To be clear: I'm not saying that if you don't aspire to be Ansel Adams, your wasting your time... There are many reasons to photograph and all are valid, just be sure that what you're trying to accomplish is accomplishable on the path in photography you have chosen.
I would also add that photography can be very enriching spiritually, it can help you get through tough moments in life, it can help you balance your spirit, it can educate you to see things in a way that most people just can't see. And that kind of value is priceless
Spending your time doing anything... ANYTHING... that's you're interested in, is never a waste. Even if you quit three weeks from now, you've still learned things about yourself that will be taken forward in your life.
Pursuing your medium for creative expression is never a waste of time. I'm reminded of the wise words of Joseph Campbell "Follow your bliss." Edward your quest to become an artist is not an existential crisis it's a noble pursuit. I'm on the same quest.
When digital came along, I was against image manipulation via PS. I cut my teeth on film in the 1960s, so I only switched to shooting digitally for the editorial market's demands. I have past photo lab experience so my post-process has small corrections that do not alter how the image like the sky, sun rays, etc. I just came on to your channel & it is a breath of fresh air. Thank you!
I have always enjoyed photography. I use my time wisely. I never let a tool, or software determine if my photos are great, or not. Every software I have used has helped with the editing of my photos. I never knew any photographer when I began to take photos. I never wanted to be like anyone else. What I got from my camera was just it. I accepted every photo, because the camera did it's job. It recorded a moment in time that will never come back.😊
Hi Ed. A very thought provoking topic indeed. You are right I'd say. In my opinion! As a kid I'd hike that proverbial mountain trail with my mamiya camera. I never took an epic shot but I did enjoy the process. I still think they are some of my favorite images. Just not my best. It's because I put the effort into the shot. I processed the film and then printed. That's a huge task by today's standards. Now I'm old and lazy so digital is all I do. But sometimes I hark back to the old days. Trying to be Ansel and failing miserably but having the best time. Thanks Ed. Loved this video.
As a photographer and seeker of the light for me it's about passion, love, commitment and finding the light. Ansel Adams was a gifted artist. Photography was his medium for artistic expression.
That's a very deep philosophical question that goes way beyond photography and encompasses every possible aspect of our experience today. Digital is banalising our existence. The way it goes what's going to happen to us as a species? What is going to drive us forward? What's going to be our purpose? I don't know the answer to any of these, but things do not look very promising.😐
The whole point is the journey, not the destination. The photos I make using 4x5 are very different from what I do using medium format which is different again than what I do digitally. Most of the time, the most rewarding images are 4x5.
I'm so glad you were inspired to make this video. You touched on more points than I could cover in what was really a product review. The whole concept of what your tools are capable of, and what we choose to do with them, has been with me since Quark XPress 3.0 released (very old publishing software from the 1990s). I don't know where I heard the phrase, but it still stands today: just because you can, doesn't mean you should. The palawa people (Tasmanian aboriginals) believe that it is the journey that gives the destination meaning. Take the long way.
I would argue that for my own work yeah, objectively speaking photography is a waste of time. But I don't actually FEEL that it was. I think out 120 shots I've posted only got like 4 or 5 that are actually good. But when I look at them individually I am reminded of what got me into it in the first place: Rich grey tones of...stuff. Trees and fog mostly. You can't lose with that.
I shoot maybe 2-4000 images a year. 3000 are of my family and snapshots. 500-1000 are trying for a decent landscape. Of that around 20 are potentially good, and 2-3 are really good. I've been doing this for 40+ years. That's the game. Ansel said a dozen good photos a year is a good crop.
I create art because I have to. If AI took over everything, I'd still create because it won't let me stop. If people want to spray n pray with a 70fps camera, or generate images online, that's up to them. But I know that driving to the top of the mountain will never give the same sense of meaning as hiking up it. And why climb it at all? Because it's there.
Carleton Watkins is a major american photographer, underrated my opinion. I cant remember if I told you: I was seeking for an US 8x10 camera. I got a Deardorff (ca 1923) from a guy in Pennsylvania. Im so happy. And it is because of you. So thank you.
Those Deardoffs have become amazingly expensive these days. It's a great camera so no excuses... The Chamonix film holders are worth the money because they are so lightweight. When I return from my trip I'm going to start working on the darkroom remodel. I already have the materials to build the sink, I just need the time! I just printed a 16x20 on my Canon Pro-1000 from a 4x5 scan of Zion. It turned out great. Digital just can't match the LF tonality.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography I got an early V8, it was cheaper than a more recent one. Front end has not the swing but I dont mind. I dont print much, darkroom asks for a lot of energy and I have only weekends for photography. Anyway thank you for your feedback and your great videos.
Thank you! Yes, the darkroom is a time eater for sure. 3 hours every weekend and you might get a few prints done in a month... Scan and print with a computer. You always have the negative to prove the provenance of your shot. The Epson V850 works well for 8x10. I just throw them onto the glass and it seems to work. Of course you could always get a Photographer's Formulary contact printer from B&H. They work great and would make some stunning 8x10 prints with little effort!
The opening square photo on your webpage shows so well . Beautiful tones, 'air', details and all. That, on my 32" TV which is also my PC screen (sadly used for editing photos too).
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography PS. So beautiful. So good to see you fine takes on man made in environment! First thought on this big sky, very small bldg. (tho;) and seeming a bit abstract was of a Stuart Davis painting of midwest grain elevators in a big sky.
