Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Is Photography Dead?
newsweek.com — The last art form to be tethered to realism, its factual validity has lately been manipulated and pixelated to the point of extinction. Digitalization has made much of art photography's vast variety possible. But it's also a major reason that, 25 years after the technology exploded what photography could do, the medium seems to have lost its soul.
tomboy501- 694 diggs
- digg it
- 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
- 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.
- OwdenBowden, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1On the Contrary - Photography is alive and well and being used by the masses EVERYDAY. Just look at all of the devices that we have today where the main selling point is a camera...
- fyngyrz, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Art and truth were never fast friends as the article pontificates. Science and truth are friends; Art and *opinion* are friends. And for that matter, religion and lies are best buddies.
- ophello, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3No. Next question.
- 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.
- rpgmaker, on 12/03/2007, -4/+10Or DeviantArt.com.
There's a trend this days that tries to 'kill' everything.- rubbers0ul, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Speaking of DA, it would probably be alright if all the furries left however...
- joeycerone, on 12/03/2007, -2/+4Amen!
- kuchino, on 12/03/2007, -0/+8I am pretty sure you didn't read the entire article
- oldhick, on 12/03/2007, -0/+9Did you read any of the article?
- bcat, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2Indeed. Look at this set http://www.flickr.com/photos/10325384@N07/ and tell me photography is dead.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2I think if the title was altered to say that "Good Photography on Flickr and DeviantArt is Dead" then I might have agreed.
- rpgmaker, on 12/03/2007, -4/+10Or DeviantArt.com.
- jdh358, on 12/03/2007, -3/+17It is digitization I think, not digitalization.
- r3zonance, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3They wanted to sound more intelligent by using a longer word :P
- allenu, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1They used the right word. Digitization is the process of converting an analog signal into discrete digital points. Digitalization means the idea of the whole field of photography moving into the digital realm of technology.
- 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.
- rpgmaker, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3Wow. Thumbs up for you. I feel attracted to photography since my childhood but I haven't started it yet. I would like you to point me out some good sites for starters, please.
- smithjls, on 12/03/2007, -1/+8Have you heard of Google? Just start searching. The internet is one big DIY guide.
- grumpyrain, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1dpreview.com is an excellent resource, as is KenRockwell.com. Even wikipedia has a good photography portal. Do your research, and don't just buy the camera with the biggest megapixel count. If you see a photo you like on flickr or whatever, don't be afraid to ask them how they achieved the effect. Learn the basics of exposure as well as how your camera works. The rule of thirds will help you when you start out to not take photos that suck. Avoid camera shake and motion blur at any cost. These are close to uncorrectable.
- glenneroo, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3That isn't the writer's gripe, in case you didn't read the article, it's about manipulation of images until they are so far-fetched and beyond reality that they become pure fantasy, thus leaving the viewer unable to discern if the image still contains any bits of reality.
- 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.
- glenneroo, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Well what are the core principles of photography? What is photography? Manipulation of light? If so, is photo-manipulation playing with light? hmm...
I'm not personally against digital manipulations, in fact i follow quite a few manipulators works and work closely with a few others but the article is just trying to say (i think) that the reality of what photography USED to give us, that is, that we could (usually) trust photographs to be a true piece of reality, is leaving us quickly and soon, if not already the day is here, we are unable to discern between reality and fiction, depending mostly on the talent of the manipulator.
- glenneroo, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Well what are the core principles of photography? What is photography? Manipulation of light? If so, is photo-manipulation playing with light? hmm...
- 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. - djKianoosh, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3i dont even think that was the writer's point either.. he's just saying photography is going through another phase...
at this point, if you can't accept the fact that photography is irrevocably changed and different because of "digitalization", then nothing will change your mind and you'll be stuck in the past.
let's just deal with it. if you want to make art, go ahead. if you want to be super geeky technical with your prints and technique and all, shoot. if you just want to snap some shots and not be bothered, enjoy. nothing is mutually exclusive. we can all enjoy.
now go to my flickr page :) http://flickr.com/photos/djkianoosh
- 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.
- rpgmaker, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3Wow. Thumbs up for you. I feel attracted to photography since my childhood but I haven't started it yet. I would like you to point me out some good sites for starters, please.
- hipsterelitist, on 12/03/2007, -23/+4The ease of digital shooting just opens the floodgates to amateurs and will only dilute the quality and validity of photography as an art form. Look what youtube did to video on the web (and maybe even TV!)
- 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. - dbucky, on 12/03/2007, -1/+0when "the floodgates" of music were opened (by napster, etc.) was the quality of music diluted? or did people actually get a real chance to find out about artists who weren't tied to a major record label?
with competition the best products/art/whatever always rises to the top. now everyone will be pushed to be even more creative. - brufleth, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3That is one of the dumbest comments I've ever read.
- Pissoff, on 12/03/2007, -2/+31Amateurs don't change the quality or validity of a good photographer's work.
- ekso, on 12/03/2007, -7/+24Photography is dead!! Long live photography!!
The world changes. Thank goodness. Get over it.- djKianoosh, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2preach on brotha.. i'm with you
- Xanin, on 12/03/2007, -3/+24Umm...no?
- 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.
- Toupee, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I don't believe the medium is "dying", just "changing", but I think the article has a very important point. You can look at photographs from decades past and have a very strong sense that what you see was reality in some sense. Sure, photos have ALWAYS had the potential to be staged, and I'm sure many things can be done with a darkroom and a lot of experience, but the advent of digital has changed things in profound ways.
If you can't see his point, think about a copy of Playboy from the 60s and a copy of Playboy today, plucked at peak ripeness from the soil of a Photoshopper's garden.
That's what's gone.
- Toupee, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I don't believe the medium is "dying", just "changing", but I think the article has a very important point. You can look at photographs from decades past and have a very strong sense that what you see was reality in some sense. Sure, photos have ALWAYS had the potential to be staged, and I'm sure many things can be done with a darkroom and a lot of experience, but the advent of digital has changed things in profound ways.
- ElAssoWipo, 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.- timewarp424, on 12/03/2007, -3/+5I think this would be a good time to point out that art goes through phases. Whereas right now, we seem to be in a post modern era with what you're talking about and an idealistic era with photography, it won't stay that way for ever. Like every movement, people will get sick of the current era and say "this isn't how reality really is." Then it'll change. To think that art is dead is to be naive.
- ElAssoWipo, 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.
- glenneroo, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Again you're concentrating on the financial side of creating "art"... which IMHO (nothing personal) is stupid and pointless and further degenerates art to the level you're comparing it to... will this abstract piece sell? Of course you can sell anything, just go on EBAY hehe ;)
- brufleth, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1"Nothing distinguishes "good" art from "bad" art."
I disagree. I am quite good at determining if I like something or not. I'm pretty sure many people are equally gifted at determining if they like something or not too.
- 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.
- ElAssoWipo, 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.
- glenneroo, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3What does the ability of something to sell (via knowing the right people) have anything to do with art? Sure you can label anything you want art, including artist's poo, and sell it if you knew the right people or were famous enough or whatever, but does that make it art? Of course it's very subjective, what some call art, others call garbage and vice-versa. So what? There are probably as many arguments and counter-arguments for what constitutes art that nobody would ever win, it's all in the maker's eyes. Do you photograph to remember something, or do you consciously try to be creative and make something that will please the eyes of your viewers? There's a big difference... even if you are talented at taking wedding photos because you know some rules, but are you still making art? What's your goal in the process?
Anyways i'm rambling, i think you're attaching too much value to being able to sell something as justifying it being a piece of art. I rarely make any money off my work, but i also don't care because i'm just trying to make something beautiful...- ElAssoWipo, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1"What does the ability of something to sell (via knowing the right people) have anything to do with art"
Artist without money = no art.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1"What does the ability of something to sell (via knowing the right people) have anything to do with art"
- timewarp424, on 12/03/2007, -3/+5I think this would be a good time to point out that art goes through phases. Whereas right now, we seem to be in a post modern era with what you're talking about and an idealistic era with photography, it won't stay that way for ever. Like every movement, people will get sick of the current era and say "this isn't how reality really is." Then it'll change. To think that art is dead is to be naive.
- dgh1973, on 12/03/2007, -2/+7No, it's just digital now.
- Jeffiner25, on 12/03/2007, -6/+6Still can't get the quality of slide film.
- DarkDx, on 12/03/2007, -4/+3Don't know why you're being buried maybe the prepubescent diggers think "OMGZ ITS DIGITALZ ITS THE BESTZ OMG IM SO MODERN"
- Jeffiner25, on 12/03/2007, -6/+6Still can't get the quality of slide film.
- slashbot, on 12/03/2007, -6/+2Not if photoshop has anything to say about it!
- Velvolver, on 12/03/2007, -5/+0Big TL;DR on this, sorry
Still dug though - 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.- pantalonsofwar, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2Absolutely. Photomanipulation is merely an evolution of the form.
- deadnoob, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4well 5 out of the 10 top stories right now are pictures.
- MikeGrenade, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Well played.
- djKianoosh, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1touchee
- blackdude, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3Pictures have lost their value as being totally valid; videos will be next. But the art form is very much alive, it's just digital technology has affected the field a great deal. Besides, you should trust things with your own eyes, ears, and touch; of coarse until they are able to alter reality totally.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -1/+14Photographic manipulation predates computers by a long shot.
- blackdude, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4I know that, it's just a lot more prevalent today because of digital technology; that's my point.
- betobeto, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2Difference is, it took real chops to pull out a photo trick on the pre-digital days and have people fall for it. Now any half-talented hack with Photoshop can do it.
- 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.
- 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.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Prevalent yes, but where's the quality? It's not there, because it still takes a professional pair of eyes and hands to do the job right.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -1/+14Photographic manipulation predates computers by a long shot.
- 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 ... - cinder, on 12/03/2007, -2/+20"Nietzsche is dead." --Photography
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/03/2007, -3/+2I doubt anyone will get the reference. Funny though.
- espek, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Yes, and so is religion and literature. I'll be at the pool if anybody needs me.
- djnattyp, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Pool's closed
- neutrascrub, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2due to AIDS
- MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Oh snap, whatchu gonna do now?
- djnattyp, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Pool's closed
- Niubai, on 12/03/2007, -6/+1I really liked so much better when photos were used to keep special moments of our life. Now it's way more banal.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.- fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1If professional photography is indeed less viable, I think I would place the blame on the technology more than deviantart or flickr. In decades past, the entry requirements into professional quality photography we're pretty steep. Equipment was expensive, chemicals we're expensive, film was expensive. Now... that's all changed.
- brufleth, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Right. Now talent is more of a equalizer than resources.
- fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1That is it exactly. You said it far better than I.
- djKianoosh, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2exactly. technology is an enabler. you no longer need tons of money to get to a certain point in photography, though I bet real pros spend quite a bit on equipment still. at the end of the day though, spending time, not money, on your craft is what makes you a pro. (no matter what your occupation)
- brufleth, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Right. Now talent is more of a equalizer than resources.
- fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1If professional photography is indeed less viable, I think I would place the blame on the technology more than deviantart or flickr. In decades past, the entry requirements into professional quality photography we're pretty steep. Equipment was expensive, chemicals we're expensive, film was expensive. Now... that's all changed.
- 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.
- glenneroo, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Exactly. And just because 95% of the good photos you see today were manipulated in some way shape or form, doesn't mean photography has lost it's soul. ;) The question is, are your emotions still ravaged sometimes when you see an amazing photograph, manipulated or not? That's a photograph's soul, at least for me.
- omgwthlol, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5negative
- endustry, on 12/03/2007, -1/+6Call me a hick but I still shoot film.
- 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.
- 68024, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Good for you, but imo neither film or digital should exclude eachother. They're just different techniques with different possibilities and results. Hell, there are still artists around who use cyanotypes like they did 100 years ago. Just because one is becoming more popular than the other is not detrimental to the results of either technique.
