What's New in Photography?

It seems there are a million photographers and even a million more cameras to

take photos.

 

I look through galleries and try to find what hasn't been done already.

 

So the question is, What is NEW in photography? I'm not talking about software or

lenses. I'm talking about technique and subjects.

 

Any thoughts?

As far as I'm concerned, every shot taken is new to the photographer - although the composition or the subject of each may appear to be similar to other photographs. It's like an artist creating a new painting - it's very subjective to others' interpretation.

What is new? The next photograph anyone makes.

In a sense there can't be anything new in photography just as there can't be anything new in any picture making medium, say oil painting or marble sculpture for example. The medium is the medium is the medium. Acrylic paint and fibreglass can closely mimic the appearance of oil paint or marble but aren't the NEW oil paint and marble.

 

Similarly, ink-jet printing can closely mimic the appearance of pictures made on light sensitive surfaces but no actual light is consumed. My printer works happily in the dark but I can't make photographs in the dark.

 

In another sense photography is always new. Even though everything is photographed daily by millions the art of photography is made new every time someone does something for the first time or someone sees something for the first time. Art is not renewed by the eternal pursuit of difference but by the repeated affirmation of personal creativity.

"I'm not talking about software or lenses. I'm talking about technique and subjects."

 

"Technique" points primarily to software today (post processing, HDR, extended tonal scale etc).

 

See Soundslides.com for examples of technique now required by most newspapers when they hire young photojournalists (Soundslides specifically).

 

Photojournalists are increasingly required to be fluent with still photography, location sound recording, video...and of course writing skills are far more important than they were when media could afford to send multiple specialists to a story.

 

The convergence of still, video, and sound is well underway. See SCARLET for one reason...Nikon and Canon are both at risk.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/14/red-shows-off-5k-epic-camera/

Very good points. I've been scooping up photo mags to see what's hot in Photography. What subject is the De jour so to speak. I'm looking to shoot interesting photos without it being just another subject that has been shoot millions of times. When I was living in NY, the streets were full of vendors with all the same photos for sale. The Empire state Building, The Statue of Liberty, John Lennon with a NYC shirt. ect.

 

I thought about this topic because I was watching a show on Ovation, a new art channel and it was a documentary on photography. It went into the history of it and how in the 70's pros still prefered B&W. Photos taken in color was thought to be amature.

John, you always talk about the convergence of still and video photography. A paper, however, can't present a video outside of Harry Potter books. You need electronic gadgetry to present a (digital) video. This is a fundamental difference between photography and video and something which prevents them from converging. Online is a different story but the quality of online video is so poor that it's almost unwatchable. Only at the lowest quality level imaginable is there any convergence of presentation.

 

Also, video is infinitely harder to control. A still photographer can create a masterpiece by him- or herself. A movie maker basically needs 1000 people working for a year and a limitless budget to make 3 hours of what is considered current in terms of technical and aesthetic quality.

 

No, there isn't any convergence.

Your perspective can be new and unique. Two photographers shooting the same scene will see very differently. There are also plenty of as yet untapped ideas out there.

Multimedia; a still, sound and film/video presentation; has come a long way since its crude beginnings in the 70's when real time controller programming was required. Real slide and film projectors were necessary along with a component sound systems all controlled by an 8 bit processor and 32 meg of memory to present multi-screen extravaganzas touting a corporation's wonderous achievements. They were also popular with museums and civic entities. Technology changes but the presentations remain more or less the same.

 

"and of course writing skills are far more important than they were when media could afford to send multiple specialists to a story."

 

One couldn't tell that from reading what passes for news these days. However, it's fine if one has a 4th grade education and is content with a copy of Illustrated Classics' "The Hunchback of Notre Dame."

Medical science has seen some technical novelty's concerning phototechniques. For the rest I'm with Asher:

 

"Your perspective can be new and unique"

"A movie maker basically needs 1000 people working for a year and a limitless budget to make 3 hours of what is considered current in terms of technical and aesthetic quality. "

 

That's hilariously, totally wrong. I only need point to Magnum and many regional newspapers.

