Is Photography Dead?

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

There has always been photography of one's interior thoughts and what one sees in front of oneself. To damn the "pixel" is as silly as damning a certain kind of paintbrush. The people who use Photoshop to totally create are not sinning against photography, only against self proclaimed critics.

For those of us using Photoshop as our darkrooms it is liberating to have better control over the basics like contrast, color intensity, etc.

Mr. Plagen has written an interesting essay. As always in discussions of photography as art, the central issue is the premise that photography differs from other visual arts in evidentiary value -- that "special link to reality."
Photographs could always be altered. Digital technologies have merely made it easier to make alterations -- dramatic ones, at that. The link to reality is what often makes such alterations controversial.
What is the difference between an unaltered photograph and a painting by an artist whose "thing" is visual realism? The photograph is likely to portray a scene more accurately simply because that is the nature of the medium. But what, theoretically, of the painter whose technique is such that his or her images exceed the camera's ability to capture reality? Impossible, you say? Perhaps. The point is that evidentiary value does not correlate to artistic value, whether one is discussing photographs, paintings, sculptures, etc.
What are we to make of the courtroom sketch artist? Their work is accepted as substitutes for photographs, not because photographic images of courtroom drama might be disturbing to the public but rather because cameras are unwelcome in that setting. Nobody cares whether such sketches comprise "art" because the images are created specifically for their evidentiary value.
That said, I wouldn't show up in small claims court with artist's sketches to prove damage to my car. These days, however, a digital photograph might not provide much more compelling evidence.
And, perhaps, that is as it should be.

As a digital photography instructor with a foot firmly planted in both the traditional and digital realms, I found this article fascinating and useful. To read more about my perspective, please check this out: http://randallarmor.blogspot.com/2007/12/truth-about-reality.html

What is a great image is a very subjective thing. So how can the so called authorities decide on what is great and what is trite?

jimandalyce@mac.com 12/18/07

One of the biggest mysteries about a photograph is what is it that makes an image considered to be a "great" image? I have been photographing for many years and no one has ever answered that question in an less than an obtuse manner. Most of what the 'authorities' consider to be wonderful leaves me scratching my head. jimandalyce@mac.com 12/18/07

To say that manipulation of photography only began with the rise of digital methods shows a complete ignorance of the medium. It???s obviously that Mr. Plagens longs for the good ol??? days of photography: Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Lange, etc. The only thing wrong with his longing is that there is manipulation everywhere, from dodging and burning to cropping. Go to a museum or a library with a good collection of photography books and look around you.

Look at Ansel Adam's iconic 'Moonrise. Hernandez, New Mexico'? Beautifully composed for sure. But see how dramatically manipulated it is by Adam???s artful use of dodging and burning. And look at the work of Jerry Ulsmann. All done in a traditional darkroom. Just think of what Jerry could have done using Photoshop instead.

Yes, we see wilder manipulations in the digital age, some good, a lot of them bad IMHO. I, for one, am bored to tears with the so-called new aesthetic of large c-prints that, quite frankly, convey no more than lack of imagination on the part of the photographer and the curator who chooses them to hang on his/her gallery or museum walls.

As a photographer who has managed to combine shooting film while digitally outputting his work via PCs, film scanners, Photoshop, and pigment ink printers (as opposed to enlargers, photo paper and toners), I manipulate my photos both in-camera on film (blur, shallow depth of field, etc.) and use Photoshop to mimic traditional darkroom techniques (dodging, burning, toning, etc.).

I have a good friend who is represented by several galleries who goes even further by making her own film cameras from camera parts, science kits, etc. and creating incredibly beautiful and dreamlike images. Certainly, she, too, is manipulating the image, at least in-camera. Is that no different from digital manipulations? Not necessarily.

Do I like everything I currently see out there? No. But, like most artists, I have strong opinions as to what constitutes a good (or for that matter, great) photograph. Has photography lost its soul? Maybe, for the time being. At least in the museum scene. But that???s my own opinion. Your opinions may vary.