12-13 years old subscriber here (from the old channel) I'm not sure I agree with most of what you said here, and here's why. Photography is an art. Cameras and technologies are just tools. You can give someone the best camera on the planet, 1000MP, the fastest and smartest AF, 1000 FPS, whatever, that person will still produce the same crappy photos he did on his cellphone. A turd is the same as a polished turd. Great photographs look awesome even thumbnail size. And generative photography is just copying and stealing, it's not actually real, it only exists because the algorithm has material to copy from (as in real art photography), so it is nothing more, and will never be anything else than a fraud. Now, of course commercial applications will use these end products, but really, art photography and photographers were never really targeting those applications anyway (with exceptions of course) So to me, it is very simple, it does not really matter, I do photography just for me anyway, but maybe if someday I'll think I should present or even sell my art to the public, AI and fools with great cameras are not on my worry list because my target audience will not be people who appreciate or buy those products
In the 80's when I worked at a local newspaper, I was assigned 15 to 20 of film, usually tri x or ektar depending on the assignment I had to attend, I was the photographer assigned to cover covers of the Sunday edition which was usually landscapes, of course newsprint everything looked horrible, now that I see some slides or negatives I wish I could generate similar images with my digital cameras, analog vs digital is a conflict for me!!! I still can't figure it out!! I'll tell you when I do it!!
IMO, photography is not a waste of time if it gives someone a sense of purpose. Strive for authenticity and your art will always be unique and can't be copied plus it shows how comparisons are silly. “It doesn’t matter what you do, only how well you do it.” ― Dan Millman,
Very deep video. I believe in the digital age, you very much can be a fine art photographer. I think slowing down, using just the camera and using physical equipment on the digital camera (filters whether purchased or what I have done by using physical materials over the lens). I totally get your unending pursuit of what you believe should be fine art photography. The biggest thing, in my opinion, is getting everything right in the camera and NOT using any post processing with a computer To me, that is pure art digital photography. Just my opinion sir.
I guess the truth is I do both. My digital work is now confined by a more Michael Kenna approach and is a lot of fun. My film work is the work I respect more. Though the truth is my film work suffers because digital is so easy. Why cook a gourmet meal when Taco Bell is down the street?
When we entered the digital camera world the standards changed. When I went fully digital in 2002 I never once thought my photography "art" or my results were less than what they were when I shot film. For me it was just obtaining the same results using a different photographic tool. I still had to get out and search for that visual and composition and get the shot. For me, getting out and capturing the image and seeing what it looks like on a big screen or in print is what's it's all about. Now AI photography, like many other things in these times, is just fake, not real, a lie, and trickery. Just like many other things in todays bass-akwards world, deception rules the day. To make a photo of a great landscape without ever leaving the house is in my opinion quite stupid and has no meaning to what people like us (a dying breed) understands what photography is. The viewer may think differently due to not knowing or caring if the image is real or not. The satisfaction of a real photography experience, regardless if it's film or using a digital camera will likely be unknown in 70 years from now. As we have entered the age of what's up is down, what's right is wrong, etc., sadly photography falls victim to this also.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody gives a damn did it make a sound? We make art for ourselves, because we can, and for the 5 people on earth that still have the capacity to appreciate it.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Yes, other than the few images I share on facebook, youtube, or post on my website, I have thousands of photos on hard drives no ones ever seen other than myself. When I'm dead and gone hopefully my son or daughter will find them and perhaps occasionally look at them and get some smiles from them, or all these photos will be just like me, gone forever.... I very rarely ever sell prints, if someone wants a print I usually just give it to them as a gift. My photography is very personal for me.
I suppose I do not care really whether what I do is art or not. I do not consider myself artist so such questions never crossed my mind, I just photograph for fun. And frankly I do not believe, and that is my thought, that Ansel Adams is famous photographer cause he was better then most. Artists of pre internet times needed to be lucky to have rich patron, or to be in right place at right time to meet someone who will appreciate their work or who will risk to buy and print or exhibit it. Nowadays getting worldwide audience is free and matter of seconds. I always wonder if Adams, Michaelangelo, daVinci etc would be famous if they were living in XX century. Would they be able to move past the digital noise of that is surrounding everything that is creative. From my POV you making book and finding customers for it, people who appreciate your work in todays world? Where you can just go on whatever stock portal, pay few cents and print a photo to hang in on your wall. And that all by your own means? For me you are already sucesfull photographer and good artist.
You can go to large format film for that, or even medium format or 35mm will get you results that don't look like everybody else's. At present, I'm interested in getting maximum quality from 35mm black and white film. Imagine a book of 4x6 black and white prints, which are like little jewels. Yeah, you're right, though. Everybody and his brother has a digital camera and a TH-cam channel. Meanwhile, Adams remains unsurpassed for landscape. Nice work with Punchbowl Falls. I have a 4x5 of that.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography No such book yet, just the idea of it. I need an organizing idea. I've been impressed by what is possible with fp4+ and d-23 replenished. I'll send you a couple recent images from around Timberline Lodge. I need a more advanced editing program for dodging and burning. The fumes from my dark room are hard on my lungs.
I am getting more sensitive to the chemicals myself and that's what made me redo my darkroom with some serious ventilation. I really like DXO photo lab and use it for my 4x5 and 8x10 scans with no issues. Works great.
I believe Ansel Adams is quoted far too often as being an important photographer (which isn't wrong) but he along with Bresson were the two pioneers of black and white photography who couldnt appreciate anything else besides their own ideals. They rejected color photography and anything that didn't fit their idea of what a photograph should be. I have zero interest in film. I have never shot film and to think that shooting film and printing/processing like Ansel is the ultimate goal for all photographers is just unfathomable for me. I use my digital camera as a tool to photograph the way i want to photograph and what I want to photograph. Is photoshop any different than a darkroom? I don't think so. They are both tools to develop your photos and neither is any better or worse than the other. Its what you choose as your personal method of development is what matters. I agree on the AI. If you are not even physically present at a location and didnt even press the shutter, it shouldnt even be considered photography. Its digital art and there is nothing wrong with it if labelled appropriately. The real risk is that this digital art will replace a lot of meaningful genres of photography that people depend on to survive.
