DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> "Is Photography Dead?"
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/04/2007 09:57:21 PM · #1
An interesting article I saw in the new edition of Newsweek.
12/04/2007 09:59:10 PM · #2
Without looking at the linked article, I'll just answer "Yes." and now we can all move on with our lives.
12/04/2007 10:06:19 PM · #3
Interesting article, Alan.

From page 2 of the linked article: "As the great modern photographer Lisette Model once said, 'Photography is the easiest art, which perhaps makes it the hardest.' She had no idea how easy exotic effects would get, and just how hard that would make it to capture beauty and truth in the same photograph. The next great photographers—if there are to be any—will have to find a way to reclaim photography's special link to reality. And they'll have to do it in a brand-new way."

I wonder what that brand-new way will be?

12/04/2007 10:10:18 PM · #4
Originally posted by L2:

Interesting article, Alan.

From page 2 of the linked article: "As the great modern photographer Lisette Model once said, 'Photography is the easiest art, which perhaps makes it the hardest.' She had no idea how easy exotic effects would get, and just how hard that would make it to capture beauty and truth in the same photograph. The next great photographers—if there are to be any—will have to find a way to reclaim photography's special link to reality. And they'll have to do it in a brand-new way."

I wonder what that brand-new way will be?

Nanotechnology! The image literally comes to life!

...and decides there is no use for "real" photography and seeks to destroy all the purists and turn the entire world into living forms of digital art.

Well, that's my plan anyway.
12/04/2007 10:10:48 PM · #5
Originally posted by L2:

Interesting article, Alan.



I wonder what that brand-new way will be?


Tri-x film and a darkroom

I agree a lot with article. It also has a lot do with photoshop is not photography. I believe and adhere to the idea that the image needs to made in the camera, not made in photoshop. I try to use photoshop in the same way I would use a darkroom except for sharpening which is an inherent need of digital photography.

Message edited by author 2007-12-04 22:15:05.
12/04/2007 10:12:19 PM · #6
"...the medium seems to have lost its soul. 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. By now, we've witnessed all the magical morphing and seen all the clever tricks that have turned so many photographers—formerly bearers of truth—into conjurers of fiction. It's hard to say "gee whiz" anymore."
12/04/2007 10:14:12 PM · #7
Originally posted by alanfreed:

"...the medium seems to have lost its soul. 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. By now, we've witnessed all the magical morphing and seen all the clever tricks that have turned so many photographers—formerly bearers of truth—into conjurers of fiction. It's hard to say "gee whiz" anymore."

A fairy tale.

12/04/2007 10:21:01 PM · #8
Originally posted by L2:

I wonder what that brand-new way will be?

The one-pixel camera?
12/05/2007 12:38:14 AM · #9
An interesting article on a topic that has gotten a lot of play on this site. I haven't chimed in on other threads so I'll give it a shot here.

I think the art & form of photography can be delineated into two separate fields: (1) Photojournalism, as the pure & objective depiction of reality, and (2) the broad spectrum of 'fine art' photography, or whatever you want to call it. I would then define 'fine art' photography as any departure from the objectiveness of photojournalism, and argue that it exists on a spectrum, ranging from the minimally manipulative to the more extreme.

I used to work for my university's newspaper, and as with any other publication, we had strict guidelines limiting the extent to which we could manipulate photographs. We couldn't even ask people to turn around or get rid of unsightly power lines in the background. All we could do was 'correct' the image w/ color balance, curves, etc.. - no altering of the fundamentals of the image. Perhaps this is where I developed my bias.

For me, taking photographs of real events and real findings and real life is what its all about. I'm a national geographic person. The art for me is being a fly on the wall and capturing that moment, that slice of life, that reality, in a (hopefully) insightful way or (at least) aesthetically pleasing way. I'd say the key word there is reality. Any departure from truthful representation of a scene or event is not tolerated for the purposes of photojournalism, which aims to tell a story, and not (necessarily) give an opinion of it. So long as these standards of photojournalism remain in place, there is no danger of this sort of photography being "dead".

Having said all that that, I also absolutely adore photoshop and the myriad ways in which I can manipulate an image to distort its truthfulness, be it for aesthetic purposes, editorial purposes, or whatever. Modern digital photographers can do more creative things in PS than any photographers of old ever dreamed of.