 

And "what is considered current" is a silly concept. Who is it that does this "considering?"

Ilkka, tourist trash photogalleries will continue to display color sunset and duckie prints forever. I didn't say convergence would kill still photography, but sites like Photo.net have already replaced most print making.

 

More on RED: http://www.kappastudios.com/?page_id=21

 

Glenn...there's fabulously good reporting all over the place, great writing (eg Economist, Atlantic Monthly, New Yorker,

San Jose Mercury News): You're missing all sorts of opportunities, stunting your growth.

"there's fabulously good reporting all over the place, great writing (eg Economist, Atlantic Monthly, New Yorker, San Jose Mercury News):"

 

John, with some regularity I read the first three, but I seem to remember a distinct lack of photojournalism in them. They're always a pleasure to read. National Geographic and the Smithsonian might have been better examples where image quality and writing are involved. I haven't seen a copy of the San Jose Mercury News since the earthquake in '89, when I was visiting San Jose on business, so I can't say what their news quality might be.

 

My stunted growth is due more to behavioral experimentation and a steady supply of cigars and pipe tobacco rather then a lack of critically intelligent input. Experientially, we are light years apart. What you read about and study, I've done. It's a wonder I'm not dead. Glenn

<i>A paper, however, can't present a video outside of Harry Potter books.</i><P>Most people look at screens, not paper. My commercial customers no longer want prints, they want images for screen display.<p>It doesn't take much to find the statistics, most people look at screens, not paper. And for years, great photographers from Robert Frank to Graciela Iturbide have gone from still photography to video. I'm hoping to start on some documentary video work with another photographer, if it works out, I expect it will become a more important piece of what I produce.

"I look through galleries and try to find what hasn't been done already."

 

I suppose it could be argued that most lives have "been done already", never mind photographs... What's really new, eh...? But that doesn't (necessarily) make them uninteresting, does it? And they can still be worthwhile, I think...

 

Photography is a limiting medium, by its nature. As is life. Well, they're both dependent on reality to a large extent, and - in reality - there's only so much to be done, experienced, planned, and recorded. Most of the subtle and not-so-subtle variations have been explored in the past, to some degree or other.

 

"I'm not talking about software or lenses."

 

Hmm, perhaps we should be... The use of pre/post-processing software or non-standard (home-made/modified) lenses can allow photographers to record reality in ways that may not have been possible in the past. It's something I'm curious to experiment with, when I have time.

 

"Normal" photography, using commercially-available equipment, tends to be of the familiar "reproduce reality" variety... That's what most people want to do, and see. As such, any interest tends to be in the subject, rather than in the photographic approach. Most subjects have been covered countless times before, and the visual familiarity is certainly an attention-dissolving aspect in many instances.

 

Most "interesting" photographs are interesting to a particular viewer for one of two main reasons:

 

Firstly, the subject matter itself may be interesting to us. There can be many, many explanations for this, including having an interest in the photographer himself, of course... There may also be a very personal interest in certain subjects, naturally. Pets, friends, family, lovers, etc... That aside, most interest - if there happens to be any at all - comes from a lack of familiarity.

 

Secondly - and it's often a distant second - the particular viewpoint of the image may interest us. I'll also include the effects on the image of the capture method and any post-processing here. There are also certain other visual aspects (colour, shape, texture, etc...) that may be immediately appealling to us, of course, although they may not hold our interest for very long.

 

The presentation of the images may also be of interest to us, both in form and context. The slideshows and videos that John regularly refers to certainly shouldn't be dismissed as a fad... But clearly there's more to photography than whether it's displayed on paper or a screen... The visual content/style of the image itself is generally the primary aspect of interest to most people, not the presentation method...

 

The widespread use of digital photography and the internet have made certain types of image familiar to many. As such, the more familiar images have become tiresome to many. But if you wish to do something a little different, developments in technology are undoubtably a benefit.

