# Is Photography As We Know It Dying?



## Destin (Nov 12, 2019)

Hey guys, I took 40 minutes out of my day today and watched this video by Fstoppers. I thought it would be cool to have a discussion over this topic ourselves and see what forum members think about this. 

I know it's a long video, but I found it extremely interesting and immersive. What do you guys think?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 12, 2019)

I only watched the first  seven minutes of it. I wish it were an article. I think I could read everything they said in probably 5 to 7 minutes. There is no doubt that the photography business is  not what it used to be and the way we use,take, and share photos,and the way we display them has changed since well, since prints basically went away.

Yes there are many professional photographers who sell prints, and prints are wonderful, but it has been several years since I have actually witnessed a regular person showing off their photos in the form of Color Prints. But every day lately I see people sharing photos via their smartphones, looking at pictures on their smartphones , and sending pictures and receiving pictures in the form of digital files.

Remeber the Yellow Page phone directory? Do you remember the card catalog at your local or High School library from the 1970s or 1980s or even the 1990s? There are a number of things that we don't do the way we used to. Remember actual paper maps?

When I was in my twenties , there were lots of Photography gigs that you could get on weekends and nights but those have largely disappeared now, as people are more capable with their digital cameras and with the cameras inside their phones.

There are still occasions where people hire professional photographers, but those occasions are far fewer than they used to be. And I think people have a different expectation about how they will get their photos, and also they have a somewhat different sense of valuing the photos.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 12, 2019)

Let me ask you a question??? If Photography is dying, where did the images used for the Tamron ad in the first 40 seconds of the video come from???? Did they just magically generate themselves digitally, or did a photographer shoot them??? Think about how many images you view every day on the TV, in a magazine, in a catalog, on the internet, on product packaging, on the billboards on the highway, advertising is everywhere. 24/7 we are inundated by images, which at one time were taken by a photographer. I don't believe photography will ever die, it will evolve, because a world devoid of images would be a very dull world indeed. For better or worse we seem to have entered a world of instant gratification on images. It's not good enough that a digital camera can display the image on the screen, when you have a cell phone that can do a selfi, add all kinds of effects, and automatically send it to multiple social media sites in less time then it takes to pull the SD card out of your camera. So on a consumer level photography will continue to evolve to meet the market. On the commercial end though there will still be a need for the professional photographer.


----------



## Original katomi (Nov 13, 2019)

I think like a lot of things photography will reach a peak then drop back to a manageable level, the likes of canon,Nikon will push the limits of technology and reach a limiting point. 
Photography will prob evolve but I can’t see it dying out
Out there beyond the lens there are all sorts of things that people thought would die out. 
Yet we still have film photography and have members here who have old cameras that they use and maintain
Steam trains, and groups to preserve them
Spit fire planes still fly over where I live.


----------



## RVT1K (Nov 13, 2019)

There used to be an esprit de corps associated with photography.

Cell phone cameras in the hands of everyone has taken that away.


----------



## SquarePeg (Nov 13, 2019)

Yes things are changing/changed.   The profession of photography may have narrowed but the hobby itself is exploding.  Instagram and other digital social media have shown the masses what really talented photographers can do (with all types of cameras) and they all want to do it too.  It used to be I would take my dslr to a game or event and maybe see one other person with theirs and a few cell phone cameras out.  Now, everyone has a dslr or advanced cell phone camera and everyone thinks they’re a photographer.

To me the biggest change is the amount of bad photos that are out there.  We’ve all seen posts on social media of some crooked horizon overly saturated slightly out of focus sunset photo that gets 1000 likes from the poster’s “friends” who all comment how amazing it is and encourage the poster to turn pro.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 13, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> We’ve all seen posts on social media of some crooked horizon overly saturated slightly out of focus sunset photo that gets 1000 likes from the poster’s “friends” who all comment how amazing it is and encourage the poster to turn pro.



Yup say hello to the "like culture" where self gratification is the norm. Heaven forbid you'd actually post the truth about their photos. Actually even FB has finally realized the monster it created Facebook Is Considering a Huge Shift That Would Dramatically Change How You Use the Social Network--It's a Good Thing


----------



## SquarePeg (Nov 13, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > We’ve all seen posts on social media of some crooked horizon overly saturated slightly out of focus sunset photo that gets 1000 likes from the poster’s “friends” who all comment how amazing it is and encourage the poster to turn pro.
> ...



