Slow Death of Photography?

coreyh said:

I can't help but think that as the user of my cameras I am slowly
become less and less of a requirement to take nice pictures. You
can coax a lot more out of your equipment by knowing how to play
with iso, aperature and shutter speed but the automatic settings
are becoming more and more user friendly to the point where all I
have to do is press a button. More times than not, I will get a
good picture of my subject(s).

Click to expand...

Witness the collapse in prices that are paid for stock photos

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/micro-payment.shtml

as one benchmark that a large part of the market places a much smaller value on photography than it used to. Because photography is so much easier now that everybody and their dog can now be a photographer.

At least as far as Getty, et al, are concerned.

Wayne

-- http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Bob,
'There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.' Ansel Adams
Great Pro1
Casio EX-750

It all depends on what you call a "good" picture.

1) I still manually set a lot of things and find I do it better than the camera. I do shoot an Auto picture once in a while just to compare, and 99% of the time, my settings are better than the in-cam auto settings.

2) Sure, nearly anybody can take a properly exposed, decently focused picture, with correct white balance. Does that make it a good picture ? Hell no ! I'm sorry to say, and I don't mean to offend, but I have nearly never seen (or hardly ever) a real "good" photo on this particular site. This site is all about equipment and gimmicks, and I love to visit it and contribute for the technical aspect of things. But folks here are not into fine photography at all, from what I have witnessed.

Even though I'm a camera freak myself and love to have the best possible equipment, I don't consider myself a good photographer, and I do share the belief that cameras have nearly nothing to do with good photography. Of course, professionals will have the best possible cameras as they are money making tools, and they'd better be flexible, reliable and performing. But what makes a good picture is rarely the technique. It's the eye. To me, composition, framing, how the subject fills the picture, that is what a good photo is all about.

I see pics on this site (including mine more often than not !) that Iwonder why people would even bother posting !? Sure, cute kids, cute dogs, whatever, pretty flowers, impressive sports... BORING as hell ! Oh yeah, I have seen ONE portrait on this site that took my breath away (the poster is Psideburns, in case you want to check it out), picture of a young girl who could be a Flemish master's painting. Now, that was an inspired picture. Sure, it was taken with a state of the art camera (Nikon D2Hs), but I very much doubt the engineering had much to do with the emotion of this picture.
Anyway interesting topic, thanks for launching it.

Claire (poor photgrapher, but deep photo lover)

Have you ever used Photo shop? Its main purpose is to do the manipulations that were possible yet difficult to do with film. You still need to take good photos.

Wayne Larmon said:

coreyh said:

I can't help but think that as the user of my cameras I am slowly
become less and less of a requirement to take nice pictures. You
can coax a lot more out of your equipment by knowing how to play
with iso, aperature and shutter speed but the automatic settings
are becoming more and more user friendly to the point where all I
have to do is press a button. More times than not, I will get a
good picture of my subject(s).

Click to expand...

Witness the collapse in prices that are paid for stock photos

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/micro-payment.shtml

as one benchmark that a large part of the market places a much
smaller value on photography than it used to. Because photography
is so much easier now that everybody and their dog can now be a
photographer.

At least as far as Getty, et al, are concerned.

Wayne

Click to expand...

And folks interested in the issue might wish to go to the LL forums - Coffee Corner - and read the discussion this essay. There are multiple views.

--
bob

The Blind Pig Guild
A photo/travel club looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Flowers of Asia
A photo club for appreciators of Asian flowers - looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Flowers-of--Asia/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips

Wayne Larmon said:

coreyh said:

I can't help but think that as the user of my cameras I am slowly
become less and less of a requirement to take nice pictures. You
can coax a lot more out of your equipment by knowing how to play
with iso, aperature and shutter speed but the automatic settings
are becoming more and more user friendly to the point where all I
have to do is press a button. More times than not, I will get a
good picture of my subject(s).

Click to expand...

Witness the collapse in prices that are paid for stock photos

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/micro-payment.shtml

as one benchmark that a large part of the market places a much
smaller value on photography than it used to.

Click to expand...

There's no cause and effect relationship there, at all.

All you're seeing is a change in the cost of entry into the stock business and a change in the distribution model.

It used to be that a stock agency had to be big enough to prepare printed catalogs and send them out to customers (call on the important ones in person), to archive tens or hundreds of thousands of images, to prepare sample sheets in specific categories for customers on demand, to copy them photographically as needed, and to know how to ship efficiently locally or internationally, handling the appropriate customs tariffs and duties.

Now it takes a good server, a good web designer, and a sales crew that may be located in an entirely different country. Submission is easier, amateurs and newbies who wouldn't have thought of selling for stock 10 years ago are uploading their little hearts out.

Wayne Larmon said:

Because photography
is so much easier now that everybody and their dog can now be a
photographer.

Click to expand...

No, but distribution is easier, and submission is easier.

--
The Pistons led the NBA, and lost in the playoffs.
The Red Wings led the NHL, and lost in the playoffs.

It's up to the Tigers now...
Leading the league, and going all the way!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

You are absolutely right. PS can help you clear up some things that may have been difficult to do with film, but it still has to start with a good photo.

Right now, I am working on a multi layer composite of my house being built. From right to left, the house goes from being framed to fully built. I still have a few photos to take but this has taken a lot of planning and hard work to pull off. Even though the final picture is assmbled in PS, I fail to see how PS is killing photography.

A child can learn to take a picture that's sharp and correctly exposed and has good color. I know this for a fact because I was a child when I learned it. Having machines that do it better and faster only makes it easier to concentrate on whatever it is that makes photos worth looking at.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/ ]
My RSS feed: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/rss/whatsnew.xml ]
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]

Enjoyed K100photograper post.

