# Is photography dying? or AlReaDy Dead? Or born Again? answer.



## crzyfotopeeple (Jun 15, 2016)

Please Answer. Thank you all.. your beautiful and true and free.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 15, 2016)

Depends on what you consider as photography.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jun 15, 2016)

Explain your answer please


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 15, 2016)

Are you asking about digital camera or cell phone? Photojournalism, sports, weddings, portraits, it really depends on who you ask, many professionals feel it's dying, many amateurs see it as a future way to make money.  Personally I don't believe it's dying, it's changing.  It's not getting easier for professionals to make a living at it, but then again that depends on the area of photography.


----------



## SnappingShark (Jun 15, 2016)

It's dead. This forum just proves it


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jun 15, 2016)

BrightByNature said:


> It's dead. This forum just proves it


I agree


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 15, 2016)

Just go out there and take some pictures.  Who cares if it's dead or alive!


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 15, 2016)

I left this forum over 6 months ago, this is the first time back since, and I've read all the same questions again. I work as a professional, I have to believe that the profession isn't dying. It has gone in a different direction since digital, good and bad. Before I go off on something I've stated on this forum dozens of times, I will stop there.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 15, 2016)




----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jun 15, 2016)

This post is solely to exhibit response. Don't be afaid


----------



## EIngerson (Jun 15, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Explain your answer please




explain your question. Pretty senseless so far.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 15, 2016)

I think it is born again due to the cell phone camera. There are more pictures being taken today.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jun 15, 2016)

Are they good pictures?


----------



## Dave442 (Jun 15, 2016)

The cell phone point is a good one. I have seen many more people taking interest in photography due to having access to a camera that is with them all the time. It has also removed some of the stigma of carrying around a dedicated camera and this has allowed people that otherwise may have not thought about photography to become interested and further pursue the subject of photography.

Photography has gone through many ups and downs and I expect that your question has probably been asked every ten or twenty years over the last hundred years.


----------



## EIngerson (Jun 16, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Are they good pictures?



Is that a response to my question? If so, how does it answer it?


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 16, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Please Answer.


 Hundreds of millions of photographs, more than anyone can view in a lifetime, are uploaded to Facebook EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Sounds pretty alife to me.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Jun 16, 2016)

So, is dying, is dead, or died a while ago. Pretty weighted question there.

Everywhere you look on the internet you see the same question: Is the DSLR/mirrorless/photography/Nikon/Canon dead?

What is this obsession with prophesying doom, predicting the end? Or is it just part of a re-branding and labelling exercise, "I'm part of the 'new' photography"?


----------



## sashbar (Jun 16, 2016)

Some people think photography is dying because they realise there are more and more people around capable to take better pictures.


----------



## MikeBcos (Jun 16, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Are they good pictures?



Doesn't matter, the photographer likes them and isn't that the object of photography?

Photography is alive and evolving. I took my daughter to Europe for the first time this year, I offered to buy her a camera but she didn't want that. We ended up getting her an iPhone 6, backup drive and set up a cloud account, she took some pretty amazing photos - and a LOT of selfies!


----------



## Braineack (Jun 16, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> This post is solely to exhibit response. Don't be afaid



define: afaid.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 16, 2016)

Braineack said:


> crzyfotopeeple said:
> 
> 
> > This post is solely to exhibit response. Don't be afaid
> ...


An Anime festival in Asia. AFAID 2015 Event Guide - Anime Festival Asia Indonesia 2015


----------



## Braineack (Jun 16, 2016)

I'll try my best not to be an Asian anime festival.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 16, 2016)

Braineack said:


> I'll try my best not to be an Asian anime festival.


Well spelling never was important in the hipster pseudo-intellectual circles.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 16, 2016)

I hope this thread dies.

But photography is alive and well .. it morphs here and there and cell phone cameras have put the power into nearly everyone's hands from the really young to the really old.  No more having to "learn" a camera to take a picture.

But it sounds like a thread we just had ...


----------



## waday (Jun 16, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> What is this obsession with prophesying doom, predicting the end?



Not sure, but it seems innate to the human race. How many times does the news report on some person or ancient civilization predicting the end of the world?


----------



## Braineack (Jun 16, 2016)

Is this real life?