I don’t have a problem with Facebook or Instagram “likes”.  My comment was more focused on the fact that people like the sub standard photo.


----------



## Jeff15 (Nov 13, 2019)

*Is Photography As We Know It Dying?*

*NO*


----------



## NGH (Nov 13, 2019)

This question has probably been asked many times in the past.  
Like all activities they change over time and new technologies come along that affect that change.  I am sure when colour came along, some black and white focused photographers thought that photography AS THEY KNEW IT was dying, when 35mm came along the same, compacts, disk, APS  and digital.  They are all changes that altered thinking and processes and how images were made/consumed - so you could say that in some ways the previous understanding of what photography was died; but a new understanding emerged and photography (however you define it) continues.
They say "Evolve or die" - photography is just evolving


----------



## Derrel (Nov 13, 2019)

"So, how do you know photography? Were you two in school together? Oh, oh, oh, you two were roommates, right?"...


----------



## webestang64 (Nov 14, 2019)

That question is a bit late...............True photography died back in 1888 when the pre-loaded Kodak camera came out.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 14, 2019)

There are many types of photography- there is commercial photography, retail photography, photojournalism, hobby photography, family photography, social photography , and photography for blogs and social media. And probably some other types which I have failed to mention.

The world is in a constant state of change, so why should photography be any different? There is an old saying that the only constant is change. I feel that that old saying is true.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 14, 2019)

The idea that a photo is substandard if people like it, well if people like it, how can it be substandard? I think many times people who are technically-minded look at things like a minor tilt of the horizon, or a slight bit of blurring as making a photo substandard, when in reality the vast majority of people have an entirely different way of determining what is a good photo. The other day a friend of mine had some photos printed, and one was a photo of a young woman with pearly white teeth, and her entire face was covered in deep dark brown mud, and there was a very slight, and I mean very slight, as in almost imperceptible degree of shutter speed blurring or subject motion blur. I personally felt that the very slight blurring actually_added to_ the sense of verisimilitude, but in one sense one could downgrade the photo.

it's like the famous blurry Beach D-Day Landing photo attributed to Capra, which by the standards of any self-respecting 1940s photojournalist, was a really crappy photo, looking much more blurry than most people would consider acceptable, resembling a 1966 Ernst Haas 1/5 second sailboat photo in the degree of blurriness.

A lot of what many photographers might consider "substandard" is in the realm of snapshot photography, or vernacular photography as some call it, quite good. I think a photo has to be evaluated not based upon its technical merit, but based on its emotional or visceral impact. One of the most memorable photos I have _ever seen_ I saw about 40 years ago, or actually more. It was in a Time Life Book in their famous l?Library of Photography series.  The photo was made in the early 1900s and was a photo taken by an ankle-mounted camera that was smuggled in to an early electric chair execution. The photographer pulled up his pant leg and took one shot, presumably because his camera only had one shot. The photo was grainy and blurry and somewhat underexposed, and yet I can still remember it. I saw the photo when I was in  6 or 7th grade and I am now almost 57 years old! The photo I am talking about would be considered quite substandard even by the time in which it was shot, in which most photographs were made on glass plates or on large pieces of the then-new thing called film. The photo was low in resolution back in the days when many cameras were 5 x 7 in or even 8 x 10 in, and when the vast majority of photos were quite Sharp if one looks at the old glass plate scenic's shot in that time on a website such as shorpy.com, it will be clear that the execution photo which I saw many years ago was "substandard" by many different metrics.

Underexposed, blurry, and poor in technical quality, and yet a photo that I can almost to this day see in my mind's eye about 45 years later. Substandard in most every way and yet Unforgettable.


----------



## zombiesniper (Nov 14, 2019)

Is photography as we know it dying?

This is a complicated question and a simple one at the same time.

Some forms of photography have taken a hit in the pocketbooks of those that earned a living at it but at the same time more people the ever have been taking photos.

I think it would have to be broken into a few categories.

