Photography Is Dead

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 66659
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Photography Is Dead

Postby Diamond Dog » 01 Aug 2018, 11:24

Wim Wenders has a small piece here where he suggests that, far from naking photography better, the advent of the camera phone is - in fact- hastening the end of photography as we know it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/entertain ... hotography


It's an interestig viewpoint with which I have a certain sympathy.

Further on from his views, I think that camera phones are killing live gigs too - many many people now see shows through their phone and/or (afterwards) through the images captured. They don't actually get the whole gig 'experience' like they used to.... It creates a different atmosphere in many ways. There's no need to embrace it for the fleeting moment it is anymore - and that, for me, is what makes live gigs so magical.
1-800-288-8372

User avatar
trans-chigley express
Posts: 17500
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 01:50
Location: Asia's WC

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby trans-chigley express » 01 Aug 2018, 12:34

I’ve not read the article yet but while I agree about their use at concerts I disagree with the general view that it’s killing photography. It’s making photography easier for the masses for sure with the nice wide angles and multitude of filters, effects and adjustments but it still takes good techniques, a good eye and a grasp of the technical aspects of photography to take really good pics. There’s still a gulf in quality between the iPhone amateurs and the pros

I will read the article when I get a momemt

User avatar
C
Robust
Posts: 50180
Joined: 22 Jul 2003, 19:06

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby C » 01 Aug 2018, 13:51

I certainly agree with 'gig through a phone' point

Ridiculous - just watch youtube





.
neville harp wrote:God bless you brother C x

User avatar
Wally Bingbang
Long Player
Posts: 39957
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:20
Location: 1220 on your AM dial

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby Wally Bingbang » 01 Aug 2018, 14:26

Does that mean I can go home?
If you've got nothing to do, don't do it here.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 38258
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: ~84 bpm

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby Count Machuki » 01 Aug 2018, 14:36

Phones can shoot video, too...so long, film directors!
I'm pretty sure you can make tunes on a phone as well. RIP music.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Hightea
Posts: 1329
Joined: 16 Apr 2015, 02:18
Location: NY state

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby Hightea » 01 Aug 2018, 15:05

While I get his point and agree about camera phones at concerts, I disagree. With more options and much better quality cameras and photo processing the art of photography is alive and kicking. Sure we have been inundated with millions of awful photos (I've taken and shown 100's of what I consider poor photos) but at the same time there are more gems and great action or unique photos daily. As someone who takes 1000's of photos a year, by the way less than 100 are with a camera phone, the few gems we get each year are not only enjoyed but are printed and hung on my walls at home and in the office. While we take 100's of concert photos its my landscape and animal photos that we really enjoy and love going out in the wild and finding interesting things to shoot. Although its time to upgrade the pro camera.

We also get the whole instagram complains about people shooting their entire life in photos but we actually enjoy see what my friends from around the world are doing in their lives. My girlfriend says it cold and people showing off, but I'm sorry we actually like it. We prefer to view a few photos a day to break up the real news and work each day brings.

In regards to concerts its not the camera phone photos we detest its people shooting videos of entire songs with their cameras over their heads and the screen on when they aren't even watching the camera, if you are going to shoot like that turn the screen off. Yes we shoot pictures at shows but for the most part a few for each performer and not with a camera phone and not with the screen on over my head and never with flash. Sure do we take too many photos but its part of my concert experience and we pay tons of money for tickets. I'm looking for one good shot a performer which typically means take about 30 or 40 shots. We try to stand away from people to take them or get an angle where we can see the performer at eye level so no screen or my camera blocking the way. If we see people looking annoyed by my shooting we stop or move.

User avatar
bobzilla77
Posts: 15880
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 02:56
Location: Dilute! Dilute! OK!

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby bobzilla77 » 02 Aug 2018, 20:25

Sure the number of amateur photogs trying to snap pics at gigs has changed the experience of going to concerts.

I don't see how it is changing "photography" though.
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.

User avatar
algroth
Posts: 5227
Joined: 04 Apr 2010, 03:12

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby algroth » 06 Aug 2018, 09:52

I think phones have certainly changed photography, but I don't think an invention can truly kill off a medium more than, at most, momentarily suspend it, and even so I don't think phones are achieving as much either. But I understand what Wenders is getting to and sort of sympathize with it as well. So, this is a deeper matter which I've gone into a number of times in the past and which relates all the way back to the age-old "what is/isn't art" question - my response for the same was that art was whatever an individual, a group or society deemed a thing to function as such, and also responded that not every piece within a medium necessarily is art because it is neither conceived nor consumed as an artistic product. Case in point, photography: I don't think anyone would deny photography is an artform and Henri Cartier-Bresson an artist, but I don't think a random family picture taken by your mother on a trip to the beach is a piece of art, or a piece of 'photography' when speaking of the same strictly as the artform. It functions as something altogether very different, as a souvenir or as a recording of personal/family history and so on. Now, I'm not saying both things cannot overlap and that you can't make art out of a family picture, but not every family picture is 'art' because it is not consumed or signified as such - and same for several other uses for photography and so on. I guess I understand Wenders' criticism towards cellphones as further disassociating the practice of taking a picture as an artistic endeavour, or at the very least trivializing the intention and thought process that photography taken as an artform usually entails, i.e. a picture that "looks good" or is "pretty" is enough to pass as 'photography' for the creator and most consumers, and that the ubiquity of digital cameras in any of their forms alongside processing and post-production's increasing ease-of-use and digital pictures' easy distribution breeds careless and senseless picture-snapping over careful, thoughtful and precise shooting, as the same has been repeatedly said of digital cameras in film as opposed to celluloid, but I think this leads more to bad photography and bad filmmaking than the lack of either - and like film I believe that eventually the better photographers will recognize whatever dearth the medium finds itself in and strive to overcome that same dearth.

