“With the improvement in camera technology, you only need a good eye to be able to take an outstanding photograph. But this has made life difficult for the professionals, who have to be able to demonstrate that they are in a different league to the rest of us.”Richard Ingram Independent on Saturday 14/7/2007
“With the improvement in writing implements (biros as opposed to styli), you only need a glib turn of phrase to be able to write a load of old tosh. But this has made life difficult for the professionals, who have to be able to demonstrate that they are in a different league to the rest of us.”
David Ward Oceans of Instants 14/7/2007
It still amazes me that otherwise seemingly intelligent people continue to completely misunderstand and misrepresent the process of making good photographs as opposed to happy snaps. I know that I've covered this before on "Oceans..." but it's not going to stop me writing about it again!
Let's look at what Ingram wrote one clause at a time...
“With the improvement in camera technology, ..."
Well, I can't argue that cameras have come a long way since you had to mix your own emulsion, apply it to a sheet of glass, expose without the help of a meter (really not that hard when the sensitivity of the emulsion was so low) and enter your dark tent to process the plate. All within the space of a few minutes, before the latent image degraded irretrievably. But the camera is just a tool, like a stylus or a biro or a quill. The camera doesn't make the image, the photographer does. Improvements in technology on their own only make it easier to make well exposed, badly composed images – as opposed to badly exposed and badly composed images. It's the composition that really matters, and that's the bit that technology can't help you with.
"...you only need a good eye to be able to take an outstanding photograph."
My problem here is with the word "only" – take "only" out and I might agree with this second clause. Ingram is using it here in the sense of "merely". It's like saying, "You only have to be a genius to understand quantum theory." Only implies that making an outstanding photograph is a simple thing, a breeze, just like falling off a log...
Count to ten... the hardest part of making a photograph is seeing the photograph. The completed photographic image, unlike other visual arts, gives no hint of the struggle or effort inherent in its making; it bears no makers marks such as brush strokes or the scoring of a stone chisel. It stands so utterly as a substitute for human vision that it is easy to believe that it has been created without any effort at all. Easy, but not true!
"But this has made life difficult for the professionals, who have to be able to demonstrate that they are in a different league to the rest of us.”
This so completely misrepresents reality that it is either breathtakingly naive or audaciously disingenuous ( I suspect the latter). The only thing that professional photographers have to do to demonstrate that they are in a "different league" is to convince hard-bitten commissioners of photography that they're worth spending money on. These people don't give up their money easily. The photographers have to deliver the goods! And the goods in this case are amazing images often made in exceptionally challenging conditions, technically or physically or both, such as a sports field or a theatre of war. How, I wonder , would Mr Ingram get on in Iraq with his technically improved camera? And let's not forget the amazing images made by non-professionals who also rely on a "good eye". Good photographers are good photographers, whether they're paid for it or not. "Professional" is an artificial distinction seized upon by Ingram merely so that he can bitch.
One final thought, if technology was really that important in making photographs why isn't the world awash with new Ansel Adams' or Robert Capas ?
12 comments:
This makes me see RED. I am not being precious but honestly what a complete load of crap. Huge great buckets full of the stuff. That journalist needs to be taken out and pushed off Raspberry Topping. Did the same apply in the advancement in amterials (sic) from stoneage man to Van Gough??!! Agggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
It seems to me that the easiest way to demonstrate the lack of thought and validity of these statements is to subject them to basic empirical analysis.
Sure it is easy to pick apart the written clauses. You cannot have a proliferation of 'outstanding' photographs as none would then be outstanding in the sense that Ingrams means. But if the contention is that camera technology has raised the general standard of image making where is the evidence? A visit to the Alamy website is a sobering experience for anyone who makes such a claim. There are now 9.15 million images in the library. There are 1840 images of 'Glencoe' available to buy of which there are around six I would consider hanging on my wall (my arbitrary definition of 'outstanding' but not, I think unrealistic). It would appear that it is actually quite difficult to make a good image of Glencoe irrespective of the improvement in camera technology. Digital technology and lens resolution have merely made it easier for me to see that is the case.
Secondly, how has life become more difficult for professionals? I’m not saying it is n’t difficult per se (see above), but last time I looked, there had been no recent major erosion in day-rates, the charge for a typical wedding package or indeed the cost of a Leibovitz print. They are all bloody derisory relative to the skill and efforts involved, save the cost of a Leibovitz print, and always have been. Empirically, the market price and the life of your average Pro has not been affected by Ingrams’ alleged surge in image supply or the availability of ‘amateur’ substitutes. There must be something else going on: or maybe it is actually, as you say, a load of old tosh.
It is quite amazing to me that journalists frequently make contentious statements as fait accompli leaving the task of critical examination and the presentation of supporting evidence to their audiences. It is both arrogant and lazy. It is not what Ingrams says but what he does n’t say that I find myself getting worked up about.
The original article can be found here:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2768273.ece
Ingrams appears to be having a pop at portrait photographers in general and Annie Leibovitz in particular. The piece was obvioulsy motivated by the 'faked' story of the Queen's irritation with Leibovitz.
Rather satisfyingly, Ingrams now has egg on his face for mouthing off before all the facts became known. :-)
Hi Julian
Thanks for sending through the link, it wasn't avaialble on the net when I posted my comment on Saturday.
Hi Edward
You've put the whole argument so much more powerfully and succinctly than I did!
Somebody like Ingram would no doubt defend his right to voice his opinion – having opinions is, after all, the main qualifying attribute for a columnist. The problem here, as you so rightly point out, is that he is so ill-informed. Actually it's worse than that, he just hasn't bothered to think about what he is writing because he's more intent on taking a pop at Annie Liebowitz. Given that she is undoubtedly one of the greatest portrait photographers of the last half century this seems a tad unwise. No doubt he is jealous of the large, but well deserved, fees that she commands for merely having a "good eye". I'm sure that my readers ( who are all better informed and more eloquent than he is!) are equally jealous of the fee that the Independent pay Mr Ingram for his poorly crafted diatribe!
On one level, Alamy is a deeply depressing place to visit if you value photography. The general quality of the work is very low. However if you then look at the income that these images are generating you realise that at least they're not making a decent return on sub-standard images. The top earning photographer on Alamy made $25,000 last year – hardly a living wage. When you consider that a good stock photographer with a more conventional library will be earning 10 to 20 times that amount it seems that quality does pay after all. Alamy follow the Jack Cohen (founder of Tesco) principle, "Pile em high, sell em cheap." This is a way of operating that serious photographers should avoid at all costs. It not only undervalues your own work but drives down the value of photography in the market place as a whole.
Ultimately the only people who benefit from this are the middlemen, the owners of stock libraries or publishers of so called royalty free discs. It is very tempting to take the money and run in order to get 'published' but actually this just makes it harder for a photographer to make a living. If you're good enough you will get published and at a decent rate.
Well, I think you're all being rather too precious about this. I can see RI's point and it makes sense. I think he would be amazed to read this minute dissection of his rapidly penned comment.
Hi Sheila
You probably won't be surprised to find that I disagree with you! ;-) I actually think that it doesn't make sense at all. Modern technology has only made matters easier for professionals, not harder. A good eye was all you ever needed to be a photographer and that hasn't changed in over 165 years. The fact that he wrote it rapidly is hardly an excuse, he's supposed to be a professional!
Hello Sheila,
Well, I too can see Ingram's point and it does indeed make sense insofar as it is a logically plausible and grammatically correct set of statements. The problem for Ingram is that he is wrong.
Would it be less “precious” in your view simply to say "RI does n't know what he is talking about" and move on? Possibly; but it would be as lazy and impotent as RI's assertions are. This lack of journalistic care is not excused by the “rapidity of his pen” (which is really a metaphor for “lack of thought”). Lack of thought is not something of which David, with his experience and well constructed counter-arguments, can be accused.
Journalists are accountable not to the laws of grammar, sub-editors or even newspaper owners, but to their readers, many of whom will have greater insight or passion for the subject matter being examined. RI is being held to account here for his lack of insight in making high quality photographic images. And what better forum is there in this case than a blog where participants are knowledgeable and passionate about photography? If you and RI are “amazed” by this it is another small nail in the coffins of accountability and critical thought. These are two concepts that I personally view as rather important, though they are increasingly unfashionable (which is really a metaphor for being “precious” :o).
Well, I'll leave you to your esoteric pontifications.
I'm not passionate about photography, but I am passionate about the things I choose to photograph and so I'd rather get out and tramp through the heather than further encourage your ranting.
:)
Hi David - the riposte to Ingram's comment has been well made above, so here's a few additional thoughts: Okay, so the world isn't awash with new Ansel Adamses and Robert Capas, but my perception, as a relative newcomer to this world, is that the median quality of published photography has shifted significantly - a glance through photography books (both instructional and subject based) and magazines from 20 years ago leaves me pretty cold. Today I see more 'good (but not brilliant) photography appearing in a broader range of publications - okay, maybe in a strictly mathematical sense the average has gone the other way, but the quality of images getting into print seems to have improved. Maybe new technology has helped picture editors get into touch with those 'seeing eyes' who just didn't have the nous to find their way around the system in the olden days. Or maybe digitisation has released latent photographic talent into the market (I'm talking more about the market for images that fall below the lofty heights of our highly esteemed artistic photographers, but above the generally poor level of published photography of old).
Secondly, it seems to me that our much respected 'professional' photographers are not having much trouble at all showing that they are in a different league to the rest of us. How else could I explain the success of the photo tourism business? Although the median quality of images has improved (imho), the median photographer still knows their place!
Thirdly, I know our top landscape photographers are a modest bunch, and this has been an entertaining thread, but I make a serious point when I say that our 'elite' would be justified in a more confident stance in the face drivel such as that from Ingrams.
Cheers. Paul M
Perhaps a better analogy is F1 racing cars. There is always a perception that if you put anyone in a Ferrari, all they have to do is point the car in the right direction and they’ll be the next Michael Schumacher. But the driver chooses the line to take, when to brake, when to accelerate, etc. and it is these skills that make the real difference.
However, one of the harsh realities of photography is that you don’t have to be a good photographer in order to take a good photograph. If:
(a) you happen to be at the right place at the right time and
(b) the scene is unambiguous so needs no interpretation and
(c) there are no distractions within your field of view and
(d) you remembered to bring a camera and
(e) your camera assesses the scene correctly and
(f) everything falls within the constraints of the film/digital sensor you are using and
(g) the autofocus selects the right part of the scene as the subject and
(h) the aperture selected by the camera gets the right things in focus and
(i) the shutter speed is fast enough to prevent camera shake and
(j) you hold the camera level
then you can’t really go wrong.
Digital imaging and camera phones has resulted in a significant increase in the number of cameras in use, and it is far more likely that when something special happens, somebody will be there with a camera to capture it. So you can play the numbers game: the chances are that when something fantastic has happened there was somebody there to capture it. What chance has an individual “pro” got of capturing something different?
Well, David and regular readers of this site are generally looking for their photographs to be a form of self expression rather than just a record. We may “only” have to compose the photo, but searching for and recognising a good composition is certainly one of the main things I enjoy about making images. Selecting a composition is always about making choices, either consciously or subconsciously, and no amount of automation will change this.
To produce images on a regular basis that capture your attention and demand further thought and interpretation clearly requires talent. For my money that puts the photographers who can do this in a “different league”.
Good for people to know.
Post a Comment