Have we seen the last of great photographers? I think not. They're out there. They just haven't received their recognition yet by the powers that be in the art world.

Bill Vaccaro
www.billvaccaro.com

There is nothing at all wrong with Digital Technology applied to Photography, it's a great boon to the Medium as others have said, as the development of Roll Film in replacement of Sheet Film was likewise, the arrival of the 35 mm Camera in replacement of the cumbersome View Camera, etc. etc.

Digital Photography is a boon also because again as others have said in this Forum, Photographers are now FREE of the Toxic Chemical Darkroom with all its problems. NOW one is FREE to deal with the ART itself, the VISION. You can go out and shoot as many pictures as you like or need to, that limited only the capacity of your Flash Card, go immediately to your Computer and Upload the images, STUDY them in the most faithful and large enough size on your Monitor...and THEN, now having been able to SEE what is developing in your work, what you are getting 'INTO' if you will, you can go right back out into the 'field' or whatever the locus of the work may be, and EXPAND the work now fully aware of what it's about.

But that still leaves the question of WHAT that is? If it's just a Fantasy you're conjuring, while it may have some interest in that way, it's still doomed to FAILURE in comparison or in competition with a great Painting.
For the latter IS what it IS, Paint or Pigment if you will, applied to Canvas or whatever other media with the most intense organic PASSION and this act of Passion not confined to a MOMENT but going On and On and ON as the Painter works and reworks the application of that Paint for DAYS if not WEEKS if not Months.

HOW can a Photograph COMPETE is the Question? And the answer is that by BEING ITSELF! A small 8x10 Print by Robert Frank or a 16x20 by Dianne Arbus or another 8x10 by one of the greatest Photographers of all time who FEW so called 'Fans' of the medium even know much about by the name of Fredrick Sommer, could compete quite well alongside a huge most passionate of all Paintings by the great Anselm Kiefer.

Because those Photographs are based on the MOST PROFOUND intrinsic ability of Photography which is of course it's ability to FAITHFULLY RECORD the Physical Facts of REALITY! What Photography can do that NO OTHER MEDIUM CAN!

I rest my case.

You make an interesting comment in, "...Film photography's artistic cachet was always that no matter how much darkroom fiddling someone added to a photograph, the picture was, at its core, a record of something real that occurred in front of the camera. A digital photograph, on the other hand, can be a Photoshop fairy tale, containing only a tiny trace of a small fragment of reality."
Nothing has changed in photography. Using digital programs to "fiddle" with a photograph still leaves at it's core that, "...something real that occurred in front of the camera." The point is not to confuse photography with the digital artist who creates a scene from either nothing or manipulates a photo to the point that it becomes "art" and not a photograph.
And, most people don't necessarily think of "nonfiction reportage" as the sole of great photography. Yes, there were some great pictures people remember, the "rape of Nanking" photo, the "Iwo Jima" flag raising, and MacArthur coming ashore in the Phillipines. But newsreporting, or photojournalism, and photography, in all its forms, landscape, nature, portrait, etc., are all the same medium. People identify with Ansel Adams and Art Wolfe just as well, and they were and are photographers.
Again, don't include the digital "artist" with the photographer. They're not the same. One uses digital programs to create their medium; the other works in the program on their medium, like working in a darkroom. Apples and Oranges.
Oh, and there may be "hordes" of photographers out there; just as there is a plethora of news reporters and wannabe writers. Has writing and reporting lost it's sole? Perhaps it already has and is looking for a scapegoat?

Yes.

