Is Photography Dead?

an interesting critical look at photography. Its evolving like everything else. Photography's past will always have a small part in photography's future so don't fret it so much.

Photography and photojournalism is not dead....YET. Right now its in critical condition and a low chance of survival. With the new HD camcorders available now and even the older semi pro camcorders like the Canon XL1 being sold so cheap, why would any body want to take stills when they can grab HD video and not only have the stills, but also HD video to edit together? If I were heading out on a 2 month trip to gather good quality images and content I would rather not chance missing a great shot and bring the HD camcorder. Video is far more valuable now, but being able to snap a decent shot with a camcorder make the still photo camera pretty much useless.

Dude can you tell be a short summary of this plzz i dont understand it plzzzz e mail it to me at
talhakhan_123@hotmail.com

hi

No, photography is not dead, as is suggested y the article's title, but it has experienced changes, just as it has all along since 1827 when Joseph Nic??phore Ni??pce created the first photograph. We have traded the traditional darkroom for the digital one, just as we have traded one model of camera for successively more sophicticated ones. Some people complain that there is manipulation now, but hey, that is nothing new; there was/is dodging and burning in the traditional darkroom, the selection of, for example, Fuji 50 over an Ilford film for a warmer effect, the use of a particular ASA/ISO for a certain look.

I think what has really changed is the fact that with the availability of affordable digital cameras, there are more instances of individuals perceiving themselves as photographers. Add to that the fact that in many quarters, education has gotten quite sloppy. Now, even many ???pros??? have no real concept about the tools that go into making a strong, eye-catching photograph. They do not understand the concepts of different styles of composition and what works best for them; they know nothing about the properties of color; they do not appreciate the magic of light and what it can do for an image; they are ignorant of the work of previous masters. And most of all, no one has told them that they need passion in their images. It is the eye and the soul, combined with some basic, classic knowledge of what goes into the making a good photograph, that create great photographs.

The art buying world has not helped. While there are many exceptions, often in advertising or exhibitions, what is larger and more outrageous gets attention over that which has substance and quality. Artists are also beset with requests for something to hang over the sofa/couch and match the covering. Alas, many people acquire art because so-and-so is the ???In??? artist, rather than because the buyer is genuinely moved by the piece. Look at some of the prices commanded at auctions for what some of us would deem atrocious, non-examples of photography.

All the above said, I would still disagree with Peter Plagens??? statement, ???It's hard to say ???gee whiz??? anymore.??? While there is a lot of ho-hum photography out there, there is a lot of great photography. Clearly, he has not recently looked at the works of Patrick Demarchelier, Bill Allard, John Sexton, and Frans Lanting, among many, many others. Those photographers understand the ???WOW??? factor, whether in color or black and white.

Margo Pinkerton, Barefoot Contessa Photo Adventures

Photography dead? No! If anything it now has more life than ever before! There are many follies to this article, but my favorite is the idea that a photograph lacks manual touch and surface variation. It has never lacked either. Being a photographer myself, I can tell you that the time spent in the darkroom, be it digital, or conventional is very hands on. Mixing of chemicals, enlarger setup, processing, burning, dodging, contrast filtering, oh yes, there is much that may vary from artist to artist, but it is hands on. The workflow of each kind of art may be different, but even with digital photography, there is still the need for good composition, light, and the need to know where to be, and when to be there. As for surface variation, I think it is now easier than ever to put a photograph on an unusual surface. Just today at the local art gallery, I saw photographs created on canvas, latex, tin, and wood. Just like any other art, the digital world requires proper education. "Joe the snapshot man" takes pictures to rekindle a moment in his life. Artists photograph for any number of reasons, mine being to invoke an emotion in the viewer. "Joe" neither does, nor should care about obeying the laws of graphic design. The artist does have to obey (or specifically disobey) those laws. Photography is not dead, so long as it remains an artistic equation of graphic art. - L.A. Wayman III

Photography started to break with reality as soon as it started being taken seriously as an art. .The truth is most photos intersect with the digital realm at some point, especially commercial images. Foregrounding modern photography???s fragile status as ???evidence??? is an important cultural critique and has been going on for decades. The current trend of manipulation through technology is what photography has always been about; the dance between emerging technology, realism and subjectivity.

No, photography isn`t dead (yet). But the knowledge what is photography and what is mereley a piece of art created with photoshop and other programs has diminished. This has nothing do with film vs. digital -debate. It has everything to do with light. One can hardly call a work with no true light a photograph. Or?

No, photography isn`t dead (yet). But the knowledge what is photography and what is mereley a piece of art created with photoshop and programs has diminished. This ot nothing do with film vs. digital -debate. It has everything to do with light. One can hardly call a work that has nothing to do with light a photograph.

No, photography isn`t dead (yet). But the knowledge what is photography and what is mereley a piece of art created with photoshop and programs has diminished. This ot nothing do with film vs. digital -debate. It has everything to do with light. One can hardly call a work that has nothing to do with light a photograph.

I would argue that photography is finally coming into its own as an art form for the very reason that one is no longer confined by any reality at all. A few megapixels is now the creative equivalent to blank canvas. Digital manipulation is scorned by purists, but it's but a tool and a technique, as legitimate as mixing egg with tempera. It's up to the artist to make it art. True purists should really confine themselves to sticks and dust.

I feel that Mr. Plagens is missing the point of the new digital medium which photography plays into. I feel that Mr. Plagens mistakes digital art (of which digital composites are one part) for documentary photography. This would be like saying that Dada, Picasso, Dali and many more of the schools of modern painters are destroying the virtue of the artform by not painting what exactly is in front of them. Yet Mr. Plagens would have photographers shoot only what is before them and nothing else. It seems from his article that he is bemoaning that photographers are no longer attempting to make their photographs more like his medium of expressions - paintings.

