Is Photography Dead

<p>Is the state of photography dying? Will the digital masters ever compared to the masters of film? Will there ever be a group of young photographers to carry the torch and help elevate the medium or are we all witnessing a slow death to the art we know as photography?</p>

<p>No. Yes. Yes, no.</p>

<p>ditto</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Will the digital masters ever compared to the masters of film?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

<a href="http://www.laurengreenfield.com/">Lauren Greenfield,</a> a documentary photographer whose work I like a lot, went from film to digital and nobody noticed.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> the art we know as photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It's been changing constantly since it was invented, so it's not a static art but something with life and vitality. It has recently become much more ingrained in the lives of everyday people, which you'd think people would see as a good thing, and most do.</p>

<p>Like Matt said</p>

<p>No, Yes, Yes, No</p>

<p>nothing will ever match the guys who took photos on glass plates .... :-)</p>

<p>Photography does not equal the tools used, therefore it will live on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"nothing will ever match the guys who took photos on glass plates .... :-)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This, absolutely. The invention of film ruined real photography for the real photographers. Film transformed an arcane art into a vulgar form of mass communication. Even Ansel Adams contributed to the demise of photography when he bought pre-sensitized glass plates rather than making his own sensitized recording media, as any true photographer would do. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxv2C5fplX8">Overrated hack</a>.</p>

<p>Photography was dead by the 1890s. Good riddance. The death of photographers leaves us free to indulge ourselves in the one pure art form: Versus arguments on discussion forums.</p>

<p>I think the real questions are: Is the state of writing dying? Will the typewriter masters ever compare to the masters of pens and pencils? Will there ever be a group of young writers to carry the torch and help elevate the written word or are we all witnessing a slow death to the art we know as writing?<br /><br />Cuz, you know, it's all digits and computers 'n' stuff now, and there's no <em>way</em> that communicating via typed words on a computer can possibly express ideas in the same way as when those words are written on old-timey paper with squid ink and a goose feather. Kids today just can't conjugate verbs like the old masters who couldn't email the results.</p>

<p>You guys crack me up.</p>

<p>Last I heard it wasn't feeling well...</p>

<p>Photography is alive and well - a trillion (or so) camera phone owners can't be wrong! As others have said, photography is (and always has been) in a state of flux - in particular, many activities and types of work previously carried out by "professional" photographers either no longer exist or are carried out by amateurs or other types of professionals, such as graphic designers, police officers, real estate agents, etc. The core attributes of a good photographer (quick reflexes and a strong visual sense) remain unchanged, getting paid as a photographer is getting harder by the minute!</p>

<p>Ye photographers with thou fancy tooleth! Charcoal on mi cavewall, ever since it's demise.</p>

<p>Photography as we (old fuddy duddies?) once knew it is very minimal, but not gone. I was thinking of putting some of my work in a local gallery that recently opened when the owner mentioned "no traditional photography". I had to think for a second, as I've never considered myself a traditional anything. But then I looked at what I was doing. B&W film only, mostly Tri-X developed in D76, then enlarger printed on fiber paper, and dry mounted w/o framing. Guess that's traditional, although I prefer to call it straight photography. Labels are such a nuisance. Anyway, he was right. My work didn't belong there, BUT I think that would have made it all the more attractive, placed next to one person's digital inkjet prints, and the owner's large digitally produced "paintings" on canvas. Fortunately, I found a gallery/co-op type of place down the road in New Smyrna that should fit the bill nicely. I actually could care less about selling it, it would just be nice for people to see what that type of thing looks like. Maybe it will "come back" and I'll be ahead of the mob. Nah.</p>

<p><em>... gallery ... owner mentioned "no traditional photography". </em><br>

Just a few years ago, they were all saying the exact opposite! Don't tell the people at APUG about this!</p>

Why am I reminded of this?

<p>You're all wrong, I attended its funeral last week. It is definitely dead. They even put a stake through its heart, just to be sure!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I actually could care less about selling it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How much less?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Cuz, you know, it's all digits and computers 'n' stuff now, and there's no <em>way</em> that communicating via typed words on a computer can possibly express ideas in the same way as when those words are written on old-timey paper with squid ink and a goose feather. Kids today just can't conjugate verbs like the old masters who couldn't email the results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Matt, I am not sure I understand what you mean. Could you write that down on a piece of paper and then Snail Mail that to me? I need to be able to read your hand writing to get the full meaning of your intend.</p>

<p>Or better yet, come over to the West Coast so that we can talk face to face. A telephone call wouldn't convey your message nearly as well. I know there is this thing called Face Time now, but I need to see you in person. And should you decide to come over, don't take this airplane thing. You need to cross the country via a horse-drawn carriage ....</p>

<p>I sent you that last week, Shun, but I may not have put enough postage on the envelope. Still, waiting for a postal letter is sort of like waiting for film to come back from the lab, right? You never know what you're going to get, or if you're ever going to get it at all! :-)</p>

<p>Matt, you should have sent it by carrier pigeon -- safe, reliable. Letters sent through the postal service are frequently misrouted, due to sorting errors and other mistakes. You know, they have those darned computers reading the addresses at a gazillionty times per second, as though they're somehow superior to humans. It's no wonder your letter never made it to Shun! Damned machines! </p>

<p>gateway timeout -- Damned machines! Curse them!</p>

<p>Your first post was that you were interesting in going pro, now this one. Better get out now before the whole hobby, business, art, etc of photography dies</p>

<p>You'll be pleased to know, Sarah, that serious thought has been given to using homing pigeons as a network transport for IP data packets. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers"><strong>You can read all about it</strong></a>. A team actually gave it a try, and managed - despite 55% packet loss - to get 9 data packets delivered via pigeon network. I'm afraid it would take a long time for truly <em>masterful</em> photography, in JPG format, to get uploaded at 9 packets per day. We get faster data from Voyager, which seems to have actually left the solar system already.</p>

<p>Photography is dead. Long live photography! </p>

<p>Try and find your way out of the woods.</p>