My grandmother used to by fresh coffee seeds, dry them in the sun and then roast them on her old wood stove. Then she would grind them.. twice.. Then she would cook the coffee in her little brass pot serve it with sugared fruit on the side and take it slowly sitting on the porch with my grandfather discussing world and family affairs.

 

Today for the espresso generation drinking coffee is a hit and run affair.

 

What is new in photography? Well I believe that that depends more on the way how WE observe art work than on the way it is produced. Van Gogh was new at the time but it took a different approach by the observer in order to recognize his genius.

<i>The visual content/style of the image itself is generally the primary aspect of interest to most people, not the presentation method...</i>

<p>

Right, but only a small part of the information content that a photograph or a movie can contain can be presented online. For some photography, it doesn't matter since the photographer didn't put the essential constituents of the photograph in the details. For others, a photograph including its details need to be studied at length in order to get a good impression of it. The same is true of movies. If you optimize your approach for online presentation, sure, something interesting can be created, but at least for me, I also want to see the details, and not just a rough sketch. If I wanted to see a movie through a sock, I would put one over my eyes.

When I look at the photos I want to take or have taken, I try to take something that is interesting, that may tell a story.

 

Now that I've upgraded my equipment from a Point & Shoot to a DSLR, I can concentrate more on improving the quality of my photos. Maybe even go back to previous places I've taken pictures and shooting the same subject to get a better result.

Ilkka, you're right : a very good print can SOMETIMES convey certain types of information better than can online presentation...but online presentation (and DVDs) can USUALLY convey far more information of other types, including movement, audio, and narrative.

 

My real interest is in photojournalism and other forms of professional photography, photography that most of us do admire or even aspire to.

 

There's more to photography than prints of mountains, rocks, seashores and ducks

 

The OT is "what's new." Nobody has said prints are dead.

 

Photojournalists of today, who in another era would be Capa, Duncan, Eugene Smith, are generally committed to convergence. Most shoot digital. Most write. Many record sound. Many transmit their images by satellite. Few process film. Few spend time in darkrooms. Most rarely see their photos as prints.

 

...and the work of Capa, Duncan, and Eugene Smith looks better today online (Magnum) than it ever did in Life Magazine...

 

http://www.poynter.org/subject.asp?id=29

"Today for the espresso generation drinking coffee is a hit and run affair."

 

...like many civilized people, I've had espresso most of my adult life, almost daily since1965 or so (eg Mediterraneum, Berkeley and Trieste, San Francisco, and my own espresso pots: favorite version for 10 years is http://www.campmor.com/outdoor/gear/Product___15774%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20?CS_003=2476907&engine=shopping_com&utm_term=15774&utm_medium=CSE&CS_010=15774&utm_source=Shopping_com

and a modification I have not tried .. http://yosemiteoutside.com/m/Blogs/A9D44263-90EE-42C3-9BFC-96B3FA673338.html). Only in recent years did I stop having it just before bed (didn't keep me awake, still doesn't agitate me the way drip coffee does).

 

Starbucks actually does OK if you stick to espresso and avoid the obesity- drinks.

I find it a great challenge to try to capture and convey things like movement, texture,

time, audio, narrative . . . in a still image, a photograph. I also love films.

John, I undestand that the question is about what is new. It's just that to me, I've spent half my life in the presence of the web and I haven't noticed a "big change" - I think that today images and video presented online, at its best, is informative and can be beautiful but the vast majority of the video are of poor quality, so I haven't even bothered to install flash player on all my computers. I am a novice as a videographer but when I recorded video at a samba carnival, I got better results than what the no. 1 national newspaper published of the same event online, not just in terms of technical quality (the web presentation was small and technically poor) but also in terms of composition and content. This means that the magazine thinks that it's ok to have a poor quality video online and that effort should not be wasted on this part of the content. The BBC, on the other hand, frequently have interesting video content online. So my main counterargument is really that the attitude of the publishers and the quality of presentation is not at a level which I would think that is needed to make a breakthrough. Still images online, however, are often of very high quality nowadays, although I find that only certain kinds of images translate well into web presentation. I undestand that a lot of photojournalistic content is in this category, but photographs which contain many people suffer in the downsampling process. Sometimes there is a scene with several things happening at once and this can become a visually beautiful and interesting single photo if the print size is large enough. For the web you basically need to minimize the number of visual elements in order to present it successfully. It's like having a 4x6 print made, you can try to squint to see the expressions of the people in the crowd whereas in a large print, there can be multiple areas of interest in the photograph. But I guess I've only recently started to explore these kinds of images so for me I going in the opposite direction of what the majority of people are doing. What is important is that while online presentation has become easy and widespread, also making large high quality prints with minute control of every detail of the process has become possible in recent years (without having to pay wild prices for hand-made custom darkroom prints).