If technology should take the blame for making what was an exclusive preserve of the rich and famous commonly available then we do not know to draw the line between art and utility.yes,Kodak brought photos into the drawing room and in convenient albums.Imagine a portrait of some old goat-may be your best friend's grandpa staring you down from 12 feet up.That was art and a picture then.you can still do it in art form or tuck it away in a file.The freedom is what matters,no more galleries to show around with all your relatives staring down with impressionist style portrayals

I think that photography has not lost its artistic soul, but rather is alive. Every day and every person who takes or makes an image is being allowed to capture their world in that instant. You may not like that fact that photography is changing with the new technology, but I say that we are just the next movement in the history of photography. I just don't understand why someone who should embrace change would want to stem its flow when there is an explosion of creativity that allows arts to cross lines that they have never been able to before. You can create art on a computer or camera and add some of your style from painting as well as put it to music while being displayed in your gallery. My generations art is becoming all inclusive. And personally, I love it.

As a professional photographer for 26 years it is sad to see light and art go by the wayside. I still do work more as a hobby beacause anybody wh can buy a $2.000 camera is now in the business. I went to Europe in my 20s and worked under a German Master Herr Spann, who father was also a photographer. In the darkroom only slight manipulation of Henri Cartier "Desisive Moment" was manipulated. Now we change hair color take out braces and blemishes, fat rolls from neck all on the computer. Digital photgraphy is much better environmentally! No more harsh cemicals down the drain. But now it this the moment, the second of ummanipulated beauty that is going down the drain....

I beg to differ, I don't think art has ever been about reality, even before impressionist took over. In those hyper-realistic portraits painted by the masters, of Pinky or Blue Boy, I'm sure the artist didn't bother to add the skin blemishes that were certainly there, and landscapes were altered if an errant tree was blocking an otherwise perfect rendition of a valley. Even unaltered photographs are just an interpretation of an slice of time. Without the fabrication of macro photography, we might overlook the yellow pollen sprinkled on the red flower petal. Without Harold Edgertons invention of the flash, we might never have seen the power of a fighters blow. How boring would photos be, if were were forced to use 50mm lenses so as not to distort reality ,or relegated to f64, so as not to create shallow depth of field. When I take photos, I want people to experience how I felt when I took the shot. If I want them to feel the congestion of the city, I'll use my telephoto to compress the distances. If I want them to feel the expanse of the desert I'll use my fisheye. If I want them to feel my sadness I might pull the color out of a shot. In short, I don't think photography, or any art medium can ever be about the truth, even if we are shooting for forensic science, the human operator will always add their own interpretation of what he or she sees.

I beg to differ, I don't think art has ever been about reality, even before impressionist took over. In those hyper-realistic portraits painted by the masters, of Pinky or Blue Boy, I'm sure the artist didn't bother to add the skin blemishes that were certainly there, and landscapes were altered if an errant tree was blocking an otherwise perfect rendition of a valley. Even unaltered photographs are just an interpretation of an slice of time. Without the fabrication of macro photography, we might overlook the yellow pollen sprinkled on the red flower petal. Without Harold Edgertons invention of the flash, we might never have seen the power of a fighters blow. How boring would photos be, if were were forced to use 50mm lenses so as not to distort reality ,or relegated to f64, so as not to create shallow depth of field. When I take photos, I want people to experience how I felt when I took the shot. If I want them to feel the congestion of the city, I'll use my telephoto to compress the distances. If I want them to feel the expanse of the desert I'll use my fisheye. If I want them to feel my sadness I might pull the color out of a shot. In short, I don't think photography, or any art medium can ever be about the truth, even if we are shooting for forensic science, the human operator will always add their own interpretation of what he or she sees.

Digital photography is ***, it is obvious. But it is a future. While digital film printing can make photography's craft quite a good thing. No big loose for slide to be printed by HQ scanner and printer in photolab. Slide stays still the same, not in form of chunks of bytes in waiting software.

Andrius Burlega
http://www.painter-decorator.eu

ThepeopleinLightnessPerception,machinevision,andneurosciencehaveforgedanewwayforphotographytotrulyrepresentvisualreality.Thisisnotmanipulation,butthewayrealityisseenbythebrainandeye.Photographyfromthecameraneverwaswhattheeyeandbrainactuallysaw.Soonthetechnologywillbeavailableforustodothistruly.Doyourhomework.
GeorgeDeWolfe
SeniorEditor
CameraArts