It's just different than it was ten years ago, and it will be different ten years from now. We took our lessons from the dinosaurs and other extinct species, and elected to evolve with the environment.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 16, 2007 at 3:10 PM
I'm not sure if mine was ever (or ever will be) alive, but I too rather "evolve with the environment" and make the most of my meager skillset.
Hmmm.
It's not the first time I read an article with that subject (or have people telling me the same thing) and it's a sure way to provoke many comments and discussions. I think Hank is right, it's a changing process, that (as it usually is with human beings) some do like others don't. Most of the photographers I know, who are full time professionals, do not think half as hysterical as the author of that story. Some points of the text are worth thinking about, but that's about it, imo.
But I always like to read these articles, to see what the arguments are. So thanks a lot for posting this!
Georg
Posted by Mark Windom on December 16, 2007 at 3:16 PM
According to my bank account stock photography is.
Several of my friends who do the national art show circuit are beginning to wonder if photography is dead also. Print sales are way down for all of them for the second year in a row and they are increasingly being questioned about the reality of what they are showing. Most of them blame decreasing sales on the economy but who really knows??
I think stock photography is a good example of the change I'm talking about Mark. We gave up on it, at least in the traditional form of stock agencies, close to 10 years ago. We sell a fair bit of stock to our regular clients, most often as a part of a shoot we are contracted to do for them. For us the math was easy. Kick and scream, fight and scratch for the occasional magazine cover at $300-500, or shoot for specific clients at $175/hr plus expenses, then have an exclusive for "stock" sales on top of the hourly shooting.
I think the traditional publishing industry is really suffering compared to what it was a few years back in terms of circulation, ad dollars and certainly what they're able to pay photographers. That's due in part to the internet, but I think a bigger part is how many hours a day people spend glued to their televisions rather than reading. That trend started even before the advent of the internet when it comes to book sales, though the internet is doing its part now for mags and newspapers.
On the other hand, the uptick in numbers and varieties of corporations small and large and retail businesses has been a boon to pro photographers who tune in. All need ad photos, annual reports, promos, tag images and much more. And unless a photo is destined for print, a high proportion of deliveries are made in jpeg rather than tiff, whether on a disc or via electronic submission over the web.
It's a changing world, and photo needs change right along with it. Even when it comes to art prints, how many households now spend hundreds a year on DVDs and music while spending nothing on traditional "art?"
Posted by Stan Rose on December 16, 2007 at 4:53 PM
I would have agreed with the premise of that article a couple years ago, but not anymore. Digital is a tool, like any other it can be used in a productive or destructive way. I cant see how anyone can look at some of the work from photogs on this site and think that digital hasn't taken photography to a higher level.
The items mentioned start about 1/3 of the way down, with "The Eye of the Blind".
Here's part a comment I wrote for one of the items there, that might be applicable here. It details how I think digital changes things, based on some limited knowledge of some total non-photographers viewing my pictures and some others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the recent discussion on here about the nature of photography and its reality has been very interesting and informative. I feel like most people (not just photographers/artists) would agree that photos certainly can be a good representation of reality. The piece here, however, I think really illustrates the difference for me between an art photograph and a documentary photograph. (Note that as defined here, these aren't exclusive terms, and one photo can be both.)
As an example of what I mean, say as a nature photographer, I take a picture of mountains, meadows, a sunset, etc. I hope that someone feels the power, or pleasure, or quietness of being there. I think of it as art. It contributes something to your thoughts or feelings, and doesn't just document.
At the same time, I show this picture to friends/family/the public, who are amazed that such a place exists, and like looking at it and dreaming of being there. Then they find out that the mountains are actually 1000 miles from the meadow, and the sky is from another continent. To them it's art, but they feel it needs to be more documentary than it may be to the photographer. So now it's a forgery, or it's fake, and they couldn't care less about it.
Now take the same photo, and hang it in a gallery, among obvious digital creations, paintings, sculptures, etc. The average person (perhaps the same one looking at photos at a fair, or a friend or relative) viewing this may ask if it's real or not; But upon knowing either way, they may judge it on it's own merits, as either a fabrication, or a camera's representation of reality (documentary). They know that it's supposed to be art. They judge it based on that only, and not necessarily whether or not it's documentary.