My personal biggest gripe with photography and most art that is in any way visual nowadays is that it often has a look and sensibility to it that reminds me of a graphic designer's more than that of someone with a rich culture in their medium of choice. Whether it is due to the propensity for heavy post-production, general aesthetic immediacy and flashiness, genre/era pastiches, minimalist and geometric/symmetric compositions with heavily colour-coded and limited palettes, or else, I get this feeling very often when it comes to much of what I currently see across several mediums nowadays (which is not to say all, and which is not to say that I don't enjoy examples from any medium with such an approach necessarily either). It is curious to me because one of the things I enjoy about Wender's more classic films is that to my eyes he has a distinctly "photographic" sensibility to many of his choices of shots, his composition and so on, as understood in opposition to "cinematographic". I couldn't pinpoint on the why, but there's something about the way he frames that just recalls a particular feel and eye, for me at least.

Writing this at 6am so no doubt I'll think myself an utter fool when I actually wake up and start the day, but hey. :lol:

User avatar
Pansy Puff
Posts: 8673
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 21:10
Location: Under the watchful eye of the Clive police

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby Pansy Puff » 06 Aug 2018, 10:24

Phones don't have viewfinders. It's a totally different way of interacting with the medium. Without a doubt, the photos I take with my SLR are much better (but the process is less convenient).
The Happy Mondays were disqualified from a special edition of the BBC’s Bargain Hunt after Bez broke the show’s rules by artificially inflating prices, handing victory to Pulp.

caramba
Posts: 332
Joined: 25 Aug 2016, 17:12

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby caramba » 06 Aug 2018, 11:46

Destroyed/killed? No.

Cheapened? For sure.

Try as you might, there's no getting away from pouting TOWIE types or
shots of what "phonetographers" have had for breakfast, lunch or dinner

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 12333
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby Geezee » 07 Aug 2018, 13:09

I get almost the opposite effect it seems from the ubiquity of photographs through social media - I get deflated, yes, but not because I'm being inundated with a mass of awful photography, but rather because of the incredible amount of wonderful photographs that many of my friends are capturing. Makes me jealous - not so much at the travels and experience of others, but rather how many incredibly skilled and savvy photographers there are in our midst.

And photography has always had an uphill battle as an artform - to begin with it was laughed off as a fad and certainly not something with any artistic merit. Yet I could look at the first Duguerre of a human as long and with as much wonder as a Degas. But it took many decades for it to be recognised as having such potential - the early artistic photographers constantly fought an uphill battle - and even today I'd still say it is very under-represented as an art-form. Many art museums will have a wing dedicated to photography - but often almost as an afterthought and shoved off to a far corner. And the numbers of pure photography museums are few and far between (London is opening its first, based on one in Stockholm). If I had any money and any bravery, I would love to buy up Man Ray's wonderful apartment in Paris and convert it into a museum dedicated to his photography - incredibly, there is no single place dedicated to his work in the world (as far as I'm aware). Compare that to how many museums are dedicated to various painters.
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
The Modernist
2018 BCB Cup Champ!
Posts: 12231
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby The Modernist » 07 Aug 2018, 15:39

Did any of you watch the Sky Arts photographer of the Year competition?
Most of them were rubbish! So perhaps standards are declining.

User avatar
The Modernist
2018 BCB Cup Champ!
Posts: 12231
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby The Modernist » 07 Aug 2018, 15:41

Geezee wrote: If I had any money and any bravery, I would love to buy up Man Ray's wonderful apartment in Paris Devon and convert it into a museum dedicated to his photography .



;)

I am serious though in saying I love Ray's photography.

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 23284
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby Toby » 07 Aug 2018, 17:35

I'd say that photography has become so ubiquitous in everyday life that its impact has lessened a bit.

I mean, we are assaulted by intense imagery (even more so with amateur phone video) every day and the power of photography to bring other aspects of life to us has just diminished in many respects. That isn't to say that fabulous photos aren't being taken, because they obviously are in their millions, but I just wonder if people are affected by it as much.

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 12333
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby Geezee » 08 Aug 2018, 09:35

Toby wrote:I'd say that photography has become so ubiquitous in everyday life that its impact has lessened a bit.

I mean, we are assaulted by intense imagery (even more so with amateur phone video) every day and the power of photography to bring other aspects of life to us has just diminished in many respects. That isn't to say that fabulous photos aren't being taken, because they obviously are in their millions, but I just wonder if people are affected by it as much.


