rarely if ever went out into the field with their paints, because paints had to be mixed in the studio and were less portable. Painters might go out and sketch a landscape and come back and use the sketch, but that is different than having your paints and all their colors out in the field. The invention of tube paint allowed painters to take their easels into the field easily for the first time. But another invention freed up painters even more: photography. Before photography, painters were focused on trying to paint portraits and landscapes in a more realistic way. Painting was photography, in a sense, before their was photography. When photography came along, it actually freed painters to explore things like impressionism. In fact, the two greatest technology advancements that enabled or influenced impressionism were the invention of tube paint and the invention of the camera. There is a lot creativity in photography that the technology allows, and although it is easy to get caught up in the technology as an exercise, it is also important to remember that the painter's brush is also a tool or technology. The question is: "has the technology been used to push forward the art or the creativity, or has it been used gratuitously like a special effect in a movie that does not push the plot forward, but has just been put there for the wow factor?"
You don't really need all that technology. Like you said Ted, look at those amazing images photographers made in an era without all this technology. Camera companies make you believe that you need that faster autofocus and panorama features. You don't, but at the other hand its so tempting and buying gear is so satisfying. Sometimes new gear can spark a new interest or motivate you to start looking at your subjects in different perspectives. So, do you need it? No. Is it fun? Yes. ;)
Bastiaan Woudt i love your work!
People shouldn't resort to paying loads of cash just to reignite their spark for photography
I think reading books new to you can do the same as buying new gear, giving you new perspectives and reigniting the passion. At least for those who love to read.
Thanks Ted, this needs to be said more often. Like most photographers I am fascinated by gear, but when I interact at my local club and enter competitions its the image that counts, its creativity and emotional content. At that point no one care what the camera or lens was, and when all is said and done its the image that counts.
I am a broke, self taught photographer, i have been shooting for some 8 years now i think, i ve stopped watching videos about new cameras and photo gear for a long time now because i know, i cant afford them, i have a now old canon 700D, a cheap ass tripod, a ripped camera bag...so basically i am a broke photographer, but whenever i got out to shoot, i try my best to make the best of what i have...i dont go out as much as i want to, i ve live in my room for months now, the last good photo i took was last year, i dont go out much anymore...i am depressed by everything around me but like i said, when i i go out to shoot, i try to plan everything...last year, i saw a photo a guy made with a super expensive cam...prob worth around 5k, the cam he used...but you see, the end result was not that good to me, so i decided to go to that same place and to a better shot that he did with his super expensive cam...i of course planed evrything but in the end, yeah...i kinda got the shot i wanted and it was way, better than that expensive 5k cam...the cam i have now may be cheap compared to almost everything there is on the market today but at least, i know that when i want, i can. I just hope now, that i can get out from my depression and my room so, i can continue doing what i like most. Cheers.
Irukandji Nakano that Canon is still a camera that can create amazing images. Creating can help with depression, you can even start shooting in your own room. I hope you find the way to start shooting again and feel better.
Irukandji Nakano - try not planning just explore your area town, the little less obvious things.
Subjects Will come to you and before realise you will be creating satisfying images as
You see them. Expensive cameras mostly just get in the way of seeing, good luck 🙂
@@aows Thank you, i appreciate it :)
@@stuartbaines2843 I thought about that, taking my camera and just walk around my block without planing anything, i would probably find lots of hidden things to shoot. Small steps first...Thank you.
@@jdebultra You re absolutely right, the gear is not the main thing really when it comes to photography, the most basic entry level DSLR today is way better and more advanced than what the old masters used back in the day...so yeah, of course we can do a lot of things with what we have, its just that i have to find a way to enjoy simple things again, as simply as going out first...i am gonna eventually go back to shooting by starting with small steps first...Thank you for your kind words.
your right on point! there will be someone who will blow the photography off the walls . but most of us have a hard time doing this because most human being follow rather than develop new ideas. the one who does come up with a new way will be followed by most. I'm talking digital photography. there is also a possibility that it will go back to film .what goes aroung comes around.
the problem with gear is everything is focused away from the art side of the medium . the medium of photography it is easy to execute , you dont need to study alot to just snap a picture , unlike painting. You just pick the phone and you snap , bam internet content not a photograph . A photograph is really difficult to do , to have like a personal meaning mark etc. These examples were about either sports or fashion , which is nice and etc but they just to things technically , sports for example right now you get a camera with fast autofocus and a couple of super powerful lenses and you can do it no big deal , just money (and maybe get the good spots on the event you want) . But if we focus on the autofocus and the camera capabilities we are losing the forest and the tree and the branches because whoo cares about the autofocus , its what you want to make because nobody will ask you about the autofocus . The ultimate goal is to express your self through a medium that it is violated by the technological advantages , which at somepoint it was insane the turn from film to digital , but for us the people focusing on the expressive side , provoke images or the high end fine art , or shooting staged documentaries or doing deadpan photography it doesnt matter . because in the end you need to be true to your self and you will find a camera that will do the job , that is either film or digital what ever .
I hope i made sense
make more of these videos
Because of this channel I was introduced to John Free. When I get a little discouraged because I only own some entry level equipment, I remember John Free speaking of his go to camera, a simple Nikon F4 and a lens he bought for $40. He uses that simpler equipment by choice, and WOW... His stuff is tremendous. Love your work Mr Forbes. It has been an asset to me.