Based on my (albeit limited) experience with people's reactions, I think their expectations play a large part in their perceptions. Photos certainly can be a rendition of reality - as most people understand them to be straight out of a camera or on standard film. They aren't reality, but they are close in most people's minds. So anything done to them moves it more toward the "art" distinction and away from the "documentary" distinction. And a lot of people seem to like/want beautiful and amazing documentary photos.
So the biggest difference I've seen (and I'm curious if others have seen it too), is that viewers are starting to assume that images are "faked" and have to be told otherwise - unless it's an obvious art piece. I'd imagine just a few years ago, the reverse was true.
Posted by Ed Cordes on December 16, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Several concepts come out of this article and the thread here. First is that the only thing that doesn't change is that change will happen.
Second, Photography is about producing an image that reflects reality as the photographer saw it. This is not any different than a painter who selectively doesn't paint the garbage floating in the Danube but chooses to depict the idyllic river in the mind. Photography can depict reality in the same way via selecting film or digital, focal length, f stop, shutter speed etc. For instance, is that waterfall really showing that smooth silky water flow or did we enhance it via a long shutter speed? If a piece of floating garbage is cloned out of the Danube is it any different than the painter who just didn't put it in?
When it comes down to it, people want nature photography to depict the reality of nature in a way that speaks to them in some subliminal way. If we are to meet those needs we must employ all the tools or our trade to meet the needs. If that means cloning out a branch or using layers to darken a background so be it.
I realize we all have our personal limits for how much of this to do. Mine is to not move elements around in the image or import elements from another image. However, I respect and support others' rights and opinions to do anything as an artist to convey the vision they have in their mind - just like the painters do.
This does not mean photography is dead. It means it has morphed and matured. It means that it is more than a means of documentation, but a means of expression.
Ed, wonderful comment and well stated. I'm with you. I certainly sell more digitally manulipated photos than regular plain jane ones, but then that could be because of other reasons, but gotta pay for all this equipment and software some way, so I do what it takes.
Posted by Bill Chambers on December 17, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Dead on the money Ed! IMO, the Newsweek article is just another variation of "The World is Ending Soon" mentality. True enough, the world is ending for those who refuse to change with the world, just as Hank mentioned. The entire world, not just photography, is in a constant state of flux, and we better get used to it or we'll get run over! It's amazing to me that people who treat photography today as if it is somehow "unclean" treat Ansel Adams, Frank Weston images as some kind of standard of "purity". I guess these people tend to think that Ansel Adams images jumped out of his camera looking like that, and weren't manipulated in the darkroom? Since the beginning of photography, photographs have been manipulated (I prefer the term "optimized") in the darkroom, and whether that darkroom was wet or digital makes little difference to me. Strictly speaking for me, I'm very happy to now have the ability to digitally optimize versus going back to the days of manaully doing so in the wet darkroom.
Posted by Dave Gill on December 17, 2007 at 1:09 PM
I think Ed has it pegged. As a photography professor I had in college said, "a photograph is its own reality." A photography that is art, is just that...not more or less. It doesn't have to be an exact representation of what was there.
That leads to the next question of what was truly there. The eye and the mind combine to make an incredibly capable system that adjusts exposure continually before the mind 'blends' the exposures and focuses into the HDR image we think we saw. Color correction is automatic.
The digital camera/computer can be a tool to produce a two dimensional image that can either depict what the photographer saw or imagined. Is on more art than the other or should one or the other be derided? Not if you accept a photograph for what it is.
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 17, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Hummmm, I can't say that it's dead at all! My publishing company has doubled in revenue for the third year in a row! That's doubled three times in three years! We are finding our niche and that’s in bigger nice informative books that are tied to a movement of sorts. With this we can help drive the movement and also make our company a profitable entity. The great thing is that we are doing a good thing for the driving force of our business, nature! With the coming of 2008 our company is moving to use, almost exclusively, recycled art papers for our products. Also, most all of our new products are tied to a conservation movement in some way or another.