So, in a manner of speaking, I'd agree that any photograph to the right of photojournalism on the manipulation spectrum is "dead". But who cares?

To me, it's all just a matter of degree, not principle.

Fine art photography is all about artistic expression anyway, so what if we're employing new tools? The way I see it, once you start posing people and setting up studios and all that, you've already stepped into the world of manipulating what is "real", and you're camera is no longer capturing the 'evidence of reality', as the author puts it. What matters is that you're still imposing your will on the components that fill up your frame. So anytime you depart from a 'pure' capture, any subsequent departure that takes you further down that manipulation spectrum is merely a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

In sum, unless you're committed to being an absolute purist, digital technologies are just expanding (and not fundamentally altering) the creative repertoire of the artistic photographer. They should be enjoyed for what they're worth and be accepted as an inevitable development in the ever-evolving world of art in general and photographic art in particular.

Thanks for reading,

Adam.
12/05/2007 02:00:51 AM · #10
Originally posted by AP:

An interesting article on a topic that has gotten a lot of play on this site. I haven't chimed in on other threads so I'll give it a shot here.

I think the art & form of photography can be delineated into two separate fields: (1) Photojournalism, as the pure & objective depiction of reality, and (2) the broad spectrum of 'fine art' photography, or whatever you want to call it. I would then define 'fine art' photography as any departure from the objectiveness of photojournalism, and argue that it exists on a spectrum, ranging from the minimally manipulative to the more extreme.

I used to work for my university's newspaper, and as with any other publication, we had strict guidelines limiting the extent to which we could manipulate photographs. We couldn't even ask people to turn around or get rid of unsightly power lines in the background. All we could do was 'correct' the image w/ color balance, curves, etc.. - no altering of the fundamentals of the image. Perhaps this is where I developed my bias.

For me, taking photographs of real events and real findings and real life is what its all about. I'm a national geographic person. The art for me is being a fly on the wall and capturing that moment, that slice of life, that reality, in a (hopefully) insightful way or (at least) aesthetically pleasing way. I'd say the key word there is reality. Any departure from truthful representation of a scene or event is not tolerated for the purposes of photojournalism, which aims to tell a story, and not (necessarily) give an opinion of it. So long as these standards of photojournalism remain in place, there is no danger of this sort of photography being "dead".

Having said all that that, I also absolutely adore photoshop and the myriad ways in which I can manipulate an image to distort its truthfulness, be it for aesthetic purposes, editorial purposes, or whatever. Modern digital photographers can do more creative things in PS than any photographers of old ever dreamed of.

So, in a manner of speaking, I'd agree that any photograph to the right of photojournalism on the manipulation spectrum is "dead". But who cares?

To me, it's all just a matter of degree, not principle.

Fine art photography is all about artistic expression anyway, so what if we're employing new tools? The way I see it, once you start posing people and setting up studios and all that, you've already stepped into the world of manipulating what is "real", and you're camera is no longer capturing the 'evidence of reality', as the author puts it. What matters is that you're still imposing your will on the components that fill up your frame. So anytime you depart from a 'pure' capture, any subsequent departure that takes you further down that manipulation spectrum is merely a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

In sum, unless you're committed to being an absolute purist, digital technologies are just expanding (and not fundamentally altering) the creative repertoire of the artistic photographer. They should be enjoyed for what they're worth and be accepted as an inevitable development in the ever-evolving world of art in general and photographic art in particular.

Thanks for reading,

Adam.


Great post!
12/05/2007 02:43:28 AM · #11
You know, I must say I really think we should post Adam's statement every single time the, "photoshop is it photography" question comes up. This is right on the money in my opinion. There will always be the Pulitzer shot caught right at the moment of grief, joy, pain, or whatever. Those are just as was stated photojournalism. That most certainly is not dead it is just harder to find in this video is everywhere instantly world. Well done Adam, put as well as I think I have ever heard it stated.
12/05/2007 07:26:34 AM · #12
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by AP:

An interesting article on a topic that has gotten a lot of play on this site. I haven't chimed in on other threads so I'll give it a shot here.