More videos like this and less gear video please! Love it.
I’ve been wanting to create more content lately and found myself so submerged and focus on wanting to get the newest and latest tech that I’ve lost sight of what really matters: my creativity. Of course I need tech to create content but just yesterday I saw someone on RUclips using his phone as a camera and while anyone could argue the lack image “quality”, his content was enough to keep me and my kids entertained. In other words and just like you mentioned, the camera is still just a tool. In my opinion and as goal, instead of pushing the capability of my tools, I’ll be pushing myself! Thanks for your video!!
I think you nailed the "immediacy" thing with digital photography. Shooting digital lets you learn orders of magnitude more quickly from your mistakes. Plus, since you don't have to worry about spending money on things like film, developing, prints, etc. you have much more liberty to fail, and those failures can be both fantastic teachers and wonderful inspirations.
All of my favorite photos, both visually and educationally, were ones that I took a risk on. Were I shooting film I may not have taken those risks.
I agree with many of the comments, it's nice to see a video here that's not solely about gear! It's important-and necessary-to use gear with photography, but it's also too easy to focus on it too much. I've always seen photography as finding a balance between the creative and technical. The best position to be in is when the technical is second nature, and almost "muscle memory", and then the creative part can come through without having to think about the gear too much (or at all).
A breath of fresh air. I am so tired of eye autofocus and blurred backgrounds, that's what photography has become. Thanks Ted.
Finally, someone said it! Who needs the most accurate fastest autofocus and for what? As the world of photography moves forward with new sensor technology everyday, I move backwards to film photography and manual focus and manual exposure. It is so liberating to finally be outside the race to have the latest and greatest camera or the sharpest lens. Thank you for affirming my beliefs with this video and thank you for speaking out what’s on all of our minds and too scared to say it.
Getting back to that classic Art of Photography. Anyone else remember the pre-RUclips days when we had to subscribe to iTunes for the latest video podcasts? - those were the days...
Yep. Preferred the subject matter of the channel in the earlier days.
Randomly came across the video - absolutely loved everything about it. Only halfway so far but man, the way you speak is an art in its own self. You have me hooked with your flow/detail. So interesting and it's got me thinking about my genuine passion for photography - thank you for encouraging us to focus on us/discovering what us is.
The biggest business in the 21st century is mind influencing. And the manufacturers are very good at it. Videos like this try to pull back us to the ground. Thanks.
This video is where I was a few months ago and I’m so glad you made this. I went back to a Canon DSLR because it’s what I’m most comfortable with and I realized there was always something better. More focus on image making and less on gear.
Thought-provoking as usual, Ted! All I have to say is: A.I. haha but no to be serious I think the further and further technology advances, especially in the creative arts, humans will eventually fall behind and not be able to keep up or will be so overwhelmed by what they've created that it will end up stifling their creativity. I like this quote from Edward de Bono: "This simple process of focusing on things that are normally taken for granted is a powerful source of creativity." I think we as a community get so excited by the newest technology rapidly evolving before our eyes that we struggle to commit ourselves to one piece of it (likely in [subconcious] anticipation of the NEXT best thing), and, therefore, fail to truly focus all our energy and imagination on what we could possibly create with it.
Really appreciate these breaks from all the 'tech talk' and gear reviews! Helps brings us back to reality. haha
Little added example: I've been contemplating for MONTHS about upgrading my current gear (Still have the a6500+18-105) even though I REALLY shouldn't spend the money, then I quickly realize, "Wait, Seth, you've hardly utilized what you already have, focus on what matters. Getting that 'better' camera or lens isn't going to instantly make you a better photographer. lol It's a real problem for me since I'm also a tech junkie and gamer. haha
love the quote, thanks for sharing
Please don't worry about tech developments as they quickly outpace the need for them and they then end up in the rubbish. The great advantage we have over technology is our creative abilities. Tech can copy us but not create. AI is still limited by the algorithms that programmers develop and they are not the artists of the future.
Music with Terry radshaw
Well, someone has to set the AI to enable it to take good pictures. Maybe photographers in the future will no longer be taking pictures with their camera but by writing an AI code or something. In any case, there's always a room for photographers.
"A camera is a hammer." Honestly an awesome analogy
Ted,
Thank you for posting this. I found it very refreshing. More than half of the RUclips videos I see being posted are review about new camera bodies and lenses. It does get tiresome to see the same piece of camera equipment reviewed by a countless number of people. You are absolutely right that a camera is a tool and maga pixel count, auto focus are just bits and bites to add to the photographers tool box. I like to visual the end image and try to take and use the minimal amount of equipment to capture that image. Being with the end in mind! Keep these videos coming! I really enjoy your old videos about film cameras! Keep up the good work! 👍
I’m older, I’ve shot a lot of film and then switched to digital and now for fun I’m shooting film again. I have a list of a few digital cameras I’d like to buy, maybe by the end of the year.
In my opinion digital photography is going the way of the old VCR. People were excited at first to record shows. Then they never watched them. In the end it was just used to watch movies.
People today take digital photos, thinking they’ll fix them in Photoshop or Gimp later and they never do. That’s why a lot of camera manufacturers are adding a lot of filter effects in the cameras. So there will be no need for post processing. Because in the long run more time was spend post processing images than actually creating them and that’s not photography.
