I don't think so...really great photography is very difficult and takes years to learn. Standards may change tho allowing those with less, or much less, skill to sell to some outlets. Newspapers for example will take anything it seems. But I saw Carolyn Cole do a presentation on her work, blew me away. So many other really great photographers out there in the various areas of subject matter that 99% of us will never become. There is a market for that. Movies did not kill photography. 35mm format did not kill photography, digital won't either. And great equipment does not make a great photograher. It helps of course, but is not the main factor in understanding how to capture a moment.
Yes folks, the Minolta 7000 born circa 1985 was the beast that killed photography as we knew it ~ just as with digital it was consumed by the uneducated masses in vast quantities and a drunken orgy of diatribe spewed forth from every orifice.
One, David Hockney, I believe, a world famous artist photographer exhibited a splendid show to rave reviews only to shatter the art/photography world by revealing, arrogantly that all the pictures on show were taken by a donkey .... Oh shock horror, even the "shock & awe” of the later Gulf war was pale in comparison to this outrageously defamatory and sacrilegious act. Boy if we only had Muslim photographers in those days ...
Yes folks, an all singing all dancing SLR, the Minolta 7000, a new phrase was coined for it, the all singing all dancing first made it's appearance with this camera, and to prove how low photography had gone a donkey with a camera strapped to its side took random pictures that rocked the world.
Commercially though Minolta seized the moment and used the Donkey in its commercials, look even a Donkey can use our cameras ~ so how much better can YOU!
Not dead, but obviously changing at a much more rapid pace in the past 20 years than in the 100 years before that. And the artistic side of photography is perhaps changing the most.
I don't think Newsweek meant this in a literal way. A more accurately worded question might be, "Is Photography as we have known it dead?". From the absolute purist's point of view, it has been dead for several years.
I see photography being split into two categories by the recent changes that have taken place.
Category one is the use of photography to capture an event, place or object. This would include sports, photojournalism, portraits, catalogs, family photos, etc. This branch of photography is alive and well and will probably continue..possibly forever. The business end has changed and will continue to do so, but the activity will remain.
The second category is photography to capture an idea or concept. This would be advertising, art work, abstracts, etc. I think it is very possible this area could be dieing as true photography. It may become purely a computer activity in the near future. There is no reason for it to represent reality and therefore could be complete constructed from the artists mind rather than a photo.
If a drawing is made in Photoshop. that looks like a photo, smells like a photo, and tastes like a photo....is it a phot even if it did not come out of a camera?
nathanlake wrote:
If a drawing is made in Photoshop. that looks like a photo, smells like a photo, and tastes like a photo....is it a phot even if it did not come out of a camera?
I'm 50/50 on this. Keep in mind I'm just a rookie but let me share a story with you. 2 Years ao I purchased my first DSLR (20D). Within weeks of shooting I was already frustrated at viewing images online (overwhelmed by how much post processing was present). Deciphering fact from fiction and art from "special effects" all seemed to run endlessly together. It was the very first thing I noticed and it completly changed my perception of "photography today" so much that I no longer desired to shoot and sold my equipment.
Now 2 years later I did pick it up again (hey it's a passion), and I bought a 40D. I've gotten to the point where I rarely look at images online. Anything beyond "reasonable" post processing sucks the art out of it for me.
Is Photography dead? Of Course not but it's definately entering a new Era driven by technology and software. You still need the basic skills and the many years of experience wil still pay off, but I feel like some of the art has been lost.
Bah. "They" said photography was dead when 35 mm SLRs made composition and focus easier, then again when autoexposure appeared, followed by program modes, later with AF, and now digital. You could go all the way back to wet plates I suppose.
Seems like the article is complaining that there's too many good photos out there now because anyone can create them. Does that mean that they aren't great photos or beautiful scenes? No of course not. So now instead of getting your film developed and processed for you you have to do it yourself on a computer. There's no difference really. It's still art. They sound like they're complaining that people who aren't part of the artist fraternity are now able to create great images easier than before. Boohoo!
This is elitist snobbery at it's worst. Just because there are more photographers does not mean there are not still great photographers. I've been shooting for quite a while now and still feel like a clown when I see a great photo.