I should not worry too much about AI and digital photography homogenising the medium and allowing any old blind chicken to come up with a seed occasionally. Art has always been homogenised to some extent. One only has to look at Greek sculpture or Renaissance painting to realise this. The only difference these days is the skill and time required to achieve similar results to everyone else. Now if one wants to take the time and effort to create great images through the use of film, one should not worry about doing so and just crack on. After all one is not doing it to please everybody else but to satisfy something within oneself. If others appreciate and even better show that appreciation by paying for one's work, that can only add to one's satisfaction in one's efforts. Even if one has the facilities to create great images with film, digital or AI, one still needs to have vision and taste to do so. If one lacks these things no matter how easy it is to make a great image, it is very unlikely to happen. Of course ease and speed are a spur to the lazy. I very much doubt that type has much vision or taste.To return to Bresson's blind chicken again, that bird may well come up with an occasional seed, but not enough to stop starving to death. Much of the technical "improvements" over the last dozen years or so to cameras have been to make life easier for professional sports, press or wedding photographers*. I am thinking blisteringly fast frame rates or processing speeds. Their needs are different to pretty much everyone else's and can be cheerfully ignored. There is no way I want to go trawling through hundreds or thousands of images to find the "perfect" one before then spending time on processing it further. This is why film and older digital cameras are better for most of us. As for AI I would discount its capabilities. It really should be called Artificial Stupidity Scam (or ASS for short). Having suffered through my various jobs over the decades various computer programs designed to make the work flow easier and quicker I can attest there have been very few that have actually done so. Computer programs are essentially autistic and do not work properly unless procedures are followed perfectly. We are human and to an extent behave randomly. Individually and collectively our wants and tastes change, autistic computing cannot learn this and keep up. *Off topic a bit, wedding photographers and the brides and grooms have really sucked themselves into a horrible spiral of pain. When I got married in 1989, the photographer was with us for a couple of hours and shot a couple of rolls of 120 6X6 film. Then he was out of our hair so we (and he, presumably) got on with enjoying the rest of the day with our family and friends. The last wedding I attended took the photographer virtually the whole day, form morning to early evening, shooting hundreds of image, constantly requiring the bride and groom to leave the rest of the party for many shots. I found the situation both depressing and annoying.
Wedding Photography with 120 film for 4 hour full coverage: been there done that. Now it's like when camcorders first came out: everybody spent Christmas Day videoing everything and then they spent the rest of the day watching it on TV, and missed the whole day. You are completely right, and put into words what I've been thinking since I made this video. It depends on what the priorities are. Digital, film, darkroom, inkjet, doesn't matter. Making an image that resonates aesthetically with whatever process, and then printing it to the highest standards is what matters. The rest will all work out. "The integrity of the photograph is on as good as the integrity of the photographer." - Galen Rowell
Digital cameras and AI has destroyed the value of photography. The only option is to dump your smartphone and digital cameras and use film. Film cannot be faked by AI, yet.... Film use will suddenly get popular again, it's already started. Use film, print your work. Dump photoshop.
This was interesting, valuable, and provocative, and I will respond I hope in a similar fashion to see if it doesn't move the ball forward. I think the issue you're tripping up on in your thinking is you're not thinking correctly - or dare I say it, even at all - about the actual art. You seem to want to say that "fine art" is going to resemble something Ansel Adams did 80 years ago. The truth is, fine art has moved on from Adams, in the same way as it moved on from Kertesz, and Bresson, and Maier and Egglestone and Gursky. The fine art you're trying to recreate here in the style of Adams is just that - re-creation. It's like somebody in 2024 doing painting in the style of Picasso and Braque's 1912 era cubism. It might look great, it might be rewarding, and it might bring enjoyment to some people. But the art world moved on, already by 1920, not to mention by 1970s, and we haven't even come to 2024 yet. If you turn up to any gallery deailng in actual fine art with examples of 1910s cubism you'll be laughed out of the place, even if it's better than anything Picasso and Braque themselves actually did. The punchline I am working to is: there is always going to be photography moving the artform forward. If you want to do photography that is appreciated as that, there is room. But that won't be repeating photography that was already done 80 years ago. In any event, I subscribed, it's an interesting discussion and I think about this kind of stuff frequently myself, albeit as my comment suggests, in a different way.
I agree. Re-creating what Ansel did is a fine exercise, but not creative, it's imitative. However, the archival processes and understanding the inherent value of those processes are still relevant. Ansel is an influence, not a destination. Just like Michael Kenna and Galen Rowell, (those are mine, everyone else has different influences on their work.) The methods don't matter, film or digital, and I would think a photographer would want to use the best materials available to create their prints, i.e. Hanhemule paper, pigment inks, Milford multigrade paper, etc. I am, however, very Leary of giving the "art world" any credibility as to what constitutes "good" work these days. We live in a time when subjectivism rules and anything is good because somebody says it is which is axiomatically a flawed concept.
You can reach the top or maybe not, I've tried for 50 years. Have I reach the top maybe, but then you back slide, then you become complacent with digital, digital dust. You have to study and have a burning passion for what your doing. If you think you've reach top your lying to yourself.
You can't ever hope to reach the top if the road you're on doesn't even go there. And that's the insecurity of shooting digital. It seems with digital there is no top anymore. Whether photographers want to admit it or not, a great analogue print is always more respected than anything made digitally. Even in almost 2025.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography There is no top. It's always a new beginning be it film or digital. Analogue prints in the darkroom sell better than inkjet print, although I've seen some excellent inkjet prints from pigment inks. Also so I'm working with translucent film at this time. I got the idea from a guy I crossed path on and off with, Pete Tunnely. He uses it to print from digital to film to Darkroom.
Why bother? Well, you've got to do something, right? Entertainment, maybe.Do it for yourself like Ansel probably did. I doubt he was thinking about Sotherbees (spelling?). There is art everywhere, even at the bottom of your trashcan. Art doesn't necessarily mean another cliché photo of a sunset. Art communicates; and, as long as there's a message, it's all good, even AI. What you'll find with AI though is that it's quite dumb, doing the same cookie-cutter formulas that humans do, only AI doesn't appreciate anything because it can't. At least we can be entertained.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography That's actually my point too- he did it for the beauty of the output. He was a passionate perfectionist of his craft. I doubt he ever thought about what others think, only if he liked it. I think he's very different from Micheal Kenna who has his accountant on speed-dial. It so happens that many others liked Ansel's work too and that's why they sold for so much at an auction house.