The technology and techniques now exist for photographic artists to express themselves digitally and in ways that were not available before. The cinema verite ethic of journalistic and documentary photography still exists and is closely followed by its adherants. However, this does not mean that the only form of photography that should be allowed is this unvarnished recording of moments. There is now the ability to create scenes that stretch the imagination, tease the eyes and push the boundaries of what is visually possible.

Each person is entitled to their opinions on art and what moves them as people to gravitate towards one form or another. But when an acolyte of one form, such as painting, decries the "lack of honesty" in another form which they do not themselves participate in nor understand the new technology thereof, then critique becomes forced and uninformed. Their words sound more like the bleating of old men frightened of being left behind with yesterday's paintbrushes and dusty masterpieces than enlightened opinions on a new and innovative style.

The power of photography as an art form depends not on its connection to physical reality but on its power to evoke real emotion. Dependence on physical reality is more the province of photographic journalism, and though art and journalism may coincide, neither is required to occupy the other's world or play by the other's rules.

The power of photography as an art form depends not on its connection to physical reality but on its power to evoke real emotion. Dependence on physical reality is more the province of photographic journalism, and though art and journalism may coincide, neither is required to occupy the other's world or play by the other's rules.

Nonsense. This is an old argument wholly discredited a long time ago. As the wise man said, "The camera never lies, but photographers do." As courts never allowed photos to be evidence without a photographer testifying that the photographs do indeed represent what they appear to be representing, the future's photography's connection with reality will lie with the photographer, not the camera or the pixels it organizes into an image.

Nonsense. This is an old argument wholly discredited a long time ago. As the wise man said, "The camera never lies, but photographers do." As courts never allowed photos to be evidence without a photographer testifying that the photographs do indeed represent what they appear to be representing, the future's photography's connection with reality will lie with the photographer, not the camera or the pixels it organizes into an image.

Tut-tut, a new tool is on the horizon, allowing more access to more people, to express themselves. The author seems to be ready to jump back to a time where the click of a lens didn???t involve checking the rear of the camera to check the image, and in every household there was that overflowing box containing a few photographic gems and all to many cropped off heads and inexplicable shots of the ground at the photographers feet. Sister Wendy said it best, ???Art never improves, it just changes??? Forgive a long winded response, but there can be a different, more inclusive viewpoint of the digital revolution.
Art History showed that humanity has always created fiction with art, be it the Neolithic stone figurines of women for fertility rituals..assumed as it wasn???t likely to be a representation of women, but an ideal, to Bosch and others before and after creating terrifying worlds from their imagination, well before the Modernist era I???m sure you???d agree. Remember ???The School of Athens??? by Raphael? Even the dawn of photography shows that artistic fantasy was to be embraced, Oscar Rejlanders ???The Two paths of Life??? can be seen at the George Eastman House in Rochester the birthplace of the idea that photography was for everyone. Ansel Adams dodged and burned images into existence that, while structurally accurate, never existed in reality???that cross on the door in the New Mexico cemetery was most definitely NOT as bright as in the final print; an illusion to create an emotion?
Technology has merely made a creative outlet more accessible to the masses, what is good, fictional or fact is still up for debate.
So entropy has grabbed the reins of the creative impulses in all of mankind, and this is a bad thing how? Was it better to have the Big 3 Automobiles, or how well did creativity flourish with just 3 Big Networks?
Perhaps it???s that 1000 words no longer are enough to give to a picture, just maybe we need to insert 1 more, inclusion.

Tut-tut, a new tool is on the horizon, allowing more access to more people, to express themselves. The author seems to be ready to jump back to a time where the click of a lens didn???t involve checking the rear of the camera to check the image, and in every household there was that overflowing box containing a few photographic gems and all to many cropped off heads and inexplicable shots of the ground at the photographers feet. Sister Wendy said it best, ???Art never improves, it just changes??? Forgive a long winded response, but there can be a different, more inclusive viewpoint of the digital revolution.
Art History showed that humanity has always created fiction with art, be it the Neolithic stone figurines of women for fertility rituals..assumed as it wasn???t likely to be a representation of women, but an ideal, to Bosch and others before and after creating terrifying worlds from their imagination, well before the Modernist era I???m sure you???d agree. Remember ???The School of Athens??? by Raphael? Even the dawn of photography shows that artistic fantasy was to be embraced, Oscar Rejlanders ???The Two paths of Life??? can be seen at the George Eastman House in Rochester the birthplace of the idea that photography was for everyone. Ansel Adams dodged and burned images into existence that, while structurally accurate, never existed in reality???that cross on the door in the New Mexico cemetery was most definitely NOT as bright as in the final print; an illusion to create an emotion?
Technology has merely made a creative outlet more accessible to the masses, what is good, fictional or fact is still up for debate.
So entropy has grabbed the reins of the creative impulses in all of mankind, and this is a bad thing how? Was it better to have the Big 3 Automobiles, or how well did creativity flourish with just 3 Big Networks?
Perhaps it???s that 1000 words no longer are enough to give to a picture, just maybe we need to insert 1 more, inclusion.

Photography HAS NOT lost its art form, it has simply changed, the mediume has changed, but people still take photos the same, and edit the same, the only difference is that photographers do not pay for film, and edit on a computer, not in the darkroom, but the essence and passion are still there,
if you like, have a look at my website here:
http://www.brookewhatnall.com

See if I have captured the esscence