Is Photography As We Know It Dying?

[Derrel]

Derrel, that happened in a Jimmy Cagney movie I saw not long ago - he had a camera up his pants leg (trying to get a picture at an execution). Then he went running back to his newspaper and I never did see what the camera was (that being the important thing!). Looked like a rangefinder, that was all I could tell. I didn't know something like that had actually happened.

Perhaps the movie was taking into account something that had really happened earlier in history. Back in the 1940s there was quite a bit of competition in the daily newspaper business,with some large cities having two or even three different competing newspapers. Today? One single Paper is the norm in most American cities with the exception of just a handful.

In the movie The Current War, which is in current release (pun unintended but nevertheless it's there...)detailed a few things about the first-ever execution by electric chair.

 

[mrca]

No on can deny photography has changed. After a hundred years of glass plates and film, digital was developed. It made it easy for the masses to take better photos and put a phone camera in everyones pocket. But has professional photography, ie, when someone is willing to pay someone else to take photos died? Hell, no it is not dead. Look at all the hamburgers running around with a camera calling themselves pros. Remember when Kodak sold the brownie camera to the masses? Did professional photography die? What has changed big time was in the days of film, someone who could only reliably get focus and good exposure might make a living at photography. Now, that isn't enough. Your slr or phone will take a reasonably sharp, reasonably exposed photo. So if a pro could only take sharp well exposed shots, he lost many clients who could do the same with a cell phone or kit camera/lens. But those photographers who could create something an amateur with rudimentary skills couldnt, a concept, good lighting , good posing, good composition, impact (the first criteria in PPA judging) then he could do fine. However, as Bambi Cantrell said, beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder and for many folks who want photos, good enough is good enough. There is lots of what amounts to good enough for them out there.

 

[The Barbarian]

To me the biggest change is the amount of bad photos that are out there. We’ve all seen posts on social media of some crooked horizon overly saturated slightly out of focus sunset photo that gets 1000 likes from the poster’s “friends” who all comment how amazing it is and encourage the poster to turn pro.

Yes, on other message boards, I see that. When it happens, I usually try the "you could make that even better by..." and see if they try it. If not, then not. But sometimes someone picks it up and starts to become pretty good.

Encourage.

 

[pocketshaver]

Thing is, not every professional award winning photographer can take a good photo. Sure, some things are inherent in a good photo, but go look at magazines these days. Even fashion ones, and these "good professional photos" rely upon nothing more then having an expensive clothing item in it to be "good"

 

[Destin]

Thing is, not every professional award winning photographer can take a good photo. Sure, some things are inherent in a good photo, but go look at magazines these days. Even fashion ones, and these "good professional photos" rely upon nothing more then having an expensive clothing item in it to be "good"

And good post processing skills, which most of the time, is probably not even done by the photographer.

 

[pocketshaver]

Thing is, not every professional award winning photographer can take a good photo. Sure, some things are inherent in a good photo, but go look at magazines these days. Even fashion ones, and these "good professional photos" rely upon nothing more then having an expensive clothing item in it to be "good"

And good post processing skills, which most of the time, is probably not even done by the photographer.

That's just it, with the whole convergence to digital, pay someone for an hours work, and you can get just about any image taken from the level of "dark and dreary black and white photo from a campy 1960s horror film. To the quality of a black and white Hitchcock movie."

Or better yet, an hour of photo shop can make something that looks like a 3rd graders meth inspired doodle look like a Rembrandt.

 

[mrca]

Do folks really think you can take most crap photos and turn them into Rembrandts? A crap image being savagable for black and white or color technically may be ok in that area, but it becomes nothing more than a sharp, well exposed piece of crap since far more goes into an excellent image than exposure and contrast. It's hard to add impact, creativity, good composition, good lighting, microcontrast, depth, expression, posing to crap images in post. Can photoshop organize or add all those so they support the message of the image, that is if it even has one? No, just correct some surface, technical issues in a couple of areas. Judged a competition yesterday and nothing in post was going to transform most poor or mediocre images to a stellar image. Folks just don't know what they don't know. For decades we have been hearing criticisms on pros and photo shop users usually from people who are neither . It is part of the misconception that anyone with a good camera will take good photos foisted by manufacturers of cameras or lenses. Hey, buy some lenses and you will make art! Maybe, if someone thinks a "good photo" is only sharp and well exposed. My camera can do that on tripod with the timer, completely without a photographer. What makes a great image isn't camera or editing but as Ansel described as the most important part of a camera, the 12 inches behind it. And that is a photographer who has master his craft, both in capture and post.

 

[pocketshaver]

Whats artwork, whats skill in taking a raw image into a photo editing program and using it to change the brightness, contrast, or simply turn the green house into a red house,,

Digital has taken the heart out of the photographic image. Sure good photos are good photos, but the intrinsic image that is DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY cannot be trusted, cannot be believed.

