Jump to content

Headline, year 2025: Photography goes way of the Dodo bird


Recommended Posts

.[.Z -thanks for the link to forum. Once again, thanks everyone. Good thoughts. Lots of

passion either way. As it looks, we may be around for a bit. So I guess a new question

would be: Does the proliferation of photography throughout the world, including all

formats and platforms, amateur and professional, make it more or less of an important

medium? Is it more or less impactful now that more people have access to very good

picture making tools? Walter Benjamin, in 1936, wrote a paper titled "The work of art in

the age of Mechanical reproduction" which speaks of how the more an image is

reproduced the less importance it carries. Are people becoming numb to imagery because

they are bombarded by it? Or, does the "great" photograph carry all the more potency, now

that more people can see it and understand it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>Not trying to kick over a pissing contest but photo galleries at football and golf are dominated by Canon white glass; even with live video telecast present.</i><p>It helps to know what one is talking about on these types of things. <p>Maybe you missed what I said, I shoot sports professionally. Media passes are given out to lots of photographers, but the video people control what happens from start to finish, and the vidcaps get published more than what the photographers shoot. I did a shoot last night, as I said, in LA. There were photographers from a number of organizations, but the video guys controlled everything from start to finish. Maybe I can say it again so it's more clear to you? <p>The rest has just as little credibility so I won't even bother to comment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more likely that people will quit reading. Podcasts, text msgs, pictographs, still photography and motion photography are supplanting the written word in industrialized cultures, and we're working on supplying non-industrialized countries with cell phone networks and hand crank laptops. <p>Written words are disappearing. ROTFLMAO... c u!... t
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The rest has just as little credibility so I won't even bother to comment."

 

The rest has lots of credibility in regard to the OP's question, it's just not what you, personally, might consider important. The question I responded to was... "My point being, we know video killed the radio star, but will it kill photography too?" Not sure who the "...radio star..." is, assuming the likes of "Fireside Chats" but radio is quite alive and growing in popularity in the likes of satellite and commercial AM/FM radio. Radios stated demise is very premature. :)

 

Photography is not just sports but is also a wide ranging verb. Photography is growing in popularity and is in "no" threat of being eliminated by video, now or in the far future and this is borne out by the facts presented so although you desire to trivialize my comments, it's doesn't cause the comments or information posted to come up lacking in credibility. One only needs to look to sales figure being presented by the likes of Nikon, SONY and Canon to get a feel for how popular photography currently is. One can also look to how popularity in the older, wet darkroom has continued.

 

Again, textiles, sailing ships and pottery have been around for thousands and thousands of years and will continue doing so for many millennia into the future. I see no reason to expect, based upon past histories, to see still photography (writing with light), in what ever form it takes, to not continue to be actively pursued well into the next millennium. :)

 

So I, a gifted nobody, declare the act of still photography to be alive and well with no threat on it's life, now or in the far future, long after we all are no longer able to read these words. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When photography started to really develope in the mid 19th century, impressionism was born. Painters did'nt have to copy exactly what they saw,just there interpretation.Painting did'nt disappear.I've used my (very average) photos for lectures for the last 15 years.I did some filming, all nicely cut up with premiere pro etc, and after showing it, I answered all the questions using photos.What I mean is we reflect on a film afterwards,because the image moves, whilst a photo makes our eyes and our brain work.Nothing will ever be more explicit than a photo.Video and photography are not enemys, but complementary.So I think we are talking about co-existence, rather than competition.To keep photography a valid and valuable medium is what the vaste majority of people on photo net are doing simply(if I may say so)by submitting photos that are all in various respects worth contemplating.Hopefully in 2025 there will still be people who want to contemplate,but then thats another story
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Video and photography are not enemys, but complementary."

 

A thought, in regard to stars of radio, assuming the comment refers to radio shows such as "Fibber McGee and Molly."

 

http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/agirard/fibber/79.htm

 

Locally, we now have Stern on satellite, Ole Rush-bo on syndicated AM and PBS, daily, all day long on the FM, taking the place of "Fibber McGee and Molly" as HD radio is currently making it's Rock-n-Roll debut. :)

 

http://www.howardstern.com/

 

Vinyl? Now being down loaded to your favorite MP-3 player at a buck a download but it's still music to our ears. Classics? Folks are still, and will continue filling concert halls so as to listen to live presentation of the "real" oldies; Beethoven, Bach, Brahms and Mozart. The Bard? Still as relevant today as when quill was put to paper, way back then. The "Snap Shot" aesthetic? Still quite alive and well at all tourist spots around the world; video cameras are welcome.

 

The point of my above, yes, I agree, video and still photography have been, are and will continue to be partners, not adversaries, well into the "far" seeable future. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with Jeff in some of the points he made. Commercial photography will certainly be affected the most with the advancement of technology.

 

The days that "cameras" will be able to capture "still" images at 20fps and 20MP resolution are not far. My mind goes to the following scenario: Imagine that you are in a fashion show. The organizer of the event, not necessarily a photographer (could be a magazine editor) sets-up 4 or 5 of these ultra-fast, super-duper machines and covers the venue from 4-5 different angles. Then the still picture selection can easily be made out a series of "movie-like" sequence. In this scenario, I just see the role of a photographer nearly redundant.

 

The "decisive moment" where a photographer presses the shutter and put his personal signature in the picture gets lost.

Of course not all kinds of photography will be affected the same.

I just have the feeling that we are moving from a more esoteric process, in the pure film era, where someone had to master his camera and eventually make it an extension of his eye, to a more controllable, but random process where the final result will be of exceptional quality but sadly, not taken by a photographer.

 

Besides my pessimistic approach, I do believe that photography as a means of expression has a lot to offer and people will continue to receive a lot of pleasure by "capturing the moment"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...