Print it!! That’s were the rubber hits the road. I think it was Weston that said something like even on a bath mat as long as it’s a good print. Fun thing. I play Banjo. Haha
Really love this! Love getting back into the philosophical conversations with you, Ted! And now I’m off to check out this Bela Fleck (sp?) you mentioned.
Nick Exposed You are in for a treat!
I went to go see Bela Fleck and the Flecktones back in 94 I was truly amazed by them!!
Victor was my hero for a long time!
Check out David Grisman too. Saw he and his band once, mandolin, guitar, bass, fiddle, and for their third encore they did Giant Steps by John Coltrane.
I find myself playing with older technologies, because that is where I think a true photographer will stand out. As you said everyone has a cellphone, and editing software but not everyone can replicate the beauty of a film camera.
Love the hammer analogy. Digital has allowed the photographer to hit more than nails.
As a nature photographer, I walked away from realism years ago. Digital feedback allowed that.
So happy that camera corporations are fighting it out for the next-best-thing. More tools are good, and all of them are relevant when it comes to function. Everyone should have fast focus if available....you just might need it in your next work.
It's so interesting that you should post this, I just was having this conversation with some friends. I call it "gear-itis". When we catch Gear-itis, we are moving on to the next camera, before we even begin to explore the potential of the one we have in our hands. The current cameras have so many features, modes, functions, and I believe many go unexplored-which is a shame-as the creative capabilities are astounding. We basically have a powerful computer in our hands that we can program to see how WE want it to see.
Even if we take the time to thoroughly learn and use all our camera has to offer, when we switch it for a new camera, there sometimes is a huge learning curve to go with the switch (especially brand to brand). Then time is spent re-learning new menus, modes, etc.
I think the creativity expands after we learn the technical functions of our gear ( and operation almost becomes rote).
Also, I have nothing against post processing, but I realized a few years ago it was making me into a lazy photographer. When I used film and processed in the darkroom, my work was almost meditative or at least contemplative-it had to be, or I was wasting money and time. So, for the most part I decided to ditch post processing and focus (no pun intended) on getting back to the intimacy of becoming one with my camera. I feel my old self coming back, switching my AF lenses to manual, taking more time and thought, I am remembering all that I forgot from my film era days. If I shoot with the attitude of taking it into post processing to fix anything that could have been done right in the camera, I am not improving my photography skills.
I was listening to a well known photographer give a review on a camera that was released the day of the review. I said to my husband after listening to him bash the camera "I don't think it's
POSSIBLE to fairly review ANY camera until you've LIVED with it a while!"
your comments...your aproach to the topic, is one of most clear and intelligent interpretation I've been able to see or listen to...thank you...!!
I wholeheartedly agree with your comments, so many photographers obsess over technology rather than self progression! It does make me wonder whether we will see another photographer(s) pioneer as the likes of Munkacsi, Penn and Avedon. It is a very different world today, as soon as someone were to start pushing the boundaries, with the likes of social media, everyone else would be in like a flash doing the same thing in no time!
Thank you Ted, this is important. I mean let's be honest, no straight and definitive answer could be achieved, but it's very important for each and everyone of us to face this questions and there are no wrong answers. I will make my answer as a vlog. The title itself will point to the direction of my thinking and the title will be: Photography as a ritual.
TO ME IS VERY CLEAR, A photography always is made first for you and then to the public, this wont change with more technology but will grow exponensally with democratization of photography. Great video, thnks!!!
Well done and much needed. The glut of gear-oriented RUclips channels obscures the more important question, for what purpose are we using these cameras? Eric Kim once recommended, "Buy books, not gear," by which he referred to the practice of buying and studying the hard bound books of the classic photographers. Cheers!
Technical is the tool, creative is in the heart of the photographer. I think learning to balance those two things is what will bring you to the top of your game. it's cool that you have the option to shoot 20 frames per second with continuous eye af but it's important to remember that it is not a necessity and that you can still make a hell of a lot of beautiful work without it. Great topic Ted - thanks for sharing!
All these new releases make me not regret at all stiking to film photography and playing around in my dark room : tri-x, medium format camera, chemicals and enlarger! All you need 😉
I was just thinking about this exact topic today! I am always torn between taking beautiful pictures for aesthetics or trying to express a feeling or tell a story. Seems like people are more interested in “pretty” pictures these days. There’s something about the b&w film photography era that cannot ever be replicated. I love the oldies. :)
BillXCIII for sure, I’m one of those people who still shoots b&w film and develops it myself.. it’s so intimate and it really makes those pictures special because you actually had to work for it and so carefully take each shot with intention. :)
Due to financial constraints I'm primarily a mobile phone photographer, but I still very much enjoy watching videos about photography as an art as well as technical discussions about how all these things work because it's frankly interesting.
You raise a lot of excellent points about how the basic fact of cameras being as ubiquitous as they are now changed the public perception of photography as an acquired skill, not to mention there've been few things that've genuinely revolutionised camera technology over the last two hundred or so years since its inception that as things stand people can take stellar photos with more modest equipment, and by virtue of the same the vast volume of consumers have the liberty of taking the technical aspects of photography for granted while gaining more licence, for lack of a better term, to experiment with art photography.