I think the art & form of photography can be delineated into two separate fields: (1) Photojournalism, as the pure & objective depiction of reality, and (2) the broad spectrum of 'fine art' photography, or whatever you want to call it. I would then define 'fine art' photography as any departure from the objectiveness of photojournalism, and argue that it exists on a spectrum, ranging from the minimally manipulative to the more extreme.

I used to work for my university's newspaper, and as with any other publication, we had strict guidelines limiting the extent to which we could manipulate photographs. We couldn't even ask people to turn around or get rid of unsightly power lines in the background. All we could do was 'correct' the image w/ color balance, curves, etc.. - no altering of the fundamentals of the image. Perhaps this is where I developed my bias.

For me, taking photographs of real events and real findings and real life is what its all about. I'm a national geographic person. The art for me is being a fly on the wall and capturing that moment, that slice of life, that reality, in a (hopefully) insightful way or (at least) aesthetically pleasing way. I'd say the key word there is reality. Any departure from truthful representation of a scene or event is not tolerated for the purposes of photojournalism, which aims to tell a story, and not (necessarily) give an opinion of it. So long as these standards of photojournalism remain in place, there is no danger of this sort of photography being "dead".

Having said all that that, I also absolutely adore photoshop and the myriad ways in which I can manipulate an image to distort its truthfulness, be it for aesthetic purposes, editorial purposes, or whatever. Modern digital photographers can do more creative things in PS than any photographers of old ever dreamed of.

So, in a manner of speaking, I'd agree that any photograph to the right of photojournalism on the manipulation spectrum is "dead". But who cares?

To me, it's all just a matter of degree, not principle.

Fine art photography is all about artistic expression anyway, so what if we're employing new tools? The way I see it, once you start posing people and setting up studios and all that, you've already stepped into the world of manipulating what is "real", and you're camera is no longer capturing the 'evidence of reality', as the author puts it. What matters is that you're still imposing your will on the components that fill up your frame. So anytime you depart from a 'pure' capture, any subsequent departure that takes you further down that manipulation spectrum is merely a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

In sum, unless you're committed to being an absolute purist, digital technologies are just expanding (and not fundamentally altering) the creative repertoire of the artistic photographer. They should be enjoyed for what they're worth and be accepted as an inevitable development in the ever-evolving world of art in general and photographic art in particular.

Thanks for reading,

Adam.


Great post!


Well, that about sums it up for me, as well. Great post.
12/05/2007 08:18:32 AM · #13
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:

Originally posted by L2:

Interesting article, Alan.



I wonder what that brand-new way will be?


Tri-x film and a darkroom

I agree a lot with article. It also has a lot do with photoshop is not photography. I believe and adhere to the idea that the image needs to made in the camera, not made in photoshop. I try to use photoshop in the same way I would use a darkroom except for sharpening which is an inherent need of digital photography.


yes. exactly. tri-x was my addiction of choice... 4 or 5 rolls a day at one point.
12/05/2007 09:17:20 AM · #14
Originally posted by xianart:

Originally posted by iamkmaniam:

Originally posted by L2:

Interesting article, Alan.



I wonder what that brand-new way will be?


Tri-x film and a darkroom

I agree a lot with article. It also has a lot do with photoshop is not photography. I believe and adhere to the idea that the image needs to made in the camera, not made in photoshop. I try to use photoshop in the same way I would use a darkroom except for sharpening which is an inherent need of digital photography.


yes. exactly. tri-x was my addiction of choice... 4 or 5 rolls a day at one point.


I preferred Pan-X in 35mm and Super XX for sheet film.
12/05/2007 09:17:52 AM · #15
Truth in photography



Click for a larger version.

Message edited by author 2007-12-05 09:25:54.
12/05/2007 09:30:54 AM · #16
wow, gordon. a very powerful image. thanks for introducing me to eric beaudelaire.

that just goes to show what i always say - the camera lies, even if just by omission. context is everything.

Message edited by author 2007-12-05 09:31:37.
12/05/2007 04:51:42 PM · #17
Originally posted by AP:

Read above


here here!
12/05/2007 05:35:21 PM · #18
deleted, posted in wrong thread

Message edited by author 2007-12-05 17:36:30.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 10:59:42 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 10:59:42 AM EDT.