Professional photography.
I would say that this area has possibly seen the most change for the worse.
As better/smarter equipment becomes available to the masses. They are able to produce better images. Still not on par with a seasoned pro but good enough for most and this has hit the pocketbooks of a lot of photographers.
Even business are not valuing the professional photographer as much as they used to because "we have a guy with a camera, we'll have him do it". My company tried it until I sent them a contract for the job, since my current position has nothing to do with photography. Lets just say the $10k price tag ensured I'd be doing my current job and not freelancing for them. lol

Hobby/enthusiast photography.
This in some areas has taken a large uptake of new photographers. I'm always bumping into new people that have recently taken to photography as a serious hobby and want to get that next amazing shot.
I believe this is the group that is currently pushing the companies to create that next new technology that everyone can benefit from. Pro's won't change gear unless it will make a marked improvement and will provide value to their business but enthusiast (and fanboys) will buy that new gear just to have that new feature even though they haven't maxed out the capabilities of their current gear.

Casual photography.
Same as it's always been accept its now shown on phones or computers screens instead of walls or photo albums.
This is the group that is benefiting the most from the last 10-15 years of tech development. Their vacation snapshots have gone from washed out crappy out of focus bad colour balanced garbage to pretty darn decent images and they didn't have to learn a darn thing to do it. The cameras got smarter because the people wouldn't.


In short no, as we know it, it isn't dying, however it is evolving.
As with anything, those that evolve with it will excel. Those that don't will be remembered.


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 14, 2019)

I think the question should be is the business of photography dying?


----------



## Original katomi (Nov 14, 2019)

Vtec44 said:


> I think the question should be is the business of photography dying?


From what I have read and from speaking to people who do photography for a living. It’s getting harder, as said  above firms are getting their staff with a camera. 
So yes the business side of photography dying, and like so many other things people will look round and wonder where all the pro photographers have gone. They will have forgotten that they got their mate with a camera do a job for them cheaper. It has happened in so many businesses


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 15, 2019)

Yeah photography itself will never die but it's evolving as new technologies emerge just like the transition from analog to digital.  The business of photography has changed a lot and client expectations are also changing with it.  Clients are moving from one trend to another.  However, like any other art form you just have to find the right people for your business.  There's a market for painting, a market for digital art, and a market for various different forms of photography.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 15, 2019)

Derrel said:


> The idea that a photo is substandard if people like it, well if people like it, how can it be substandard?



By and large there's little thought that goes into pressing a "like" button, and many times especially on social media, the descision to hit "like" has little to do with the post. Sometimes it's an unconscious action, like saying "good morning" to a stranger on the street. You don't consider the person, or have any thought as to how their day might be going.  Sometimes on the social media network, people "like" a post just as a way to maintain a relationship, and then there's the feeling of recpricocity (you liked my post so I'll like yours).



Vtec44 said:


> photography itself will never die but it's evolving as new technologies emerge j



Actually technology is creating new markets for photography. At a meeting with a new farm tenant last week to discuss the 2020 crop year, he was showing me field photos provided by a service that he utilizes. The company uses drones to map fields at various times throughout the year, helping to identify fertility, drainage, and insect problems. 

Holography has been around for awhile, but I just saw this in my news feed today. Researchers Created Holograms You Can Feel and Hear it has a long way to go but how cool would it be to one day have a Star Trek holograph deck?


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 15, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > photography itself will never die but it's evolving as new technologies emerge j
> ...




IMHO the technology itself isn't creating anything.  People who are finding new ways to use it are the real force behind creating new markets.  A knife is a cutting tool and it didn't create the market for wood carving, but wood carving is a bit harder with an axe.  Although, I've seen people done it with chainsaws


----------



## star camera company (Nov 16, 2019)

Uhhhhh......hate to tell ya, those kids holding up the iPhone....That’s  Photography.


----------



## Original katomi (Nov 16, 2019)

star camera company said:


> Uhhhhh......hate to tell ya, those kids holding up the iPhone....That’s  Photography.


So how long before the phone is grafted to the brain and the data/images/et al are stored directly to the brain.


