Is photography a cruel medium?

wyvern84 · Jul 19, 2004

Just something I'm wondering about. Photography can show people or subjects in an unkind or cruel light. It can also be used to exploit people as their image can be taken in an instant which would be impossible through any other medium. Even the language of photography copies the language of the military, you load film into a camera and shoot people. You don't make photographs you take them. Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

molested_cow · Jul 19, 2004

Anything can be used for the good or bad.

Artemis · Jul 19, 2004

You have some good ideas and i see what you mean.

However, photography is not only a thing to make people look bad, but a tool for real beuty *i cant spell*

Many things can be drawn into sounding bad, because the words used are the same as words like the military for example.

You take food, you load vidieo tapes into a VCR.

I see what you mean though mate, do you believe that taking pictures is like stealing someones soul..just curious, does anyone else believe that? i dont.

mentos_007 · Jul 19, 2004

Everything you can make BAD and use to FORCE others or DESTROY them. But on the other hand everything is for people. It's WE who discovered the beauty *here you are Artemis

* that's we who spot the beauty of the surrounding. And if we use the photography in a peaceful way, just for art we can do a lot of for human being. The same is with everything else

Artemis · Jul 19, 2004

Except for guns

LizM · Jul 19, 2004

Actually, even guns can be used for good. Ever had to stop a coyote from killing a good cow?

Anyway, 'nuff said about that.

On photography, yes it can be cruel, but its the photographer, not the medium. Everyone has to make a choice on how much to intrude and what is proper. We can only strive to always make the right choices.

Walt · Jul 19, 2004

That's just all too deep for me! :shock: :wink:

StvShoop · Jul 19, 2004

hah! wyvern, you've got some pretty good points there arguing in that direction. welcome to the forum too
i get into my car... "i'm gonna go shoot stuff, mom"
mom- "ok, be home before dinner" :roll:

i believe that photography, or any other creative activity, is definitely not innocent. when you make something new, you can't know all the consequences, who it will help or hurt... because it's new, it's never existed before, so you just can't understand it completely.

i think a lot of people definitely are too phobic about photography though. i was shooting in nyc once, and a lady who was like 300 feet away from me came up to me and gave me crap about shooting her! i was only taking passing shots of the area, for crying out loud.
i think lots of people only see the hurtful side of photography.

i want to suggest reading a paper i got in my digital imaging class, but the author isn't listed on it :cry: "Practices of Looking: Images, Power, and Politics" especially the section called "The myth of photographic truth".
it makes a pretty good argument (or at least an account of) photography as merely a chemical or electronic process, and that the mania that humans attach to images is a separate thing, a thing which often does not account for the "mechanical production" side of photography.

this was made by surrealist painter Rene Margritte.

it says "this is not a pipe".
truly, it's not a pipe, it's an image of a pipe

but many people automatically fall into the illusion and will tell you it is a pipe.

ksmattfish · Jul 19, 2004

It's cruel to my bank account.

danalec99 · Jul 19, 2004

ksmattfish said:
It's cruel to my bank account.

Not if you cross-over to digital

ksmattfish · Jul 19, 2004

danalec99 said:
ksmattfish said:

It's cruel to my bank account.

Click to expand...

Not if you cross-over to digital

Ghaakkk!!! I don't have $8000 (body) for Canon's latest full 35mm sized sensor camera, which is about the only one I'd seriously consider. When something like that drops to $500 is when I'll by a DSLR. But it's still cruel on my bank account because then I'll be doing film and digital photography.

nikon90s · Jul 19, 2004

What a first post!!! First of all welcome!!

Are you your self a photographer? If so you must have had some bad experience with your craft. You should look for other words that describe your ART and "I think" you are also looking at other words in a negative light. I mean you load film; you are putting something into a device that will use it, just like I load paper into my printer :arrow:. I also could load a truck if you could get me from in front of my TV

ale: but it sounds like a lot of work to me!!

Next, "take a shot." I could talk about other uses for the word like drinking, Can I have a shot of Jack :cheers: ?, sports, that was a nice shot :cheer: , trying to do something, I gave it my best shot 8), the Dr. gave me a shot :angry1: and also using a gun :gun:

. If you always look for a negative side you will find one but I think that I showing you that there are a lot of other uses for the words you have described.

I don't know if I made my point but I gave it a shot.

(I just had too LOL)

Karalee · Jul 19, 2004

Well said Nikon

Its all subject to the way you look at it in the end, and how you use the talents you have.

Tok · Jul 20, 2004

Walt said:
That's just all too deep for me! :shock:

Hehehe, feel the same here.

jadin · Jul 20, 2004

I think the reason it's described as "taking" and not "making" is that you aren't "creating" anything. You are simply interpretting something that was already created or aka made. That make sense?

I find photography is enjoyable, and very useful for making art. (notice making) For example, after the development of photography, people could take a photo of an scene, and paint it. That wasn't possible before photography. Noone complains that the artwork is hurtful, or too "instant".

As for the DSLR, I think you're putting way too much emphasis on megapixels. The bigger the megapixel size, the larger the difference will have to be to notice a difference.

When you go from one megapixel (1280 x 960 pixels) to two megapixels (1600 x 1200 pixels), you are not doubling the dimensions of the photograph. To double the dimensions of the photograph, you would need a five megapixel (2560 x 1920) camera. To double the dimensions of a five megapixel camera, you need a 19 megapixel camera!

You need MASSIVE jumps in megapixels to really notice the difference. I think if you just bite the bullet and get yourself a decent DSLR with a nice lens, you won't notice any drawbacks comparing your digital to film.

Unless you make prints about the size of you, you won't notice the difference.

Just my two cents.

from dpreview.com
The megapixel debate: Camera X has 8 megapixels, so it's 33% better, right?
Yes, but only if you're counting strictly by pixels. An 8 megapixel camera has 192 more pixels horizontally and 400 more pixels vertically. That's only 6.25% horizontally and 19% more vertically.

Additionally, the sensor in Camera X is 8.80mm by 6.60mm. The sensor in the 300D is 22.7mm by 15.1mm. It's a well known fact that smaller photosite (pixel sensors) create more noise, and the recent dpreview.com review on the 300D showed that it has less noise and ISO800 (in parameter set 2) than any prosumer has at ISO200 -- this is due to the sensor sizes.

So, while the 300D may have slightly fewer megapixels, the image quality is fantastically higher.