- blueshock, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I'm a professional that still shoots film for some things.
Two points. Nobody's likely soon to make a 100+ megapixel sensor that can capture 9-10 stops of range. When they do, then 4x5 format might be dead.
Film + C41 is a mature technology, requiring little intervention from pressing the shutter to passing out the photos; digital has not yet attained this level.
- zachberry, 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.
- lucciinthesky, on 12/03/2007, -2/+4Look at the article RIGHT under this
24 Awesome Liquid Droplet Photos Shot at Just the Right Moment [PICS] - Subvexer, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5Yeah, just as dead as printed novels became after film became possible.
- ajb2015, on 12/03/2007, -6/+1yeah but "photographers" are a dime a dozen now, and just because their work looks professional (thanks to photoshop), doesn't mean it is good art.
- fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6Photoshop is nice, but photoshop alone won't make your work look professional.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Exactly.
- perryge, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Also, speaking as a photographer here, professional photography is rarely art. Sports, weddings,fashion, and commercial photography - these take mastery of technique, lighting, timing, and many other things, and are often examples of SUPERB photography. But a lot of pros won't go touting their work as 'art'; it's done for a job, and executed very well, but that doesn't make it art. A lot of good photographic 'art' is done by advanced amateurs with the freedom to shoot without worrying about getting paid or published, or by professionals in their spare time on the side.
Sure the ability and know-how to do photography may be AN art, but well-executed professional work isn't automatically art.
- fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6Photoshop is nice, but photoshop alone won't make your work look professional.
- 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...
- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Is the work being created 'phenomenal' only in the little bubble of your classroom? Does it make any impact on the world like individual photos used to?
- manzoire, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2i would say yes. this college i go to, we all get summer jobs, on the basis of our work. so our work does shine through to commercals, and other advertisements. The photo's are used for all kinds of things around the campus (which is in the middle of the city).
but does it matter? Good work is good work. When i take a pic of something, i say, would i want to hang this up in my own room? It's not just about what the world thinks or sees, but also what the image means to you personally. but it is really really stupid and ignorant to call photography dead.
- manzoire, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2i would say yes. this college i go to, we all get summer jobs, on the basis of our work. so our work does shine through to commercals, and other advertisements. The photo's are used for all kinds of things around the campus (which is in the middle of the city).
- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Is the work being created 'phenomenal' only in the little bubble of your classroom? Does it make any impact on the world like individual photos used to?
- Aleman360, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5Change is good.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I agree with your statement, but I don't see how it applies to this article, so I buried it.
- 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.
- 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.- glenneroo, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Read the article (again). His major gripe is that there's no more REALITY in the pictures because everyone is manipulating every last pixel of their images with 101 free Photoshop(tm)(r) plugins, thus most of the art we think we see is in fact completely fictitious and manipulated. Sure it was possible with film, but it was a LOT of work and it definitely wasn't a common technique, you could be pretty sure if you saw a photograph processed from film that it was real, whereas nowadays you have to ask yourself how many filters, fix-ups, etc went in to making that shot the way it is.
The question he asks is either wrong or people just aren't reading the article. Maybe it should be something like, Is the Reality in/of Photograph Dead? ..or something...
- glenneroo, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Read the article (again). His major gripe is that there's no more REALITY in the pictures because everyone is manipulating every last pixel of their images with 101 free Photoshop(tm)(r) plugins, thus most of the art we think we see is in fact completely fictitious and manipulated. Sure it was possible with film, but it was a LOT of work and it definitely wasn't a common technique, you could be pretty sure if you saw a photograph processed from film that it was real, whereas nowadays you have to ask yourself how many filters, fix-ups, etc went in to making that shot the way it is.
- skinturtle, on 12/03/2007, -6/+1The mentality of.."I have digital camera..therefore I is photographer." ruins a lot of it. Everyone and their cat and dog has a digital camera one now so in order to get to the real good and skillfully taken pics, you have to wade through all the crap now.
Art is being buried alive.- 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.