We now have cameras that can discern individual photons as they travel through physical space, sensors that can capture swaths of the colour spectrum that humans cannot discern but that may influence matter in such a way as to allow photographers to set up amazing shots, hell, we even have cameras that can discern _heat_.
The technology is there and dear Lord is it more sci-fi than anything people from before might have dreamed of. All that's left is to make art with it.
I really appreciate that you started this conversation. I think it is a very important one to have these days. I also appreciate your acknowledgement of the physical sciences behind the art form. Imagine that though, I am a chemist!
Love the Bela Fleck example and it's a great question. I'm guilty of this as are all of us I'm sure, just nerding out on the new auto focus systems of the canon r6 and r5 and drooling, and then going.... wait why do I need all of this? haha. Love your videos Ted! I'm a full time professional musician and photography has become my pandemic hobby with the lack of gigs and such, but I find your perspective refreshing and really appreciate the music analogies in this and several of your other videos. Keep it up brother!
One of my favourite cameras is a 65 year old manual focus, meterless, fixed lens Rolleiflex. One of my other favourite cameras is a manual focus, mostly manual Leica M7 rangefinder. Both are film cameras and both bring me more joy than any digital camera. I also feel a lot more for my film work than digital. I think there's something to that.
I love your Bela Fleck example, I’m a musician as well as a hobbyist photographer and I see a lot of parallels as well. And like music, the tools to me are only a means to an end. Yes, the tools make it easier for anyone to create, but to me there’s no substitute for studying the art and learning how to truly be creative in using the tools to allow the artist to express themselves.
A technical musical example: auto tune. A lot of people thought auto tune would ruin music. It didn’t, it actually became another “sound” producers and artists used in a creative way. Then it became overused and now it’s just another tool that’s used sparingly.
That’s how I see all these new photography technologies. Photographers will use them as a crutch, that’s inevitable. But truly great photographers will emerge who can use the tech to its full advantage and beyond. I don’t have any names of current photographers off the top of my head, but Chase Jarvis was one guy about 10 years ago really pushing photographic tech to make stunning photos.
Finally talking about FILM! Miss the old Ted.
Great video, love it!!
I have been using manual lens since a year or so, and what I discovered is, I enjoy the process of photography so much more than before. I get less hits, but when I nail something, I NAIL it. Very enjoyable, very satisfying. I recommend using manual lens to everyone who just wants to enjoy taking photos!
When I was in photography school back in the early 80's ("Le 75", Brussels, Belgium) in the first year I had this wonderful teacher who was influancial to me. His name is Yves Auquier (dear man is still alive) and he told us something like: "Just take a basic Kodak plastic box (6x6), go out and take pictures. Don't worry about technique, it will come later, in time." Said Kodak box didn't have any settings appart maybe ASA number. It was completely mechanical, no aperture selection, no speed selection, no focus, not even a light meter. The idea was for us to first learn building our gaze, the way we could look at things, the rest is incidental. He was saying that technique depend from what you want to say and not the reverse. I never forgot that. Glad to see that this primary lesson in photography keeps on being told.
I like the gear reviews but these videos is what its really about and why I started following your channel to begin with. Nice one Ted!
WOW. You nailed it. As a contractor, i have seen lots of people with hammers do some fine work, and I have seen some with the finest tools do "crappy" work. and the other way around. The tool does Not define the artist. Thats inside of you. I have known people with thousands of dollars of the latest equipment who can't frame a good composition to save their life or use the light properly , while some on a very restricted budget with an "entry level" camera take some of the most incredible, moving photographs. My brother and I were having this exact conversation last night. If we aren't careful, we can easily become "gear sluts"...always chasing the latest and greatest gadgets , instead of working on technique. Working on artistry. Perfecting our craft. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!
I know for me, some standout portrait photographers who are doing really interesting things and trying techniques that were not around in the past are Sam Hurd (freelancing, "ring of fire" technique, "epic portraits", prisming) and Ryan Brenizer (popularizer of the "Brenizer method" or "Bokehrama" or "Panoramic Stitching"). I now see lots of photographers use these same techniques (myself included), but I believe those two guys are what started these movements. And I believe they will continue to discover new ways of using their equipment that others have not thought of.
Oh, and to answer your question.
I have been photographing full time for 6-7 years now. And since I've started, I've always been looking for newer cameras, newer models, other cameras, analog cameras, cameras that would maybe change my style or add something to it. I've been shooting with pro level Nikon DSLR's ever since.
The past year I really came to realize that all I need are the tools to make the exposure and composition I want. Aperture, shutter speed, ISO. If I could acces them quick I could shoot what I want the way i want. I can do this on an analog format with my Nikon F3 and digital with my Fujifilm X-E3.
Sure an M6 would look good around my neck, and yes really quick eye autofocus would come in handy. But I don't feel like I need it, frankly I don't think we've needed al lot of things we've had for the past few years. It's the same as with phones, it's refinement more than innovation.
Now there is things to say for press and sports photographers who I can really see benefiting from performance. But it's like picking up your analog camera after not using it for a while. you come to realize that pushing the shutter button at the right time is just as effective but even more satisfying than releasing a 12fps burst.
I literally feel like I don't need to buy another camera for the next 10 years, my goal is to work on my style and technique and become a better photographer through that.
Exactly. Well said. And thank you.
So now if you was only allowed to keep one camera, what would be your choice ?
That's actually a really good question. Since I would like it to be versatile enough to handle all of my commecial/professional work ánd personal work it would be the Nikon D850. You'd have, resolution, speed, good high iso and great autofocus for an affordable price. If I'd only be shooting personal work or not be a professional it would definitely be the Fujifilm X-E3.
Great video, Ted! One can't fully enjoy and truly realize the full beauty of Photography without knowing the history of Photography and experiencing some of its older techniques to better understand what others did (as you mentioned Murkoski) and understand the limitations they work through!
The average person will take a group snapshot with the heads in the middle of the image and a lot of sky about the heads. While the camera can take a technicality correct image, the image lacks the vision that causes us to say, WOW! A good photographer knows how to use his or her tools AND when to apply the right tools to give the impact they chose. It's that vision and knowledge that work together that gives us really good images.
A video like back when I subscribed to this channel. Great quality stuff!
You may not think of yourself as a historian but your knowledge and interpretation of photography history has shaped a number of people here and I'm sure I'm not the only one who really appreciates those very inspirational videos a lot. I'm glad to know you think about such questions and look forward to seeing more videos like this!
My opinion about this is that art is what lives on as a person's expression of their feelings, surroundings and cultural background. Brand new technology just gets old and useless after a while, now faster than ever. I agree that the first recorded photography is an amazing technological achievement but a new autofocus system will never have this kind of historical impact, so why do we even bother?
Just saw this one. Great topic and indeed 'what it is all about' or should be. Before most of us start feeling guily aboutnot inventing new ways of doing things let's not forget that artists like Munkácsi where unique in their expression . We can aspire but will fail, otherwise we would already bé those artist. But great idea to inspire everybody to push the artistic envelope instead of fuzzing about gear
I'm a 57 year old serious amateur photographer since hitting my teens in 1974. In the early days, I was lucky that my dad was also a keen photographer and he taught me the way the exposure triangle works. After that, it was a case of practice, practice and more practice - and trying every film I could get my hands on and finding what worked for me.We didn't have a darkroom at home but I found a camera club nearby that had one and started developing and printing my own B&W. That was the "craft" / technical part. OK, I have never been Ansel Adams but I got by okay. Improvements in technology were mostly limited to improved grain and colour rendition of film stock. Occasionally, someone would produce a new metering pattern and then autofocus turned up. Skip forward to the advent of digital and the lid came off Pandora's box. Rather than learning the craft, many chose to set auto everything and switch to high speed continuous mode. No problem with that - each to their own - but technology has been a double-edged sword, in my opinion. Pros: 1. It allows the photographer to concentrate on getting the photos they want (assuming they know what they want) without being bogged down in the technical aspects. 2. Feedback is immediate. 3. Share your photos with friends on whatever media floats your boat. Cons: 1. It convinces people they are better than they actually are. 2. When the auto / program function doesn't cut it, they haven't the knowledge or experience to know how to improve results. 3. It make the camera the star when the camera will only do what you tell it / allow it to do. I'm all in favour of making things as simple as possible; but no simpler. I believe that if Ansel Adams were alive today, he'd be shooting film and digital - but his mastery of the technical / craft aspects combined with his artistic eye would still put him light years ahead of the majority. I like technology but it has to have a real purpose. Unfortunately, most of the so-called enhancements these days are, IMO, no more than window dressing. (BTW - I'm talking about still photography as I have zero interest in video / vlogging).
Hardware revisions seem to come out annually now for cameras that are so complex a ‘user’ could spend 80 hours in thoughtful study about the camera and still not know half the functions.
By contrast, the Nikon F3 was sold for about 20 years. The Olympus OM-3 and OM-4 were sold for about 15 years. The Canon F1, Nikon F, and Leica M3 were all sold around 10-13 years. Those cameras were far easier to master. Knowing your tools capabilities and limitations is essential, as you explained.
Now, I mostly use digital to prepare or check for film shots. For me, I just enjoy film more. I want to take pictures, not spend weeks learning the menu system of the month or using the latest software update for post production. Others do, and more power to them.
Thank you! I get so tired of all the technical talk. It's refreshing to talk about the art of photography. Great photographs don't come from the camera you're holding they come from somewhere deep inside. That being said the science of photography is important but I feel to much emphasis is placed on it by average photographers - if only I had this or that piece of equipment, then I would be a better photographer. This is from a book I recently read - "Photography is a blend of art and science, of intuition and analysis. It's the classic right-brain, left-brain activity. It is a medium in which the tension between the two becomes resolved. The science is there to serve the art, and the art can only be truly realized through an application of the science."
I’ve spent the last year shooting with no autofocus, as my old camera and lens was stolen, the only lenses I had left were Olympus OM ones and a Tamron Nikon fit on my Sony that I replaced it with.
One thing I’ve found, is that now I shoot less, because I’ve become more patient and I wait for the right shot, rather than shooting and hoping for the best.
All these tools in modern cameras are wonderful, and if you shoot for a living, I’ve no doubt they make life easier.
But I definitely believe that limitations are one of the biggest ways to improve yourself, and it’s great to be able to do with the bare minimum, so that you can make the most out of something that has more
love these types of videos, so many questions not being talked about out in this space. the world needs more of it, thank you so much for it
I recently went on an amazing trip to Iceland and shot all my photographs on my 5Dmk II. It's still a very capable and powerful camera to this day. When I told people I shot the entire trip on a 10+ year old camera they were blown away!
Fantastic video Ted. This is why I subscribed and watch your channel. I think that one of the modern day photographers that uses technology to push his photography to limits is Dave Black. He’s a “light painter” using anything from a small pen light to a large 100,000 watt light to create beautiful photograph. Dave was (and still is for that matter) a noted Sports Photographer. He knows about the decisive moment and his work in that arena is very well known. If you have never seen his work please check him out.
Hi Ted, always good to rethink photography as a passion. For me personally the goal is to print my images and hang them in my home so I can enjoy them day by day. I do not place them online. There for me personally and the people that come into my home.
Lot’s of greetings, Dennis 🇳🇱
Great discussion topic and is certainly something I think of a lot when I watch and read all of the new camera reviews. We live in a world of technology that is moving at rapid pace and think technology is good but also think we shouldn’t get carried away with the hype and the snobbery. We shouldn’t forget that using all of this fabulous technology it will not make us better photographers. Thank you for this great video Ted 👍👍
I've followed camera tech over the past 10-15 years, fading in and out as needed. Unfortunately, I view technical photography discussions as a flooded market that I'm much less interested in. I think it's partly due to: my technical background, the naturally technical media of the internet, and the need for frequent content churn due to consumers purchasing the most recent.
In my mind, creative photography discussions from people with strong backgrounds are diamonds in the rough on the internet. I'll never tell people that fancy technology makes their photography or their skills deficient, but I do thirst for more people to focus on creativity than the means.
I really love all your videos man, but these videos on Photo history and the ‘art of photography’ are really what makes me more pumped about shooting and photography in general
I really respect and support your creative choices, whatever they are, but from a personal perspective I have to say that I really missed hearing you talk about the history of photography, the philosophy behind it, the ART of photography, thank you Ted 😍
Holy crap! This is exactly what my colleagues and I have been discussing lately. What are we as photographers doing with this technology that we weren't able to do even a few years ago? I think most of us, myself included, are not exploring these possibilities. Forget autofocus for a moment, mirrorless cameras have solved the problem that has faced camera design since the beginning, the ability to see what is going on in terms of focus and composition at the focal plane! This is a big deal! Not to mention the ability it gives us to pre-visualize the image before taking it. Ansel Adams used to hold up a filter to his eye to approximate how various colors would be rendered in black and white, can you imagine what he'd think about film simulations right there in his viewfinder.
But I believe the impress question we should be asking, is what can we do with this technology? How exactly do we push that envelope further? Great video!
Ted, I think we may be in one of those moments when ironically, it's not about the technology, it's about recording the here and now. Getting back to what you've said earlier...make photographs that matter (to paraphrase). We are in an era of social, political and likely economic upheaval. I think the photography from our era that will be remembered will be that which somehow represents our present, this tumult and whatever becomes of us on the other side.
Excellent video Ted. I started with the Canon film cameras and now Canon digital cameras. I remember buying the EOS 3, a film camera that had autofocus. Had to buy new lenses and had to let the camera focus for you, it didn't have a manual focus screen and that was a BIG deal. The idea of letting the camera focus for you was just scary. Fast forward to today, after the EOS R release I am not sure I will still be shooting Canon this time next year (story for some other time). I still occasionally pull out my old EOS 1Ds Mk II, and it still takes excellent photos, one of Canons better portrait cameras, the rendering on skin tones was better than many of their newer cameras. There is so much focus on specs and features, and the fanboys (any brand) all seem to think this feature or that feature makes their camera the best and act like this awesome feature now defines photography. The FF snobs act like bokeh defines photography. I still believe the photo your looking at defines photography at that moment. A photo creates its own context, if it is a good photo it will be about the story it tells or the breath-taking view and nobody will care about camera, lens or any of that. The art of photography I believe is directly linked to the LOVE of photography and the individual photo and not the love of a camera.
When I switched to digital and it no longer cost me money every time I pushed the shutter release, I started shooting a lot more photos. I soon realized I had a lot more photos but not near as many good photos. The film made me more deliberate and made me pay more attention to every frame, digital cameras didn't help my photography at all at first they actually made it worse. Sometimes I think all these new features have us taking more photos but not necessarily better ones.
When you have an eye for a good photography , good photo story, you do not need the latest camera, but such camera can help you to achieve the desired result more easily.
I'm trying to quit with the pixel-peeping but it is really hard! :) :)
I have always felt Erik Johansson is the greatest exponent of modern digital photography at the moment. Imaginnative, technical and progressive. His images transend current photography and I feel like that's what you are talking about.
I also feel that a photographer now is less about technical prowess and is more a beacon of a particular style, mood or idea.
Something I've noticed is a sort of role reversal with the growth of photography. It used to be that those who deviated from a purely technical form were the ones that stood out. Now we have a 'point and shoot' culture, and a drive to make something artistically different. The photographers that stand out now are the ones who stay closer to the rules of composition; those that pay closer attention to the technical details.