----------



## MikeBcos (Jun 16, 2016)

Braineack said:


> Is this real life?



Is this just fantasy?


----------



## table1349 (Jun 16, 2016)

Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality


----------



## KenC (Jun 16, 2016)

I'm taking a lot of photographs, so of course it's not dead.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 16, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Please Answer. Thank you all.. your beautiful and true and free.



It's dead.  So, nothing to see here.  You might as well go home now.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jun 16, 2016)

Sorry to start a meaningless thread. I wanted to see if a nonsense question would get more responses than posting a picture for critique. It seems more often than not topics that are meaningless and have no true answer always bring out the most responses so people can argue. What's the best camera? Am I a professional photographer? Are my pictures good enough? It goes on and on.

photography
fəˈtäɡrəfē/
_noun_

the art or practice of taking and processing photographs.
How could photography be dead as long as pictures are being taken. My question was nonsense and somehow people still fall for it.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 16, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Sorry to start a meaningless thread. I wanted to see if a nonsense question would get more responses than posting a picture for critique. It seems more often than not topics that are meaningless and have no true answer always bring out the most responses so people can argue. What's the best camera? Am I a professional photographer? Are my pictures good enough? It goes on and on.
> 
> photography
> fəˈtäɡrəfē/
> ...


we get nonsense questions all the time.
you failed to realize that before you posted.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 16, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Sorry to start a meaningless thread. I wanted to see if a nonsense question would get more responses than posting a picture for critique.



Considering how some people react to critique, even when asked for, I don't blame folks a bit for not offering critique on everything posted.  I can't speak for others but I generally don't offer C&C unless it is specifically asked for, and even then I only tend to offer C&C on photographs where I feel that I have something to contribute that hasn't already been contributed.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jun 16, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> crzyfotopeeple said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to start a meaningless thread. I wanted to see if a nonsense question would get more responses than posting a picture for critique.
> ...


That makes sense. I guess I didn't think of it that way.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 16, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Sorry to start a meaningless thread. I wanted to see if a nonsense question would get more responses than posting a picture for critique. It seems more often than not topics that are meaningless and have no true answer always bring out the most responses so people can argue. What's the best camera? Am I a professional photographer? Are my pictures good enough? It goes on and on.
> 
> photography
> fəˈtäɡrəfē/
> ...


Frankly you first post in this thread was as meaningless as most of the critiques sought.  To many people post a photo and ask for a critique.  

Critique WHAT???? Composition, subject matter, lighting, sharpness, DOF, post processing, if it would be better if the twig in the lefthand side of the frame is was pointing down a little lower,  WHAT???

If you don't know what you are looking for how are others supposed to provide you with their opinions on how to improve what it is you were asking about?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 16, 2016)

Since I already wasted time reading the rest of this and had starting typing a response before I got thru page 3, guess I'll post itAstroNikon what's interesting is that early on photography was for 'everybody'. People just had to look thru the viewfinder and push the lever, take their camera in for development, and they'd get their pictures plus the camera all reloaded with film! lol

Then there were instamatics that you just popped in the cartridge and pushed a button to take a picture - take the cartridge out, no fooling with spools, and drop it off at a drive up kiosk. I don't think people realize how easy shooting film used to be!

But even though photography has been available to everyone, I think it's like a lot of things that can be a casual hobby or pastime for some, can be a job or profession for others. Photography's always had more in-depth options too for those who used to use plate cameras instead of box Brownies, or today do historic or alternative processes, etc.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 16, 2016)

Sharon, Early on Photography was for the very, very few. 
In 1826 or 1827 when Nicéphore Niépce made the very first surviving photo, a landscape, photography was extremely limited in those that could take photos. Lack of knowledge, expensive equipment and the sheer amount of time limited who took photos.  This photo took hours if not days to capture. Louis Daguerre's daguerreotype process was expensive and limited.  The early equipment was expensive and untested.   The introduction of glass plate and paper negatives again were taken with expensive equipment, being a time consuming, expensive process.  It wasn't until 1888 when Kodak introduced the first box camera followed in 1889 by Eastman's introduction of their transparent celluloid roll film before photography began to be for the masses.


