whatever happened to photography

@samstevens : I was referring to the first two posts of the original poster tommyfilmist (who seems to have vanished since then) and have the feeling that his concerns were mostly the change in photoprocessing tools and how they affect modern photography.

in this respect

Why? The tools and technique not only affect the act of photographing, they very much affect the photograph.

I mean the references made by the OP.

I agree that tools and techniques affect both the act and the result.

I don’t agree. Who said it? Maybe the context would help explain it.

We would have to ask the critic. I think he referred to the result as presented.

Right, as any human act. So, how can you boil photography down to “an act of today”? That makes it no different from any other act.

Apologies, I should have added "creative act".

Interesting approach but I wouldn’t limit my way of thinking about photography to that.

Of course I'm not thinking in limitative terms. Again, I was just reacting to the orginal poster, who seems to imply that photography is no longer what it used to be because of the use of photoshop and Artificial Intelligence, in respect to what we used to do in the wet darkroom (dodging, burning, cropping, etc.).

And, as inoneeye points out, the act of photography can be and often is much more a series of acts, a process, than a single act, traversing the universe from initial thought through setting exposure, through interacting with the world, through post processing, photography can be a complex process that may take months and often occupies much more time and influence than today.

Yes, and I fully agree. My statement of "an act of today" includes all the experiences, ideas, processes, techniques, etc., which flow into this act of today. In other terms, something that happens in an instant, but definitely not disconnected from history, experience and the ongoing relevant processes.

something that happens in an instant

But, what inoneeye is saying, and I agree, is that photography does not happen in an instant. Does not. It is often a process that takes many instants, months, sometimes years. It can take a long time to make one picture. Just like painting.

who seems to imply that photography is no longer what it used to be

This doesn’t suggest an either/or answer. In some ways, it’s very much what it used to be. In other ways, it’s very different. Photoshop has many similarities to the darkroom but is also very different. Digital photography has its own unique properties, and so did Polaroid photography.

[by the way, the OP was trolling and is now gone. I think there’s more potential in many of the comments here than simply as responses to his OP. There’s a lot of good stuff here to be considered, about time and photography and about the difference between subjects and objects and the ability to make and see photos in both non-linear and non-objective ways. Well beyond the limited scope of the OPs attempt to start a flame war about digital and film and to bring us into arguments he’s trying to have with people on other sites.]

But, what inoneeye is saying, and I agree, is that photography does not happen in an instant. Does not. It is often a process that takes many instants, months, sometimes years. It can take a long time to make one picture. Just like painting.

It seems to me that we fundamentally agree on everything, except for the instant of creation. I think that we can live with this.

I was thinking that in the very end photographing is in essence, the simplest of creative acts: you get a device (a smartphone, a Leica, anything in-between), point and frame (somehow), press the button, and there we are. Everybody is an artist (pun intended).

All considered, and not obvious to all, this simplicity makes photography is a potentially very complex and articulate creative act, where lots of elements come into play.

Thanks for clarifying the stance of the OP, who is still qualified as a moderator :confused:.

It seems to me that we fundamentally agree on everything, except for the instant of creation. I think that we can live with this.

 

I was thinking that in the very end photographing is in essence, the simplest of creative acts: you get a device (a smartphone, a Leica, anything in-between), point and frame (somehow), press the button, and there we are. Everybody is an artist (pun intended).

 

All considered, and not obvious to all, this simplicity makes photography is a potentially very complex and articulate creative act, where lots of elements come into play.

 

Thanks for clarifying the stance of the OP, who is still qualified as a moderator :confused:.

The moderator label is a glitch in the system. He was never and is not a moderator.

Agreement is overrated, lol. I actually think we disagree, or at least have very different takes, on a lot about photography and the things we discussed here. That’s why these dialogues are good. Not so much to achieve agreement, but to air different experiences and understandings. And they aren’t always so much disagreements as they are counterpoints. I think learning takes place not when I seek agreement but just when I carefully consider my own views and carefully listen to alternative views and see how and whether they comport or don’t comport with my own. The best that can come out of these dialogues, in my opinion, is clarity rather than agreement. Your questions to me, and I hope mine to you, help focus our thoughts and positions, more toward greater understanding than agreement.

"The best that can come out of these dialogues, in my opinion, is clarity rather than agreement." Sam.

just a thought ,

Photographs tend to clarify thoughts.

"The best that can come out of these dialogues, in my opinion, is clarity rather than agreement." Sam.

 

just a thought ,

 

Photographs tend to clarify thoughts.

Allen, Sam's take on the OP and yours need not be mutually exclusive.

"Allen, Sam's take on the OP and yours need not be mutually exclusive" Michael

Indeed, I would not disagree. However, the dialogues would be much my interesting if they were supported by actual photography.

Just words, without photos, a bit boring methinks. Although, to be fair, there is the odd photo-the odd being the operative word.

Just a thought.