You bring up an excellent point with this video. Even with all of the advances that have occurred with cameras & lenses, I still love shooting with manual everything film cameras. Since each and every exposure costs me money, I tend to take more time and really work the creative aspect. But shooting film also provides a technical aspect I really enjoy. Processing the film then working in the darkroom to produce prints is therapy for me. Plus, I end up with unique art I can hang on my walls. I also love shooting digital images because I don't think so much about the technical aspects and really work the creativity. I can hardly wait to see the upcoming technology that will be announced over the next year or two. I've seen more good photography made by amazing photographers since digital cameras first came out than I did for decades before that. The creative opportunities of the future will be amazing!
Love this video... I believe that today's standout photography needs both. Great equipment with a very creative eye or soul to make that image come to life. Art is still a form of life being molded by a collection of ideas put into motion and not always caught as the artist intended. But that's the best part of the game. Attempting perfection and achieving it. The ultimate dream.
I think creativity is about making uncommon things that have either a high degree of technical skills and/or high degree of sensibility (the Holly Grail being to have both). Having an uncommon tool that helps producing uncommon things may of course help a lot :). All the recent announcement on the camera market, however, only help accuracy on a very narrow subset of the technical skill (e.g. focus, exposure metering, handheld long exposure stability).
Great video Ted. You are so right. This is the type of content I expect from you. I look forward to further videos on this topic. My 2 censt contribution to the conversation will be the following : Everybody (or quasi everybody) looks how to make sharper, perfectly focused images with the new cameras available. But a boring, perfectly sharp and perfectly exposed image will still be boring while an image that creates emotion or tells a story, will still be interesting and get my attention even if not technically pefect.
I remember buying my first camera some years ago, it was a fixed lens, 18-700mm or so Canon and I was blown out by the images I could get of my dog with the blurry background and all the detail... Years passed and now I am working on a series of photos of firefighters near where I live...I think we all need to realize that the camera is just a tool to achieve what we picture in our minds. Maybe the fact of wanting more gear is just a way to deflect because we are limited by our own abilities and we are too lazy to start learning and stop guessing.
Great stuff and I am thrilled you are addressing it. I love technology and all the cool stuff that has been coming our way. But lately I have been trying to evaluate when I actually need to use a feature like autofocus. I feel like I have gotten lazy as a photographer by over relying on it. In a way I have been over relying on using zoom lenses as well. So I kind of rediscovered photography when I started using manual focus prime lenses that were 40 years old. Today’s mirrorless cameras with great EVF’s make using manual focus so much more accurate. They really become fun to use. It was like how using a manual transmission can help you stay more engaging in driving. Auto features and tech marvel stuff is undeniably cool. But how much are we losing when we start letting the camera do do much for us?
Great talking as always!
I was thinking the other day about the democratization of photography, which i see nothing wrong about it, but i thought that maybe there is actually a good chance that particular works could stand out from the crowd, if people get stuck on one way of taking pictures. So to people who think that today creative photography is dead, i would tell them to think more about it...
I'm so glad someone is raising this subject for discussion. I think as you say 'you need technology (in some form or other) to take photos' that's a given, but I also believe that photography has become stagnant due to the law of diminishing returns, tech companies are cramming so much into each camera that the actual difference across each camera is absolutely minimal, unfortunately Joe public is being fed this menu of technology, companies keep the pot boiling by adding another camera, then another, they keep dangling the carrot just in front. We are also confused by experts telling us that 'we must not take photos like this,' 'we must use that to take a photo', 'if your photo doesn't look like this,' 'then your nothing', 'a photo must be arranged thus.' 'if you take a photo like that then, your wrong!'
The industry is crying out for people to break the rules! We have been brainwashed, we have a whole field to play in, but we are working our socks off right on the edge because clever people tell us this is where the good people work, I am tired of being told that grain = bad, really, go and have a look through David Baileys Archive one, see how much grain is visible, the pictures are still stunning, or, we must focus on the leading eye! Oh yes? Have a quick look at Steven Mcmurrys portraits, from National Geographic, count up how many are actually not in focus, talking of focus, 'we must have pro lenses that are tack sharp from edge to edge!' should we go and have a discussion about the subject of picture clarity within the impressionist movement? The 1960s was a somewhat revolutionary period for photography, what with the coverage of the Vietnam war etc, some iconic photos derived, but they used technology that you can buy for a couple of dollars now, but we still insist on paying ££££s on lenses that have ultra special coatings on precision ground super high grade glass in custom designed barrels for use in extreme temps, it's madness, as you say, a hammer won't build you a house, it's the person with the flair to use the hammer, it's the same with cameras, apart from a relative few pixel peepers, most of the public won't know a photo from a Sony A9 from a photo out of a canon 550d but they will recognise someone who knows how to use a 550 against someone who doesn't know an A9 from a barn door, someone who can USE the tech compared to someone who simply HAS the tech, unfortunately we don't have many people at all who have the innovation to go and use the tech in a new way just now.
Great discussion. I agree with the person(s) who proposed that Ted is an historian. I have been introduced to many great photographers, present and past, through this channel. It would also be interesting to compare to other arts like painting, vis-a-vis accessibility of high quality materials ( paints, canvases, brushes) nowadays. Also I quite like that “first” photograph purely aesthetically. Whether it captured the artist’s intent or was too technically limited is a separate question to me.