----------



## star camera company (Nov 16, 2019)

Well......did anyone think “digital” would surplant film?  Absolutely Yes what we have now will seem primitive and a curio in 2219.      Oddly enough, About a dozen common chemicals will produce a wet plate image on a piece of glass now, in the past and in the future.  Lot to be said for simplicity


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 16, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> star camera company said:
> 
> 
> > Uhhhhh......hate to tell ya, those kids holding up the iPhone....That’s  Photography.
> ...



Maybe like this? Check out the eyes on a fun project I did with Grandson a couple years ago


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 16, 2019)

I hope it is. I just got started.


----------



## Original katomi (Nov 16, 2019)

Nice merge pic


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 16, 2019)

I think the phone has taken the place of a point 'n shoot, or before that Instamatics, etc. that were used by the average person taking pictures of vacation, holidays, whatever. It's just that now people plaster their photos all over the internet where before only friends and family saw their photos in an album, or a slideshow, or bad home movies! lol I think peeps just like 'everything' because they're trying to be nice, or be a friend, etc. so they 'like' everything that crosses their (online) path.

It seems it's already somewhat died out as a profession, with all the people with cameras on social media, underpricing, etc. But I wonder if that will somewhat rebound. I've seen it often enough that many don't last long because they start running into problems with unhappy clients, complaints about albums that are subpar and already falling apart, people wanting a lot for not much, not making much money for the amount of work it ends up being, etc. etc. 

I have seen it hit our local sports/hockey community (which is a relatively small world) and those jobs (not just photography but in media, PR, & radio) never came back; I've known a few guys who got laid off and are now working in sales, etc. 

But then there are things that supposedly were dead that came back - like film!! and vinyl... Although they haven't necessarily come back in the mainstream but there's still interest and they're still around.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 16, 2019)

Derrel, that happened in a Jimmy Cagney movie I saw not long ago - he had a camera up his pants leg (trying to get a picture at an execution). Then he went running back to his newspaper and I never did see what the camera was (that being the important thing!). Looked like a rangefinder, that was all I could tell. I didn't know something like that had actually happened.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 16, 2019)

Photography as we know it....

Yes its somewhat dead on arrival now.

Why? Well you have three kinds of photography. Film, digital, and the cell phone stuff that has reached the level of syphilis.

Us folks with actual film or digital cameras, we shoot with a purpose. For fun or profit. It doesn't matter, we actually sit back and figure out what we want to do.

The cell phone crap, well 90% of it seems to be random photos of what people are eating, or wearing, what the dog did. Basically annoying crap that NO ONE wants to see.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 16, 2019)

Photography as we know it. It depends upon when you got to know it

  If you recall the 1970s, then you recall one aspect of the field of photography.If you remember the 1980s then you remember another aspect. And so on and so on.

Some earlier types of Photography have basically died out. For example instant photography, using mainly Polaroid film, has become even more of a niche thing than it used to be, although there are currently still a few instant cameras on the market


----------



## Derrel (Nov 16, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> Derrel, that happened in a Jimmy Cagney movie I saw not long ago - he had a camera up his pants leg (trying to get a picture at an execution). Then he went running back to his newspaper and I never did see what the camera was (that being the important thing!). Looked like a rangefinder, that was all I could tell. I didn't know something like that had actually happened.



Perhaps the movie was taking into account something that had really happened earlier in history. Back in the 1940s there was quite a bit of competition in the daily newspaper business,with some large cities having two or even three different competing newspapers. Today? One single Paper is the norm in most American cities with the exception of just a handful.

In the movie The Current War, which is in current release (pun unintended but nevertheless it's there...)detailed a few things about the first-ever execution by electric chair.


----------



## mrca (Nov 17, 2019)

No on can deny photography has changed.  After a hundred years of glass plates and film, digital was developed.  It made it easy for the masses to take better photos and put a phone camera in everyones pocket.   But has professional photography, ie, when someone is willing to pay someone else to take photos died?   Hell, no it is not dead.  Look at all the hamburgers running around with a camera calling themselves pros.   Remember when Kodak sold the brownie camera to the masses?   Did professional photography die?  What has changed big time was in the days of film, someone who could only reliably get focus and good exposure might make a living at photography.  Now, that isn't enough.  Your slr or phone will take a reasonably sharp, reasonably exposed photo.  So if a pro could only take sharp well exposed shots, he lost many clients who could do the same with a cell phone or kit camera/lens.   But those photographers who could create something an amateur with rudimentary skills couldnt, a concept, good lighting , good posing, good composition, impact (the first criteria in PPA judging)  then he could do fine.   However, as Bambi Cantrell said, beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder and for many folks who want photos, good enough is good enough.   There is lots of what amounts to good enough for them out there.


