https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/05/approval-tacit-approval-implied.html
It's from 12 years ago. But I think it's appropriate for the moment.
https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/05/approval-tacit-approval-implied.html
It's from 12 years ago. But I think it's appropriate for the moment.
The studio space was perennially and almost permanently set up with lights just in case someone interesting/beautiful/wonderful dropped by. We didn't over think technique back then. We played more than we (collectively) do now. There didn't seem to be much on the line to prevent a certain insouciance and fluidity to our pursuit of things like spur of the moment portraits.
I asked Amy if we could make a portrait and she, of course, agreed. She did a little touch up on her make up and then stepped into the sweet spot of a 40 by 60 inch softbox's glow.
I focused as well as I could with an old Leica R8, stopped the even older 90mm Summicron (no APO or ASPH) down to f5.6, Renae did a quick check with a light meter and we snapped our way through a 36 exposure roll of Ektachrome or Fujichrome. Maybe it was Astia. Whatever. It was some ISO 100 slide film and when I got it back from the lab I thought it looked great.
It's funny. Sometimes I post stuff to make a point about gear or technique but most of the time, at least with portraits, I'm posting stuff because I enjoy looking at it for a second, third or hundredth time. For me that's the real value of doing the work.
And the joy of it.
Take a selfie or two on your smart phone and send it along to them. They'll use A.I. to make it into a "real photograph/headshot" and give you a bunch of variations to choose from in just two hours. For $29. Done.
And by "done" I mean the business of commercial headshots not a "task completed."
This is all hitting right now. No reason not to enjoy taking photographs for fun. Just going to be a lot harder for a lot of folks to make a living competing.
I would have thought that DP Review would have chugged along until at least a couple of big players took Samsung's cue and exited the interchangeable lens camera market altogether. But I guess declining sales, bloated and costly staffing and a failed strategy toward maintaining profitability snuck up much quicker and more decisively than any of us imagined.
Photography is being re-invented yet again. I swam with a technologist from a major, major technology superpower company this morning. After our workout we got into a long discussion about all the disruptions taking place across many markets. He makes a living strategizing about technology trends. His take is that we are at an inflection point not just for photography but across a number of industries and we are never going back to the way it was only a few years (or even months) ago. And he was predicting that the disruptions, changes and creations of new tools (Dall-e, Chatbots, ChatGBT, A.I., Machine learning) and so much more is starting to look like the massive shift that occurred with the 2007 introduction of Apple's iPhone. But on a more diverse and expanded group of technologies. And across an even bigger playing field.
It's wise to remember that pre-iPhone we needed computers to function in the work space. We needed laptops for mobile computing and communication. We needed stand alone cameras. We needed music players to enjoy our music with. We needed hulking big video cameras to make movies with. We needed ATMs to do our banking. We needed maps to get to new locations in our cars. We needed phones to call people and to do primitive texting. Think ahead to now and how our phones have wiped out the need for so many peripherals we once thought to be necessary and practical. And so many services (banking, shopping, etc.) have been de-peopled and streamlined.
I wrote a blog post while flying back from the NYC Photo Expo in 2013 (also shuttered as no longer relevant) about societal change in photography and parts of the post were prescient. Here's a link: The Graying of Photography. Read it. It might make more sense now.
But it's not as if we didn't have clues and telltales about the onrushing inflection point we seem to be in the middle of right now. Here are two subsequent articles, each written eight or nine years ago pointing to exactly what is unfolding right now:
https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2015/10/some-observations-after-speaking-to.html
https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2014/09/after-gold-rush-where-is-photography.html
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that commercial ($$$) photography as we know it is going to cease to exist in a couple of years. No one will be monetizing the work being created at anywhere near the scale we were able to in the past. But a new understanding and market for photography will emerge. We just have to be open to understanding it and willing to take part in it. Or....we can keep copying work like Ansel Adams landscapes and Robert Frank street photography, and considering a paper print to be the gold standard, until we all die off and head to visual Valhalla to commiserate with the buggy whip makers, the floppy disk engineers and the people checking to see if anyone left their change in a payphone booth. Me? Oh I'll be hanging out by the cigarette machines looking to pick up models for after-life retro portrait photography.
The closing of DP Review is just one of many sign posts and they weren't the first to go. Not by a long shot. They held on as long as they did because they were better capitalized. Not because they were better.
I stayed out of the fracas between Mike Johnston and Moose a few days ago. Moose had taken one of MJ's photos, manipulated it and then displayed both the original and the "enhanced" version side by side and proceeded to make an argument that MJ was processing images too flat. MJ pushed back and said he liked em that way. And that they were not "too flat" from his point of view. And that was the way he intended them. All of which started me thinking about the way I process my own images and display them on the web. My knee jerk reaction was that my own work looked "better" if it was snappier and more saturated. My black and whites better with more "clarity." But as I mulled this over and over in my head I remembered something my father used to say to me when I was so, so sure I was right and whoever I was arguing with was dead wrong. "Consider this..." he would say, "What if the other guy is right?"
Which got me thinking even harder. I grabbed a few favorite files and started looking at them made softer, harder, sharper, more diffuse, brighter, darker and, of course, snappier. By the end I was more confused than when I started.
Then I remembered B's ever-present mantra about.....everything: "All Things In Moderation."
And I remembered that all through her career as an award-winning art director and graphic designer for some of the USA's biggest businesses she always steered toward the middle ground. Not "boring" middle but "accessible" middle. It was nearly always work that pleased her design sensibilities, spoke to consumers and delivered for clients.
Maybe that is a target I should be aiming for in my own post production. Timeless versus cutting edge. Comfortable instead of trendy. Happy instead of strident. It's a thought anyway.
Really though, what if the other guy is right? Can you change your mind?