Thanks Ted, for a great discussion. I would like to think that there are people more creative and knowledgeable than me fully utilizing this new tech in ways that will surprise and delight us.
I like to think of the meeting between the technical and creative as, the technical is the canvas, the creative is the painter. You can paint on anything, but the quality of the canvas, the type of paper, the color...can make or break what the painter creates.
A great painter can make a masterpiece with literal dirt and stone, while the finest pigments and canvas in the world will in no way improve the work of a bad painter (like me). Good media makes your life easier, but an artist can achieve greatness within whatever limitations he or she is working.
When I shoot portraits for a client though, no autofocus system is good enough. The best expression always somehow appears on one of the blurry frames.
I wouldn't call those portraits art though.
Thinking about technology and art... My composition teacher at uni was fond of vague one liners, one of which was that "the technology informs the aesthetic". As a musician and in other creative pursuits I find myself always being repelled by technologies that tell me what it is that I want to do. Whether it's recording to a tempo grid in protools, perfectly reproducing the sound of a 50s B3 Hammond Organ with a Nord Keyboard, or even autofocus on a DSLR. I'm not a very proficient photographer by any means, but I think there's a point at which something like autofocus functions to teach you that your photograph has to be 'in focus', or 3X3 gridlines on the viewfinder or when cropping in software get between your aesthetic intuition and the final work to in a way subconsciously enforce a rule of thirds. It's not an inherent problem with digital technologies as such, but for me as an artist it's more a problem with any tool that tells me what I want and then gives it to me perfectly.
Great subject!
One of the reasons I keep using film is to challenge myself by not depending on the tech of modern cameras so much. It's really frustrating when you miss a moment because your focus was not on point or when you can not change your iso etc etc. But all of this also makes you more careful on what you are doing and forces you to do things in a diferent way. Moving all of this method to the digital part is for me a fun and creative way of shoting.
When I bought my Nikon F in 1973, it came with a instruction book that basically explained the interplay between ASA (DIN), aperture and shutter speed. My Nikon D7000 has a user manual that's 367 pages.
Great analogy with taking a plain and ordinary instrument and creating something extraordinary with it. Photographers are not limited to their equipment and can do extraordinary things with the creative process. After hearing you reference Bela Fleck I was expecting to hear 'Sinister Minister' as the outro, but realized it would probably get a flag for copyright and demonetize the video
Great video Ted. I think we're at a point in time where most people are way too focused on the gear and the capabilities of their equipment. Frame rates, burst rates, megapixels, etc are the absolute least important aspects of the creation of a solid photo - but it seems as if this is all people care about nowadays.
Get out there with whatever gear you have and start being creative, people!
Thanks again for a solid video, Ted. These chats are my favorite videos of yours.
Great topic Ted! Well, I'd like to add one more thing to your final questions: what if we - meaning who is trying to insert himself in a ideal lineage which includes historic photography masters and so keeping himself out from all those who just shoot for utilitarian/commercial purposes - what if we actually don't need all these new amazing options and technologies? What if we could define a kind of end-point of photography technology in which we have already reached the peak of what we really need so we don't gain any other real benefit from a brand new electronic tool? What if all this unrestrained market were just the effect of something else, like, for instance, an unrestrained market itself? You can see people still shooting films (e.g. me) or 10 years old digital camera (e.g. me), since their purpose is not demonstrate anything more than just describing the world around them with essential/basic technologies - that does not mean "bad". Maybe this is why you don't see a new Muncáksi today, because maybe there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Perhaps, we might divide the world in different categories of people: people who see an unconditional sense of constantly update themselves...and people who like things slightly out of focus.
I like the discussion you are doing, and items related to the history of photography. I hope you will do more book reviews, discussions, artist series, mail day, etc. I am not a big fan of the camera and lens reviews, since I will never (at least not any time soon) be able to afford the best camera gear. It is great to get back to the ART of photography. Thank you.
HI nTed,
Thanks for this video. I strive to marry both the Creative and the Technical sides of photography in my work. In my journey, I have found that the fundamentals of light, exposure and composition, once understood, then open up more opportunities and capacity for creativiity. Like any craft, understanding the technical gives way to creating better work.
We are no longer limited technologically, but we can still be limited artistically. It no longer requires a 'professional' to produce a correctly exposed and focused image, but it still requires an 'artist' to produce an aesthetically pleasing one.
It's an interdependency, one can't work without the other.. But every generation has its rare talents that come around and change the game!! That being said probably every generation thought that they art had reached a peak of sorts (maybe). But I believe, that in this time where creators are more and more prominent, the art form of photography can only be pushed to higher summits!! Has you said, the "democratasition" of photography now allows anybody and everybody the chance to experiment with this art form (to different degrees), and that can only lead (in my humble opinion) to pushing it further and further, both technically and artistically!!! Thanks again for opening such a great conversation!!!
What a good video. No geekness, just real photography, the why's and why not's. Mind you I still enjoy a good tech video (like Tony and Chelsea's usually are)
I wonder if Henri Cartier-Bresson would have found the decisive moment
too easy with 20 frames a second and not bothered.
These videos make us think, rather than pixel peep. Well done.