I raised the question with David Little, curator of photography at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, and he and I agree with you Keith. The art will always float to the top, and it is not extinct, nor runs the risk of it.
Originally Posted by keithwms
My own opinion is that what has truly changed in photography isn't fundamentally the switch from one technology of making photographs to another, what has truly changed is VOLUME. There is so much of it today, that it takes some real determination to wade through all of the snapshots to get to the cream.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
+1, Anybody with enough money can buy high end camera that is full of electronic technology that without any knowledge, training or study by the owner can produce sharp, correctly exposed, and colourful images, this doesn't make them photographers it makes them camera owners, any more than if they bought a Stradivarius violin would make them a violinist, but it doesn't prevent them from seeing it as an opportunity to make easy with the inevitable consequences of getting themselves involved in all sorts of trouble with their clients including law suits, and in the eyes of the general public giving professional photography a bad name.
Originally Posted by j-dogg
P.S. I have no axe to grind, I have never been or wanted to be a pro.
Last edited by benjiboy; 03-07-2012 at 09:07 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Digital has made photography available for even more people, why is that bad? Are we afraid that our club is not so cool anymore?
When it comes to music I had the impression that more bands play live because they make less money on selling CDs due to downlading.
It's not all bad that more people take photos because of digital, but it is not all hunky dory either.
Personally, I see making a good living off of what I do in 20 years, photography. But I am also getting ready for the biggest changes of all to come in the next 5-15 years. I have a feeling that between laws on the rise that prohibit photography with it's now even more invasive nature and the technology it self, you won't even begin to fathom those changes for awhile.
But they are coming and it is not all good. I know there will be many a happy photographer or photo enthusiast decades from now, but what it will look like is not what you might think...that is why I posted this, I think people on here are so distracted by the film versus digital debate that they are kind of blind to the bigger picture issues, like the digital versus people debate, photography as a language more than craft debate and how that is going to affect us all.
Yes, through the people who look at it and the people who make it, photography will be fine. But it is going to all change in ways that might make you wish for a time machine, it's part of a bigger picture problem of too much digital everything, much too fast. Because I shoot not just for a passion or a job, but a life, I look at these much bigger picture trends and what they might do.
Technology is it's own best hype machine, it's called the association game. "He says it is the hottest thing out, so it must be, golly gee, I better try it, I don't want to be left behind." Photography has been the poster child of that for at least 10 years in current form and it is only going to get worse. The good news is that when you talk to people off of the net, all is OK in the world, including photography, the hype is just that, hype.
But this *is* going to change photography and what is considered a photograph in even more profound ways than we can imagine...
Think about it man, 20 years from now?
Originally Posted by komla
Time to pass the bong...
Originally Posted by PKM-25
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Chicken Little is hurrying
Umbrella 'neath her wing.
She thinks the sky is falling fast
So goes to tell the King.
But, after she has spread the news
And all is told and said
The good old King just laughs at her
And sends her home instead.
BTW, who is this Utah Bill?
OK, I get it, put Chicken Little in the bong and smoke it I guess. It's food for thought not served by your mother, read, you don't have to eat it.
I didn't read the whole thread, so I apologize for my laziness and if my point has been stated. I get the feeling this conversation has happened before in the history of photography. When Kodak brought out the Brownie and other cheap cameras followed and almost everyone had access to a camera, so much so that there were probably billions of actual negatives that existed at one point. Or when the cheap SLR's or point and shoots were developed. I think the thing that has changed is that everyone now can post all of their photos to millions of people, instead of the handful of people dragged to see the latest vacation slides from 'Tommy and Edna's big car trip out west' . I think this instant access to everything has not only affected photography it has affected all parts of society.
The thing is that now, one by one, manufacturer are stopping making film. First there was polaroid stopping making instant film, then kodak stopping making Kodachrome and now Ektachrome film, What next ? Color and Black and white film ? At least a musician can still chose to play with an analog instrument. Soon, a photographer will not have any choice but to use digital in order to pursue photography. That time may be coming sooner than later and I dread it.
Originally Posted by Barry S
This is really it in a nutshell.
Originally Posted by WMRphoto
I don't live in fear of losing photography day in day out, hardly. But I think that with recent hotbed threads like Kodak C-11 and the whole 101010 thing in general, it might be a good time to look even deeper into bigger picture happenings to gain perspective in what might be afoot for photography itself in the coming years.
It's not a call to arms, it's a call to take a closer look.
Last edited by PKM-25; 03-07-2012 at 03:45 PM. Click to view previous post history.