Is Photography Dead?

[Daniel_Buck]

I think it would be more accurate to say that non-serious photography is rising (as it has been ever since Kodak introduced the Brownie ... every innovation that makes it easier or cheaper also makes it more democratic).

you are probably correct

[Brian Ellis]

Brian,

I didn't address that aspect because I am so tired of that debate. IMO it is such obvious nonsense. In the Victorian age this questionable veracity was debated too. Remember the fairies (not that you were around then!)? So what? This article? So what is new? This has been debated periodically for as long as I can remember. It is just a general part of the current photography doomsayers, no film, no truth, no craftsmanship, blah, blah. Nonsense. Look at how vibrant all aspects of LF, technically and aesthetically, are on this forum and we are a small part of the medium.

That is a great story Merg.

I retain my optimism for all aspects of the medium.

I retain my optimism too. So does the author of the article. He just thinks photography is changing, not that it's dead. I don't plan to go back and re-read the article but I don't remember anything in it about doomsaying or film or truth or craftsmanship or anything else you mention in this message. You seem to be looking only at the headline and assuming the article says things that it didn't say (at least as I remember it).

[Kirk Gittings]

I am talking about much broader phenomena than this article.

[Antonio Corcuera]

I am talking about much broader phenomena than this article.

OT: Kirk, please empty your inbox, I tried to PM you but it's full. Thanks!

[Kirk Gittings]

OT: Kirk, please empty your inbox, I tried to PM you but it's full. Thanks!

Done.

[David_Senesac]

I read that short shallow article today while standing in front of the magazine rack at our corner Walgreens. As others have said, the title at the top of the page overstates what the article tends to discuss. My guess is a change by higher up editors in order to be more controversial, thus annoy readers enough to bother reading the piece. I think Brian essentially summarized the intent of the story. That in a short period of years as digital photography has now been embraced by the masses, what we used to consider photographer to be in recent decades has once again lurched forward reinventing itself so radically that its identity in the artworld has forever changed with maybe something of value lost. Thus the title might have better been posed, "Is Photography as we recently knew it dead?" A title like that would not raise much interest because the target readership masses are all going around pushing buttons on their compact digi-cameras and then processing and printing those images radically differently than just a few years ago when film still reigned. But the article barely moves in that direction but rather how that is reflected in high end art photography one tends to publicly see in places like New York. Intentionally shallow in scope with nothing new here except how it works as boring filler between ads.

Now if they really want to stir the pot about some of the directions of photography today they might simply lurk a bit at this and a few other prominent web forums and find out what real photographers are actually thinking. I certainly could give them a whole lot to easily entertain their audience. ...David

[Colin Corneau]

A (non-photographer) friend had an interesting take on the state of photography -- he said that with the rise of digital imaging, (traditional) photography would actually come full circle and return to how it started...a very specialized pursuit by artists and craftspeople.

People can lose perspective with digital imaging being so democratized (great term, BTW, and a very sharp observation to compare it to the introduction of the Brownie)...but I guarantee you, once they see the sort of results one can get from a well made print -- whether it's a collodion or platinum print, the spectacular range of a LF neg, or just the notion that properly stored it's shelf life is almost indefinite -- they will be spellbound.

My $0.02, anyway.

[walter23]

I think SERIOUS photography is fading. Of people I know, probably 95% of them who say they are "into photography", they really mean that they take snap shots every now and then, or that they own some pentax k1000 somewhere in the attic (or a new DSLR that they don't know how to use). I know very few people who will actually plan a trip just to take photos, or spend any length of time with their photography. It's a little disheartening, but doesn't bother me to much.

I'm not old enough to know if this is how it's always been or not, but it seems to me that it must have been bigger in the past.

I'm seeing the opposite: people who would have just owned a plastic 35mm P&S are now running around with $6000 worth of pro glass and high end bodies. I see dozens of top end Canon "L" lenses every weekend (I'm doing a short stint in a touristy location). Most of them would probably consider themselves "serious photographers", including the guy I saw at the camera store last week who owned a top end pro Nikon DSLR (D2x maybe?) & 70-200VR but didn't know what to look for in a tripod

[Greg Lockrey]

I'm seeing the opposite: people who would have just owned a plastic 35mm P&S are now running around with $6000 worth of pro glass and high end bodies. I see dozens of top end Canon "L" lenses every weekend (I'm doing a short stint in a touristy location). Most of them would probably consider themselves "serious photographers", including the guy I saw at the camera store last week who owned a top end pro Nikon DSLR (D2x maybe?) & 70-200VR but didn't know what to look for in a tripod

You know what level of photography a person is at by his tripod. Ever notice that when a couple of seasoned photogs get together they talk about tripods?

[billschwab]

I think SERIOUS photography is fading. Of people I know, probably 95% of them who say they are "into photography", they really mean that they take snap shots every now and then...

Interesting that you see this as "serious" photography fading. From my point of view this has never been any different. Until the last few years when I began to frequent sites like these, I could count on one hand how many "serious" photographers I knew. It was a pretty lonely business in my experience. I now know more serious photographers than ever and am lucky enough to call a lot of them friends. We've shared ideas, processes and photographic trips. There are processes I am now using that I never would have thought about or pursued in the first 20 years of my career. Like Kirk, I too have spent more money in the last 5 years on equipment, chemicals, ink and technology than ever before.

I think if there is a problem, it is that there are too many serious photographers. Everybody and his brother now has a website and the place is thick with "art" photographers. Sure... there is a fair amount of work that leaves a lot to be desired, but there are also a lot of very talented people out there. I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of photography when there was this much attention to photography as an art form or this many people pursuing it as such.

Bill