Is Photography As We Know It Dying?

Digital taking the heart out of photography...Bovine waste. Thats like saying the type writer took the heart out of writing.
I am going to stop before the moderator has words with me
 
There has been some real fertilizer offered up here by two posters.

Pocketshaver, Photoshop is just a tool. I think perhaps you should be reminded of the amount of image manipulation and composite images which were done in the period 1870 to 1890. I used the word "reminded" because I am somewhat certain you are unaware of the history of what predated the type of dry,representational,straight photography that you apparently seem to idolize. I would suggest that you get a copy of Beaumont Newhall's book , The History of Photography, and learn for yourself about theperiod That lasted roughly 35 years in which photographers were typically interested in allegorical storytelling photos, most often made from two or three negatives combined into one final picture , and also you should look at what was known as pictorialism as opposed to the f64 post World War II ideal that you seem to idolize so much.

As far as making prints, most people who were serious about their Photography in the 1960s shot slide film, and very few of those pictures were actually printed, but were instead collected in archives which basically sat in the dark, save for the occasional long and boring slideshow once or twice per year. Making prints or not making prints has absolutely nothing to do with sincerity or in degree of commitment to Imaging. Prints are fine, but they cannot be sent worldwide to multiple outlets without great cost. We now have a way to share and disseminate photos that involves no print, and it is not all about " immediate gratification"as much as it is a reflection of where we are in time in history. We no longer look at woodcuts from famous battles, but we see immediate photographic evidence of what a battle really looks like within seconds or minutes or hours because we no longer live in 1755 or 1865, but because we live in 2019. I am not typing this, but am instead doing speech to text on my Samsung Android phone. Would my words have greater validity if I were to write them with a quill pen on parchment and send them via Pony Express to some office in New York where the words would then be printed with linotype? Equating the method of delivery with the sincerity or conviction of the artist is a Fool's errand, and it's in my opinion " lazy thinking". There has been a tendency to pejoratively dismiss all sorts of things about the modern world with a desire for "immediate gratification", and this has been going on for more than 50 years . We used to have to write letters to communicate with people far away, but then we were able to call them on the telephone, and now we can text or email them. Does this mean that the feelings we express in an email are somehow less sincere than feelings which were expressed in a handwritten letter 100 years ago?

Back to the urgent question, is photography as we know it dying? Well, that depends on what photography you know. Is photography the same today as it was in 1985? No it is not Instead of crappy 4 by 6 inch color prints shot on Kodacolor Gold 200, we now shoot on color positive digital single-lens cameras with 24 to 50 megapixel resolution. Equipment is better. Prints are relatively less expensive. It no longer costs $0.50 per image. We can now make unlimited copies of an image with absolutely no quality loss. We can share one single photo with the world for free, or nearly so. It used to cost 19 to as much as $0.59 to make one small color print which had to be shown to one person at a time,but now we can snap a photo, and upload it to a website and it can be seen around the world within a minute or two. But just because our work can be seen quickly that has got nothing to do with intent or with quality or with degree of commitment to image-making. This is 2019, not 1929, not 1959, and not 1989. The past is what it was, and some serious intellectual honesty is required, and a lot less knee-jerk finger-pointing is in order.

If we were to ask the question, " is medicine as we know it changing?" the answer would surely be, "I sure as hell hope so!"
 
Last edited:
Derrel, I recommend a project I undertook 10 years ago based on Newhall's book and Hirsch's Seizing the Light to take each stage of photography starting with it's origins and learn about it then attempt to reproduce it as much as possible using a modern camera. It is invaluable to know how we got here not to mention learning different or unusual styles that can be incorporated in your work.
 
Dry plates took the heart out of wet photography...
 
Ah for the days when you had to break some eggs to take photos.
 
Dry plates took the heart out of wet photography...

jBfdeHB.jpg
 
If I plant them seeds, can I grow my own dry plates. :)
 
Photography will not die. Yes, believe me. Yes, I can understand that mobile phones have created some difficulties for us, but still you can see people who like professional photo shoots. Like in wedding people will choose a professional photographer for their wedding. So you don't have to worry.
 
I don’t have a problem with Facebook or Instagram “likes”. My comment was more focused on the fact that people like the sub standard photo.

My Dad was a Professional Photographer for most of his adult life.
He said virtually the same thing in the late 1960's. In his day, the "Instamatic" cameras were the bane of his existence.

He also used to say to me:

A Photograph is something you hang upon your wall, and admire.
A "Pitcher" is something you pour milk out of.

He was reacting to the living in the South of the USA...here everyone called photographs, "pitchers"..."you take pitchers" was often heard :)

And so it goes...
 
In 1900 Kodak introduced the brownie camera which opened up photography to the masses. People probably forcast the death of professional photography.
 
The quick answer is yes photography as we know it is dying. But photography as my grand kids know it is alive and well.

So to is ; viewing of movies, you do not need a theater; television, you do not need an antenna; listening to music, radios tapes,CDs and records are things of the past.

Technology drives invention and with it social attitudes and opinion. So, what was considered good photography in the past is now mostly passe or old school and what is fine art today will also become ho-hum some day. This does not mean it will be forgotten, it will simply be unique to the past. And yes, there will still be practitioners of the art.

Heck, I still get a kick our of popping my head under the hood and snapping off a few shots with my 1910 cut film camera. However, I do not think it is likely to replace the phone camera any time soon :) :)
 
Yes of course the photography that we knew for a long time is dying. Actually it is dead. Photography was once only done by professionals and now every one can afford a camera and everyone takes photo. This thing changed the industry because among all these photography the real ones got lost and we would never be able to see the difference between a real one and the common one.
 
He was reacting to the living in the South of the USA...here everyone called photographs, "pitchers"..."you take pitchers" was often heard :)

This brought a chuckle, I still hear it from time to time. My dad drove me crazy by putting an extra "i" in film. Right up to the day he passed it was always "FILIM".

Actually it is dead. Photography was once only done by professionals and now every one can afford a camera and everyone takes photo

Gee, I was a "professional" as a teen in the early 60's and didnt know it. Seriously, you've overlooked the fact that there's still a large following of modern day photographers shooting film, and there's an even larger following shooting digital. The process and technology has evolved, but human creativity will always find a way to use it.
 
I don't think photography is dead, but the horse sure does seem to be.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top