Roger Hicks
Veteran
BobYIL
Well-known
"Where is photography going?" PHOTOSHOPGRAPHY 
if you take a look at the "Top Rated photographs of the month" in the P-net as almost half of them have been manipulated heavily...
More and more people today are seeking to interpret what they see -and imagine- in front of a computer rather than trying for the same while using a camera.
With digital processing, there is almost no limit to what can be done to an image.. Some people love it, some don't; however the future is this..
if you take a look at the "Top Rated photographs of the month" in the P-net as almost half of them have been manipulated heavily... More and more people today are seeking to interpret what they see -and imagine- in front of a computer rather than trying for the same while using a camera.
With digital processing, there is almost no limit to what can be done to an image.. Some people love it, some don't; however the future is this..
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
TOO much manipulation going on.
David_Manning
Well-known
Well, it's not strictly b&w work, but I find this to be pretty inspirational for reportage:
http://www.reportagebygettyimages.com/
http://www.reportagebygettyimages.com/
thirtyfivefifty
Noctilust survivor
The people you're looking for aren't found in the newsstands or online (much). Frankly, photography isn't about "photography" itself. The ones into photography--the photography that you describe; the fantasy--are the ones blaming a lack of hardware and software for poor photography results, rather than experimenting, working on technique, building a visual signature, etc. The ones you are interested in finding are out there, but tend to be amongst what REALLY interests them, and use photography as a tool to express their REAL interest. I find that the photographers most like me are out there grinding it out on the streets working solo. We just give each other a kind gesture as we pass.
jsirevaag
Member
I've been participating in a long-term, posthumous conversation with Andreas Feininger on the subject of photography. Love it or hate it, his work is distinct and innovative for its time. Besides being a staff photographer for Life magazine, he was a prolific writer on the art of photography and what makes a photograph effective. Among the various books Feininger published, "The Complete Photographer" is my favorite. The meaty material is found in the introduction, chapter 1, and chapter 5 through his conclusion.
I revisit the book often. Experience sheds light on the truth of what he taught and I wish at times I were able to meet the man in life and mentor under him. I do not have any social-network or friends with whom I can share this level of candor and insight on the subject of the intentional photograph. I once had my work critiqued by Len Kamerling of the Alaska Center for Documentary Film and it was outstanding but Mr. Kamerling is a master of the motion picture and our purposes are somewhat different.
It's easier to discuss (and blame) our gear and to long for something better; I'm not immune. Nevertheless, I think some of our best companions on this journey are the men and women who practiced excellence in photography before us and the legacy they left behind. Ansel Adams, Edward & Brett Weston, Henri Cartier Bresson, Andreas Feininger -these are my mentors and advisors. I don't strive to copy them but to stand on great shoulders to achieve more than I could alone.
The internet is a lonely place for creative individualists.
I revisit the book often. Experience sheds light on the truth of what he taught and I wish at times I were able to meet the man in life and mentor under him. I do not have any social-network or friends with whom I can share this level of candor and insight on the subject of the intentional photograph. I once had my work critiqued by Len Kamerling of the Alaska Center for Documentary Film and it was outstanding but Mr. Kamerling is a master of the motion picture and our purposes are somewhat different.
It's easier to discuss (and blame) our gear and to long for something better; I'm not immune. Nevertheless, I think some of our best companions on this journey are the men and women who practiced excellence in photography before us and the legacy they left behind. Ansel Adams, Edward & Brett Weston, Henri Cartier Bresson, Andreas Feininger -these are my mentors and advisors. I don't strive to copy them but to stand on great shoulders to achieve more than I could alone.
The internet is a lonely place for creative individualists.
stickan1
Newbie
1x.com is a good site, although they tend to favour works with lots of PP. They sometimes publish images that are far from traditional photography but there are forums that only discuss content and very little gear oriented discussions.
cz23
-
Go to the library or buy books by the masters. So many to choose from.