Posted by David Prichard on December 17, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Perhaps one of the more telling comments I've had came from one of my night class students who exclaimed half way through the course that he wanted to learn about digital photography.
As a result of that comment I did alter the course somewhat, not to accommodate digital photography, but emphasize that it is only the most recent change in photography's long history of technical changes. For whatever reason there seems to be a perception in the public that digital photography has fundamentally altered photography.
Reality has always been a debate in photography. Witness Cartier-Bresson filing his neg carriers to obtain a rebated frame to 'prove' an unaltered image. This summer I was discussing a photo with another photographer. This photo, taken by a third photographer, had been worked on in Photoshop. In and of itself it was a good photo, however it was being used as a tourism shot and didn't accurately represent the scene, for instance the sun was in a place where it could not be. There was also the AP photographer who got caught doctoring a war scene this past summer.
While the list of photographic frauds, faeries, ghosts, UFO's, etc., is as old as photography, this seems to be ignored be a public that seems to believe that the tools and range digital photography offers photographers has some how killed photography, or at least a 'reality' that never really existed.
I'd be more than annoyed to arrive at a tourist destination and find the publicity photos misrepresented the location. To have news photographs altered is deceit not artist license. Perhaps the debate isn't about the death of photography but ethics.
The argument that this article raises is as ridiculous as proposing that we go back to the horse and buggy. Hell, why stop there? If we are going to oppose new technology we must consider that even the wheel was once new technology. Where do you draw the line? Why does there have to be a line? Why does "Photography" have to continue being restricted by outdated definitions and rules"? If "Photography" is an imaging medium why can't we make images any way we please?
I hang out here (not as much as I once did) because I love nature imaging, of which photography is only an small part. But I also love imaging in general and I think Beowulf is brilliant. I watched "The Polar Express" last night. It's entirely CG animation and it was wonderful!
Some of my work I won't even allow to be defined as "Photography" any more because, quite frankly, I'm ashamed of the puritanical, almost religious right dogma that continues to plague it. I wish this argument would die the undignified death it deserves.
How's that for a dogmatic opinion?
Bob (and Glennie)
Posted by Frank Winters on December 18, 2007 at 7:47 AM
This is a typical light weight Newsweek article. The title is there to grab our attention. Its ironic that the question is raised when there are more photographic images than ever.
Yet "As the great modern photographer Lisette Model once said, "Photography is the easiest art, which perhaps makes it the hardest."
To be a top photographer today is very challenging. Most photographers have excellent computer skills and use software very creatively. But we sell ourselves short by being too technically oriented especially in how we speak of our work. This is especially true of "advanced amateurs." Its is after all the final image that counts.
Here on NP we look for images that pop (for the most part). But subtle images that have a painterly appeal are also pleasing people everyday in print form. This is where the art of photography really shines in the digital age -- in prints that are more beautiful than ever (imo). I am getting sick of looking at my computer screen. Its the print that I love. The feel and look that paper provides, especially good matte paper -- there's the "manual touch and surface variation" that the article says is missing from photography can be found.
As to photojournalism -- we believe reporters and publications that we trust. If a news-article says "this is how it was" we believe it or not depending on what we think about them. If an article is illustrated with pencil drawings as in closed court rooms -- do we disregard it because of that?
Photography has never been more alive. Even film is not dead yet -- but don't lend it any money!
Posted by scott lanz on December 19, 2007 at 6:39 PM
I don't think the article was being judgmental. Obviously, it all depends on your definition of photography or your sense of what it is or should be. As a self-authenticating depiction of a actual scene or event (whether in nature, photojournalism, or whatever), it is dead. Again, I said self-authenticating. A photographic image today is still capable of being authenticated, but, by itself, it is no longer quintessential proof of an actual event or condition. It used to be practically irrefutable - one of the few things in life considered completely trustworthy. Obviously, that is no longer the case. In that sense, at least, it is dead. As a medium (or art form) based on the capture of light on film (an alternate definition), it may not be dead, but it is certainly dieing.