- 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.- glenneroo, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3Yea but just because Stalinist Russia had the money and skills at the time to do such insane photo-chopping, didn't mean it was mainstream or at all even believable by the masses. I think it was assumed that photographs were real and not modified in any way because it was hard for people to comprehend that reality. However with the use of Photoshop and computers, which the general population of the art-enjoying-world knows about and has at least a basic comprehension of i.e. that manipulation happens in (digital) photography, it's considerably more likely that a photograph was manipulated in some way (pick your favorite photoshop filter) before it goes "live". You have to question every photograph you see and you can't just assume it's real, in fact you probably have to assume it's not real... guilty until proven innocent?
- 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.
- ejpusa, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3WHENEVER you think photography is "dead", take a look at James Nachtwey's work. Pretty mind blowing. I guess at the moment he is the worlds most celebrated photojournalist.
-------
Photojournalist James Nachtwey is considered by many to be the greatest war photographer of recent decades. He has covered conflicts and major social issues in more than 30 countries.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/84- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1He may be a great photography, but the shocking nature of the photos is a large part of the awe. Once people are sick of looking at it and it becomes commonplace, it won't have the impact. We are running out of things to be impacted by.
- moonguidex, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1He´s great , but he´s been around for a while. I think what the article meant was the spirit of photography, which is missing in the new megapixel obsessed generations..
- ka9dgx, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Following the sage advice of Ken Rockwell, I opted to by the 6 megapixel Nikon D40 instead of the new 10 megapixel model... because it takes better photos.
I've got a lot of old photos from 2 megapixel cameras that are acceptable, and noise is the main issue, not resolution.
We're not all obsessed with megapixels. Some of us like to do panoramas and things as well.- moonguidex, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1He´s a great starting point, and the d40 is a great camera, i´ve taken great pics with it. Especially at concerts..but we´re talking entry level , I mean the guy who spends $8,000 on a camera because it has 3 more megapixels than the one he had before,...
- ka9dgx, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Following the sage advice of Ken Rockwell, I opted to by the 6 megapixel Nikon D40 instead of the new 10 megapixel model... because it takes better photos.
- carbonetc, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I saw that a few months ago. I love how humble he is. He seems to make everything about the work rather than about himself, which is where so many artists have gone astray.
He also kinda looks like Hugh Hefner's "good twin" secretly given away for adoption.
- Deepwood, on 12/03/2007, -2/+5IS PHOTOGRAPHY DEAD?? [PIC]
- Shaymus22, on 12/03/2007, -7/+1The answer to your question is "no";
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shaymus22- FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Plugging your own photography doesn't really help your statement.
- glenneroo, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1i hope you weren't being serious.
- Simonft, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1As a source, yes. As an art, no.
- micklerlop, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3photography is always evolving ... just like most things. article is boring...
- Iaianrocks, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2everyones a critic --- this fits the profile of a standard pos article that makes front page on digg. bitch about something and make a unprovable claim. photography can only die in the eyes of uninspired individuals.
- Th3Hamburgler, on 12/03/2007, -2/+0*snip*
- citizen782, 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.
- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3As long as you are content shooting pictures for the sake of shooting pictures, or for your own collection, you are right. No one else really care these days, unfortunately. You show them a cool photo you took, then they return you a link from google with 100 pages of equal or better versions of the same damn thing. I love the internet, but it really is taking away the good old mysteries out there. All we can hope is that the human race turns it's eyes toward space to find new wonder.
- Zippo, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3Considering the lively community on Flickr, and as a graphic designer, the answer is most certainly "no".
Besides, pics or it didn't happen.- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Yeah, but now everyone just yells fake at any video or picture they see. I showed people photos that I personally shot, and then had to argue with them about whether they were fake or not. It's ludicrous, really. Flickr will only help accelerate the end of photography as anything other than 10 second entertainment bites.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I think there are better examples than Flickr as to why photography is still considered an art.
- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3There is another problem as well.
