Time Article: "The Next Revolution in Photography Is Coming"

These types of articles and conversations always bring me back to one thing.

Photography is about the subject. Without a subject who cares?

Nothing about that will ever change.

It's easy to get the impression that we live among a generation of engineers and makers that believe technology drives everything.
It may be true to some extent but it's not an absolute.
Photography has become more accessible as a result of tech (digital capture, sharing, etc..)
Much of the rest of technologies influences will likely be revealed as "fads" as time goes by.
Not to be too redundant.... the subject makes the photograph. Not the other way around.
 
I am holding my breath for the moment when you will make a portrait and the camera will come back with complete and accurate analysis of that person's thoughts. Could be useful before you vote...
Meantime, I am increasingly content with becoming part of an obsolete alternative film picture recording, with no extra insights, unless you make YOUR brain work...
 
Apparently, if there is one thing deader than photography, it's editing. I think this is about the 3,721st consecutive article I've read online that has basic proofreading errors: "The digital sensor replaced to optical record of light with a computational process that substitutes a calculated reconstruction using only one third of the available photons."

Like Marek above, I am increasingly content with becoming part of an obsolete alternative - to just about everything.
 
After scrolling it through to realize what I'm limited ESL person to deal with dopeheads language, my impression is - this Time's article is even more dopey comparing to another popular source here, which is PetaPixel. Both are completely unrelated with photography I'm interested in.
 
The vast majority of "photographers" (of which I'm a member) are now engaged in an elite leisure pursuit called "real photography," subsidizing pure tech companies through purchasing ever more expensive computers with lenses. We write and comment on articles like this, despite their irrelevance to anyone outside of our "faith" communities.

"Photography" is simply irrelevant in the 21st century to almost everyone, despite the billions of bits of eye candy uploaded to social media sites each year.

/Rant mode off/
 
JP Owens said:
The vast majority of "photographers" (of which I'm a member) are now engaged in an elite leisure pursuit ....

/Rant mode off/
Click to expand...
Oh good, now I know I'm "elite". I always wanted to be elite.
Actually in regard to photography I'm a fraud. Couldn't take a good picture to save my life. Just like tinkering with old cameras, that's all.
 
Another techno-addict that mistakes a small hype and some additional technological possibilities with Revolution. Although I'm a techno-addict myself, I can't stand these naive type of articles of people, who think, talking techno-**** can replace reflection and substance and who have an attention-span the length of a twitter message. Next week this guy can't remember his own words and will talk about another absolute historic and uniq revolution that has no comparison since the invention of wet plates. I like every development, that contributes to photography and peoples ability to express their visions. This article was no positive contribution to anything.
 
Photography has a slightly different meaning and perspective for everyone of us who engage in it. Some of those meanings are very close so they become difficult to differentiate, but they do differ.

This article by Mr. Mayes (I believe he is a Mister but that is also becoming subject to differing opinions) is quite a bit removed from my own observations and experiences so it will take some study to identify any points where the two of us may share the same perspective. However, based on my first, very quick, review, I am not real sure that it is worth the effort.

Regardless, he is more than welcome to practice his idea of photography to his hearts content. I doubt that I'll spend any of my money on his photographs though.
 
f16sunshine said:
These types of articles and conversations always bring me back to one thing.

Photography is about the subject. Without a subject who cares?

Nothing about that will ever change.

It's easy to get the impression that we live among a generation of engineers and makers that believe technology drives everything.
It may be true to some extent but it's not an absolute.
Photography has become more accessible as a result of tech (digital capture, sharing, etc..)
Much of the rest of technologies influences will likely be revealed as "fads" as time goes by.
Not to be too redundant.... the subject makes the photograph. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I don't think photography has ever just been about the subject (if by "subject" you mean whatever is in front of the camera). Most photography I find interesting involves the subject as a starting point, but then layers on top of that the photographer's imagination/style preferences/intentions.
 
Nice article. I picked up on two concepts there: human imagination and data collection. Photography has always been about these two things. The article is I think just pointing out that with technology evolution comes gains in ability to manipulate the data to suit our imaginations. I'm very much enjoying watching this evolution... really quite amazing! :)
 
It goes to show how a title can create an anchor point for readers.

If the title changed the word "revolution" for "evolution", ... would the reception be different?
 
i got bored reading the article, and i couldn't really tell what issue he's trying to address or what his argument about it was. sounded like the same old same old. for those who have read it in full, is it worth a second look?
 
If the article focuses on the advancement in digital imaging without encumbering it with this "photography is gone" fluff, then it is actually quite interesting.

The photo superimposed with weather radar info is quite cool.
 
About the article as written: an over-exagerated (sp?) internet blog writing style.

The title of the article is actually "The next revolution... is coming." . . . and my response to the title is "Of course it is. What does not evolve continuosly?"
 
Drivel. The author is of course a well known photographer with a deep knowledge of both the technical and aesthetic aspects of photography, and we are all familiar with both his pictures and his writings. He's a born manager -- and I do not use the description flatteringly.

As f16sunshine pointed out, it's low-grade clickbait.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom