The death of photography...

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
There was a time when photography was an art practiced by few. The hassles of film and darkroom work kept the majority of the public shooting snapshots and the serious work was done by those willing to invest the time and money into learning exposure, dof, etc.

Then along came digital cameras.

All of a sudden, anybody who can buy a DSLR thinks they're a fscking photographer. Look at deviant art. Most of the "art" photography there is total garbage. And because of my minor successes in the past I get crap like this, "Hey I just bought this $2000 camera. What button do I push to get pics like yours?"

The art isn't in pushing the button. I've sold images made with all kinds of cameras. It's the vision to see art before bringing out the camera, and the skill to know how to get your vision onto the film. But with digitals, you can fire off 100 shots until you get one that looks good without having a clue what you're doing.

I'm not begrudging those who take the time to learn the art. There are a couple outstanding photographers here on ATOT. It's the people who think the camera can do it, and keep shooting until they get a good shot. Then you hear, "Hey! I'm a photographer! Look at me!"

Sigh.

/rant
 
V

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
The death of? How about the rebirth of?

The fact that people are even interested in firing off those 100 shots to get a good one should make you happy.

There will always be a need for professional photographers, current technology has simply made it more accessible for the amateur.

Viper GTS
 
J

JDrake

Banned
Dec 27, 2005
10,246
0
0
"and keep shooting until they get a good shot. Then you hear, "Hey! I'm a photographer! Look at me!" "

you get a masterpiece first try?
 
B

BobDaMenkey

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2005
3,057
2
0
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The death of? How about the rebirth of?

The fact that people are even interested in firing off those 100 shots to get a good one should make you happy.

There will always be a need for professional photographers, current technology has simply made it more accessible for the amateur.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...

I have to agree.

Granted there are alot more "photographers", most of whom absolutly suck(*raises hand, that holds an old Digi P&S instead of a DSLR*). I think it's a good thing that people have more intrest in trying to take good pictures. Eventually they will either quit or become good at it, and either way it's great for the industry.
 
L

LanceM

Senior member
Mar 13, 2004
999
0
0
Originally posted by: JDrake
"and keep shooting until they get a good shot. Then you hear, "Hey! I'm a photographer! Look at me!" "

you get a masterpiece first try?
Click to expand...

Haha, QFT. Whatever the OP's intent was with this statement, it came off horribly wrong.

EDIT: Who cares if thousands of "untrained" people take pictures that they consider art? If other people look at it and see it as art as well, who are you to argue or make them feel guilty for not doing it the "right" way?

If they have the patience to fire off those 100 shots, so be it. You'll just have to work harder as an artist in order to compete; and there's nothing wrong with an artist having to work hard in order to keep a following. Times change. Deal with it. Otherwise, you sound like a theatre owner whining about DVD.
 
D

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
Originally posted by: LanceM
Originally posted by: JDrake
"and keep shooting until they get a good shot. Then you hear, "Hey! I'm a photographer! Look at me!" "

you get a masterpiece first try?
Click to expand...

Haha, QFT. Whatever the OP's intent was with this statement, it came off horribly wrong.
Click to expand...

I guess so... :eek:

But if you tie it in with the sentence above it makes more sense. I just mean they keep pressing the shutter button without understanding WHY the good shot was good.

I remember when the definition of an amateur photographer was, "Christmas at both ends of the film."
 
V

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
Originally posted by: BobDaMenkey

I think it's a good thing that people have more intrest in trying to take good pictures. Eventually they will either quit or become good at it, and either way it's great for the industry.
Click to expand...

And regardless of what happens the money the amateurs dump into the industry will drive R&D, bringing the pros ever better tools.

Viper GTS
 
edro

edro

Lifer
Apr 5, 2002
24,326
68
91
Don't get mad because some tool with a $1000 DSLR and Photoshop makes better looking prints than you in your darkroom. It's technology. It always advances. Your era is past. Dead.
 
Number1

Number1

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,881
549
126
Is it taking anything away from you?

Here is a pic I took this morning in my yard. I like it.
Bird.
 
daniel1113

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Boohoo.

If anything, the advent of digital photography should only further separate the profressionals from the amateurs, as they will be pushed to try new things and do them better than before. The same thing has happened with just about every art form, but none of them went away.
 
G

GalvanizedYankee

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2003
6,986
0
0
If Paris Hilton can make music videos.

If wannabe skilled racers think they are, after drifting around city streets.

Then every DSLR owner with Photoshop is an artist...Yeah right!


...Galvanized
 
ViviTheMage

ViviTheMage

Lifer
Dec 12, 2002
36,189
87
91
madgenius.com
It still takes time to do it the 'old way' in the light of a darkroom.

