The meaning of photography has changed

tlitody

Well-known
Local time
7:49 AM
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
1,768
Location
Sceptred Isle
It seems to me that the meaning of the word "photography" has changed for the masses. When you say "I'm a photographer" most people today will assume you use digital equipment and will edit your pictures in some image software on a computer. Digital imaging is considered to be a part of photography.

See the following link for an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBn7TMWf7k&nofeather=True

Now how many of you have the patience to spend 3 months in post on one final image. 6 hour save time. That's progress for you.
 
I think the meaning of photography has changed full stop. Because of digital, every man and his dog can take a half decent photo, and nearly anything that can be photographed has been photographed. I run an artist talk evening here in London and we had a couple of great local artists (google Tina Hage and Paul O'Kane) show their photography work a few months back, and much of the evening was spend deriding the futileness of their pursuits for the reasons given. Although they had spent months on an image the feeling in the audience was that they had seen it all before. Now I don't neccessarily agree, but this is one perception that is not going away anytime soon...
 
Photography has no universal meaning! Just because to someone photography is 6 hours of digital post work shouldn't ruin your day 😀
 
Decades long photography was mostly the moment the shutter was released and it was created in a camera... Today it became more after the release of the shutter and partially created by a computer...
 
I'm not sure meaning is the right word. The ontology of the photograph certainly has changed since the advent of digital.
 
Watch the vid again. It was 3 months in post and 6 hours to save the file to disk. That won't ruin your day it'll ruin your whole year.
Just because he chooses to do that shouldn't affect how you enjoy photography your own way, I think. Most of the people here shoot film and I have no interest in film at all, yet I still enjoy the community and have a blast with photography.
 
Peter needs to get out more ... mind you there is probably a fairly high demand for his work!

Amazing that he combines this approach with fairly traditional landscapes ... one extreme to the other! 😱
 
Photography has no universal meaning! Just because to someone photography is 6 hours of digital post work shouldn't ruin your day 😀

^ This X a million infinity googolplex.

Besides, making composites from multiple photos has been around since the dawn of photography - I've seen composites done well enough so you wouldn't know they are composites from 120 years ago.
 
Watch the vid again. It was 3 months in post and 6 hours to save the file to disk. That won't ruin your day it'll ruin your whole year.

He probably considers himself more as a digital artist than a photographer, and uses photography for his digital art. That's why photography is so cool - because it has no definition and is such a broad art.
 
Peter needs to get out more ... mind you there is probably a fairly high demand for his work!

Amazing that he combines this approach with fairly traditional landscapes ... one extreme to the other! 😱

It's the first time I'm seeing this guy's work but I actually think it's somewhat interesting. Reminds me a bit of some narrative paintings similar to this one.
 
this is not photography anymore. This is some artist's creation that USES photography as a tool (and uses other tools as well).
3 months, 6 hours, it is not really relevant. Painters work(ed) much more on a painting. Composers spent long years on writing a great piece.

By the way I am not crazy about his work...but that's just me.
 
What so many people are struggling with is 'evolution of photography and digital society per se'. My wife (an artist) has taught me so much about attitude i.e. my pedanticism and lattitude i.e. my lack of it.

To tire you again "I enjoy digital and film - they are just a different experience" However, what I do not enjoy is post processing. I will enjoy film for as long as I can. Why? because with film I am free and my brain is challenged.
 
You guys are silly, people were manipulating photos in the darkroom long before photoshop. You could do the same thing by overlapping transparencies. Also, I believe many propaganda photos were created by adding/removing party members from photos during the WWII era. This is essentially the same thing just on a more exaggerated level.
 
It seems to me that the meaning of the word "photography" has changed for the masses. When you say "I'm a photographer" most people today will assume you use digital equipment and will edit your pictures in some image software on a computer. Digital imaging is considered to be a part of photography.

Wait, you are saying photoghraphy has changed because of digital? It seems as if its the same to me... people still photograph the same stuff and post processing can still be minimal or over the top, just as in the darkroom.

Photography has always been many things and will continue to be many things.

The film nostalgia and digital hate on this forum is silly. It is all used for the same purposes...to make photos.
 
I don't think the meaning of "photography" changed last years.
But I do think that saying "I am photographer" has a definitely different meaning than 20 years ago. Just take a look at the number of all that "photographers" as a percentage in society! 🙂
 
Back
Top Bottom