Newsweek: Is Photography Dead?

[Iron Flatline]

An article published in Newsweek

 

[Sw1tchFX]

it's not dead, things are just changing. it's an exciting time.

 

[Garbz]

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.

 

[Alex_B]

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.

 

[Sideburns]

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.

Are you saying there was no cheating/manipulation in film photography? That's laughable at best.

 

[Alex_B]

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.

 

[Sideburns]

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..)

 

[Alex_B]

But I see where you're coming from.

from slide film actually ...

...just it's easier. (well...kinda..)

exactly, and this makes things different in the outcome, ... on average.

 

[Alpha]

Yeah of course photography is dead. The Dupont Velour I finally managed to get hold of (sealed box ) is just for display.

 

[Alpha]

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..

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.

 

[craig]

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

 

[JerryPH]

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.

 

[snra786]

If photography was dying we wouldn't be seeing so as many photoblogs as we do starting up. Site's like mine would be dead in the water if photography wasn't still thriving.

 

[Garbz]

Wow, I totally agree .. except for the dying an sick part

I'm talking within the contexts of that article. If the increase in amount of people who accept vast amounts of manipulation is just another part of photography, then yes by the article's definition the purist art is suck and dying kept only alive by those who keep things original right of the camera while being inundated with the plague of a vastly expanding number of photographers who spend a lot of time playing with photoshop.

Are you saying there was no cheating/manipulation in film photography? That's laughable at best.

Heck no! Infact in every discussion where photoshop vs photography comes into question I am the first to mention that people did this manipulation in the darkroom long before IBM figured out there was a maximum world market for only 5 computers.

That said back in the day there were less photographers, those who did do editing were professionals, and most other people did little more than send photos off to a lab for development and printing. Today however every idiot has a camera and a computer and the manipulation goes way beyond what was previously possible in the darkroom and is accessible to nearly everyone. A quick search through Deviant Art will confirm this There is simply no barrier to entry with digital editing, whereas working in a darkroom was a destructive process if it is done wrong and required dedication to learn.

 

[Battou]

I'm talking within the contexts of that article. If the increase in amount of people who accept vast amounts of manipulation is just another part of photography, then yes by the article's definition the purist art is suck and dying kept only alive by those who keep things original right of the camera while being inundated with the plague of a vastly expanding number of photographers who spend a lot of time playing with photoshop.



Heck no! Infact in every discussion where photoshop vs photography comes into question I am the first to mention that people did this manipulation in the darkroom long before IBM figured out there was a maximum world market for only 5 computers.

That said back in the day there were less photographers, those who did do editing were professionals, and most other people did little more than send photos off to a lab for development and printing. Today however every idiot has a camera and a computer and the manipulation goes way beyond what was previously possible in the darkroom and is accessible to nearly everyone. A quick search through Deviant Art will confirm this There is simply no barrier to entry with digital editing, whereas working in a darkroom was a destructive process if it is done wrong and required dedication to learn.

I have not had a chance to read the article yet but I agree with almost every thing you said there. I'm one of those few who prefer to keep my photographs as close to what came out of the camera as possible, not including tactics that I know can be done in a dark room. I believe that is what photography is in it's truest form. How ever there is a definate bar even in the aria of photomanipulation art work. Every one may have acess but to truly do it well also takes just as much dedication to learn.

Any fan boy can create crap like this
http://www.photo-lucidity.com/pic-447.html

http://www.photo-lucidity.com/pic-418.html

But it will never hold a candle to things like this

http://www.photo-lucidity.com/pic-749.html

*EDIT*
We kept our photomanipulation art work seprate from photography from the beginning. This original set up was done by staff of the sibling site who admittedly know nothing about photography. That said I firmly believe there is a clear cut separation between the fantasy manipiulations I posted and true form photography even at a know nothing level. How ever to answer their question "Why shouldn't it give in to the digital temptation to make every landscape shot look like the most absolutely beautiful scenery in the whole history of the universe, or turn every urban view into a high-rise fantasy?" Simply because of the adjustability of digital media.

Photography and Photomanipulation art are two diffrent elements of photography, in much the same way photojournalsim is seprate from snap shots, and should be kept that way. Credit should be given based on the means an image is created, as not every photographer can manipulate an image nore can every photomanipulator take a photo. It is not killing photography as an art form, just providing yet another outlet.