----------



## TheLibrarian (Jun 16, 2016)

Looking for an answer or not, I say certainly not, looking at stuff now in the age of video and other technology many people use stills for business, advertising and art. Much art is 3D, large installments and weird stuff thrown together but people need someone to take pictures of that stuff. I'd hate to go to a gallery and see rows of pictures or paintings on the wall. I feel it would be boring. I was at a talk the other day and many of these designers and functional art types were giving their presentations in front of a slide show of pictures and they specifically asked for people with cameras to document the event.

Maybe everyone has a camera now (on them at all times in their pocket) but they kind of always did. It may raise the bar for those who want to be professional photographers but it takes much more to get amazing shots than a camera in hand.


----------



## rlemert (Jun 17, 2016)

This thread reminds me of a similar topic that comes up regularly in running forums - "Has the marathon experience been cheapened because so many more people are running marathons now?" In either field, the "elites" will always be a cut above the rest of us, but most of us will never reach that level. Sure, there are more "also-rans" out there, but there are also more elites than there would be otherwise, because the pool of potential elites has increased.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 17, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> crzyfotopeeple said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to start a meaningless thread. I wanted to see if a nonsense question would get more responses than posting a picture for critique. It seems more often than not topics that are meaningless and have no true answer always bring out the most responses so people can argue. What's the best camera? Am I a professional photographer? Are my pictures good enough? It goes on and on.
> ...



I am curious to why you are so against critique on a photography forum. I am not being smart ass or criticizing you, just curious as I would think a photo forum (and those who get involved) would be mainly to learn


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jun 17, 2016)

jaomul said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > crzyfotopeeple said:
> ...


I'm actually for MORE critique.


----------



## EIngerson (Jun 17, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Sharon, Early on Photography was for the very, very few.
> In 1826 or 1827 when Nicéphore Niépce made the very first surviving photo, a landscape, photography was extremely limited in those that could take photos. Lack of knowledge, expensive equipment and the sheer amount of time limited who took photos.  This photo took hours if not days to capture. Louis Daguerre's daguerreotype process was expensive and limited.  The early equipment was expensive and untested.   The introduction of glass plate and paper negatives again were taken with expensive equipment, being a time consuming, expensive process.  It wasn't until 1888 when Kodak introduced the first box camera followed in 1889 by Eastman's introduction of their transparent celluloid roll film before photography began to be for the masses.



Have to agree. I honestly would not have gotten into photography if it didn't go digital. Not only was it a much bigger process, I would not have had the space to have a darkroom. Let alone the "affordable" ability to make so many mistakes. 

DSLR and a laptop is all it takes me to have the same amount of fun. (for me)


----------



## table1349 (Jun 17, 2016)

jaomul said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > crzyfotopeeple said:
> ...


I am not against critiquing photos.  I am against asking uninformed questions.


jaomul said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > crzyfotopeeple said:
> ...


I am not against critiques.  I am against unless critiques based on the simplistic idea of "what do you think" or "how can I improve this with no other information given.  If a person wants their work critiqued then they should supply a basis for the critique.  Give us and idea of what they were trying to achieve with the shot, what they like and don't like about the shot(s) or what they are wanting us to provide feedback on.  Otherwise the "critique" is nothing more than an opinion based on that persons likes, dislikes and prejudices.  We have a member here who doesn't particularly care for sharp photos.  Knowing that I would not critique the sharpness of the photo as I generally prefer my main subject in focus.  

To me it is no different than any of the other art forms.  If I owned a Picasso or Delhi I probably wouldn't display them.  Why?  I don't care for most of Picasso's or Delhi's work.   Give me a Renior, Money or Van Gogh and it will be in a prominent location in my house.  That's my taste.  To me a critique is not about my taste but about helping the poster achieve their taste.   Otherwise all of you are shooting wrong if you don't shoot everything the way I would.   And that would be pretty damn boring.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 17, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Please Answer. Thank you all.. your beautiful and true and free.


----------



## Benjgf (Jun 18, 2016)

I definitely think that the digital age has brought on a lot more people who want to/think they can be pros. Back when film was the only way, being a photographer was a much less attainable status, and a little more prestigious. But now that it is more accessible to everyone, there are also a lot more opportunities for us to see great work that may not have existed 20 years ago. There is also a lot of crappy work out there, and it increases every day.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 18, 2016)

Anyone could write a book, is writing dying too?


