Photography Is Dead

It’s taken me a long time to realize it, but it’s true. From its inception in 1839, and throughout the twentieth century, photography was a skilled profession. In the beginning it took huge amounts of time, effort, and patience. It was imprecise and fraught with limitations that demanded careful thought to make the appropriate calculations along the long chain of steps necessary to create a great image. As the years progressed, photography became a little easier. George Eastman made the first big strides towards streamlining and improving consistency to make photography available to a larger audience. Those gains continued steadily through the 1900s in each of the fields photography draws upon, chemistry, mechanics, optics, and electronics. Then, digital changed everything. At first, no, digital capture hadn’t the resolution of film, nor the contrast ratio or dynamic range. It was limited by processor speed and storage capacity. As limitations shrunk, resolution quickly caught up to film’s capabilities. But even as late as the mid aughts digital cameras were still generally lacking in dynamic range. Film continued to be the best capture medium. But gradually, wave after wave of the digital tide washed away the last grains of silver.

Now, there’s no denying it; digital has surpassed film. Photography is dead.

Photo labs are a relic of the past. Eastman Kodak, for 74 years a Dow Jones corporate giant, fizzled in less than a decade to a penny stock trading OTC, and continues to run quarterly losses after over one-hundred years of market-swamping success at leading the industry. Commercial photography has no time, or money, or need for silver based processes. (FYI : Silver halide and other photochemical processes are not analog. There is no analogy between the discrete metallic particles that make up chemical images and the lightwaves they represent. Everything that is not digital, is not necessarily analog.)

In the past, camera manufacturers used to market every new addition to SLR camera automation with the promise that anyone could take amazing profession quality photographs in a snap. Professionals knew it was an outrageous lie. The average consumer eventually found out after he/she emptied his/her wallet on a high-end SLR camera which he/she never understood or learned to master. Not today. The knowledge, the skill, and the experience necessary to create a merely passable silver image isn’t required to snap a pretty good digital image. Digital imaging has blown silver out of the water. It’s so easy. And for the most part, we can see right there on the screen exactly what we’re getting. No guessing, no worry over ISO, no light meter reading, no interpretation of the reading, no question of processing time, temperature, agitation, chemical condition, dilution. . . No question of not being able to see what you’re capturing in the camera until the end of the process, after which it’s too late to change anything, and even if you could, it also takes years of experience to effectively judge a negative by eye.

New digital cameras shouldn’t really be called cameras anymore. A digital camera does so much more than collect and focus light. Image processing algorithms start working and interpreting the scene during the capture stage before the data go to memory. It’s become so good at what it does that even the seemingly simple camera in a cell phone can make images better than most sophisticated electronic Point & Shoot film cameras ever could, to the point of automatically adjusting for light level, color balance, contrast range. Digital cameras are amazing. The advertising claims of yesterday are nearly true, now, because you don’t need to know much of anything—the camera’s internal processing does most of the work for you. No wonder the average professional photographer’s day-rate is up barely 50% from thirty years ago, and that’s in absolute dollars, not adjusted for inflation.

The world is continuing to find its way through the digital revolution. It may take several more years before the transition to digital imaging gets sorted out. In the meantime, the shock to the marketplace takes its toll on all of us. The boom in digital photography has not only pummeled photographers, it has severely lowered image quality and the expectations of quality. It used to be that the photography one saw on a daily basis was predominantly work by highly skilled professionals. In contrast, what one sees today is overwhelmingly common phone-camera pics. The bar has plummeted to limbo levels. We see mostly junk, and this new average becomes our standard of comparison. More, bigger, faster, the mantra of the digital age consumerism, kills another craft, another art.

Long live photography.

[Reality Check]

Posted in Art & Photography, Creativity | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Typo Shmypo

I’m guilty too. Let’s get that out of the wya right now. In the last decade or so, there’s been a great outbreak of writing. Along with the explosive growth of the internet, the glut of blogging, advertising and articles on most evry imaginable subject was bound to happen. It’s a double edged sword. With every increase in quantity, there’s an equally inevitable inverse increase in quality. (That was a backhanded way of syaing it, no?) There’s a reason for it too.