For me, depends on how you look at "impact" - in terms of how photography impacts the lives of ordinary people, I'm pretty sure it has increased exponentially. There are people taking photographs as a regular part of their day, when they never would have picked up a camera in the past. And spending time sharing it, commenting on it, and the photographs of others, and using filters, frames etc. One can I suppose dismiss the value of that, or how much thought really goes into a selfie, or how much a phone can ever really produce "art" - but it is part of photography, and it's impact is pretty plain to see. One of the best-selling exhibitions of all-time was artwork that Hockney produced exclusively on an iPad - I wasn't too convinced by that exhibition, but it definitely had an impact (OK, it's not photography, but I think it's a similar parallel). And if you look at it in terms of the broader impact that a single photograph can have, either as an art form or as part of news coverage, I'm also not so sure. You can just look at a photograph like that of Alan Kurdi and see the impact that it had, or the influence of photographers like Salgado, Leibovitz, McCurry to name but a few.

What has definitely happened, to me at least, is that I've become more suspicious of the "genuineness" of photographs. Photo manipulation has of course always happened - but I look at many photographs these days and wonder how far it deviates from the original, how much has been touched up etc. It's normal - I do it myself and it can do wonders - but it does sometimes interfere with my appreciation of photography. Another thing is the sheer exhaustion from the volume of photographs. I am pretty religious about creating photobooks, and increasingly I'm finding it a fairly tedious task, simply because it takes absolutely ages to go through all the photographs and organising them into a photobook. At the same time, while there are indeed plenty of useless photographs, many of them are pretty incredible, and beautiful mementos of a particular time and place - and a million miles away from, for example, my parent's photo albums where so much is missing.
Last edited by Geezee on 08 Aug 2018, 09:43, edited 1 time in total.
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 12333
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby Geezee » 08 Aug 2018, 09:39

The Modernist wrote:
Geezee wrote: If I had any money and any bravery, I would love to buy up Man Ray's wonderful apartment in Paris Devon and convert it into a museum dedicated to his photography .



;)

I am serious though in saying I love Ray's photography.


And we shall call it The Rayograph!
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
trans-chigley express
Posts: 17500
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 01:50
Location: Asia's WC

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby trans-chigley express » 08 Aug 2018, 13:40

I'm frequently impressed with how good some people's photo's are with just the simplest of equipment including phones. Some people do have a talent for taking a nice, well framed and creative shots regardless of what they are using. On the other hand I've seen people with thousands of dollars worth of top of the range equipment take nothing but dull and unimaginative photos.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 32443
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby Goat Boy » 09 Aug 2018, 12:53

I have a love hate relationship with photography.

When I was younger and travelling more I really saw photography as a creative outlet I really wanted to get into but due to money restraints and my typical lack of actually committing to something I never got round to really getting into it. About 5 years ago I bought my first DSLR camera with the intention of taking the next step but never got round to buying a lens until this week. I do intend to do more now but I’m not sure if I’ll ever be really into it.

I think digital photography and phones in particular have demystified it somewhat. Everybody is bleeding “creative” these days. Of course there is still skill in taking great photos and you do have to have an eye for it – some people categorically do not – but with filters and editing techniques it is easier than ever to take decent ones. There is something about creative photography – people taking shots of some cunts feat or summat – that sets my teeth on edge. There’s just something pretentious about it all. Similarly people who take photos of garbage pins and everyday objects. It reminds me of that scene in American Pie where the guy is showing some lass a video of a plastic bag and he’s like, “it’s so beautiful”.

Occasionally I find myself taking attempting photos like that but then I back away as it seems artificial and a bit naff. The problem is possibly mine but I find it hard to get over it.

Like any artistic endeavor you should try and find your own voice but with photography that’s hard I find. Or maybe I just haven’t tried hard enough to find my own voice. Truthfully I feel that it's a bit of con. By that I mean something that's relatively easy to do well.
Griff wrote:The notion that Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong vocal proponent of antisemitism, would stand in front of an antisemitic mural and commend it is utterly preposterous.


Copehead wrote:we have lost touch with anything normal

User avatar
The Modernist
2018 BCB Cup Champ!
Posts: 12231
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby The Modernist » 09 Aug 2018, 14:24

Goat Boy wrote:
Like any artistic endeavor you should try and find your own voice but with photography that’s hard I find. Or maybe I just haven’t tried hard enough to find my own voice. Truthfully I feel that it's a bit of con. By that I mean something that's relatively easy to do well.


I basically agree. Of course now and then I do come across a photographer who reminds me that there can be real talent to it and one that can be distinct and unique, but at the same time it feels like something many people can do by following the cliches of art photography and kidding themselves they're being really creative. That was certainly the feeling I had when I watched the Sky Arts competition I mentioned earlier.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 52936
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: Photography Is Dead

Postby Snarfyguy » 09 Aug 2018, 17:15

WHAT THE - oh... I misread it as Pornography is Dead.

Whew!
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.