----------



## Overread (Jun 18, 2016)

After careful consideration of the question the moderation and admin team have come to the conclusion that YES photography is dead.

Thus commencing next week we will be changing the site from "The Photoforum" to "The Bacon and Kittens" forum. All users have this weekend to remove your photos form the site unless they happen to contain bacon and/or kittens.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 18, 2016)

Overread said:


> After careful consideration of the question the moderation and admin team have come to the conclusion that YES photography is dead.
> 
> Thus commencing next week we will be changing the site from "The Photoforum" to "The Bacon and Kittens" forum. All users have this weekend to remove your photos form the site unless they happen to contain bacon and/or kittens.


Bring on the bacon wasabi paste pics !!


----------



## table1349 (Jun 18, 2016)

Nothing more delicious on the grill than 





*BACON WRAPPED KITTEN!!!*


----------



## unpopular (Jun 18, 2016)

honestly, I think that digital has reduced photography to core elements without all those "visceral" (as @timor so fondly puts it) distractions. Overall, I think that the differences between digital and film are highly exaggerated. I'll agree that the experience is drastically different, but the goals and techniques haven't changed that much. Just the stinky chemicals that made my nuts smell like fix. Good riddance.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 18, 2016)

Sadly with digital one of those "visceral distractions" for many happens to be a basic lack of knowledge of photography.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 18, 2016)

If pyrazines can act as a developer, we could process film in bacon and orange juice.


----------



## Warhorse (Jun 18, 2016)

Stick a fork in it...it's dead.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 18, 2016)

Review:

Discuss.

Be free, be beautiful, be true.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 18, 2016)

Overread said:


> After careful consideration of the question the moderation and admin team have come to the conclusion that YES photography is dead.
> 
> Thus commencing next week we will be changing the site from "The Photoforum" to "The Bacon and Kittens" forum. All users have this weekend to remove your photos form the site unless they happen to contain bacon and/or kittens.



I'll have to change the avatar so the kitty is holding bacon.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 18, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Sadly with digital one of those "visceral distractions" for many happens to be a basic lack of knowledge of photography.


Minor details.


----------



## Overread (Jun 18, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Sadly with digital one of those "visceral distractions" for many happens to be a basic lack of knowledge of photography.



And not inherently bound to a medium. Unless you're going to argue that all those polariode and disposable film cameras (extensively used by many in the pre-digital era) were in any way somehow superior. 

The only difference is something like Polariod was expensive - £1  a picture or something like that at one time; so only the rich could afford to spray and prey (not that you can spray much with one of them but still). 


Film was a touch slower; it didn't make people better in so much as it generally made them restrict what they shot far more so. Also there was no internet (or little of it) and thus the vast body of rubbish was never seen by the multitudes who claim digital has ended creativity and all that stuff


----------



## table1349 (Jun 18, 2016)

Overread said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly with digital one of those "visceral distractions" for many happens to be a basic lack of knowledge of photography.
> ...


Superior not necessarily.  More knowledgeable YES.  The Polaroid, the various Instamatics  and all of the disposables were the Program mode of the day.   Primitive point and shoots with limited capabilities.  

Unless you liked wasting a lot of film and money you learned the basics of photography. The rangefinders, TLR's, SLR's & plate field cameras required a basic knowledge of photography to take any kind of useable photograph. 

Even then you had to be more selective with you shots due to the limited amount of available shots you had.  

But then my comment was directed at photographers, not button pushers.  No matter what the medium there have been button pushers ever since Kodak introduced the first box brownie.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jun 18, 2016)

Ha ha. This thread really turned out to suck. I'm really sorry I birthed this atrocity. Of course it is my fault and for that I take the blame. Just think though, without photography we would not have the selfie and selfie sticks. No one wants to imagine a world without those.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 18, 2016)

What really sucks is that unless bacon has hydroxypyrazines I don't think you can use it to develop film.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 18, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Ha ha. This thread really turned out to suck. I'm really sorry I birthed this atrocity. Of course it is my fault and for that I take the blame. Just think though, without photography we would not have the selfie and selfie sticks. No one wants to imagine a world without those.


----------



## Bebulamar (Jun 19, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Explain your answer please


Explain you question!


----------