At what point have we photographed the world to death? If you can't trust pictures as information anymore, and everyone is sick of seeing the same basic photos (scenic, sunsets, wildlife, etc), then who gives a *****? I'm a hobbyist photographer, and the odds of me shooting a picture that will wow anyone these days are slim and none. Almost everyone has seen the best photography the world has to offer, thanks to the internet. Modern cameras make taking a good photo a thoughtless point and click exercise. Yes, you need skills to take "great" photos, and you certainly need an eye for framing a picture, but doesn't it all still get lost in the white noise of the internet?
This is another reason why the media focuses all it's attention on PEOPLE, and their freak show habits these days. Nothing else seems interesting anymore, though I would argue the garbage the media presents isn't interesting either. The masses seem to disagree judging by ratings. It's all been done to death, it seems. People will get sick of learning about how weird other people are soon, then what will be next? Interesting times....- 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.
- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Yes, but when you can hit up google and be presented with 100,000 fantastic sunset pictures, who cares about the one you will take next week? I think part of the awe in photography was in the rarity of the shots themselves. Once the rarity goes away, it's just noise, and possibly a few standouts that I take exactly 7 seconds to ponder before moving on to something else.
- 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.
- DjDATZ, on 12/03/2007, -5/+2Hit up my brother's Flickr page and tell me photography is dead. Then look at the rest of Flickr and you'll understand.
None of his images have been digitally edited except for auto contrasting on some...Most are original.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruno_z/- fnaqzna, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Your brother has some talent.
- dafragsta, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2FUD
- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1yeah, everyone fears photography being dead, ya *****. I bet you've been waiting all morning for a post to stick "FUD" on. You should have waited, because it doesn't make sense here.
- dafragsta, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1FUD doesn't require that anyone actually fears anything... ya *****. FUD simply implies someone is invoking fear, uncertainty and doubt. What purpose does saying "photography is dead/dying" serve? Does it make people feel warm and cozy? It's just a pot-stirring thing to say, regardless of it's legitimacy. FUD can be used to serve the media as much as the subject matter. Usually when someone invokes FUD, it's not for something people already fear, it's to sew the seeds of fear.
- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1yeah, everyone fears photography being dead, ya *****. I bet you've been waiting all morning for a post to stick "FUD" on. You should have waited, because it doesn't make sense here.
- SpiroPope, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3In the same way as graphic design died when QuarkXpress came along / carpentry died when hardware stores started stocking hammers for the masses etc etc etc. New tools don't kill the art, they just make it more accessible. But tools are just that - tools. It's what is produced with them that matters. This is just a lazy article by a luddite with no intellectual depth. Yawn.
- moonguidex, on 12/03/2007, -4/+2True...meanwhile, I´m still rocking with my FM2 (with the titanium shutter), enduring the abuse from people with d200´s or some other 20 megapixel dslr while taking photographs in concerts or events, laughing to my insides because these people will not know the pleasure of coming out of the dark room with a black and white picture exposed to your liking. (I still prefer black and white). Especially knowing that I can blow up that picture the size of a wall, and it won´t look like a bunch of blocks and sharp edges...
- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -1/+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?
- 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. - blueshock, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2I love the FM2, and my favorite camera is the FM3A, as it can operate without batteries.
It stays in my camera bag as a backup, because it is bulletproof.- moonguidex, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Not only bulletproof, it weighs a ton, so it´s great for hitting dslr owners upside the head...hehe, kidding.
- LittlemanTAMU, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2I share your joy of the darkroom, but disagree that film will always give you a better enlargement than digital, especially 35mm film. You might have more of a case with medium- or large-format film, but there's always the argument that digital gives you more "uptime". Film and digital are both wonderful and I wish every photographer could take the time to learn to enjoy both, but the fact is most people don't have that time. I'm just happy that digital has made it so that more people can enjoy photography even if it means more people who don't enjoy it the way I do or even learn basic composition (as much as I wish they would).
- 68024, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Well I don't know. Image manipulation is nothing new. Just look at what possibilities existed in the past in the dark room, and how many of the classic photographers used this. Digital photography has only expanded on the possibilities.
- HenkMul, on 12/03/2007, -4/+2The question is, was it ever alive?
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by