Newsweek Article
http://www.newsweek.com/id/73349

Now where have I seen this before? :)

Is Photography Dead ?
From my post at ModelCoast...............................

From the article......

"Art and truth used to be fast friends. "

Now THAT'S laughable !!

Look at any VanGogh painting, yeah, there's an accurate reproduction !!

Go to a gallery and see two mufflers welded together and titled "Quiet".

Art may or may not have anything to do with the 'truth', whatever THAT is !!

My feelings about 'photoshop' are a matter of record.

As a child coming up in the world of fine art, that stuff was passed off as 'trick' photography.

Remember that term ?? Kinda like Etch-a-Sketch, Play Doh, Block City, etc.

My avant-garde stuff makes no bones about manipulating a photograph. What I do is obvious, no attempt to fool you into believing it's a photograph. And I don't need 'photoshop' to do it.

On the other hand, check me out at "Imagegods",

http://www.imagegods.com/?op=pics&id=205

And notice that every photo is titled "unretouched".

That's because every photo there is what I saw on location, it's what life put in front of me at that moment. No tricks, no fussing with 'curves', 'chroma', contrast, yada, yada, yada....................

.....just straight ahead photography.

No kidding.

It's the same idea as what guys like Weegee was doing.

Straight ahead shooting, no darkroom tricks like dodging, burning, pushing emulsions, cross-processing, etc.

I have to wonder if today's photoshop gurus can even take a proper photograph.

If so, I'd sure like to see their 'unretouched' work.

Yeah, I know p/s is the 'industry standard', and let's keep in mind that the industry panders to the majority, the same majority that thinks 'Yanni' is music.

Once again, my caveat.....

My opinion, key word here is MY.

Bill P.

I was having this discussion with a model last night.

The magic that can be done today without camera skills is amazing.

But I think that just makes more room in the area (industry, or art).

My $0.02,

Fusion

I believe that entry level Photography in Fashion(Agencies mostly) does NOT have to be good.

BUT- I do believe(maybe I am a romantic)that when it comes down to the CLIENT level,you gotta show your talent and "come up the stack".

If I didn't believe this,I would have to quit NOW.

Rayzor

Yes it is so you should all just give me your equipment and have done with it. I will carry the burden.

Well, I already called "dibs" on some of that equipment on another site. I am willing to share though.

And yes, i also posted on the sister site regarding "when does it stop being photography?" The vast majority felt that as long as it sells you can take a crapy shot and shop the heck out of it and make money that way. So what I gleaned from that is that most photographers today are more apt to spend time learning photoshop than good photography. Eventually everything will be computer generated. This still confuses me though because these same people "poo-poo" point and shoots and "lesser" equipment. Why have $10K plus in equipment when a photoshopped image from a $200 p/s sells just as good?

I am willing to sacrafice and trade their equipment for a p/s. No takers yet.

Well I feel that PS is the for photographers to use as a lab. That's how I try to use it. I almost never use layers or any of the advance functions unless I'm fooling around ( Concorde pic). Exposure, contrast and color corrections are the same thing I would have used while sitting in front of an enlarger, does anyboby remember "enlarger"?

Yeah, they are the funny looking desk lamps with a place to put a negative under it if I remember correctly.

Photography, like everything else in life, is changing. When Pasche introduced the airbrush in the early 1900's artists said it was the end of fine art. It wasn't...it was just another tool. But what has really changed is the public's acceptance of lower quality. Everyone seems to want to call themselves an artist and yet few are willing to learn their craft. Instant gratification is what the digital age has given us. Brides now give out throw away digital cameras at their weddings rather than hire a photographer. There seems to be no dividing line in the public's conciousness between a snap shot and a photograph.

Photoshop is my darkroom and I use it as I would a darkroom. Don't forget that much of the magic of Ansel Adams work was conducted in the darkroom. But as he was shooting he previsualized what the final result would be and was willing to spend days or weeks researching the best time to shoot. Patience and dedication and love of craft is what is needed...along with some kind of income.

The down side of the digital age is software that promises to make even the rank amateur look like a pro. Well...looks can be deceiving. The only thing that has changed is the lowered expectations of the viewer. I am a lover of all things eclectic. I love street photography. I love my Canons, film and digital, but I also love my Holga's. They are so quirky.

But...Digital or film photography still requires a trained eye to capture an image that you can work with. A trained eye is only acquired through practice, training and persistance. I'm still in training and probably will continue to until they pull the camera from my cold dead hands. You can never stop learning.

Real photography sure is dead.
ansel adams killed photography.
No art, just endless 'formulas' and darkroom tricks.
His stuff is stiff and lifeless.
Shameless self promoter, you worshippers made him a demi-god.
photoslop is adams-in-a-box.

Andreas Feininger, now there's a great photographer !!
But he didn't do the ansel worship bit so...................

Bill P.

True,you can never stop learning, But who says you have to be trained to produce art???I don't "previsualize" anything,I tried that and got dull,lifeless images, on the other hand I think Adams would have sucked at capturing,fast,energetic images that show....life, In that shutter click,I want to capture life. Candid,cameo,peek-a-boo,you name it.
photography isnt dead,Its alive and well in me.