I'd like to add that Ansel Adams probably would have loved shooting digital. He probably would have also been very critical of it too. To create the style of image he made requires .1% of the technical effort he put into making his photos.
AI generated pictures are no photography - they are competitive to 3D or other generated pictures. AI for e.g. exposure calculation, color correction, dodge an burning, etc. for helping to optimize photo is in comparison just tool like many others in analog / digital workflow. Where to draw the border, depends on whether the picture shall stay authentic (documentary, reportage,..) or art, advertising, ...
So AI is OK for art and advertising? So art should be held to the same standards as advertising. And we know that advertising has no ethical or moral standards at all. That's how we ended up where we are, with non handmade prints, machine made prints, being accepted as art. Digital has devalued photography as art.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography May be I should describe my "art" definition... For me "art" could be e.g. if something is made of clay, painted by an classic artist with color, being AI animated particles in movie, etc. etc. I see that "art" in the same "class" like the "not labeled "art" for advertising, art, visualizations in education, etc. Same "class" is here not meant in terms of value or uniqueness or cultural worthy or .... For me those are all about being not a picture/movie of something being real, despite the fact that those works could and often are intended to be -- when transposed to an art work -- 'better', more intense or even "hyper-real" than reality base. But they are for me no more photographic pictures (or movies) of reality. How much editing (or even the shooting setting in scene setup itself) a photographic picture can stand before loosing it's reality aspects is debated since 150 years and needs to be answered on context of purpose, picture usage, etc. To be on technique-wise very save side, only instant kind of techniques (Polaroid, Wetplate) are very save against manipulation and being handmade. E.g. are silver-gelatine prints itself are not necessarily handmade since the laser printers in the 1990s came up. They print digitally on ordinary light sensitve photo paper. Background note: I am not using AI for picture creation. I did/do pictures in digital and analog (135, 120, 9x12 and I plan for ULF ) and hybrid. I stopped Polaroid in the late 1990s and never did wetplate. For myself, i decided that I accept digital editing on a level it could be with reasonable effort be done with analog printing plus such global filters like distortion correcting or micro contrast settings. What I do not do is to change forms of objects or people or make composites or ... So .e.g when I have e.g. disturbing elements I need to hide them in white or in black.
@@FrankTitzeArt Picasso said "Most artists reduce the sun to a yellow blob of paint, Van Gogh turns a yellow blob of paint into the sun." The philosophical study of aesthetics is worth pursuing. Unfortunately most photographers and artists these days don't even know it exists. It's good to be thinking about these things and the art you want to create.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Absolutely. No disagreement. Learning from others, reusing in terms of transposing and adding new ideas on top. That's it E.g. from my long term To-Do list: I saw an Canadian photographer on YT shooting pocket film an making huge prints of it on which he added paint. The paint stuff is not my style (not that I am against... I'm just not a painter), nor do I consider to shoot pictures like he did. But I took the idea of blowing up "spy camera" film very extreme. So I bought meanwhile a "Mamiya 16 Automatic" which uses 16mm film *). Sooner or later when I have aquired film holder, development spool and film, I plan to do something similar and scan the film with 36+ MP to get that huge grain. The Canadian did color, I consider BW (for development easiness at start?), but I feel that color might be the better choice. Digital processing is here in my mind/understanding a must to get the contrast, etc. under control. *) Sure an ultra-wide lens on 135 film being cropped while scan could do the same...
Ask yourself: Did Ansel Adams do what he did because of the money? I doubt it. If you do it for the money, it is a job. If you do it because you love doing it, then maybe, not definitely but maybe, someone else might like it too.
Sorry, but this Ansell Adams thing is so overplayed. There are thousands, probably tens of thousands of photographers working today who’s output is at the same level as Adams’. Just because evolved technology somehow and sometimes makes it easier these days is irrelevant. Adams is famous, and his work valuable, because he was in the right place at the right time, and his work was not lost in the noise of a million peers. You can’t wind the clock back, and just buying a view camera and doing everything the hard way (and don’t forget the mule) won’t make you any better as a photographer. It will just - maybe - make you technically proficient at using that 5x4 camera and all the rest. And…. so [redacted] what?
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography It's just statistics. How many active photographers do you think there were in AA's time, as compared to today? How many of those active today are you aware of? How many of those even promote themselves? AA was a fabulous, trail-blazing photographer. But he wasn't superhuman. Still, if you're not interested in polite discussion, never mind. Plenty of other people are.
@@davidmantripp Polite discussion always appreciated here. I look at A LOT of photographers work all the time. In the past 25 years I've seen maybe 5-8 photographers whose work was anywhere near Ansel Adams quality. You said tens of thousands. Name 10 landscape photographers you think are at Ansel Adams level today. I can't.
You could also just look at it as a good hobby to have. It's better then having no hobby and nothing to do. As long as you don't let the hobby control you. Badoco what I'm saying there are other things in life that are also important like family and friends.
To be clear: I'm not saying that if you don't aspire to be Ansel Adams, your wasting your time... There are many reasons to photograph and all are valid, just be sure that what you're trying to accomplish is accomplishable on the path in photography you have chosen.
I would also add that photography can be very enriching spiritually, it can help you get through tough moments in life, it can help you balance your spirit, it can educate you to see things in a way that most people just can't see. And that kind of value is priceless
Spending your time doing anything... ANYTHING... that's you're interested in, is never a waste.
Even if you quit three weeks from now, you've still learned things about yourself that will be
taken forward in your life.
Shot digital for 15 years. Never felt like anything more than point & shoot. Now back into Rolleiflex film, now feels like my soul is alive again
Film will do that.
Pursuing your medium for creative expression is never a waste of time. I'm reminded of the wise words of Joseph Campbell "Follow your bliss." Edward your quest to become an artist is not an existential crisis it's a noble pursuit. I'm on the same quest.
Even if no one else enjoys your work, if you had a good time doing it it's not for nothing
Very true!
