Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by Iron Flatline, Dec 8, 2007.
An article published in Newsweek
it's not dead, things are just changing. it's an exciting time.
Interesting read. But the expanding of the art form using new tools at their disposal kills the art of photography is like saying that portraiture died when Picasso decided that the nose should no longer sit underneath and between the eyes.
The article simply goes into the ideals of what one person narrowly believes to represent the entire artform, and to a degree I share the authors views as to the editing killing the original moment captured by the camera to some extent.
However the endless arguments which break out on forums about just this debate, about if you should keep digital photography pure with no post processing etc show that there are plenty of photographers that share the authors opinion and thus by his standard it can't really be dead then. Getting sick and dying maybe, but far from dead.
Wow, I totally agree .. except for the dying an sick part
It is changing in a way that new styles and ideas come up. but art is diverse, and always was. there is never only one way. just at some point some ways are more en vogue than others. and just because Fred and Mary these days do a different style than what people did 30 years ago, does not mean Fred and Mary's style is the only style of the future.
Are you saying there was no cheating/manipulation in film photography? That's laughable at best.
no but "editing" has become a different kind of sports ... exposures which could not be saved in the old days, can be saved today, cloning and whatever gives a lot of things rather easily which where hard work in the old days. this has changed the style of many photographers, definitely.
True, but remember the latitude of digital sensors is very similar to that of slide film. It's not very easy to fix blown out subjects..(unless of course you shot more than one of the same shot on a tripod at different exposures...
But I see where you're coming from.
That's not to say though, that film photogs wouldn't have done what we do now if they could.
They had sheets of different "Skies" to use for pictures...different "waters" to use for pictures...
Same as us now...just it's easier. (well...kinda..)
from slide film actually ...
exactly, and this makes things different in the outcome, ... on average.
Yeah of course photography is dead. The Dupont Velour I finally managed to get hold of (sealed box ) is just for display.
This don't make no kinda sense. Blown out is blown out. If you blow out negative film, it's no easier to fix than if you had blown out slide film. Exposure latitude has nothing to do with that aspect of it.
Thanks for the link. I think the quote from the incomprable Lisette Model sums it up best. "Photography is the easiest art, which perhaps makes it the hardest".
Love & Bass
Is photography dead? I think that question is easily answered by the huge and relentless R&D invested by Sony, Canon, Nikon and others.
If it was dead or dying, why waste all those millions into the furtherment of advancements in the digital photography age?
Its not dying and in fact over the last few years has been resurging. Yes there are aspects that are no longer available... MaxBloom's preferred film makes a good example, but thats the industry's choice in which direction to push photography. If more people bought and used and developed film, we would have greater variety, not less. As it stands, we have greater varieties of cameras and lenses than ever before and sales are consistantly rising.
I for one feel bad for film users, but am really happy for the digital choices.
Photography is not dead... except to those that walk around with blinders and refuse to see reality.
Separate names with a comma.