Is Instagram 'debasing photography'?

It seems to me that Kate Bevan's definition of art and photography are terribly narrow. Not every artist or photographer is trying to reproduce "realism". Where would we be if Picasso only stayed in his realism phase. Art and photography is about creativity. I don't go around counting pixels. Who cares?! I care about light, reflection, tones, shapes, color-pallete, etc. Kate should stick to writing about things she knows about. Art and photography don't seem to be one of them.

I think eventually people will realize that Instagram is the photography equivalent of McDonalds. It has mass appeal, but lacks substance. Sadly, even when most people realize it lacks pith, many will still use it from time to time and some will use it exclusively.

I imagine if there were online forums when fast food hit it big we'd have heard the same arguments from proper chefs. Now, seeing fast photography in fine periodicals might understandably stir up professional photographers, because it's analogous to a fancy pants restaurant serving you a Big Mac and charging as much as wild tiger filet brazed with honey and lavender infused pine nut oil with a dusting of saffron, gold flakes, and the fermented tears of an ancient alligator served with garlic and pixie dust rubbed asparagus and olives hand stuffed with Italian Bitto wrapped in grape leaves.

If there's a threat to photography it comes from the mindset that produces foolish articles like this one. Tiresome pundits who know nothing much about the history of photography, yet somehow assume that every technique they don't personally enjoy must've been invented yesterday.

Retouching, lens filters, artificial aging of prints, purposeful vignetting, optical distortions, deliberately degrading film, dodging, burning, faux tilt-shift, and thousands of other effects have been standard photographic tricks for a century now. But, no. They all must be an ongoing plot by stupid philistines to offend their highly refined sensibilities.

photography is not an art until applied with vision and craft.
it's a tool of documentation in the very first place.

god get over your snobby egos and elitisms.

So, let's say I just dropped a couple grand on a new Olympus OMD EM-5, and a really nice lens. Let's say the 45mm f1.8. I go out to shoot, and put the camera in "Art Filter" mode and shoot a bunch of shots with something like the "Pin Hole" art filter. Is that any different than Instagram?

Let's say I don't use the art filters and instead shoot everything straight, but when I get home, I import the images to Photoshop. In Photoshop, I desaturate the color, create a layer, make a vignette effect, set the blend mode to multiply, add some fake film grain, create a new layer and add a fake border. Is the end result really that much different than Instagram or Hipstamatic, TIV PS, or Camera Bag, or Snapseed or...?

I took the time to reply to the author of the article because I feel that the answer as to why faux film effects have found their way into digital photography can be found in the writing of Marshall Mcluhen who, to paraphrase, said that that we march forwards as if looking in a rear view mirror, attaching ourselves to the objects of the past [in this case faux film effects]. In essence, photography has its own visual language and aesthetic; a language that has been established, and has existed for an awful long time. At the moment photography has not made a paradigm shift towards a new aesthetic [has, or will HDR change photography?] . Let's face it, even digital cameras could be described as 'faux' copies of 'real' film cameras.

Also, E.H. Gombrich, in his brilliant book: Art and Illusion, describes similar issues with the art of drawing and painting (since cave art) — the argument is not at all unique to photography!

It seems that style is style and it's all personal preference.

This one seems to be a popular post. I guess it hit a nerve with a lot of people.

I read the article and decided to play with my cell phone camera this weekend with these "filter" cameras. Had loads of fun doing it.

If you think about it, the small, slow ISO sensors, and some of them don't have flash, no aperture control, difficult to do exposure compensation, so what do you play with to have fun? Filters?

Call me weird, but I like using less than optimal equipment, not only because I can't afford expensive this and that, but I find I like the challenge, it forces me to think through the limitations of the equipment I'm using and then I end up figuring out new approaches to things. It forces me out of my comfort zone.

Analyse this article side by side with the one on Hipstamatic and Ben Lowy. He got published in the NY Times with his Hipstamatic images. I feel software like instagram and hipstamatic affect the world of professional photography in a very real way!

I think instagram is so popular with the masses because it gives their ordinary photos a "flavor", much like film stock. Would Steve McCurry's photos be as arresting if shot in digital without processing? Instagram is just a novelty, and as such, it can't debase professional photography. A discerning photographer will treat filters like seasoning - a ton of spice won't fix an overcooked steak, but if cooked just right to begin with, the seasoning can definitely elevate it.

While I am tired of seeing all of these faux "retro" photos all over the place, why is it wrong to give more people the freedom to shoot and stylize their photos? It is the end result that counts, not necessarily the tools used to create it. Someone can create an artistic, critically acclaimed photo using an iPhone and Instagram as much as the person using $10,000 in photographic gear. This article just sounds like sour grapes from someone who would rather keep "photography" confined to those with deep pockets. Shame.

'Random' is not 'Creative'

http://www.paulcolwell.com/blog/index.html#8

more toys there are to shoot, more people will start shooting, and more people have fun. that is not photography, that's just fun. Photography as an art will survive anyhow. more fake stuff there is, more demand there will be for genuine stuff - more valuable real photography can become.

Guys. It's ok.

Let people have fun with it. Its not because someone uses instagram it becomes a good photographer.

U take a photo of your friend drunk in a bar and you make it look cooler with a filter. Still just a photo of your friend n a bar.

You take an amazing landscape photo and you change the look with a filter. Still an amazing landscape photo.