<p>

I understand that the general population is keen on using the web for presentation and sharing of still and video images. But a lot of people still go to movies, museums and galleries to see something which provides a bit more than a little screen can do. At least I would hope they do ... ;-) Ultimately technology may make this less and less important but for the time being I don't think online presentation can provide the highest levels of sensation for most types of visual arts. On the other hand it does allow rapid browsing of a lot of material which was hard to find in the 1980s. But I guess to me this does not feel "new".

<p>

Technology has also expanded the options for available light photography so that now it is possible to do beautiful images in near darkness hand-held. Virtually any lighting condition where humans can see is open to exploration with the camera (such as Canon 5D or Nikon D3). This was not the case before. And I think this will totally change the picture of what kind of people images are made and presented. In early days of photography, stiff images of posed people could only be made and they were black and white. When point and shoot cameras became popular, photography was thought to be best done in bright sunlight, of all things. Now the door has been opened for easy photography of people wherever they may be, without flash or tripod. At the moment this is limited to a few high end cameras but within a few years I would expect this capability to reach more and more people. This frees people to use light based on quality of light, instead of having a certain minimum of light as a requirement for a clean and sharp image. I think this is wildly changing photography. I think flash photography will eventually almost disappear.

<p>

The choice of angle of view has also been liberated by the new generation of sensors. There is no longer any restriction wrt. in which conditions a telephoto can be successfully used, leading to a more widespread use of narrow angle of views and the associated aesthetic.

<p>

<i>There's more to photography than prints of mountains, rocks, seashores and ducks.</i>

<p>

I don't understand why you have contempt towards still images of nature?

<p>

For me the requirement of a level of technical quality applies just as much to people photographs (even those of journalistic nature) as to nature. I believe that for a truly stunning photograph, it should have immediate appeal on a crude visual level and then like in Don Rosa's cartoons, special things should be revealed in the details, which add to the content of the photo. This is something which is difficult to achieve but when successful, it can be timeless.

<p>

In my recent carnival pictures, I have some pictures of the audience where several people are active either in looking after their children, or in awe of the dancers, or just meditating, and this is all within one photograph. It is like a miniature of society. I haven't yet been able to print it to my satisfaction but I will hopefully get there. No way could I present it successfully online.

<p>

But I suppose I am at some margin of the photography community.

Ilkka, you've only talked about you, not about the OT.

 

You mentioned your personal inabilty to print an alleged carnival photo...but it doesn't even exist, according to your rules. Your inability to print, much less post it, does not relate to the ability of others, who do these things wonderfully well. .

 

You described yourself as having limited technical ability to see the "new" on line. What's the value of your opinion about it, in that case?

 

You expressed your own "contempt" for fine photographers who are enthusiastic about online presentation, yet you have evidently not visited relevant sites (such as Magnum's or the portfolios at Soundslides.com or the presentations by virtually all major newspapers and magazines).

 

I don't "hold still images of nature" in contempt. I do find much of that genre trite, relying on Photoshopped neo-Velvia effects,exaggerated skys etc. But that's just my personal taste.

<i>Ilkka, you've only talked about you, not about the OT.</i>

<p>

I am talking about things that are new in my personal work due to technology changes. They're new also in the photography

community at large, although since many things cannot be presented online, if you spend too much time online, you may never notice.

<p><i>

You mentioned your personal inabilty to print an alleged carnival photo...but it doesn't even exist, according to your rules.

