Photography Isn't As Easy as It Looks

[LTig]

I actually (true story) found a wooden tripod yesterday when out for a bushwalk. No lie. Not a photography tripod, but a surveyors' tripod. In the vast block of bushland next to us. It had been surveyed about 5 years ago and clearly, they left a tripod deep in the bush and forgot about it. Still standing. Left it there as it was pretty deteriorated. No use to me either.

Pity that it has rotten. Wooden tripods are very good regarding suppression of vibrations (like from the mirror of an SLR). Their single disadvantage is weight.

 

[paulraphael]

Welcome to the "long-white-beard-and-wooden-tripod crowd".

No welcome necessary—I've been using a wood tripod since the 1990s. Mentioned in another thread, actually. I've only gotten allergic to the associated esthetic tribalism.

Regarding beards, mine will probably be long and white before I win an online argument about Friedlander or Sherman.

 

[JeffS7444]

Do we think Cindy Sherman (the photographer) just grabbed this with a point-n-shoot on her way by as an expression of "f/8 and be there"? No way.

I think part of it's power is due to not knowing why her character (and if I'm not mistaken, that is Cindy Sherman herself in costume and sunburn makeup) is lying there, and perhaps it's not supposed to mean anything at all

 

[JeffS7444]

Another record-setting piece, this time Rhine II from Andreas Gursky, which fetched $4.3M in 2011:

I'd want to see it in person, because at 1.9 M x 3.6 M not counting frame, the sheer size matters. Here, Gursky has digitally removed buildings and people to achieve what he considers a sort of truthful fiction not possible by other means.

 

[paulraphael]

Another record-setting piece, this time Rhine II from Andreas Gursky, which fetched $4.3M in 2011: ... I'd want to see it in person, because at 1.9 M x 3.6 M not counting frame, the sheer size matters. Here, Gursky has digitally removed buildings and people to achieve what he considers a sort of truthful fiction not possible by other means.

Gursky does wonderful stuff, although that one (Rhine II) never interested me much. I think he does better with maximalism than minimalism; with compositing and adding stuff rather than erasing.

You're right that it makes a difference seeing them. They're ginormous. His studio deserves credit; many of the prints are bigger than the biggest sheets chromogenic paper, so they have to be pieced together. It's so meticulously done that the seams are pretty much invisible.

 

[Wes]

Another record-setting piece, this time Rhine II from Andreas Gursky, which fetched $4.3M in 2011:

I'd want to see it in person, because at 1.9 M x 3.6 M not counting frame, the sheer size matters. Here, Gursky has digitally removed buildings and people to achieve what he considers a sort of truthful fiction not possible by other means.

If Mondrian can make money, then why not this...

 

[LTig]

Gursky does wonderful stuff, although that one (Rhine II) never interested me much. I think he does better with maximalism than minimalism; with compositing and adding stuff rather than erasing.

I second that. For me his best ones are those with an unbelievable amount of details where you can get lost in, like 99 Cents, Aletschgletscher, Hong Kong Island, Montparnasse.

FWIW: Further down is a pic I took in the Astrup Fearnley Museoum in Oslo/Norway in 2015. On the left hand side you see a small part of Gursky's Turnschuhe (sport shoes). It did not take my attention. However the photograph in the middle was much more interesting:

Thomas Struth: Art Institute of Chicago II (1990)​

It shows two women in the Art Institute of Chicago watching this painting in the center:

Gustave Caillebotte: Rue de Paris, temps de pluie (Paris Street in Rainy Weather, 1877)​

(Link to the Art Institute of Chicago: https://www.artic.edu/iiif/2/9f1e180f-ceb1-4cae-bd64-8bc810cdcce0/full/843,/0/default.jpg)


I took the freedom to add one layer of indirection and called it Recursive Remix (2015):

 

[simplex]

Today's cameras are technological wonders.

Yes, I fully agree. But sometimes I wonder whether the sheer mass of those 'wonders' is a bug or a feature. Every time I take a modern camera in my hand which I never touched before, I'm instantly puzzled, even lost. And this is the moment when I remember that moment more than 4 decades ago when I got my hands on a Leicaflex SL for the very first time - still being a teen. I just took it, placed the viewfinder in front of my right eye, and started taking pictures. No manual needed, my eyes knew how to interpret what they saw in the viewfinder, and my fingers knew instinctively and out of experience where to touch and what to do. Try this with a 'modern' camera ...

MIT did a study and concluded the least memorable photos are landscapes. I don't know why because landscapes shot by Ansel Adams are some of the most memorable photographs around.

I think the answer is simple. Adams was probably one of the most patient (and maybe stubborn?) photographers on the planet. Hiking lonely through the rockies, 2 or 3 mules with equipment behind him, always looking for the 'right' view. And once he found it, he prepared his camp, including a lab tent, placed his camera on the tripod, and waitet: for the light and the clouds to be 'right'. This could last days - for one shot. I love Adams' photos.

 

[Ron Texas]

@simplex as for technology we will eventually see completely silent professional size cameras with no mechanical shutter.

I have noticed the best landscape shots come from locals who can visit the site repeatedly.

 

[rdenney]

...I think the answer is simple. Adams was probably one of the most patient (and maybe stubborn?) photographers on the planet. Hiking lonely through the rockies, 2 or 3 mules with equipment behind him, always looking for the 'right' view. And once he found it, he prepared his camp, including a lab tent, placed his camera on the tripod, and waitet: for the light and the clouds to be 'right'. This could last days - for one shot. I love Adams' photos.

There were (and still are) photographers who work this way, but I'm not sure that Adams was quite that patient. He said a number of times that he took things as they came.

And I don't think he ever needed a lab tent. He started making photos in the 1920's, when dry plates and film were the norm. I don't think he ever using a wet-plate process that would require immediate processing (or immediate exposure after coating).

And though I'm sure he hiked in the Rockies at one time or another, most of his travels away from California for photography were part of specific projects, and he had a station wagon that he drove. His hiking and mountaineering was in the Sierra in California, and he certainly did a LOT of that, working as a guide during his teens, and owning his own mule. But then his (future, for part of that era) father-in-law owned the photography studio in Yosemite Village, and his family still owns the same space (now called the Ansel Adams Gallery).

One of his most famous photos, Moonrise over Hernandes NM, which we might have already discussed in one of these threads, was made by the side of the road with very little preparation, and an exposure that was an informed guess. I don't he stalked that elusive combination of subject and light, but rather observed the right combination of subject and light and then made it the sort of place future photographers would stalk.

Rick "the hard part is seeing it when it's there, or finding it when it's not obvious" Denney

 

[nerdstrike]

<ramble>
@rdenney has a point that good photos come in all shapes and sizes. There's the famous Earthrise that was the byproduct of hundreds of engineers and planners and controllers and millions in investment in space exploration - it doesn't get more prepared than that. Others are from perfect moments where someone happened to have the skills and the gear to capture the inspiration.

I had a far better time than I expected visiting the Photografiska in Stockholm. I'm not much of an art lover, so it was nice to see many different kinds of photos and how I reacted to them. They intended to open a branch in London but have hit massive delays, don't know if it'll happen now.

Truth to be told, I find it irritating that many greats make a name from themselves marching from tragedy to tragedy and capturing excellent portraits of refugees and the destitute. Shining light on tragedy to provoke humanitarian aid is fine, but I find it uncomfortable to think about these photographers becoming rich and famous, and art lovers gathering round to peer at the work and venerate it. It's complicated... an awful lot of what makes the headline photo and art sales in general is the story surrounding the artist, the aura projected by enthusiastic collectors gushing over the products of the greatest people. The skills themselves are far more common than the sociological circumstances for fame.

For a different take, I recommend a glance at Wellcome Image Awards (say 2011) for "snapshots" of the microscopic universe. Never was there a better way to show the endless complexity in the world.
</ramble>

 

[Wes]

Yes, I fully agree. But sometimes I wonder whether the sheer mass of those 'wonders' is a bug or a feature. Every time I take a modern camera in my hand which I never touched before, I'm instantly puzzled, even lost. And this is the moment when I remember that moment more than 4 decades ago when I got my hands on a Leicaflex SL for the very first time - still being a teen. I just took it, placed the viewfinder in front of my right eye, and started taking pictures. No manual needed, my eyes knew how to interpret what they saw in the viewfinder, and my fingers knew instinctively and out of experience where to touch and what to do. Try this with a 'modern' camera ...


I think the answer is simple. Adams was probably one of the most patient (and maybe stubborn?) photographers on the planet. Hiking lonely through the rockies, 2 or 3 mules with equipment behind him, always looking for the 'right' view. And once he found it, he prepared his camp, including a lab tent, placed his camera on the tripod, and waitet: for the light and the clouds to be 'right'. This could last days - for one shot. I love Adams' photos.

set it to "P" and push the button when you're happy with the composition and the light

 

[Tks]

@simplex as for technology we will eventually see completely silent professional size cameras with no mechanical shutter.