We seem to have missed OP point.In 10/20 years he suggests cameras will be capable of returning perfectly exposed shots every time, sure, we may have to point the thing in the right direction LOL. Re PS, even here there's less and less for us to do what with all the actions available. Just think of the progress in past 20yrs, quite scary indeed.

carl english said:

Enjoyed K100photograper post.
We seem to have missed OP point.In 10/20 years he suggests cameras
will be capable of returning perfectly exposed shots every time,
sure, we may have to point the thing in the right direction LOL. Re
PS, even here there's less and less for us to do what with all the
actions available. Just think of the progress in past 20yrs, quite
scary indeed.

Click to expand...

Note that Fuji just released a camera with built-in "face recognition".

That's step one toward an autonomous camera. Perhaps only a crude first step, but what baby's first step isn't rather awkward?

Twenty years and we might see 'camera-bots' that read our "I want a picture of that in "Adams-style" or "Rowel-style" and off it will fly.

And have you picked up on the recent announcement that a person has been able to control their computer cursor via a brain-implanted chip? Control by thought has also taken it's infant steps.

--
bob

The Blind Pig Guild
A photo/travel club looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Flowers of Asia
A photo club for appreciators of Asian flowers - looking for members
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Flowers-of--Asia/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips

Sorry Claire, in my lost post I said I enjoyed K1000photographers post. I actually meant yours.

Is spelt with one F and two eSSes.

Do you think that taking pictures is as dumbed down as flying as airliner these days?

--

'Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.'

Forrest said:

I don't use the auto modes very much, but I don't fear them
liberating the unwashed masses.

Click to expand...

Nice way of putting it.

Forrest41926 said:

But that computer will never be able to compose your photo for you,
or pick out the best point in time to freeze by hitting the
shutter. It won't be able to help you find the best pose, the most
life-like perspective, and how to pack the most emotional content
into the frame. It won't help you recognize something interesting
and tell you to pull your camera out in the first place.

Click to expand...

Well, those are precisely the kinds of thing that they're just beginning to try now... cameras that wait until the subject is smiling, with eyes open, etc...

I vaguely remember a paper that someone linked to from this forum about robot event photographers that would roam around, taking pictures, trying to attain certain compositional rules and so on... it'll never come up with a work of art, of course.

Still, there is much research in artificial intelligence into machine creativity and aesthetics, etc. How long before a computer can beat any of us for 'artistry' in statistically significant double blind studies with established art critics? Time will tell. And what does it mean if they do?

They may not have the sophistication and subtelty for the nuances of emotion etc that a human has, but I personally am wary of assuming that will always be a sacred immutable thing that machines cannot approach. Some human beings are a little too sure of our race's inate uniqueness, it's interesting to see that challenged.

Forrest41926 said:

Technical quality and art are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

This is a truism, that very many computer researchers are well aware of.....

Still, artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. ;-)

And I still don't see myself turning away from the manual settings on my camera anytime soon.

and won't ever determine the "perfect" exposure. The "right" exposure as determined by a meter is rarely, if ever, the "best" exposure. The greatest images are the ones that are premeditated with the photographer determining (using all the info at his disposal - including the meter) the appropriate exposure to distribute the tones of the image in the appropriate places to communicate the image as he/she views it. It extends further than that to the choice of "film", weather that be a Velvia or Provia choice, or a Curve/sat/level choice (these adjustments are the same as choosing a film). The only people with the view of the OP are people who lack creativity and are unable to appreciate or execute the art and craft of photography at a high level.

Facial recognition my a$$!!
Mark
--
http://www.markjanzenphotography.com
---Still looking for the perfect camera bag.............

Of course you meant "an" airliner

An image where the photographer totally lacks any vision for light and composition sticks out like a sore thumb. No camera and/or computer can do that for you. The creative process of the human mind will never be matched or replaced by a computer. Check out this month's cover of Digital Photo Pro by Jill Greenberg. Do you think any computer can replace her vision and her talent (she is amazing, by the way!!!). Even where Photoshop comes into play, it still stakes the creative vision of a human being to know how to use the tool to its best advantage. This will never change. All these tools in the hands of a talented individual will augment his or her skill, but will never allow the unskilled shooter to do anything more than shoot technically correct but artistically boring or gimicky snapshots.



--
'I'd knock on wood for good luck, but it just gives me a headache!!!'

Petteri Sulonen said:

A child can learn to take a picture that's sharp and correctly
exposed and has good color. I know this for a fact because I was a
child when I learned it. Having machines that do it better and
faster only makes it easier to concentrate on whatever it is that
makes photos worth looking at.

Click to expand...

Exactly the point. The point of automation is to liberate us to expand our abilities, like calculators and computers. However, a consequence, as the OP hints at, is that, like calculators and computers, automation becomes a doping crutch for many. But again, like calcualtors and computers, those who are not liberated would never have excelled anyway.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.

People who take snapshots for the family album (paper or electronic) will be able to take better snapshots. People who pursue photography for its own sake will be able to find creative ways to explore the new territory opened up by technology. And if you like it, it's not like Leica M3's suddenly disintegrated.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/ ]
My RSS feed: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/rss/whatsnew.xml ]
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

.... Submission is
easier, amateurs and newbies who wouldn't have thought of selling
for stock 10 years ago are uploading their little hearts out.

Click to expand...

While not contesting the points you made, isn't this last thought similar to the point I made? That the threshold of competence that is needed to produce halfway decent images is much lower now. The existence of a different distribution model does not negate this point.

Wayne

Gadgets will never replace skill.