The Future of Photography?

[Steve Kefford]

...We all know that there has been a serious decline in widespread support for silver-based photography and this is only going to get worse.....

Whilst you are entitled to your opinion, please don't assume that everybody else shares it it. Predicting the future is always precarious, but there are many pointers to suggest that film based photography still has a healty future.

Steve

[Don Wallace]

Whilst you are entitled to your opinion, please don't assume that everybody else shares it it. Predicting the future is always precarious, but there are many pointers to suggest that film based photography still has a healty future.

Steve

The part that you quote isn't opinion, it is fact. Consider the demise of Kodak paper, of the Agfa company, and so on. Support for silver-based photography is declining. You can pretend it isn't. Knock yourself out. Invest in Kodak.

I also said I intend to continue as a photographer who uses silver-based materials, and that there would be support for it, so I really have no idea about what opinion it is that we don't share.

[eddie]

daniel,
maybe i am not explaining it correctly.....he was trying to maintain straight buildings. if he would have tilted the camera the buildings would have converged. so i am with you, he could have done it, but did not. at any rate with the buildings cut off it was lacking.

eddie

[Steve Kefford]

The part that you quote isn't opinion, it is fact. ....

Sorry Don. "We all know that ... this is only going to get worse..". That is a prediction of the future, and hence, at this time, is not fact. It might in the future become fact, and it might not. At the moment it can only be considered as conjecture, and hence is your opinion, which you are welcome to, but please don't say "we all know that".

I do agree that there has been a decline in the sale of cenventional photographic goods as a whole, although it is not clear how individual sectors of the market have been affected. People relishing the decline of conventional photography tend to produce overall figures to support their standpoint, and while these figures are supposedly true, they do not give the whole picture. For example, one of the sectors of the market that has taken big time to digital is the happy snapper, holiday photographer, whatever you call him. I imagine that this has a large effect on the overall figures, especially when this type of buyer is probably more susceptible to fashion icons, and are more likely to replace their digital camera more often as they must have the latest status symbol.

Also, due to the changing market, some companies have changed their focus, and also had problems reacting to the changing market. Hence, it is possible to pull a "big" name out of the hat to proove somethinmg or other. For example, a couple of years ago Ilford had problems, and this was supossedly because of the immenent death of conventional photography. But nothing could be further than the truth. Since the management buyout, Ilford are doing business like they have never done before, and they will be around for a long time to come.

Besides, taking individual events in isolation to support a point are not really useful. I could take the recent new films introduced by Fuji, or re-introduced by Ilford, to suggest that conventional photography is "obviously" still going strong. Or the recent survey by Kodak the 65% of European professionals will continue to use film.


Steve

[harrykauf]

As for the "super saturated" color film - I hate to break it to you, but I see colors as brilliant and saturated. These films are the only ones that match how "I" see color. That isn't manipulation, that is using a film that matches the way I see color.

That does not make sense. You either see colour more saturated and then the
regular film would look highly saturated like the landscape and the higher saturated
film would look over the top. What you describe sounds more like something related
to colour blindness where you see things as being the same although other can
clearly see the difference.

[jetcode]

I use filters to record things which, without filtering would be diminished or lost entirely in the negative. I rarely use strong filtration but that is one way to record the contrast between clouds and the sky---if indeed there was that much contrast when taking the shot. I prefer using filters to "preserve" not to "add." This is one of the parameters I impose on myself to preserve fidelity.

photography IS manipulation, whether it's analog or digital - the goal is to represent 3 dimensional matter on a 2 dimensional surface, the first of many manipulations.

[paulr]

photography IS manipulation, whether it's analog or digital - the goal is to represent 3 dimensional matter on a 2 dimensional surface, the first of many manipulations.

this is true, but not all maniupulations are equivalent. some manipulations maintain the basic photographic relationship between subject and image and others do not. for example, there's a fundamental difference between tonal adjustments, cropping, or sharpening, and adding or removing objects.

[roteague]

That does not make sense. You either see colour more saturated and then the
regular film would look highly saturated like the landscape and the higher saturated
film would look over the top. What you describe sounds more like something related
to colour blindness where you see things as being the same although other can
clearly see the difference.

I see colors quite well.

[Don Wallace]

Sorry Don. "We all know that ... this is only going to get worse..". That is a prediction of the future, and hence, at this time, is not fact. It might in the future become fact, and it might not. At the moment it can only be considered as conjecture, and hence is your opinion, which you are welcome to, but please don't say "we all know that".Steve

I am not going to argue with you. You are whistling past the graveyard if you think that support for silver-based photography has not seriously declined and will continue to do so. Ok, I won't say "we all know that ..." I will say "everyone except Steve knows that ..."

I hope that eventually this slide will level out and we will be left with a smaller but committed number of firms servicing us. I am doing my best to support those still in the game.

[John Kasaian]

photography IS manipulation, whether it's analog or digital - the goal is to represent 3 dimensional matter on a 2 dimensional surface, the first of many manipulations.

Representing 3 dimensions on a 2 dimensional surface is representation limited by the materials being used. It is not manipulation insofar as making a scene look like something other than what it is but in 2 dimensions.

Certainly you can manipulate an image using conventional materials, but that doesn't fit into how I see the landscape. I think the greater issue is this:

When photography was in it's infancy (and throughout it's history) the public as been exposed to fanciful "trick" photography, yet for most a photographic image serves as a representation of the actual image---"proof" "evidence" or what have you of something thats factual.

I'm not looking to stir the digital vs. conventional photo pot here---but with the promotion of digital equipment a huge selling point is the ability (ease?) to manipulate images using Photoshop and other tools. The public sees this most commonly and blatantly in advertising and yeah, "art" prints. It will be interesting to see if photography in the future will retain the general public's acceptance as being representational of reality (or not.) I'm not making a distinction between digital and traditional materials here as I've already noted that trick photography has a long history in photography.

In my own efforts I reject the temptation to add what isn't to a scene, but then thats my 'bag.'