Digital technology ruined photography for me, or did people ruin it? (or both)

[Braineack]

I'm still steamed that the gasoline otto-cycle engine has ruined the steam car.

 

[Rick50]

I'm still steamed that the gasoline otto-cycle engine has ruined the steam car.

And now they are perfecting the electric car. On, what horror's!

 

[Fred Berg]

OP, your post strikes a chord and is one of the best reads I've seen posted in a while.

This might interest some: John Hedgecoe Interview - My Life in Pictures - Amateur Photographer

 

[Braineack]

I'm still steamed that the gasoline otto-cycle engine has ruined the steam car.

And now they are perfecting the electric car. On, what horror's!

Technically we are going back to electric cars, they were used much earlier than you think.

 

[erotavlas]

Sounds to me like you ruined it for yourself by shifting your attention away from your own creativity and your own enlightenment through your own photographic efforts and your own results, and focusing instead on what other people are doing.

So what if a million other people take a million shots of that waterfall or tree or landscape? So what if they're looking through their viewfinders more than you think they should? So what if everyone in the family is wearing a cell phone that can take photos? So what if there are literally millions of snapshots that aren't worth anything to anyone but those amateurs who shot them? Why should any of that stop you from enjoying your own photography? And what makes you think they shouldn't enjoy themselves with that stuff any way they want to? Who are you to say they shouldn't? Who died and made you king of what people should and shouldn't do?

Your problem seems to be that you want to be the "special one" by being the only one who can take the photos, and now you're not the "special one" anymore because everyone can do it, and you can't figure out how to make yours stand out from the others as "special" anymore.

In short, it looks to me like your own jealousy over the fact that others can now take pictures at will is what ruined photography for you, and that's on you alone.

If you can't figure out a way to muster better than the snapshot quality coming out of the vast majority of those millions of amateurs shooting millions of shots with millions of phones, maybe you should just find a new hobby that nobody else is doing so that you don't have the competition messing with you anymore. Maybe basket-weaving or pottery or chainsaw tree sculptures or some other hand-crafted type of thing like that is a better fit for your mentality.

First of all sorry if this topic has been talked about before, I'm sure everything already has, but I just wanted to vent my own perspective on it.

I think it's important to care that people are taking millions of photo's without any thought to what they are taking photo's of. They are shifting their focus away from the subject and towards the acquisition of photo's instead. Again my point has to do with the connection to consumer culture. How consumerism not only applies to material things that you purchase in the store, and has made it's way to other activities like photography

Regarding your point about jealousy, Painting my observations in a negative context doesn't imply jealousy. And I don't think my own personal feelings really change the observation I made. An onlooker who was not jealous should be able to observe the same phenomenon happening. Maybe my title should have excluded the "me" part because I was referring to photography in general, not my own personal experience trying to 'stand out' through photography. It should have been more like "Digital technology ruined the charm of photography and our appreciation for our environment (people places and things) by turning photos into another consumable"

 

[Stradawhovious]

More amateurs are creating images that rival those of the best professionals. No longer is it possible to create something so unique that can't be recreated by anyone with the motivation, time and money to do so.

This has always been true. Copying, forgeries and plagiarism have been around as long as something came before it to copy. You can't blame technology for that.

If the Pros are worried that the amateurs are getting as good/better than them, they need to step up their game. If you are worried that the bar for what is acceptable photography is getting too low, you need to educate the sheeple.

Two different arguments, two different solutions.

Technology changes things. Always has, always will.

 

[jsecordphoto]

Think about this in the context of any other career. Those who ***** about the changing tides of an industry get left behind, and those who evolve continue to thrive. All I see is a larger range of mediocre photos than before.

Sure it's easier now to take thousands of photos and get a few that are useable- but they will never be great. It still takes just as much skill and talent to produce truly great images, even if the methods of achieving those results have changed.

 

[photoguy99]

It's not about technology, at least not to me. The point is that the society in which we live has changed its attitude toward photography.

Photography is no longer the domain of a group of people called "photographers", it is now something almost literally everyone does. 150 years ago it was like being a professional opera singer in terms of rarity. Now it's like singing in the shower. You can't just buy a camera and study up a bit and be "the guy" that takes the nice photos in your family or social group -- everyone takes adequately nice photos.