When digital came along, I was against image manipulation via PS. I cut my teeth on film in the 1960s, so I only switched to shooting digitally for the editorial market's demands. I have past photo lab experience so my post-process has small corrections that do not alter how the image like the sky, sun rays, etc. I just came on to your channel & it is a breath of fresh air. Thank you!
Thanks!
I have always enjoyed photography. I use my time wisely. I never let a tool, or software determine if my photos are great, or not. Every software I have used has helped with the editing of my photos. I never knew any photographer when I began to take photos. I never wanted to be like anyone else. What I got from my camera was just it. I accepted every photo, because the camera did it's job. It recorded a moment in time that will never come back.😊
Hi Ed. A very thought provoking topic indeed. You are right I'd say. In my opinion! As a kid I'd hike that proverbial mountain trail with my mamiya camera. I never took an epic shot but I did enjoy the process. I still think they are some of my favorite images. Just not my best. It's because I put the effort into the shot. I processed the film and then printed. That's a huge task by today's standards. Now I'm old and lazy so digital is all I do. But sometimes I hark back to the old days. Trying to be Ansel and failing miserably but having the best time. Thanks Ed. Loved this video.
Thank you!
As a photographer and seeker of the light for me it's about passion, love, commitment and finding the light. Ansel Adams was a gifted artist. Photography was his medium for artistic expression.
Absolutely agree.
That's a very deep philosophical question that goes way beyond photography and encompasses every possible aspect of our experience today. Digital is banalising our existence. The way it goes what's going to happen to us as a species? What is going to drive us forward? What's going to be our purpose?
I don't know the answer to any of these, but things do not look very promising.😐
The inability to accept change is the cause of all human suffering. - Confucius. But with all changes, there are a huge prices to pay.
Good one, caula.
The whole point is the journey, not the destination. The photos I make using 4x5 are very different from what I do using medium format which is different again than what I do digitally. Most of the time, the most rewarding images are 4x5.
But some of the roads don't lead you to where you may want to ultimately go...
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography But if you don't explore them, you won't ever know!
I'm so glad you were inspired to make this video. You touched on more points than I could cover in what was really a product review. The whole concept of what your tools are capable of, and what we choose to do with them, has been with me since Quark XPress 3.0 released (very old publishing software from the 1990s). I don't know where I heard the phrase, but it still stands today: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
The palawa people (Tasmanian aboriginals) believe that it is the journey that gives the destination meaning. Take the long way.
Yes, Thanks! And the destination defines the journey as well. There is something Zen happening here for sure!
I would argue that for my own work yeah, objectively speaking photography is a waste of time. But I don't actually FEEL that it was. I think out 120 shots I've posted only got like 4 or 5 that are actually good. But when I look at them individually I am reminded of what got me into it in the first place: Rich grey tones of...stuff. Trees and fog mostly. You can't lose with that.
I shoot maybe 2-4000 images a year. 3000 are of my family and snapshots. 500-1000 are trying for a decent landscape. Of that around 20 are potentially good, and 2-3 are really good. I've been doing this for 40+ years. That's the game. Ansel said a dozen good photos a year is a good crop.
I create art because I have to. If AI took over everything, I'd still create because it won't let me stop. If people want to spray n pray with a 70fps camera, or generate images online, that's up to them. But I know that driving to the top of the mountain will never give the same sense of meaning as hiking up it. And why climb it at all? Because it's there.
Carleton Watkins is a major american photographer, underrated my opinion. I cant remember if I told you: I was seeking for an US 8x10 camera. I got a Deardorff (ca 1923) from a guy in Pennsylvania. Im so happy. And it is because of you. So thank you.
Those Deardoffs have become amazingly expensive these days. It's a great camera so no excuses... The Chamonix film holders are worth the money because they are so lightweight. When I return from my trip I'm going to start working on the darkroom remodel. I already have the materials to build the sink, I just need the time! I just printed a 16x20 on my Canon Pro-1000 from a 4x5 scan of Zion. It turned out great. Digital just can't match the LF tonality.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography I got an early V8, it was cheaper than a more recent one. Front end has not the swing but I dont mind. I dont print much, darkroom asks for a lot of energy and I have only weekends for photography. Anyway thank you for your feedback and your great videos.
Thank you! Yes, the darkroom is a time eater for sure. 3 hours every weekend and you might get a few prints done in a month... Scan and print with a computer. You always have the negative to prove the provenance of your shot. The Epson V850 works well for 8x10. I just throw them onto the glass and it seems to work. Of course you could always get a Photographer's Formulary contact printer from B&H. They work great and would make some stunning 8x10 prints with little effort!
The opening square photo on your webpage shows so well . Beautiful tones, 'air', details and all. That, on my 32" TV which is also my PC screen (sadly used for editing photos too).
Thank you. Fuji X-T5 with XF 70-300mm lens. I need to try to print that 16x16 just for fun to see how it looks.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography
PS. So beautiful.
So good to see you fine takes on man made in environment!
First thought on this big sky, very small bldg. (tho;) and seeming a bit abstract was of a Stuart Davis painting of midwest grain elevators in a big sky.
12-13 years old subscriber here (from the old channel) I'm not sure I agree with most of what you said here, and here's why. Photography is an art. Cameras and technologies are just tools. You can give someone the best camera on the planet, 1000MP, the fastest and smartest AF, 1000 FPS, whatever, that person will still produce the same crappy photos he did on his cellphone. A turd is the same as a polished turd. Great photographs look awesome even thumbnail size. And generative photography is just copying and stealing, it's not actually real, it only exists because the algorithm has material to copy from (as in real art photography), so it is nothing more, and will never be anything else than a fraud. Now, of course commercial applications will use these end products, but really, art photography and photographers were never really targeting those applications anyway (with exceptions of course)
So to me, it is very simple, it does not really matter, I do photography just for me anyway, but maybe if someday I'll think I should present or even sell my art to the public, AI and fools with great cameras are not on my worry list because my target audience will not be people who appreciate or buy those products
See: IQDS... posted today... 🙂
In the 80's when I worked at a local newspaper, I was assigned 15 to 20 of film, usually tri x or ektar depending on the assignment I had to attend, I was the photographer assigned to cover covers of the Sunday edition which was usually landscapes, of course newsprint everything looked horrible, now that I see some slides or negatives I wish I could generate similar images with my digital cameras, analog vs digital is a conflict for me!!! I still can't figure it out!! I'll tell you when I do it!!