I have noticed the best landscape shots come from locals who can visit the site repeatedly.

I mean, we're already basically there. Check out the Sony A1. 30fsp shooting that's only possible with electronic shutter, with enough shutter speed mitigations against artificial lights as well as rolling shutter artifacting - mechanical shutter seems to be there for posterity and the last remnents of performance under artificial lighting that electronic shutters currently can't 100% equal with addressing. Granted the camera costs $6,500, but the Sony A7SIII (the 12MP video focused camera) coming in at $3,500 also is capable of similarly great electronic shutter performance.

And once global shutters become common place, I really don't see a single need for mechanical shutters. If anything, mechanical shutters will overall be worse due to wear of parts, but also more importantly shutter shock (there are examples of cameras on rock solid tripods showing less clarity when cropping really deep, that shows silent shutters benefit from having no vibration from the shutter to distort the image quality).

 

[rdenney]

I mean, we're already basically there. Check out the Sony A1. 30fsp shooting that's only possible with electronic shutter, with enough shutter speed mitigations against artificial lights as well as rolling shutter artifacting - mechanical shutter seems to be there for posterity and the last remnents of performance under artificial lighting that electronic shutters currently can't 100% equal with addressing. Granted the camera costs $6,500, but the Sony A7SIII (the 12MP video focused camera) coming in at $3,500 also is capable of similarly great electronic shutter performance.

And once global shutters become common place, I really don't see a single need for mechanical shutters. If anything, mechanical shutters will overall be worse due to wear of parts, but also more importantly shutter shock (there are examples of cameras on rock solid tripods showing less clarity when cropping really deep, that shows silent shutters benefit from having no vibration from the shutter to distort the image quality).

I don't have any problem with the (large!) focal-plane mechanical shutter on my Pentax 645Z, and with 50 megapixels, a problem ought to appear if there is one. Not all of my lenses are as sharp as that sensor, but I have some that are. Long lenses are the biggest worry, but most of those cameras have excellent strategies for minimizing shutter vibration.

Electronic shutters are fine, too. But I despise electronic viewing, even though I do occasionally use it. My eyes don't focus close that well, and with a proper optical viewfinder they don't have to.

But this is a problem with technology in general. Instead of making things to handle diverse needs, it's all or nothing with the latest gadgets on the forums, and people don't buy to meet their needs, but to impress their buddies. (I'm not saying you are doing that, you just sparked a general rant.) And that starves the market of people who would get better use out of something that isn't the latest hip thing.

That Pentax was expensive, but the lenses that Pentax has made going back to about 1980 for the 645 format were good enough in the day for professional use, and they still are, mostly because those images just don't have to be enlarged as much. I have one really expensive lens, but I bought basically all the (15 or so) others for less than what I paid for the camera. And they are all excellent.

Rick "optical viewing imposes machinery--the mirror blocks the sensor" Denney

 

[LTig]

Electronic shutter is a real problem with artificial light (powered by mains) because at higher speeds you get dark bands in the picture. Therefore I would not buy a cam without a mechanical shutter, although I wouldn't use it as default.

 

[Ron Texas]

Electronic shutter is a real problem with artificial light (powered by mains) because at higher speeds you get dark bands in the picture. Therefore I would not buy a cam without a mechanical shutter, although I wouldn't use it as default.

Sensors which are fast enough to not need an electronic shutter are being developed.

The fading away of DSLR's is inevitable. Although unit sales of both DSLR's and mirrorless have been roughly equal and stable for the last few years, the price per unit on mirrorless is rising while DSLR's stay the same. That says the pro/advanced amateur market is adopting mirrorless. I saw someone who wrote DSLR's are becoming like film cameras, but I think that's an exaggeration. If DSLR's went out of production tomorrow, their they still are highly usable whereas with film the means to get it developed went away. I personally would like to see a few more years of improvements in the mirrorless cameras although by that time I may be so old I don't care.

 

[LTig]

Sensors which are fast enough to not need an electronic shutter are being developed.

Do you have more information?

 

[Ron Texas]

Do you have more information?

It's something I saw a while back. It makes a lot of sense because then only the lens will have any moving parts in it.

 

[HiFidFan]

Jeez, and I'm still using my 1974 Nikon F2.

Although my aging eyes are pretty much forcing me to give up manual focus. Bummer.

 

[julian_hughes]

"Photography Isn't As Easy as It Looks"

For me it is actually even a little easier. I consciously make it look & sound complex just for my own amusement and to keep the prices high.