Discussion
19 repliesClick on the "View All Comments" link at the end for some additionally intersting perspectives, mostly rebuttal.
Not according to our bank accounts!
It's just different than it was ten years ago, and it will be different ten years from now. We took our lessons from the dinosaurs and other extinct species, and elected to evolve with the environment.
It's not the first time I read an article with that subject (or have people telling me the same thing) and it's a sure way to provoke many comments and discussions. I think Hank is right, it's a changing process, that (as it usually is with human beings) some do like others don't. Most of the photographers I know, who are full time professionals, do not think half as hysterical as the author of that story. Some points of the text are worth thinking about, but that's about it, imo.
But I always like to read these articles, to see what the arguments are. So thanks a lot for posting this!
Georg
Several of my friends who do the national art show circuit are beginning to wonder if photography is dead also. Print sales are way down for all of them for the second year in a row and they are increasingly being questioned about the reality of what they are showing. Most of them blame decreasing sales on the economy but who really knows??
Pete D.
I think the traditional publishing industry is really suffering compared to what it was a few years back in terms of circulation, ad dollars and certainly what they're able to pay photographers. That's due in part to the internet, but I think a bigger part is how many hours a day people spend glued to their televisions rather than reading. That trend started even before the advent of the internet when it comes to book sales, though the internet is doing its part now for mags and newspapers.
On the other hand, the uptick in numbers and varieties of corporations small and large and retail businesses has been a boon to pro photographers who tune in. All need ad photos, annual reports, promos, tag images and much more. And unless a photo is destined for print, a high proportion of deliveries are made in jpeg rather than tiff, whether on a disc or via electronic submission over the web.
It's a changing world, and photo needs change right along with it. Even when it comes to art prints, how many households now spend hundreds a year on DVDs and music while spending nothing on traditional "art?"
The Online Photographer Blog
The items mentioned start about 1/3 of the way down, with "The Eye of the Blind".
Here's part a comment I wrote for one of the items there, that might be applicable here. It details how I think digital changes things, based on some limited knowledge of some total non-photographers viewing my pictures and some others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the recent discussion on here about the nature of photography and its reality has been very interesting and informative. I feel like most people (not just photographers/artists) would agree that photos certainly can be a good representation of reality. The piece here, however, I think really illustrates the difference for me between an art photograph and a documentary photograph. (Note that as defined here, these aren't exclusive terms, and one photo can be both.)
As an example of what I mean, say as a nature photographer, I take a picture of mountains, meadows, a sunset, etc. I hope that someone feels the power, or pleasure, or quietness of being there. I think of it as art. It contributes something to your thoughts or feelings, and doesn't just document.
At the same time, I show this picture to friends/family/the public, who are amazed that such a place exists, and like looking at it and dreaming of being there. Then they find out that the mountains are actually 1000 miles from the meadow, and the sky is from another continent. To them it's art, but they feel it needs to be more documentary than it may be to the photographer. So now it's a forgery, or it's fake, and they couldn't care less about it.
Now take the same photo, and hang it in a gallery, among obvious digital creations, paintings, sculptures, etc. The average person (perhaps the same one looking at photos at a fair, or a friend or relative) viewing this may ask if it's real or not; But upon knowing either way, they may judge it on it's own merits, as either a fabrication, or a camera's representation of reality (documentary). They know that it's supposed to be art. They judge it based on that only, and not necessarily whether or not it's documentary.
Based on my (albeit limited) experience with people's reactions, I think their expectations play a large part in their perceptions. Photos certainly can be a rendition of reality - as most people understand them to be straight out of a camera or on standard film. They aren't reality, but they are close in most people's minds. So anything done to them moves it more toward the "art" distinction and away from the "documentary" distinction. And a lot of people seem to like/want beautiful and amazing documentary photos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the biggest difference I've seen (and I'm curious if others have seen it too), is that viewers are starting to assume that images are "faked" and have to be told otherwise - unless it's an obvious art piece. I'd imagine just a few years ago, the reverse was true.