With this deviant art stuff people can just show off what they can MANIPULATE. usually everything is chopped to hell with PS (which is an art in its own), I find some great stuff on deviant art taht looks really good photoshopped, more so then what it did look like before they photoshopped it. The industry expanded, it is no where near dieing.

now-adays its the photoshoppers (point and shoot didigs) and the photographers (b/w, SLR)
 
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,942
4,531
126
You fail to see that a lot of the difference between a professional photographer and an amature was that the professional did take hundreds of shots and selected the one good one. The amature took one shot and hoped it was good. It wasn't that you are so much better, it was just all in the numbers. True, professionals usually had better equipment. But again, that isn't skill. The playing field is now much more narrow and you realise that much of what you thought was skill was in fact just numbers (the amount of photos you took and the amount of money you spent).

What is left now is the real photography skills. The real skill is in selecting the right object to take a picture of and then editing that photo. That is where professionals will always have the skill, the talent, and the artistic abilites that amatures don't have.

I'm not trying to bash photographers (many of my friends and GF's family members are professional photographers). I'm just stating that what many photographers thought was all skill was truely only half skill and half money. That half skill part is a tremendous art and few people take the time or have the ability to do it. However, I'm just stating that it was false to think the difference was all skill.
 
foghorn67

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: DurocShark
There was a time when photography was an art practiced by few. The hassles of film and darkroom work kept the majority of the public shooting snapshots and the serious work was done by those willing to invest the time and money into learning exposure, dof, etc.

Then along came digital cameras.

All of a sudden, anybody who can buy a DSLR thinks they're a fscking photographer. Look at deviant art. Most of the "art" photography there is total garbage. And because of my minor successes in the past I get crap like this, "Hey I just bought this $2000 camera. What button do I push to get pics like yours?"

The art isn't in pushing the button. I've sold images made with all kinds of cameras. It's the vision to see art before bringing out the camera, and the skill to know how to get your vision onto the film. But with digitals, you can fire off 100 shots until you get one that looks good without having a clue what you're doing.

I'm not begrudging those who take the time to learn the art. There are a couple outstanding photographers here on ATOT. It's the people who think the camera can do it, and keep shooting until they get a good shot. Then you hear, "Hey! I'm a photographer! Look at me!"

Sigh.

/rant
Click to expand...

Get over yourself. DSLR's are the new medium.
Look at any pro photographers published book, and look at their equipment lists. All digital. It's 2006. Wake up and ditch the film.
There was a time when people ranted about SLR's. Too accesible and high resolution for amatuers. Newbs were supposed to be only shooting through Kodak Brownie's and Poloroids. They shouldn't be allowed to buy a Canon AE1 or Nikon F1.
I bet if you lived in the 60's and 70's, you would be complaining at 35mm.
 
S

spike spiegal

Member
Mar 13, 2006
196
0
0
All of a sudden, anybody who can buy a DSLR thinks they're a fscking photographer
Click to expand...

I have over 1,000 hours experience in commercial darkrooms and can hand print virtually any fine art process you can think of. Fine art B&W fiber, reversal R-type, you name it. I've also sold prints on every medium, from 4x5 to 35mm slr to desaturated dSLR.

What DurocShark is actually complaining about is he invested all this mental energy in wasted processes, like the proper dilution of D-76 and how to manually burn and dodge a B&W print, and now he's pissed digital shooters are taking better pictures than him.

The real differerence between digital photography and film photography is that with digital photography you aren't held hostage by obsolete and clunky reproduction techniques to get a stupid print. With digital photography the photographer is soley accountable for the image.

With film photography, the photographer has all these excuses to deal with, such as blaming the lab, or the C-41/E-6 processing, or the paper contrast, etc. Hell, I got money on DurocShark not being able to print his own color, but has to rely on some poor lab rat to do it for him. I'm betting that same lab rat picks and chooses color/density for him - so much for the photographer being an artist. When I pick up my prints from my dSLR they are exactly as I saw on the screen. If it's a bad pic, it's my fault, and not the third shift lab manager. It's *my* image and not subject to the emulsion engineers at Fuji or Kodak.

So, the real dilema here is a lot of film photographers aren't very good photographers, and if you take the film/print wet process out of the equation, they need something to blame. So, they bash digital shooters. Or, they become instant B&W Nazis and declare conventional B&W printing as better than all other forms of photography.

As for 'taking' a lot of pictures, I tend to shoot more images with my dSLR than my RB67, but given my RB67 was limited to 10 shots on a roll, it's only common sense. Even when using a 4x5 it would take me half a dozen film backs to get it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom