Ever since the technology world flipped the digital switch, the debate of analog versus digital has been circling 'round and 'round, with no sign of stopping anytime soon.
I had a discussion with Robb recently about film photography versus digital photography and a similar discussion on the topic of artistic talent, whether innate or manufactured.
 |
| B&W film photo. Grain Belt © 2000 www.emilyjcole.com |
It used to be that to take good photos, one had to have a keen eye for value, color and composition. Photos shot on film involved either processing them oneself in a darkroom, or rolling the dice with a commercial developer. Either way, it was easy to tell a good photograph from the not-so-good ones.
Now, with digital technology, virtually anyone can be a talented photographer. Photo editing programs like Photoshop, Lightroom and even freebies like Google's Picasa mean that tasks like cropping, straightening, adjusting brightness/contrast/saturation, etc. can be achieved with a mouse-click and can make any old photo look like a masterful composition. All that is required of the eye is to see.
This is not necessarily a bad thing! It opens up a world of creativity to people who may never have dipped their toe in the creative waters otherwise. It does raise the bar, however, for anyone wanting to pursue a career in photography. Talented photogs either need to step it up a notch and produce great photographs, or get lost in the shuffle with the myriad of good ones.
I used to think of myself as a decent photographer and briefly considered delving into it as a sideline profession. But not anymore. The sheer cost of keeping up with the latest and greatest technology that is required to produce great vs. good photos has, I dare say, permanently relegated me to that of a hobbyist.
 | |
| Digital sketch. Lil Wayne © 2010 SEILER |
The same analog vs. digital conundrum holds true for painting and drawing too. I follow an über-talented art blogger named Seiler who is a successful caricaturist and artist in Chicago. He does everything digitally and can turn around a painting in a couple days and a drawing in even less time.
 |
| Graphite drawing. Muhammad Ali © 2001 www.emilyjcole.com |
When I think of the amount of time I spend drawing a portrait, I get irritated at the notion that someone else can do the same thing, minus the eraser crumbs and frustration, in half the time using a stylus and tablet with their Mac. It feels like cheating to me. And a little bit elitist. Forget about trying to compete with techno-savvy artists who can turn around multiple pieces in the time it takes to complete one portrait the old-school way. [Maybe I'm just jealous that he can afford the technology and I can't...!?]
I'm sounding like a crotchety old woman here! Perhaps the issue is less about the technology and more about finding one's niche in the market. There has been a resurgence of interest in vinyl records, tube amps, knitting, and pretty much anything "vintage" or hand-made. I suppose the same could hold true for art.
Until I win the lottery and buy all the fancy equip-
ment my heart desires, I will satisfy myself with that conclusion. At least I can rest assured that stained glass will never become digital!
Or will it...?
True talent being the gift from God that it is, will never be replaced by "technology". Granted, it might seem like it at times, but there are times and seasons...fads and flops...and the "genuine" will always remain, however under-appreciated at times that it might be, sad to say. Always know, you for sure will have ONE fan...Moi! :) So proud of all your work!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I can touch up a photo all I want and anyone who can see can tell it's not a professional photo. I'm terrible at it. Some of my friends are better, but even they don't compare to a true artiste.
ReplyDeleteAs far as pencil drawings go, I'm always a huge fan of real pencil drawings. Who want's something done by computer. I want to know the artist sweat all over the drawing!
Interestingly, Mr. Seiler posted this on his blog this morning (http://bit.ly/cQqnWU):
ReplyDelete"Don't push anything, you need to love it (art) for yourself. I've never wanted to do anything but what I am doing now and I didn't care what anyone else said . . . I knew what I had to do. Creating art is not about making money or being famous or whatever, it's just something you have to do, or that I feel I have to do. My parents have always supported me, and I'm sure they were worried for years that I had no direction, but I stuck with it . . . don't listen to people who tell you that you can't do it! If you tell me I'm not allowed to breathe, and I listen, I'll die.
Peace."
Good words.
I am going to disagree. To take a "good" photograph one still needs the knowledge of the working camera, eye for composition, and all that which goes into film photography. You may have more chances to snap the perfect shot, but one can't take a bad image and make it a good image in Photoshop no matter how hard one tries (Photoshop cannot do it all). Exposure, composition, all that remains the same. I've seen some blown out skies in film photography, too ;)
ReplyDeleteokay, scratch what I commented earlier! I just saw a promotion for a "lens correction" feature on Adobe Lightroom. It ensures that your photograph will be great....even if it really isn't. (My interpretation of it, at least!)
ReplyDelete