Second, Photography is about producing an image that reflects reality as the photographer saw it. This is not any different than a painter who selectively doesn't paint the garbage floating in the Danube but chooses to depict the idyllic river in the mind. Photography can depict reality in the same way via selecting film or digital, focal length, f stop, shutter speed etc. For instance, is that waterfall really showing that smooth silky water flow or did we enhance it via a long shutter speed? If a piece of floating garbage is cloned out of the Danube is it any different than the painter who just didn't put it in?
When it comes down to it, people want nature photography to depict the reality of nature in a way that speaks to them in some subliminal way. If we are to meet those needs we must employ all the tools or our trade to meet the needs. If that means cloning out a branch or using layers to darken a background so be it.
I realize we all have our personal limits for how much of this to do. Mine is to not move elements around in the image or import elements from another image. However, I respect and support others' rights and opinions to do anything as an artist to convey the vision they have in their mind - just like the painters do.
This does not mean photography is dead. It means it has morphed and matured. It means that it is more than a means of documentation, but a means of expression.
OK I am ready for the flames!
That leads to the next question of what was truly there. The eye and the mind combine to make an incredibly capable system that adjusts exposure continually before the mind 'blends' the exposures and focuses into the HDR image we think we saw. Color correction is automatic.
The digital camera/computer can be a tool to produce a two dimensional image that can either depict what the photographer saw or imagined. Is on more art than the other or should one or the other be derided? Not if you accept a photograph for what it is.
As a result of that comment I did alter the course somewhat, not to accommodate digital photography, but emphasize that it is only the most recent change in photography's long history of technical changes. For whatever reason there seems to be a perception in the public that digital photography has fundamentally altered photography.
Reality has always been a debate in photography. Witness Cartier-Bresson filing his neg carriers to obtain a rebated frame to 'prove' an unaltered image. This summer I was discussing a photo with another photographer. This photo, taken by a third photographer, had been worked on in Photoshop. In and of itself it was a good photo, however it was being used as a tourism shot and didn't accurately represent the scene, for instance the sun was in a place where it could not be. There was also the AP photographer who got caught doctoring a war scene this past summer.
While the list of photographic frauds, faeries, ghosts, UFO's, etc., is as old as photography, this seems to be ignored be a public that seems to believe that the tools and range digital photography offers photographers has some how killed photography, or at least a 'reality' that never really existed.
I'd be more than annoyed to arrive at a tourist destination and find the publicity photos misrepresented the location. To have news photographs altered is deceit not artist license. Perhaps the debate isn't about the death of photography but ethics.
I hang out here (not as much as I once did) because I love nature imaging, of which photography is only an small part. But I also love imaging in general and I think Beowulf is brilliant. I watched "The Polar Express" last night. It's entirely CG animation and it was wonderful!
Some of my work I won't even allow to be defined as "Photography" any more because, quite frankly, I'm ashamed of the puritanical, almost religious right dogma that continues to plague it. I wish this argument would die the undignified death it deserves.
How's that for a dogmatic opinion?
Bob (and Glennie)
Yet "As the great modern photographer Lisette Model once said, "Photography is the easiest art, which perhaps makes it the hardest."
To be a top photographer today is very challenging. Most photographers have excellent computer skills and use software very creatively. But we sell ourselves short by being too technically oriented especially in how we speak of our work. This is especially true of "advanced amateurs." Its is after all the final image that counts.
Here on NP we look for images that pop (for the most part). But subtle images that have a painterly appeal are also pleasing people everyday in print form. This is where the art of photography really shines in the digital age -- in prints that are more beautiful than ever (imo). I am getting sick of looking at my computer screen. Its the print that I love. The feel and look that paper provides, especially good matte paper -- there's the "manual touch and surface variation" that the article says is missing from photography can be found.
As to photojournalism -- we believe reporters and publications that we trust. If a news-article says "this is how it was" we believe it or not depending on what we think about them. If an article is illustrated with pencil drawings as in closed court rooms -- do we disregard it because of that?
Photography has never been more alive. Even film is not dead yet -- but don't lend it any money!