There is an AMATUER art site, epilog.net. There are people there who did drawings in 2006 with DIGITAL PROGRAMS that are more realistic and life like then a 40 mega pixel camera of DOG HAIR.

 

[Michael Smith 12]

Photography, like every other thing in the world, is changing. Change is the only thing that is constant. The rise of smartphone cameras is definitely the biggest reason in that. With the rapid increase in technology, smartphone cameras are becoming better with every iteration. Also, the rapid rise of mirrorless cameras in the past 2 years is also driving that change. We have to adapt to that. See the huge increase in investment and shift in marketing from DSLR cameras to mirrorless cameras by both Canon and Nikon.

 

[smoke665]

The problem with a lot of "photography" now is "immediate gratification". Most cell phone shots are rarely, if ever printed. Within seconds of being taken they're uploaded to one of several social media sites, where it's longevity is rated in hours before being replaced. Overall it seems to give a skewed idea of the amount of experience/time required to produce a quality image, that can be enjoyed for years.

Then you get into the cost factor. Lets face it, professional photograps are a luxury item that many middle class families simply can't afford. Talking with a car salesman friend the other day, who described a customer that had been turned down on a car loan. The couple had a big home mortgage, three car payments, two jet ski payments, and a boat payment. They were trying to buy another car for a child that just turned 16. Despite the fact that the couple were both college educated and had good jobs, they were maxed out on spending. Granted not every family is mortgaged to the hilt but most families would have to think hard about spending several hundred to thousands, on a family photo, with so many other things pulling at those dollars.

It used to be that you could find a "family" photo studio like Olan Mills, JC Penny, Sears, even Walmart in every town. Remember the $9.99 specials? Now Olan Mills has closed most of their locations, and you'll be lucky to even find a JC Penny or Sears store still open. Granted they were cookie cutter images at best, but they served a need. In large part these were the first photography businesses, to suffer from the entrance of cell phone and the internet.

 

[WilliamK1974]

"So, how do you know photography? Were you two in school together? Oh, oh, oh, you two were roommates, right?"...

Yeah, he set me up with his cousin on a blind date one time, and she flashed everyone at the restaurant, but things got more than a little awkward when I took his sister to a fraternity dance and she sorta over-exposed herself...

 

[mrca]

How did digital take the "heart" out of photography? What do you mean by heart? My eye, mind and heart are in all my photos to quote Cartier-Bresson. The image can't be trusted or believed? Trusted for what? Believed? Why, it may not ape what was in front of the camera? Do folks trust Picasso's work? Photography doesn't have to be a photocopy of what is in front of the camera and most of the time it is an improvement. Realistic and life like is realism, if you like that, fine, but in the world of art, that is only a small slice of the genres in painting...and the same for photography. It can be an expression of the artists vision, not necessarily a photocopy of reality. Folks who think that might try reading something on the history of art or the history of photography.

 

[Original katomi]

Talking of pro photographer, I was at a family wedding not so long ago and they had a pro in to shoot the wedding.
He was anything but professional, just did stock boring shots, had the look and feel that he did want to be there.
Comment above about people not being to afford family portraits is so true, esp my g kids gen. they seem to think a few phone pics are it. I did a family day out shoot for them a few years ago, must do another soon, and they were quite surprised when I printed the images for them.

 

[pocketshaver]

How did digital take the "heart" out of photography? What do you mean by heart? My eye, mind and heart are in all my photos to quote Cartier-Bresson. The image can't be trusted or believed? Trusted for what? Believed? Why, it may not ape what was in front of the camera? Do folks trust Picasso's work? Photography doesn't have to be a photocopy of what is in front of the camera and most of the time it is an improvement. Realistic and life like is realism, if you like that, fine, but in the world of art, that is only a small slice of the genres in painting...and the same for photography. It can be an expression of the artists vision, not necessarily a photocopy of reality. Folks who think that might try reading something on the history of art or the history of photography.

half hour with photoshop, any decent user can put their girlfriends head on their favorite pornstars body and put it up on here as a genuine self done photograph.

That's NOT art or photography.

That's why digital has no heart to it. No soul, no substance. Not when a 16 year old kid can put himself in a photograph of Emery or Amundsen Scott taken at the apex of their expeditions.

That's the difference between things known as radio and television. Radio was innocent because everyone listening to the radio program saw their own interpretation of that "dark foboding castle upon the hill at midnight". TV killed that innocence by forcing 1 image upon everyone who watched the program.

 

[mrca]

Pocket, you are parroting a photoshop complaint that is 15 years old and those of us using photoshop found those posts cliched.. Most photoshop/LR doesn't involve head swaps or liquified photos. So 16 year old morons who do such changes define photography? How does that mean digital has no soul or substance? Does film have more? Radio was innocent? Like War of the Worlds? Let me guess, you don't use photoshop. And don't worry about head transfers being art, 99.9% of photos taken aren't art, just snapshot including those taken with a 3000 dollar camera. But by your analysis, radio wasn't as innocent as books because everyone heard the same voice and intonation.