Ultimately, photography, like most creative disciplines is a solitary, deeply internal process, and that's where the primary focus should be and where quality and satisfaction come from. There aren't web sites with that focus because it just doesn't work well when talked about.
The only forum that I know of that attempts it is Open Photography Forum. You might give them a try.
Completely agree with your feelings about the focus on gear. But, as the song says, we're living in a materialistic world. Better gear makes us think we'll be better photographers; that's just human nature.
I think you would enjoy Bill Jay's writings on photography, especially his book Positive/Negative.
John
Ultimately, photography, like most creative disciplines is a solitary, deeply internal process, and that's where the primary focus should be and where quality and satisfaction come from. There aren't web sites with that focus because it just doesn't work well when talked about.
The only forum that I know of that attempts it is Open Photography Forum. You might give them a try.
Completely agree with your feelings about the focus on gear. But, as the song says, we're living in a materialistic world. Better gear makes us think we'll be better photographers; that's just human nature.
I think you would enjoy Bill Jay's writings on photography, especially his book Positive/Negative.
John
Turtle
Veteran
It will be going with me. That's all that matters to me.
kievman
Kievman
Digital imaging as opposed to real photography has completely changed if not destroyed the photography I and many older photographers once knew. Everything is so manipulated it is obscene. from fake bokeh to you name it Really good pure photography is harder and hard to find on the web and that is really pathetic. I really don't like the current direction photography is going, but unfortunately the Powers that Be (Photography Corporations) want us (are forcing us to go that way so they can make more money!!) to go that way. With one exception- Lomography Best Keivman
Adam_M
Newbie
Photography will be fine with or without us. I choose to do whatever it is I like doing in photography instead of wondering (worrying) where it is going. It'll go wherever it is going regardless of my actions.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
jsrockit said:
From how I understand it, he seems to be worried less about what he should do, rather where to find the things he likes.
The gallery suggestion seems obvious, and there are a few good links in this thread.
Prior to the internet, there were way less places to discuss work. I would say the classroom was the only place it was discussed prior to the internet (in my experience). The great thing about the internet, is you can create your own place to discuss work.
FrankS
Registered User
IMO, the entire art world is adrift. Technologies have helped everyone and anyone "do their own thing" and present/display whatever it is that they have created. For better or worse, there are fewer "movements" in the art world because everyone is individualistic. IMO, it takes a somewhat coordinated effort of a group of artists to plough new artistic ground, to give it a significant weight/substance. Even when a single artist creates a work that could move the art world forward, it is simply lost in the magnitude of pablum produced and displayed by everyone who is now an artist these days. The volume of dross is overwhelming, and the gems that are produced are like insignificant insects splattered on the windshield of life.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
FrankS said:
The way you say that makes it sound rather generic. I have trouble identifying a part of your posting that couldn't have been said word-for-word the same 100 years ago. It's probably more a description of art as a process in general, rather than one of where we stand in 2012.
Looking at some comments about digital photography here, it seems like the OP, then, and many of the posters here are in a way like someone wandering through Cubist salons in 1915 looking for shows of good old Academy paintings. Not that it's a bad thing, on the contrary. New Year I spent at a friend's in southern France whose parents are landscape painters doing old-fashioned, but very beautiful paintings of the southern French countryside (incidentally, two of the many Brits of 45+ populating southern Europe from the Loire to the Algarve, but I digress). Their paintings are about as non-Avant Garde as they can be, but they are good and find a following. Art seems to be surprisingly tolerant and one pretty much always finds something that is both well done and to one's liking.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I agree with Frank's analysis but, if I understand his post correctly, I disagree with his conclusions. I think this explosion of creativity a wonderful thing.
willie_901
Veteran
If you want to know where photography is headed, all you have to do is pay attention to what is happening with music and video. Photography will follow a similar path,
The last decade has made the true, but previously unmeasurable, signal-to-noise ratio of photography apparent. In this sense photography is just like poetry, fiction, music and *video. There is essentially no filter or quality control. The affordable technology to produce and distribute content is responsible for this transformation.