IMO, photography is not a waste of time if it gives someone a sense of purpose. Strive for authenticity and your art will always be unique and can't be copied plus it shows how comparisons are silly. “It doesn’t matter what you do, only how well you do it.”
― Dan Millman,
Very deep video. I believe in the digital age, you very much can be a fine art photographer. I think slowing down, using just the camera and using physical equipment on the digital camera (filters whether purchased or what I have done by using physical materials over the lens).
I totally get your unending pursuit of what you believe should be fine art photography.
The biggest thing, in my opinion, is getting everything right in the camera and NOT using any post processing with a computer
To me, that is pure art digital photography. Just my opinion sir.
I guess the truth is I do both. My digital work is now confined by a more Michael Kenna approach and is a lot of fun. My film work is the work I respect more. Though the truth is my film work suffers because digital is so easy. Why cook a gourmet meal when Taco Bell is down the street?
35 years in the Pro game - never worked a day in my life - if I could go back I would do it again
I wouldn't. I would have joined the Air Force in College - ROTC... LOL.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Good on you. -
When we entered the digital camera world the standards changed. When I went fully digital in 2002 I never once thought my photography "art" or my results were less than what they were when I shot film. For me it was just obtaining the same results using a different photographic tool. I still had to get out and search for that visual and composition and get the shot. For me, getting out and capturing the image and seeing what it looks like on a big screen or in print is what's it's all about.
Now AI photography, like many other things in these times, is just fake, not real, a lie, and trickery. Just like many other things in todays bass-akwards world, deception rules the day. To make a photo of a great landscape without ever leaving the house is in my opinion quite stupid and has no meaning to what people like us (a dying breed) understands what photography is. The viewer may think differently due to not knowing or caring if the image is real or not. The satisfaction of a real photography experience, regardless if it's film or using a digital camera will likely be unknown in 70 years from now.
As we have entered the age of what's up is down, what's right is wrong, etc., sadly photography falls victim to this also.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody gives a damn did it make a sound? We make art for ourselves, because we can, and for the 5 people on earth that still have the capacity to appreciate it.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Yes, other than the few images I share on facebook, youtube, or post on my website, I have thousands of photos on hard drives no ones ever seen other than myself. When I'm dead and gone hopefully my son or daughter will find them and perhaps occasionally look at them and get some smiles from them, or all these photos will be just like me, gone forever....
I very rarely ever sell prints, if someone wants a print I usually just give it to them as a gift. My photography is very personal for me.
I suppose I do not care really whether what I do is art or not. I do not consider myself artist so such questions never crossed my mind, I just photograph for fun. And frankly I do not believe, and that is my thought, that Ansel Adams is famous photographer cause he was better then most. Artists of pre internet times needed to be lucky to have rich patron, or to be in right place at right time to meet someone who will appreciate their work or who will risk to buy and print or exhibit it.
Nowadays getting worldwide audience is free and matter of seconds. I always wonder if Adams, Michaelangelo, daVinci etc would be famous if they were living in XX century. Would they be able to move past the digital noise of that is surrounding everything that is creative.
From my POV you making book and finding customers for it, people who appreciate your work in todays world? Where you can just go on whatever stock portal, pay few cents and print a photo to hang in on your wall. And that all by your own means? For me you are already sucesfull photographer and good artist.
It is in the seeing.
I shoot digital and enlarge on silver gelatin. Best of both worlds!
My photography ? Yes.
You can go to large format film for that, or even medium format or 35mm will get you results that don't look like everybody else's. At present, I'm interested in getting maximum quality from 35mm black and white film. Imagine a book of 4x6 black and white prints, which are like little jewels. Yeah, you're right, though. Everybody and his brother has a digital camera and a TH-cam channel. Meanwhile, Adams remains unsurpassed for landscape. Nice work with Punchbowl Falls. I have a 4x5 of that.
I'd like to see that book. What a great project!
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography No such book yet, just the idea of it. I need an organizing idea. I've been impressed by what is possible with fp4+ and d-23 replenished. I'll send you a couple recent images from around Timberline Lodge. I need a more advanced editing program for dodging and burning. The fumes from my dark room are hard on my lungs.
I am getting more sensitive to the chemicals myself and that's what made me redo my darkroom with some serious ventilation. I really like DXO photo lab and use it for my 4x5 and 8x10 scans with no issues. Works great.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.
I believe Ansel Adams is quoted far too often as being an important photographer (which isn't wrong) but he along with Bresson were the two pioneers of black and white photography who couldnt appreciate anything else besides their own ideals. They rejected color photography and anything that didn't fit their idea of what a photograph should be. I have zero interest in film. I have never shot film and to think that shooting film and printing/processing like Ansel is the ultimate goal for all photographers is just unfathomable for me. I use my digital camera as a tool to photograph the way i want to photograph and what I want to photograph. Is photoshop any different than a darkroom? I don't think so. They are both tools to develop your photos and neither is any better or worse than the other. Its what you choose as your personal method of development is what matters.
I agree on the AI. If you are not even physically present at a location and didnt even press the shutter, it shouldnt even be considered photography. Its digital art and there is nothing wrong with it if labelled appropriately. The real risk is that this digital art will replace a lot of meaningful genres of photography that people depend on to survive.
"The time you enjoy wasting, Isn't wasted" But, forgot who said it ?
You just did!
Content Credentials will sort the togs from the frogs. Who wants a gimmick on their wall ?
