And then what? Has technology made photography irrelevant?

[Pickett Wilson]

aad, but isn't it true that all we are doing with this new technology is repeating ourselves? Where do we go from here?

 

[paulfish4570]

if i may offer this anecdote:
a couple of weekends ago, our grandson turned two. we had a five hour drive, and so got there much later than the maternal grandparents, a cousin, an aunt, and a niece, all armed with digital P&Ss and cell phone cameras. mom and dad were armed with a digital video camera. all were waiting for us to arrive so william shep could blow out his two candles.
as we walked in, william's maternal grandfather announced, "paul's here; now we'll see what a good camera can do."
granddad already was looking forward to what i'd post on facebook a couple of days later for the family. so, you, see, it's what the CAMERA can do, not the photographer ... 🙂
i did not bother to disabuse granddad of the idea that it's all the machinery, not the eye and timing.
now then, it's not that i am tooting my own horn. i wrote this to illustrate what has gone on for 100 years or so: the idea that most people who use cameras, if only for toddler birthdays, simply do not think any more deeply than that about the craft. but there are billions more toddler birthday photos available for viewing than there were 30 years ago ...

 

[mfogiel]

The fact that more people can make sharp photos, is not bad at all in itself. I like the idea, that more people can get access to education, can express themselves artistically, etc. This is one of prime goals of humanity. The problem becomes developing ways of cutting through the megatons of crap images. Perhaps we will have to accept as matter of fact, that many talented photographers will never be "dicovered" as well as that as soon as someone does something new, he will be copied to death by millions, like this happens today with Michael Kenna ( I have developed an automatic vomit reaction, when I see ten thousand's, long exposure pier on the see b&w photograph...).

 

[Bob Michaels]

Is this not the same question that people had about 100 years ago when ready coated dry emulsions and commercial processing became available to the general public?

It seems to me that we are focusing on an incredibly narrow time in history.

Which had the greater impact:
* increasing iso from 1,600 to 25,000
* or, from an hour to prep a wet plate with exposure time in minutes to something permitting multiple exposures in a hand held camera?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Is this not the same question that people had about 100 years ago when ready coated dry emulsions and commercial processing became available to the general public?

It seems to me that we are focusing on an incredibly narrow time in history.

Which had the greater impact:
* increasing iso from 1,600 to 25,000
* or, from an hour to prep a wet plate with exposure time in minutes to something permitting multiple exposures in a hand held camera?

Or indeed individual plates vs. rollfilm or 35mm. Or TTL meters. Or autofocus. The 'old guard' ALWAYS moans that it's 'too easy' now.

All that happens is that Sturgeon's Law is illustrated on a larger scale. Instead of 90% of a million pictures being crap, 90% of a billion pictures are crap.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gilpen123]

IMHO a bad picture can be good depending on how it is interpreted not on how and by what it was taken.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I dunno. I'm just afraid if we keep shooting the same rock and the same tree, just with an increasing level of technologically sophisticated camera each time, we are simply going to become irrelevant in the stream of noise that has engulfed photography.

A few million more street photos, or landscapes, or photos of cute kids isn't going to move photography forward.

 

[daveleo]

I dunno. I'm just afraid if we keep shooting the same rock and the same tree, just with an increasing level of technologically sophisticated camera each time, we are simply going to become irrelevant in the stream of noise that has engulfed photography.

A few million more street photos, or landscapes, or photos of cute kids isn't going to move photography forward.

I think that "photography doesn't move forward" because experienced photographers ("the establishment") generally do not want to see anything very "new".
As an example . . . HDR , instograms, and whatever . . . . love it or hate, it's your choice . . . but so many experienced photographers have sent out the message that "this is junk", it discourages people from experimenting. Young photographers need a lot of courage to ignore such criticisms and boldly go where they dare to while being called "junk artists", etc.

I use HDR only as an example. . . . we old guys demand the same old stuff over and over . . . that's why photography "doesn't move forward".

 

[johannielscom]

Yes, this is the key: how much does the photographer have invested in the image? (...emotionally, not financially...) If there is genuine care -- a real engagement with the subject -- it's obvious in the final result.

In general, technology encourages low-investment encounters: a Facebook "like", a quick Tweet, a cell-phone snap...

LIKE!


All kidding aside, I think this is a very valid observation.


And Pickett, I like your "Stop picking the low-hanging fruit" a lot and would almost make it my signature if I weren't content with the current one so much🙂

 

[Eric T]

Isn't it a good thing that the art of photography is now available to practically anyone who wants to take great photos? Hasn't this progress been taking place since the introduction of roll film? Let's rejoice that we live in an age when great photography is being done by so many people around the world at cost.

 

[JChrome]

Isn't it a good thing that the art of photography is now available to practically anyone who wants to take great photos? Hasn't this progress been taking place since the introduction of roll film? Let's rejoice that we live in an age when great photography is being done by so many people around the world at cost.

Every Rose has its Thorn.

We are in the age of convenience. And not only is it nice that everyone can make nice pictures as the cost has come down... But film cameras have also come down tremendously because of digital. Technology also increases the chances of education.

There are pros and there are cons.

With digital gadgetry comes terrible toxic pollution, instagram, underrage sexting, and inflated kardashian breasts.

 

[D.J.]

"You push the button. We do the rest." George Eastman.

 

[newsgrunt]

I think, in a very general way, technology has democratized photography and that's a good thing. But as others have opined, this is not without consequences ie-plethora of cat and food photos 😉

Are we lamenting the privilege we once owned but now is within reach of the many ?

 

[willie_901]

Much ado about nothing.

The more things change... the more they stay the same.

You have to be there. You have to work hard. You have to have talent and the fierce determination to develop it.

Anyone can drive a car at 150 mph. All they have to do is write a check. How many of us would want to ride with them?

 

[gns]

The 'old guard' ALWAYS moans that it's 'too easy' now.

Cheers,

R.

Right, and the really old way (before their time) is not necessary. We tend to think that the way things were when we were initiated is the way they ought to remain.

Yes, the easy part of photography is now easier. But, the hard part is still just as hard as ever. That hard part is not HOW to make the picture, but rather WHAT picture to make.

Gary

 

[literiter]

Technology has definitely raised the bar, but that doesn't mean those of us who shoot film won't find a way to raise it even further.

Just a little imagination and a few rolls of film.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

My point is not at all that things should remain the same. What we seem to be right now is awash in nostalgia. We take sophisticated technology, iPhones, shoot photos with them, and then use Instagram to make them look old, believing that somehow legitimizes the pulp photography we are engaged in.

I'm looking for a way forward for photography. Looking backwards is certain death.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think that "photography doesn't move forward" because experienced photographers ("the establishment") generally do not want to see anything very "new".
As an example . . . HDR , instograms, and whatever . . . . love it or hate, it's your choice . . . but so many experienced photographers have sent out the message that "this is junk", it discourages people from experimenting. Young photographers need a lot of courage to ignore such criticisms and boldly go where they dare to while being called "junk artists", etc.. . . .

Not really. They just need to be young.

Cheers,

R.

 

[newsgrunt]

I'm confused. Is this about Insta and Hipsta or about technology in the hands of the masses ?

 

[Roger Hicks]

My point is not at all that things should remain the same. What we seem to be right now is awash in nostalgia. We take sophisticated technology, iPhones, shoot photos with them, and then use Instagram to make them look old, believing that somehow legitimizes the pulp photography we are engaged in.

I'm looking for a way forward for photography. Looking backwards is certain death.

Not necessarily. You can do new things with old techniques and old technologies. You can also turn out hackneyed pseudo-nostalgic rubbish with the latest high-tech camera.

As ever, the equipment is merely a facilitator. There are more bad artists than good, so ANY technology facilitates more bad art than good.

Cheers,

R.