Let people have fun. Some of the people act treatened by some plague.

If you care about someone getting more likes on facebook for a dog photo with instagram then your amazing photo with your high end dslr. then you simply lack confidence in your own work and/or talent.

If you are good. you get payed, or your photo comes in an art galery. Who cares about likes of your friends grandmother or a friends friends sister on facebook really...

Personally, I like Instagram but I can totally see where you're coming from. I guess it just depends on how you look at the situation..

(cont. 3) Using art filter effects does not inherently make a photo uncreative. As I stated in the beginning, I don't have any particular love for Instagram, but I concede I have seen some shots that were made arguably more intriguing as a result of such phototrickery. The idea that photography is an art solely for the learned enthusiast went up in smoke when each frame stopped costing 22 cents. That being said, of course most people who aren't as into photography as people on DPReview would gravitate to special effects that give their photos more pizazz without necessarily needing to know how it's accomplished. And if that can encourage "non-photographers" to take more photos, it can only be a good thing.

(cont.) Complaining that Instagram gives photos a faux aged look is like complaining that someone used Gimp to bring out more color in a lake than is really there, or that someone tweaked the curves to bring out the color in a classic car. That is the art of photography. The fact that people use the same effect via Instagram does not automatically make all their pictures look the same. Yes, I agree that the faux vintage look is one of the most overused effects in photography; I also think Justin Bieber is one of the most overrated artists in history. You know what I do? Change the station when he comes on. If you don't like Instagram, don't use it. No doubt for just about anyone on this forum, including myself proper editing software is far superior to things like Instagram, but not everyone is all about taking award winning photos all the time - even I sometimes play around with art filters on cameras that have them just for fun. (to be cont.)

I certainly have no love for Instagram, but to view it as debasing real photography is to be something of a photography elitist. Allow me to elaborate.

As the author stated, nowadays "you can create extraordinary images using software." Absolutely true - you can use Photoshop or Gimp to tweak just about any aspect of a digital photograph from cropping and adjusting curves to faking a reflection. Where I must disagree is where she downplays the importance of "the technical skills of exposure and the artistic skill of composition." Software like Photoshop are designed to enhance good photos, not take the place of photographic skill. Whether you go heavy on art filters and/or post-processing or primarily stick with straight-out-of-the-camera photos, there is no substitute for a good eye. Even when it comes to Instagram, there are good pictures and bad pictures. What makes it or breaks it is the composition. (to be cont.)

The author says that pictures have a history and a story. She talks about capturing a moment in time. She talks about the dangers of adding a fake longevity. She then says that it's wonderful that now a person can edit out the "ex" from the family get together. That is a little inconsistent. After complaining abut these simple editing tools she states that "good photography is editing.

In conclusion, it seems that the author thinks that editing is wrong when it changes the story and that the great thing about digital is that we can change the story. Sorry Kate, you can't have it both ways.

Instagram sucks! :-)

I wish Instagram came up with only one filter - a black filter, which makes pictures completely black. That would make all those phone pictures look a lot better.

I wouldn't say it's destroying Photography, the latter requires good taste. Instagram is not for creative people, it's for masses of people with cameras who can't distinguish a dung from a Turkish Delight. Uglification is easy and for many people it's a synonym for creativity, but it's most definitely not.

Is the National Enquirer 'debasing journalism' ?

If yes, we read other publications, no?

To each their own.

Could it not be said any alteration to a photo (regardless of the effect) is altering the story told by the photograph?

What I find with "photographers" these days is there is no time taken to compose a good shot or think about the shot they want...just hold the shutter and hope you get something you can PS till it looks good.....film is a great way to learn to shoot. This is where I started and it truly gives you a much better appreciation for photography and catching that amazing shot the first time.

To each there own, but I love the fact that there are more people taking more pictures...history captured in a picture IMO. Love it!

I only use Instagram filters after I've applied selective coloring, tilt-shift effect, thick black border, and huge watermark.

mobile applications such as Instagram are Bullshi *

yes!!!

After consuming many of the messages here I can take comfort in the fact that the detractors of Instagram and all things that are claimed to "debase real photography" comprise only a small segment of the imaging taking forum participants who weighed in on the matter.

Kudos to Dan Wagner who posed a pretty good case for continuance of old school photography. If you haven't seen his work you should go to link he provides, good stuff. Dan is a real photographer for sure; others are evolving their craft, or lack thereof, by adding layers of effects on their image captures.

There seems to be a disconnect with what Kate says she does vs. what she dislikes about these apps. She admits to utilizing the tools within Lightroom to get the " effect" and manipulate the image to her taste. Ok I buy that because evry artist has their own view of the world. That being said the option to throw a filter on an iPhone snapshot is an option not a requirement. It is ok to let folks express their world however they like regardless of the medium (my personal fav is Jerry Uelsmann). So lighten up Kate, snap some pics and play a little.

Who's to say a certain look or style to photography(or art) is detrimental or wrong? Apperantly Kate..

The instagram look never appealed to me, even the first time I saw one.
The only "analysis" of Instagram relevant to me is that the result is ugly.

What I see is the same thing that happened with the font mess people made when the Mac first came out.

People using fonts because they could.

Eventually people with some discrimination will mostly quit and you will be able to detect those with no style or photographic vision.

No big deal.

Jim