Art production involving painting and sculpture has not participated in the revolution because these activities require a much greater investment in skill and time... and the results don't translate as well into 2D, screen-based media.
In some ways this is an important oppportunty for producers and consumers. There are literally no obstructions to hold back artists. At the same time consumers can't possibly view all the content of interest. This is a severe problem for the next Picaso.
I used to think the current popularity of over-processed highly manipulated photographic images was just a resurgence of Pictorialism. Now I don't think so. Pictorialists' work was a response to the art establishment's rejection of photography as an art form. The vast majority of contemporary image manipulation is a thoughtless and desperate attempt to stand out in the crowd. The *result is a situation that ignores of Winogrand's "Monkeys make the problem more difficult" dilemma - how to strike a balance in the tension between form and content. If the content of the photograph is mediocre, simply add drama via extreme manipulation in an attempt to create interest.
The last decade has made the true, but previously unmeasurable, signal-to-noise ratio of photography apparent. In this sense photography is just like poetry, fiction, music and *video. There is essentially no filter or quality control. The affordable technology to produce and distribute content is responsible for this transformation.
Art production involving painting and sculpture has not participated in the revolution because these activities require a much greater investment in skill and time... and the results don't translate as well into 2D, screen-based media.
In some ways this is an important oppportunty for producers and consumers. There are literally no obstructions to hold back artists. At the same time consumers can't possibly view all the content of interest. This is a severe problem for the next Picaso.
I used to think the current popularity of over-processed highly manipulated photographic images was just a resurgence of Pictorialism. Now I don't think so. Pictorialists' work was a response to the art establishment's rejection of photography as an art form. The vast majority of contemporary image manipulation is a thoughtless and desperate attempt to stand out in the crowd. The *result is a situation that ignores of Winogrand's "Monkeys make the problem more difficult" dilemma - how to strike a balance in the tension between form and content. If the content of the photograph is mediocre, simply add drama via extreme manipulation in an attempt to create interest.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
I love to get my hands on a new book or a new website - whether I know or don't know. Both can be inspirational and give me ideas I'd like to emulate or create my own versions of. I agree completely with tyhe OP that there is way too much magazine coverage of the latest gizmos masquerading as photographic advice. However, we live in a world where people seem to value "things" (including cameras) more than the output of those "things".
Flickr is, in my opinion, a real curate's egg - e.g. good in parts. However, it is also filled with some of the most pointless and uninteresting, ill-conceived and badly taken crap as well. Still, it's free (for the most part) and we don't have to look at the dross.
To be honest, I much prefer taking photographs than looking at other peoples'. When I'm looking for some like-minded company, I go to www.filmwasters.com This is a fantastic accumulation of photographers from all walks of life, all corners of the globe and into everything from building their own cameras, through "toy" cameras right up to large format stuff.
The ONLY requirement is that it is film only. No-one is anti-digital (most of us have digital cameras) but this community is there to use, promote and display photos where the origin is film - whether scanned and processed via an inkjet printer or chemical process throughout. The other "rule" of this site is that we don't do egos or "flaming".
Flickr is, in my opinion, a real curate's egg - e.g. good in parts. However, it is also filled with some of the most pointless and uninteresting, ill-conceived and badly taken crap as well. Still, it's free (for the most part) and we don't have to look at the dross.
To be honest, I much prefer taking photographs than looking at other peoples'. When I'm looking for some like-minded company, I go to www.filmwasters.com This is a fantastic accumulation of photographers from all walks of life, all corners of the globe and into everything from building their own cameras, through "toy" cameras right up to large format stuff.
The ONLY requirement is that it is film only. No-one is anti-digital (most of us have digital cameras) but this community is there to use, promote and display photos where the origin is film - whether scanned and processed via an inkjet printer or chemical process throughout. The other "rule" of this site is that we don't do egos or "flaming".