What is Digg?171 Comments
- Bonesy17, on 12/03/2007, -8/+130There's this site called Flickr.com, don't know if you've heard of it. Go there and tell me that photography is dead.
- grumpyrain, on 12/03/2007, -1/+77Absolutely not. While it is true that we have collectively lost some of our techniques to our cameras that meter and automatically set almost every conceivable setting, it is accessible now to the masses in a way we have never seen before. Manipulation of photographs didn't come about because of Photoshop. It has all been done before in dark rooms with manual processes. But we now have this art accessible and affordable in a way that it has never been before. The format is now much more helpful in teaching you. I can look at any photo I have taken in the last 3 years and see exactly what aperture, shutter speed, flash sync, ISO, meter mode, I used for a given situation, and use this information to improve my shots in the future. I now understand the apertures where my lenses are sharpest, and have a good understanding of the DOF I can expect for a particular focal length / aperture. Furthermore, I can review the histogram to check my exposure immediately after the photo. Instead of getting back a roll of film with 10 usable prints, I only submit the prints that are worthwhile. Through flickr / photobucket / whatever, I can share these photos with friends and family in a way and in a time frame that was not possible with film. The expense of playing around has also been reduced, letting people try out painting with light , IR (for some cameras anyway) and other techniques. If it doesn't work, no money lost, press delete and try something else. There will always be a special place for film, but to argue that without it photography is dead is plain wrong.
- borninda818, on 12/03/2007, -5/+39It has more soul than it every did. People just don't trust it anymore as a source of information. If you need proof look at digg. [pic]s > [vid]s
- Pissoff, on 12/03/2007, -2/+31Amateurs don't change the quality or validity of a good photographer's work.
Don't be elitist snob, oh wait, your handle is,, never mind. - Xanin, on 12/03/2007, -3/+24Umm...no?
- cinder, on 12/03/2007, -2/+20"Nietzsche is dead." --Photography
- ekso, on 12/03/2007, -7/+24Photography is dead!! Long live photography!!
The world changes. Thank goodness. Get over it. - inactive, on 12/03/2007, -5/+21All forms of art are dead. Art was officially killed in 1961 by Piero Manzoni.
http://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/maincan.htm
Art doesn't mean anything anymore. Everything is art, therefore nothing is art. Quality of execution doesn't have a value anymore. You could litteraly paint anything and if you know the right people, it will be sold as a great work of art. This applies to all forms of art except cooking. Talent has nothing to do with it anymore. - mscf, on 12/03/2007, -0/+14How many times have we heard this refrain? Now that computers are competent musicians where is the "real" music? Now that anyone can report the news, and people are empowered to choose what is important to them, where will people go to find "real" news? Now that people form virtual communities online, what of "real" communities?
It isn't that valid concerns aren't raised by those who ask these questions, but that they are asked rhetorically. Does photography lose impact and immediacy when the tools for photomanipulation empower photographers to create any vision they have the talent to produce? That is a good question, but in the case of this article it is a statement masquerading as a question.
Besides, from the very beginning photographers developed techniques to shape the perception of those who viewed their work. They seem simple and easily recognizable to our eyes because we have lived with them for years. Digital photomanipulation is just the latest example of this trend using the tools currently available. - jdh358, on 12/03/2007, -3/+17It is digitization I think, not digitalization.
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -0/+13Is _______ dead? Shut up already. People are still taking pictures for the sake of art, right? So then it's not dead. If you think the soul of photography is dead, then go out there and take some pictures.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -1/+14Photographic manipulation predates computers by a long shot.
- ironicsans, on 12/03/2007, -2/+13Perhaps the author of this article, painter Peter Plagens, is worried that his own medium is dying now that photographers can do more and more with their cameras. I'm not saying that painting is dead, as I know some gifted painters who are doing just fine. But I wonder if Mr. Plagens has considered the other side of the coin.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -0/+11The article's author (wrongly) assumes that photographic manipulation was started with computers, and that manipulations of photography (both in the dark room and via software) gut photography of it's soul.
As an artist I can tell you, there is a place for both types of photography in the art world; just because it's a lot easier for the random person to take pictures, manipulate them, and publish them online, the art of photography is still very much alive, and it still takes an artistic eye to be able to take good photos and manipulate them professionally. If this weren't the case, the professional photographer would be extinct, and such is not the case.
I blame websites like deviantart and flickr for making professional photography seem less viable to many... but the exposure of photography to the masses as an art form is the price paid. - kadesoto, on 12/03/2007, -0/+10"Lost its soul?" Come on. People take photographs for hundreds of reasons. It doesn't mean photography's going down the tubes if some of those reasons aren't for high art's sake.
- oldhick, on 12/03/2007, -0/+9Did you read any of the article?
- bossm4n, on 12/03/2007, -0/+8The articles author is confused between the truth/realism present and expected in photojournalism vs truth and beauty typically manifested in classic and modern art. These are not necessarily the same ideas. It is a long-standing argument as to whether photojournalism is even art in the first place. Certainly if an image that is supposed to be displaying facts is manipulated, it no longer can or should be considered journalistic. Does this all mean photography is dead? Absolutely not. Although so much more can be done with an image after the fact because of advances in technology, the fundamentals of photography still apply. A great photographer can still create great images even with crappy equipment. The finest tools available do not necessarily turn anyone into a great photographer.
- kuchino, on 12/03/2007, -0/+8I am pretty sure you didn't read the entire article
- endus, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7Will the Luddites ever stop?
I am so tired of this argument as far as photography goes. This is the new hip thing to complain about in the photography world. Go out at night, point the camera at a highway, and open the shutter for 30 seconds and tell me whether what you see on the film is what you saw in reality. Slap an ND filter on your camera and point it at a waterfall and tell me if what you see on the film is what you see in the photograph. Surreal imaging has been around for a while and nothing has changed with the advent of digital photography.
Photoshop is an incredible tool but rarely will it turn a bad photograph into a good one. Good photographers are still doing the exact same things that they have always done. Photoshop is also not particularly good at creating what was never there. Sure, you can clone out that power line that doesn't fit the composition, but is that really so different than some of the things Ansel Adams did to his shots in the darkroom? There is still the fundamental truth there. To the degree that photoshop can create things that were never there (which is limited and vastly overstated by people who don't know anything about it) there is a whole separate artistry involved there. PHOTOGRAPHERS are still dealing with reality.
What never gets mentioned in these sorts of myopic articles is digital imaging's ability to more accurately represent what is there. Is a fixed white balance film NOT distorting reality more than a properly white balanced digital photograph? Does velvia NOT increase the saturation of colors beyond what was there? Today I posted my first multirow pano on my site...
http://www.desolatemetropolis.com/dm/archives/2007 ...
...is looking at the same scene with an extremely limited field of view really more realistic than combining the images into a pano? Maybe the pano suffers from distortion and stitching errors, but is it not closer to the moments I spend actually standing on that stage than a single 16mm wide angle shot would be?
I am just so so so so so very tired of all the short sighted writing on photography I see these days. I understand that the glut of people calling themselves photographers who can't even expose or compose properly is annoying to those who have worked hard on their craft but, seriously, you reaaaally should have spent at least an hour working with photoshop before you are allowed to write articles like this. The overwhelming majority of people who talk like this don't know the first thing about the advantages and limitations of photoshop, and it shows in their writing. Of course there is potential with photoshop to do things that distort reality, but that potential existed with film as well. There is also no requirement that you distort reality when you do some basic sharpening and contrast adjustments to your shots, just as you would do in the darkroom.
The short answer is, no, photography is not dead and it is a ridiculous premise to imply that it is. Relax, buy a photoshop book, and take a walk into the 21st century. - bcat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7The thing is, photo manipulation is far, far older than digital imagining. Photography is "the last art form to be tethered to realism"? *****! Photography is just like any other art. Some photographers aim for realism, some don't. It's been this way since the beginning. Taking a good photo is important, but the real magic comes in post-processing. And yes, darkrooms can work just as much magic as Photoshop.
- manzoire, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7i'm a photographer and i must say, this person has no idea what he or she is talking about. honestly, photography is doing amazingly well. I take a photo course a great school and the work being created is phenomenal. I think the article should be called...."ARE MOVIES DEAD?" cause THAT'S where the cgi overload is. not in photo...
- smithjls, on 12/03/2007, -1/+8Have you heard of Google? Just start searching. The internet is one big DIY guide.
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6That's it. I'm getting my Nikon F3, C-41 supplies and color head enlarger out of the closet this weekend so I can feel nostalgic. The craft of photography in the lab is gone but not photography. It's no longer the ability to color balance or use contrast filters that makes a good photographer it's the composition, subject matter and catching the shot. The part of photography that takes place behind the camera is still alive.
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -4/+10Or DeviantArt.com.
There's a trend this days that tries to 'kill' everything. - inactive, on 12/03/2007, -1/+7Well I'm not saying that art won't still exist, I'm just saying that right now, it's completely devoid of meaning for the most part. Nothing distinguishes "good" art from "bad" art. The only thing that matters is how good the artist's agent is.
- sunchild, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6The proposition that digital manipulation killed photography is founded in ignorance about the history of photographs. Look at the extreme manipulation that artists as diverse as Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon used to create their signature styles. If you think the truth value of photos was better in the past, do a little homework on Stalinist Russia.
This argument is really ignorant. - fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6Photoshop is nice, but photoshop alone won't make your work look professional.
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5negative
- Subvexer, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5Yeah, just as dead as printed novels became after film became possible.
- endustry, on 12/03/2007, -1/+6Call me a hick but I still shoot film.
- fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5I think the d200 or 20 megapixel people are wrong to abuse anyone that chooses film over digital. That said... I think you're just as wrong as they are if you think working in a darkroom with paper and chemicals makes you somehow superior.