I should not worry too much about AI and digital photography homogenising the medium and allowing any old blind chicken to come up with a seed occasionally. Art has always been homogenised to some extent. One only has to look at Greek sculpture or Renaissance painting to realise this. The only difference these days is the skill and time required to achieve similar results to everyone else. Now if one wants to take the time and effort to create great images through the use of film, one should not worry about doing so and just crack on. After all one is not doing it to please everybody else but to satisfy something within oneself. If others appreciate and even better show that appreciation by paying for one's work, that can only add to one's satisfaction in one's efforts.
Even if one has the facilities to create great images with film, digital or AI, one still needs to have vision and taste to do so. If one lacks these things no matter how easy it is to make a great image, it is very unlikely to happen. Of course ease and speed are a spur to the lazy. I very much doubt that type has much vision or taste.To return to Bresson's blind chicken again, that bird may well come up with an occasional seed, but not enough to stop starving to death.
Much of the technical "improvements" over the last dozen years or so to cameras have been to make life easier for professional sports, press or wedding photographers*. I am thinking blisteringly fast frame rates or processing speeds. Their needs are different to pretty much everyone else's and can be cheerfully ignored. There is no way I want to go trawling through hundreds or thousands of images to find the "perfect" one before then spending time on processing it further. This is why film and older digital cameras are better for most of us. As for AI I would discount its capabilities. It really should be called Artificial Stupidity Scam (or ASS for short). Having suffered through my various jobs over the decades various computer programs designed to make the work flow easier and quicker I can attest there have been very few that have actually done so. Computer programs are essentially autistic and do not work properly unless procedures are followed perfectly. We are human and to an extent behave randomly. Individually and collectively our wants and tastes change, autistic computing cannot learn this and keep up.
*Off topic a bit, wedding photographers and the brides and grooms have really sucked themselves into a horrible spiral of pain. When I got married in 1989, the photographer was with us for a couple of hours and shot a couple of rolls of 120 6X6 film. Then he was out of our hair so we (and he, presumably) got on with enjoying the rest of the day with our family and friends. The last wedding I attended took the photographer virtually the whole day, form morning to early evening, shooting hundreds of image, constantly requiring the bride and groom to leave the rest of the party for many shots. I found the situation both depressing and annoying.
Wedding Photography with 120 film for 4 hour full coverage: been there done that. Now it's like when camcorders first came out: everybody spent Christmas Day videoing everything and then they spent the rest of the day watching it on TV, and missed the whole day.
You are completely right, and put into words what I've been thinking since I made this video. It depends on what the priorities are. Digital, film, darkroom, inkjet, doesn't matter. Making an image that resonates aesthetically with whatever process, and then printing it to the highest standards is what matters. The rest will all work out. "The integrity of the photograph is on as good as the integrity of the photographer." - Galen Rowell
Digital cameras and AI has destroyed the value of photography. The only option is to dump your smartphone and digital cameras and use film. Film cannot be faked by AI, yet.... Film use will suddenly get popular again, it's already started. Use film, print your work. Dump photoshop.
This was interesting, valuable, and provocative, and I will respond I hope in a similar fashion to see if it doesn't move the ball forward. I think the issue you're tripping up on in your thinking is you're not thinking correctly - or dare I say it, even at all - about the actual art. You seem to want to say that "fine art" is going to resemble something Ansel Adams did 80 years ago. The truth is, fine art has moved on from Adams, in the same way as it moved on from Kertesz, and Bresson, and Maier and Egglestone and Gursky. The fine art you're trying to recreate here in the style of Adams is just that - re-creation. It's like somebody in 2024 doing painting in the style of Picasso and Braque's 1912 era cubism. It might look great, it might be rewarding, and it might bring enjoyment to some people. But the art world moved on, already by 1920, not to mention by 1970s, and we haven't even come to 2024 yet. If you turn up to any gallery deailng in actual fine art with examples of 1910s cubism you'll be laughed out of the place, even if it's better than anything Picasso and Braque themselves actually did. The punchline I am working to is: there is always going to be photography moving the artform forward. If you want to do photography that is appreciated as that, there is room. But that won't be repeating photography that was already done 80 years ago. In any event, I subscribed, it's an interesting discussion and I think about this kind of stuff frequently myself, albeit as my comment suggests, in a different way.
I agree. Re-creating what Ansel did is a fine exercise, but not creative, it's imitative. However, the archival processes and understanding the inherent value of those processes are still relevant. Ansel is an influence, not a destination. Just like Michael Kenna and Galen Rowell, (those are mine, everyone else has different influences on their work.) The methods don't matter, film or digital, and I would think a photographer would want to use the best materials available to create their prints, i.e. Hanhemule paper, pigment inks, Milford multigrade paper, etc. I am, however, very Leary of giving the "art world" any credibility as to what constitutes "good" work these days. We live in a time when subjectivism rules and anything is good because somebody says it is which is axiomatically a flawed concept.
Good points here. Was thinking the same when he dismissed Mark Steinmetz work as “snap shots”. Lol
You can reach the top or maybe not, I've tried for 50 years. Have I reach the top maybe, but then you back slide, then you become complacent with digital, digital dust. You have to study and have a burning passion for what your doing. If you think you've reach top your lying to yourself.
You can't ever hope to reach the top if the road you're on doesn't even go there. And that's the insecurity of shooting digital. It seems with digital there is no top anymore. Whether photographers want to admit it or not, a great analogue print is always more respected than anything made digitally. Even in almost 2025.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography There is no top. It's always a new beginning be it film or digital. Analogue prints in the darkroom sell better than inkjet print, although I've seen some excellent inkjet prints from pigment inks. Also so I'm working with translucent film at this time. I got the idea from a guy I crossed path on and off with, Pete Tunnely. He uses it to print from digital to film to Darkroom.
It’s about enjoyment. Your hypothetical about generating AI crap doesn’t sound like enjoyment, it sounds like a true waste of time.
The answer is clear if you search for the most famous photos of all time are all 50 years old
How true, I often think about that...
