A thread recently discussed the rights and wrongs of getting the right exposure versus doing it later in PP. It got me thinking why we need to see reality in learning photography. I had just been looking at these photo's
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/10397734/Shipwreck-photograph-collection.htmlThese were produced by a company that ran from the 1800 to the 1900's and may even be working today, so must have/be successful. These are stark records of ship wrecks. More importantly, like many old photographs they have a flatness that suggests minimal post processing in the darkroom. These are not 'arty' monochrome pictures. (or reproduction has given them a flatness that suggests this) they are not 'pure' by any means as the write up states that they have had elements added but in today's world they would have been tinted or tone mapped with massive contrast and highlights at the very least. Primarily these were meant as record shots.
Today we largely see processed pictures - a kind of 'Dolby sound' of reality. Everywhere we look, we have perfect pictures as defined by advertising standards. Does reality play any part in video,film or photography. Can we go back to pre-Kodak color to get a sense of good photography.
An advertisement for a photo processing system featured on my set of UHH today. It showed a before and after image to portray how 'great' it was. Sadly I didn't like any of its reproductions as they all looked garish and brash. Even as a learning photographer, to suggest that this was a standard to strive for would be totally wrong. Yet it must appeal to some as an acceptable finish. How can you learn what a picture should look like when you are surrounded by artifice?
As cameras produce more and more in-camera processing. Will reality no longer be attainable on file. I don't mean to suggest that we should have mangy dirty dogs on our calendars or, as has been suggested, in other contexts, realistic (flabby) models on the catwalks. But a yardstick that says this is what we should try to attain first before looking to 'pimp' it.
I've been told to look at "the Masters" but these often produced stylized work. They reflect both the fashions and the technology used at the time. Other 'Artists' were merely 'off the wall' from their contemporaries and do not stand out as technically good photographically. Art for Art sake doesn't necessarily teach you, nor demand technical skill. Photographing barns in the US might have been wow in 1950's UK, but tells us very little today. Today, so much is done by 'modern masters' using post processing that realism doesn't exist in any noticeable context.
Someone here recently pointed out that we now have a new Jpeg standard that will reproduce color way beyond our brains ability to distinguish. We have so many hues and shades that we can no longer relate to them. Our memory cannot faithfully reproduce what things looked like the moment that we turn away. Having the technical ability to produce gazillions of hues doesn't help us reproduce what we think we saw. Surely THAT was the very essence of why we take photographs in the first place. Technology is taking us further away from what and why we deem certain things and times of day as being scenic, beautiful and special.
Many complain that mass photography generates low standards. Or, that photography is becoming too 'immediate'. A Take-it-share it-forget-it and-move-on art form. National Papers now feature badly PP'd snaps as 'taken by our readers' if irrelevant to anything printed or 'by the man at the scene' if it can be seen as being loosely linkable. Even TV features youtube clips as news items. It seems that 'camera standard' without technical camera skill is ok in some contexts but not in serious 'photography'. Yet the camera standard is manipulating the photographs in even the cheapest equipment used by the least trained.
So we come back to the question: where can we see reality in photography so that we can appreciate how falsely the imagery that we produce has altered it. Having the ability to reproduce dawn light or sunset color 'at will' negates the effort of skillful photography, but if that is all that the camera will produce - or that is wanted - what then?
"Shoot manual!" I hear someone at the back cry. But to do so takes us right back to the argument about using the right aperture in the first instance. If you don't know what that is and what it makes your picture look like then 'reality' is never going to be valued. Where do you see purely technically perfect pictures, taken with a camera set to (0)fix printed on everyday paper that inspire.
In a world of vibrant artificial colors it doesn't matter which field the grass grows in - it will always be the wrong shade. But when Canon or Fuji decide that grass will only be reproduced 'chinese type 4 blue/grey/green shade 2223333999911100003' will our critics allow us the ability to switch it back at will without censer?
Don't get me wrong - I am not advocating a return to clockwork cameras for everyone. Perhaps merely a halt to bad taste becoming a corporate and international standard. I want to learn how to take photographs that show how skillfully I used the camera rather than how much Ram I have on my computer.
Can you recommend a book that has just correctly photographed pictures in it?
Is there a website that specializes in photographic realism with a small 'r'?
Is it too late to learn technique first ?????