</i><p>

I didn't say I was unable to print it. It was taken on Saturday and I've only made one test print of it, so it's hardly

possible to conclude anything about my ability to make a print of it.The point is that because it is such a many-sided image taken in uneven light of the day it requires a bit more post-processing to make the best print. The reason its unpresentable online is because the expressions of the people, which are central components of the image, would not be clear in a tiny image as typically displayed on the web. Thanks to new technology, even a hobbiest can now make large color prints which are controlled to the smallest detail to underline points of the visual content.

<p>

<i>

You described yourself as having limited technical ability to see the "new" on line. What's the value of your opinion about it, in that case?

</i><p>

I must say that you have great ability to be deliberately disrespectful to other people in your comments. What happens online is just a small part of what is happening in photography, since the web's ability to showcase photography and video is technically handicapped by the limited bandwidth and long delays. I do see new things online, just that they're (to me) unremarkable compared to new things that can be done in print and in digital video when not limited by bandwidth. I believe the OP did not ask about what is specifically new in online photography, but photography as a whole.

<p><i>

You expressed your own "contempt" for fine photographers who are enthusiastic about online presentation, yet you have evidently not visited relevant sites (such as Magnum's or the portfolios at Soundslides.com or the presentations by virtually all major newspapers and magazines).</i>

<p>

I do view newspaper and magazine still and video content quite often. I find it frequently inconvenient to access, garbled with advertisements which show disrespect to the viewer. I don't intend contempt towards multimedia people, it's just that the online video content which concerns issues relevant to me typically is not of high quality. Viewing articles that describe events far away is not as interesting to me. It's like National Geographic Traveler magazine - utterly superficial. I checked out soundslides.com and think the content is very good. Perhaps I am just prejudiced against such things because I prefer to be in control of my time, and the concept of timed presentation of stills is a bit alien to me. But I have to concede, the content is quite good.

<p>

<i>

I don't "hold still images of nature" in contempt. I do find much of that genre trite, relying on Photoshopped neo-Velvia effects,exaggerated skys etc. But that's just my personal taste.

</i><p>

Why did you single out "ducks" then, if not to express contempt? Bird photography has also become easier with digital capture, and of higher quality. As for excessive saturation, that's just a choice, not everyone does it. It seems to gather a lot of points if presenting images online. I think if you view the latest books by Frans Lanting you can see that there is a lot of new things which hadn't been done before. E.g. also digital has made UV and IR photography feasible for more people, which is interesting. In the photography of mountains, there are new developments which allow a more natural end result. Digital is certainly more color accurate than Velvia, unless the photographer deliberately distorts the colors. Dynamic range has improved due to developments sensor technology, basic image processing, and software tools. This means fewer high contrast images with pitch black shadows, and a more faithful reproduction of the scene. Digital image processing also allows very interesting black and white results to be obtained since the filtration (affecting the weights to each primary color) can be adjusted in post-processing. See Colin Homes' work (scanned 4x5 Velvia converted to B&W with impressive results) in Practical Photography a few years back. The tools to do selective adjustments are improving and this makes it possible to do higher quality local adjustments in images than before. This all affects landscape images. Trite? Hardly.<p>

Also, in photomacrography there are developments since the digital capture technology allows smaller details to be recorded cleanly and with accurate colors.

Walter, I mainly agree with the most simple and quick responses of Victor and Ellis: everything you make as new is basically new for everybody and perhaps someone could appreciate new details in old images, it is something completely subjective.

I think that photography is basically to capture moments of life and you could capture other people - or yourself-, animals, landscapes, planets, particles, microscopic elements or whatever the technology does possible.

On the other hand, photography is a science of light, and anytime you are shooting, you are capturing light, colors, intensities, transparency, opacity, texture and bla, bla, bla.. Here you could also use post-production that technology gives us more possibilities every year and in this aspect I think that photography is converging with painting, in the sense that you are changing and giving different color areas in your shot, exactly as an artist does. Anyway, many good photographs look like canvas painting.