Why bother? Well, you've got to do something, right? Entertainment, maybe.Do it for yourself like Ansel probably did. I doubt he was thinking about Sotherbees (spelling?). There is art everywhere, even at the bottom of your trashcan. Art doesn't necessarily mean another cliché photo of a sunset. Art communicates; and, as long as there's a message, it's all good, even AI. What you'll find with AI though is that it's quite dumb, doing the same cookie-cutter formulas that humans do, only AI doesn't appreciate anything because it can't. At least we can be entertained.
It's pretty clear historically that Ansel championed Photography as a fine art for most of his life.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography That's actually my point too- he did it for the beauty of the output. He was a passionate perfectionist of his craft. I doubt he ever thought about what others think, only if he liked it. I think he's very different from Micheal Kenna who has his accountant on speed-dial. It so happens that many others liked Ansel's work too and that's why they sold for so much at an auction house.
I'd like to add that Ansel Adams probably would have loved shooting digital. He probably would have also been very critical of it too. To create the style of image he made requires .1% of the technical effort he put into making his photos.
AI generated pictures are no photography - they are competitive to 3D or other generated pictures.
AI for e.g. exposure calculation, color correction, dodge an burning, etc. for helping to optimize photo is in comparison just tool like many others in analog / digital workflow.
Where to draw the border, depends on whether the picture shall stay authentic (documentary, reportage,..) or art, advertising, ...
So AI is OK for art and advertising? So art should be held to the same standards as advertising. And we know that advertising has no ethical or moral standards at all. That's how we ended up where we are, with non handmade prints, machine made prints, being accepted as art. Digital has devalued photography as art.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography May be I should describe my "art" definition... For me "art" could be e.g. if something is made of clay, painted by an classic artist with color, being AI animated particles in movie, etc. etc.
I see that "art" in the same "class" like the "not labeled "art" for advertising, art, visualizations in education, etc.
Same "class" is here not meant in terms of value or uniqueness or cultural worthy or ....
For me those are all about being not a picture/movie of something being real, despite the fact that those works could and often are intended to be -- when transposed to an art work -- 'better', more intense or even "hyper-real" than reality base.
But they are for me no more photographic pictures (or movies) of reality.
How much editing (or even the shooting setting in scene setup itself) a photographic picture can stand before loosing it's reality aspects is debated since 150 years and needs to be answered on context of purpose, picture usage, etc.
To be on technique-wise very save side, only instant kind of techniques (Polaroid, Wetplate) are very save against manipulation and being handmade.
E.g. are silver-gelatine prints itself are not necessarily handmade since the laser printers in the 1990s came up. They print digitally on ordinary light sensitve photo paper.
Background note:
I am not using AI for picture creation. I did/do pictures in digital and analog (135, 120, 9x12 and I plan for ULF ) and hybrid.
I stopped Polaroid in the late 1990s and never did wetplate.
For myself, i decided that I accept digital editing on a level it could be with reasonable effort be done with analog printing plus such global filters like distortion correcting or micro contrast settings.
What I do not do is to change forms of objects or people or make composites or ...
So .e.g when I have e.g. disturbing elements I need to hide them in white or in black.
@@FrankTitzeArt Picasso said "Most artists reduce the sun to a yellow blob of paint, Van Gogh turns a yellow blob of paint into the sun." The philosophical study of aesthetics is worth pursuing. Unfortunately most photographers and artists these days don't even know it exists. It's good to be thinking about these things and the art you want to create.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Absolutely. No disagreement. Learning from others, reusing in terms of transposing and adding new ideas on top. That's it
E.g. from my long term To-Do list: I saw an Canadian photographer on YT shooting pocket film an making huge prints of it on which he added paint.
The paint stuff is not my style (not that I am against... I'm just not a painter), nor do I consider to shoot pictures like he did.
But I took the idea of blowing up "spy camera" film very extreme. So I bought meanwhile a "Mamiya 16 Automatic" which uses 16mm film *). Sooner or later when I have aquired film holder, development spool and film, I plan to do something similar and scan the film with 36+ MP to get that huge grain. The Canadian did color, I consider BW (for development easiness at start?), but I feel that color might be the better choice.
Digital processing is here in my mind/understanding a must to get the contrast, etc. under control.
*) Sure an ultra-wide lens on 135 film being cropped while scan could do the same...
Ask yourself: Did Ansel Adams do what he did because of the money? I doubt it. If you do it for the money, it is a job. If you do it because you love doing it, then maybe, not definitely but maybe, someone else might like it too.
Photography is like aviation. You don't do it for the money. I shot weddings for money. I shoot landscapes for much more than that, in theory.
Sorry, but this Ansell Adams thing is so overplayed. There are thousands, probably tens of thousands of photographers working today who’s output is at the same level as Adams’. Just because evolved technology somehow and sometimes makes it easier these days is irrelevant. Adams is famous, and his work valuable, because he was in the right place at the right time, and his work was not lost in the noise of a million peers. You can’t wind the clock back, and just buying a view camera and doing everything the hard way (and don’t forget the mule) won’t make you any better as a photographer. It will just - maybe - make you technically proficient at using that 5x4 camera and all the rest. And…. so [redacted] what?
Tens of thousands... lol.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography It's just statistics. How many active photographers do you think there were in AA's time, as compared to today? How many of those active today are you aware of? How many of those even promote themselves? AA was a fabulous, trail-blazing photographer. But he wasn't superhuman.
Still, if you're not interested in polite discussion, never mind. Plenty of other people are.
@@davidmantripp Polite discussion always appreciated here. I look at A LOT of photographers work all the time. In the past 25 years I've seen maybe 5-8 photographers whose work was anywhere near Ansel Adams quality. You said tens of thousands. Name 10 landscape photographers you think are at Ansel Adams level today. I can't.
You could also just look at it as a good hobby to have. It's better then having no hobby and nothing to do. As long as you don't let the hobby control you.
Badoco what I'm saying there are other things in life that are also important like family and friends.
IQDS... Image Quality Derangement Syndrome. That's my next video. 🙂👍
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Badoco i don't even know what I was saying. Swiping on my phone. LOL
Nope....and no philosophying as to what its all about and why......too much angst attached to what is essentially a hobby.