IF ANSEL USED INSTAGRAM




What if Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier-Bresson were on Instagram? How many likes would they have? Would Ansel have a drone? Would Henri Cartier-Bresson have followers?

Is the golden age of photography over? Are there too many photographers today?

Everyone has a camera on their cell phone – does that make everyone a photographer?

The answer is right in front of our eyes, but we have to look at what they did.

Subscribe for more videos!
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theartofphotography

Watch More Videos:

PHOTOGRAPHY AND LOCATION

THEY LOVE IT WHEN YOU DO THIS

HOW TO SHOOT CONCEPTUAL PHOTOGRAPHY

Thanks for watching – if you like this video, remember to share it with your friends!

Ted Forbes
The Art of Photography
2830 S. Hulen, Studio 133
Fort Worth, TX 76109
USA

My name is Ted Forbes and I make videos about photography. I’ve been making photographs most of my life and I have a tremendously deep passion for photography that I want to share with you on YouTube.

The Art of Photography is my channel and I produce photography videos to provide a 360 degree look into the world of making images. We all want to get better so lets do this together!

I make videos covering famous photographers, photography techniques, composition, the history of photography and much more.

I also have a strong community of photographers who watch the show and we frequently do social media challenges for photographers to submit their own work. I feature the best and most interesting on the show when we do these so come check it out and get involved!

Original source


26 responses to “IF ANSEL USED INSTAGRAM”

  1. Whether or not Ansel Adams and Henri C-B would use modern film, wet plate, color film or digital stills and video is not what I take from this. They used what they had and captured the spirit of what was than mood and happening in their day and area they lived. They backed it up with passion and skill.

    I don't think they clung to the past. They paid homage to the past and lived in the present. Today we have the option for film or digital. Both are very good for different reasons. If you choose film because of how it causes you to think and work or you just like the look of it, great! If you prefer the look and immediacy of digital that's great too! Just don't wallow in the past and mourn its passing or today will be gone and you will be mourning what you missed – again.

    Strive for excellence in all you do. I have never forgotten an old rhyme that I learned as a kid.

    Good – Better – Best
    Never let it rest.
    Until your Good is Better and your Better is Best!

    I use both film and digital – it all depends on what I want to accomplish. The hardest part for me is to move past the techniques that I learned 25 years ago and embrace the direction of today without falling into a trendy or gimmicky trap. Not an easy thing to do. Who ever said life was easy?

  2. I argue about this with friends,and my answer is simple. At one time people went to the theater gladly to watch subtitled movies with organ music. They thought this was amazing at that point in time. Would you get all dressed up to go to the theater for that now. Artists try to use the technology that is available. What made those pictures amazing was the fact that most people were not capable of taking shots like that. Today we take our high
    mpixel cameras everywhere. Ansel would have used the best equiptment available at the time.

  3. I understand what you mean about Street Photography not being of this time because you see it from the perspective of the art world. Anyone can paint like Jackson Pollock did, but he did it at the right time and at that time it was the new thing. I think the important thing is to create photographs or paintings for personal satisfaction first and foremost and if in that process you come upon something that many others like, great; but if not, still great because you did it for yourself.

  4. Hi Ted, you make many good points in your video! I think Ansel Adams would be annoyed that he could not fly a drone in Yosemite today… 🙂

    What I think is, we always associate photojournalism or street photography with the "golden era", the 50s, 60s and maybe the 70s, and they are definitely getting less attention nowadays.

    If we look at social documentary/street photography solely as a style/way of shooting/genre, it has not changed much and it would be exactly the same as in the golden times. However it will be still relevant because of the context/subject matters. The fact that you are documenting something today, makes the photographs "of our time", but certainly there will be less recognition today.

    I am a bit stretching here and not accurate in expressing thoughts in English, I hope you understand what I mean.

    Cheers!

  5. i have just this question:
    Who would buy a photo taken with a cellphone from Instagram?
    …the reaction on a good pic on Instagram is going on Apple store/Android Marketplace and search for the app and buy the app …. not the photo.
    Iam sorry to say guys…but with digital photography the real artists art not the photographers but the engineers and programmers who made the tools you use to do the "photography on the rails"…
    If its easy its not worth it. Hundreds of people do not stand in line each day in front of the Sistine Chapel because to Michelangelo was a breeze to paint it…

  6. During an interview with Anzel Adams, only months before he died, he said he was very excited about the developments in digital imaging.  He spoke about computer graphics that was not just manipulations but original images.  He also spoke about why he stuck with black and white while colour was the norm.

  7. I fully agree with your point of view. I would also add that many of the pictures those two took many years ago would not even be possible in our time. Laws regarding privacy and ownership of one's image have changed the way we can capture life on the streets and in public settings. So many possible shots involving children, for instant, would now require parents' consent before going public… C-Bresson and Adams would simply do something else, but I agree, they had a talent that would go beyond these new limitations.

  8. You make some excellent points. I think many photographers lose sight of the fact that cameras, in whatever form, are tools. Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson and other great photographers were not great because of their tools, they were great because of what they accomplished with their tools. I also think that we need to have an awareness of the traditions of great photography or art or poetry to understand how we can use our tools in the best way possible to realize our own vision. David Hockney is an amazing artist who has explored all the tools and traditions of the past, questioned them, used them and transformed them into his own unique vision. I love your videos, they always give me food for thought and great insights. Also you have introduced me to many photographers I would not have know about without your amazing videos! Keep up the great work – you inspire me!

  9. I think one of the difficulties of an over saturated media outlets is the ability to stand out. I just don't see stuff on Instagram that inspires me like Ansel or HCB. Yes, a lot of it looks good and it's pleasing, but it doesn't always leave me impacted. It's strange and bizzare feeing that I can't put to words effectively.

  10. Great discussion here. It reminds me of the attempts in sports to compare well known athletes from different times: who is better, who is the best? The most insightful observation I have ever heard in this context is : "A champion in his time is a champion forever". Compete on the field of the day. Become the champion of your time.

  11. A really interesting thought process and an important question. I admire the inquisitive nature of these videos, a pleasure to watch. The photography 'circuit' is better off with people such as yourself and John Free etc. You guys cut through the technical marketing jargon and talk about the essence of photography.

  12. Back in the day it was extremely difficult to get into the professional photography due to all the hoops you had to jump through, a manager, knowing people, etc. Now its the opposite where I think its to easy to get into. If a company is looking for a photo, or needs photos done, they can go to an already well known photographer. In many cases companies can go to stock photography. If neither of those options something they want to pursue then they can choose from how many photographers out there? Where are they looking? Flikr? Instagram? The local photography community? Now of course I'm only trying to explain high end photography work. But photography's strength nowadays is also its greatest weakness. I'm also talking from a stand point of being known as a good photographer, not necessarily making most of your income from photography. I can go on about this but I'm curious what people think of this.

  13. We are drowning in digital noise…
    "Masters" would have about 500k followers on istagram just like photographers of today that work for large publications (such as Nat Geo). Estimated 1.2 Trillion photos will be taken in 2017. Street photography can be done with an iPhone.
    Trends also shift much faster as various new technology and platforms are developed which means its harder to be relevant over a period of many years.
    I doubt that great photographers of today will be regarded as "masters" in future.

Leave a Reply