But it's not just about being special and different. Now that everyone takes photos, now that we're steeped not merely in the medias photos, but our own, people view photos as different. They're not looking at them as an expression of anything, they're looking at them more and more as a second-hand stream of experience. I wasn't at the party, but I saw the photos. I wasn't on the lake that day but I saw the photos.

When you show your beautiful photos of a flower or whatever, people see it not against their memories of Karsh's photo of Sophia Loren, but against their memories of photos of 500 parties and events they did not attend, and 1000s of photos of their friends lunches. They're as likely to be puzzled by your macro pictures of bugs as anything "did you have the bug for lunch? Was the bug at the party? I don't get it." (not quite, but you get the idea).

So, you're not special, and people increasingly don't see your photos as special.

You can choose to live inside a personal bubble on this point. Sing your heart out in the shower, who cares if you're never going to The Met? That is OK.

You can choose to make yourself special by doing something more than basic photography. You can do wet plate. You can print. You can make books. More importantly, you can shoot with purpose. As long as you have something to say, you're not making copies any more.

These things may or may not cause your social circle to see your work as anything. They might make you see it as something, though, which is more to the point.

 

[bribrius]

in this environment. Most photos just are consumerables. And photography is somewhat outdated now, moved on to video. we have satellites taking photos from up above, telescopes photographing other galaxies. The common person camera is quite common and has been that way so long it isn't any large change here except maybe the every increasing amount of photos. The article I posted above said photography lost its "soul". That doesn't just speak to the average consumer but also gives accusation to perhaps those that are higher than the average consumer that KNOW how to take a technically proficient good photo. It wasn't about a lack of photos, or even a lack of good photos. But a change in mentality. Loss of SOUL. which I thought went along well with the o.p.

But I think in this environment, it could be the perfect time for a photographer to stand out amongst the herd. That would require not thinking like and following the heard though.

 

[Buckster]

Film on spools ruined photography.
Kodak's Brownie ruined photography.
Color film ruined photography.
The 35mm film format ruined photography.
Nikon's F system opening up the medium to even more common people ruined photography.
Autofocus lenses ruined photography.
Autoexposure systems ruined photography.
Digital cameras ruined photography.
Cell phones with cameras ruined photography.
Tomorrow's advances in capturing images will ruin photography.

Is there a technology that's ever come out that didn't have someone saying it ruined what came before it?

You kids with your fire and your spears and stone axes have ruined hunting and eating by making it too easy for anyone to do it.

 

[jsecordphoto]

If you think photography has lost it's soul maybe you are following the wrong photographers. I really don't even understand the logic in half of this thread

 

[photoguy99]

Yes, change has always afflicted photography in this way. There are documented records of wet plate people bitching about how dry plate ruined photography.

A case can be made that this is a qualitatively different thing.

 

[Usul]

Digital gives us additional opportunities, makes photograhy easier and open photography for many people. Of course since a man hasn't to hunt animals everyday to feed himself we got fat and lazy but who wants to go back into the woods again.

 

[weepete]

Upstairs in my loft is a box.....

and in that box there's a few hundred prints taken in the late 90's to 2003

They still contain the blurred shots, the overexposures, the black ones too we still kept most of them anyway.

I'd wager most people have a box or two like that. I know that in my parents loft there's a couple, though it'll be in older boxes and there will be a few slides thrown in too, taken mostly before I was born by my dad.

Anyway my point is that it's just the way we store things that's really changed. I bet if you went to random houses and looked at the photos in similar boxes it'd take a long time to find anything of the quality of HCB or the like.

 

[gsgary]

Upstairs in my loft is a box.....

and in that box there's a few hundred prints taken in the late 90's to 2003

They still contain the blurred shots, the overexposures, the black ones too we still kept most of them anyway.

I'd wager most people have a box or two like that. I know that in my parents loft there's a couple, though it'll be in older boxes and there will be a few slides thrown in too, taken mostly before I was born by my dad.

Anyway my point is that it's just the way we store things that's really changed. I bet if you went to random houses and looked at the photos in similar boxes it'd take a long time to find anything of the quality of HCB or the like.

No my prints are on the wall or in my darkroom and a pile of negs waiting to be printed