Huge increases in quantity means less investment in time, effort, attention, care, you name it, it’s getting diluted. Hurried, multi-distracted, split-attention naturally results in a flush of mistakes overlooked, bypassed, and with shrugged shoulders, dismissed. It’s just a typo.

There’s hardly a single page of text on any website, especially blogs, that hasn’t at least one error, usually typographical, sometimes grammatical, and mostly obvious. That is, obvious to everyone except the author. There’s a reason for this too.

As the author, one knwos one’s intention. It’s too easy to let a typo slip by if the author proofreads. That’s why there are professional editors. It takes an outsider. One who isn’t familiar with the text doesn’t already know what the aurthor is trying to say or meant to type. The mistakes jump out—most of the time.

I can’t tell you how many times I reread, proofread, re-proofread, edit and re-edte my writing. And I always allow time to pass between writing and proofing. And still I find errors. And sometimes months later, after the piece has been published I still find errors. Proof that one cannot do one’s own proofreading and editing. But I’m a one person operation. I haven’t an editor. And I haven’t an excuse, becase I could let someone at least proofread my final drafts. Mea culpa.

The most inexcusable, and by that token the worst offenders, are the major, national news organizations who have the resources to have there articles proofed and edited. But they are not doing it. There may be fewer typos in their publications, but I’m stillleft incredulous at the frequency of errors. It’s obvious that the authors are doin g their own proofreading. It’s lazy and cheap.

On this post, I have deliberately left in errors, and although I will proofread it, I will leave it unedited and unrevised. Some would normally have been corrected on the first draft simply because the automatic spell checkers underlines the word with a bright red squiggly line. It makes be wonder how these errors get past anyone. Homonyms don’t get caught by the computer—yet. Grammar is supposed to be checked on the fly too, but that doesn’t take into account readability or intelligibility, and it are not very reliable. (Didn’t catch that glaring example.)

We all make mistakes, and no matter how careful something always falls through the cracks. But it’s a matter of degree. I’ve come to the conclusion that publications with an error on their front page or several errors scattered through most pages, posts, articles or other sections are not worth reading. If the authors or owners don’t care enough to double check their copy and keep the errors to a bare minimum, they obviously don’t care much about anything.

But ya know, typos aren’t the half of it. The biggest failure is content. In addition to all the mistakes, the content is horrendously vacuous, or incomplete, or with poorly examined thought processes, and idiotic opinions. We get worthless content and typos—two for the price of one. And google don’t know the difference between good content and crap. Ya know, if the content were worth a bag a beans, perhaps the typos could be partially overlooked.

p.s. Since writing this, some months ago, the problem seems to be growing. Every book I’ve read published in the last couple of years has multiple errors. I’ve also been reading a legal blog that consistently and predictably contains a minimum of three errors per blog. Imagine lawyers, known for their hypercritical precision with words, allowing articles to be published with silly goofs. In the book category, the all time winner so far, published in 2013, has at least fourteen errors, two on one page. I just got a box set of CDs which has a thick booklet of liner notes littered with mistakes, so many I didn’t bother to keep count. And there’s more than typographical or grammatical errors slipping by. A book published last year by a well respected university press has at least two typos—one missing word, one double word, however, there are more egregious errors than grammatical. There were technical errors. In a very feeble and opaque attempt to explain additive and subtractive color, the author presents a couple of outright wrong facts followed by more baffling and misleading information. How he got his facts so twisted, why he didn’t double check his facts, and how these errors passed through the entire publishing process of an ivy league university press is bewildering. And that’s not all. A good friend of mine, an artist, just gave me a beautiful book of her work that she produced for promotional purposes. It has four contributing essayists. All four essays are riddled with typographical and punctuation errors; basic, obvious mistakes any high schooler could correct. The editor was one of the contributors. Her qualifications? A Ph.D., no less, in philosophy of art. I can’t help repeating, a Ph.D., no less. Licenses are revocable, degrees should be too.

p.p.s. Saved myself a ton of time by not editing and revising this post. Rereading it drove me wild with the urge to fix the mistakes and rephrase for clarity. 

Posted in Discover, Thoughts | 1 Comment