At the end of the day... they're all just tools. Live and let live. - superkendall, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5Actually I would argue the opposite. Photoshop hackery is pretty easily detected unless the user performing it has a LOT of skill. In the film realm, you were not limited to the darkroom for maniupluation, but remember that back then knowledge of darkroom use was much more prevelent and so it was possible for a similarily wide range of people to affect images during development.
The changes being done are more sophisticated, but on a percentage basis I don't know the percentage of people capible of truly undetectable manipluation is all that much higher. - dgh1973, on 12/03/2007, -2/+7No, it's just digital now.
- zonk3r, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4As long as women are still willing to get naked photography will be alive and well. Or was that not the photography they were talking about?
- brufleth, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4That argument reminds me of a review I scribed for. If you're not familiar with these things, in art school they'll have reviews where a group of professors and visiting artists review a student's work and give their comments, critique, and recommendations. Anyway, this one artist made a comment that would have made me spit out my coffee had I been drinking it. He said something to the effect of, "This isn't really art it is just an experience you're creating for an individual." The piece was a very untraditional interactive piece of modern art. The viewer was encouraged to touch and interact with the work. It was very successful. People were in practice drawn to it and became immersed in it.
The idiot visiting artist had unwittingly given a reasonable definition of what art was in his attempt to discount an artistic work. The art of photography is not and never was about grounding itself in realism. A crappy photograph can still be made into an excellent piece of art or maybe stand even on its own as a crappy photograph as a piece of art. That's all subjective and anyone is invited to love or hate it.
Suggesting photography is dead is like suggesting literature died when literacy spread to common people. - bcat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's certainly not counter to the core principles of photography.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Anyone in the world can go out and buy a brush and canvas... does that mean that painting is dead too? Gimme a break man - it still takes both talent and skill to create interesting photography, just like every other artistic medium.
- HyperJack, on 12/03/2007, -2/+6Love the way that this article is on the front page at the same time as this, another photography related article:
http://digg.com/design/24_Awesome_Liquid_Droplet_P ... - Aleman360, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5Change is good.
- djnattyp, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Pool's closed
- zarand, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4On the contrary, film is still alive and well in this digital age. Yes, professional labs are dwindling and we are losing film emulsions from major manufacturers (RIP Kodak HIE), but the film community is still going strong. Just look at sites like photo.net or filmwasters.com. We are a thriving community no matter what they try to tell you. Film will always have a place in the digital world. Yes, there may be no commercial reason to shoot film (weddings, sporting events, etc) but the art of film and darkroom process is far from a hick market.
- coheedcollapse, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Not all of us. There are plenty of photojournalists around still. Personally, I hate touching any of my stuff with photoshop past basic levels.
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4I know that, it's just a lot more prevalent today because of digital technology; that's my point.
- dafragsta, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4You missed the point entirely. What he's saying is that people are sheep and accept some things as art just because other people say that art is desired by others. While some art might be nearly universally inspiring and really is art, a lot of it is over-inflated sense of value and worthiness bestowed by some rich or influential person who dubbed it fine art.
- betobeto, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4I heard somewhere that 99% of Flickr was pictures of drunk buddies hanging at Denny's at 2 AM. And cats. You may have a point.
- fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5If you want to use a camera to document those "special moments" you still can. If your photographs are banal, the only person to blame is the photographer.
- Bobbler, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5I personally think photography is more alive than it has ever been thanks to digital. People now have the ability to take hundreds of creative shots to try things out and then "rework" them when they get back home to further refine the results. You have no waiting while your film is processed to see how a shot turned out, you have it right there on the screen immediately.
The only downside I have noticed is that people dont seem to keep albums of family photos as much anymore. For me personally its not an issue as I can keep my photos on the web for relatives across the world to see, we also have several digital frames around the house for displaying pictures and finally we have a decent printer to just knock out copies if family fancy any of the digital copies they see.
I think digital photography is amazing personally and opens the hobby up to a huge new audience. You have a large proportion of people carrying round cameras with them everywhere in the form of mobile phones (agreed some are better at the task of photo taking than others though) and capturing images that can be shared across the world in moments.
The article is no different IMO than the arguments against when we had the transition from tape/record to CD media for audio. Some people are just unwilling to embrace new technology and seem insistent on holding on to the past. - tzon, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Did anyone else noticed that the article is "Sponsored by Kodak?" It is. Look on the left hand side at the top. A company with a vested interest in the continuing sales of film sponsoring an article against digital strikes me as unethical. Having said that, however, I agree with many of the points being made. I continue to shoot lots of film because I enjoy the darkroom experience, and frankly, I spend too much time in front of a computer screen as it is.
- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3It's only a matter of time before technology negates any perceived difference in what you consider a good photo, and what can be done in photoshop. Even now, very few people in the world even know what to look for in a "great" photo, and the internet buries them in the best there is to offer. How will yours stand out?
- FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3To you, sunsets may be passé, but don't forget that to new(er) people who haven't been exposed to everything yet, they may be the best photo in the world.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is