----------



## The Barbarian (Nov 17, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> To me the biggest change is the amount of bad photos that are out there. We’ve all seen posts on social media of some crooked horizon overly saturated slightly out of focus sunset photo that gets 1000 likes from the poster’s “friends” who all comment how amazing it is and encourage the poster to turn pro.



Yes, on other message boards, I see that.  When it happens, I usually try the "you could make that even better by..." and see if they try it.   If not, then not. But sometimes someone picks it up and starts to become pretty good.   

Encourage.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 17, 2019)

Thing is, not every professional award winning photographer can take a good photo. Sure, some things are inherent in a good photo, but go look at magazines these days. Even fashion ones, and these "good professional photos" rely upon nothing more then having an expensive clothing item in it to be "good"


----------



## Destin (Nov 17, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> Thing is, not every professional award winning photographer can take a good photo. Sure, some things are inherent in a good photo, but go look at magazines these days. Even fashion ones, and these "good professional photos" rely upon nothing more then having an expensive clothing item in it to be "good"



And good post processing skills, which most of the time, is probably not even done by the photographer.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 17, 2019)

Destin said:


> pocketshaver said:
> 
> 
> > Thing is, not every professional award winning photographer can take a good photo. Sure, some things are inherent in a good photo, but go look at magazines these days. Even fashion ones, and these "good professional photos" rely upon nothing more then having an expensive clothing item in it to be "good"
> ...


That's just it, with the whole convergence to digital, pay someone for an hours work, and you can get just about any image taken from the level of "dark and dreary black and white photo from a campy 1960s horror film. To the quality of a black and white Hitchcock movie."

Or better yet, an hour of photo shop can make something that looks like a 3rd graders meth inspired doodle look like a Rembrandt.


----------



## mrca (Nov 18, 2019)

Do folks  really think you can take most  crap photos and turn them into  Rembrandts?  A crap image being  savagable for black and white or color  technically  may be ok in that area, but it becomes nothing more than a sharp, well exposed piece of crap since far more goes into an excellent image than exposure and contrast.   It's hard  to add impact, creativity, good composition, good lighting,  microcontrast, depth, expression, posing  to  crap  images in post.    Can photoshop organize or add all those so they support the message of the image, that is if it even has one?   No, just correct some surface, technical issues in a couple of areas.     Judged a competition yesterday and nothing in post was going to transform most  poor or mediocre images to a stellar image.   Folks just don't know what they don't know.   For decades we have been hearing criticisms on pros and photo shop users usually  from people who are neither .   It is part of the misconception that anyone with a good camera will take good photos foisted by manufacturers of cameras or lenses.   Hey, buy some lenses and you will make art!  Maybe, if someone thinks a "good photo" is only sharp and well exposed.    My camera can do that on tripod with the timer, completely without a photographer.   What makes a great image isn't camera or editing but as Ansel described as the most important part of a camera, the 12 inches behind it.   And that is a photographer who has master his craft, both in capture and post.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 18, 2019)

Whats artwork, whats skill in taking a raw image into a photo editing program and using it to change the brightness, contrast, or simply turn the green house into a red house,,

Digital has taken the heart out of the photographic image. Sure good photos are good photos, but the intrinsic image that is DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY cannot be trusted, cannot be believed.

There is an AMATUER art site, epilog.net.   There are people there who did drawings in 2006 with DIGITAL PROGRAMS that are more realistic and life like then a 40 mega pixel camera of DOG HAIR.


----------



## Michael Smith 12 (Nov 19, 2019)

Photography, like every other thing in the world, is changing. Change is the only thing that is constant. The rise of smartphone cameras is definitely the biggest reason in that. With the rapid increase in technology, smartphone cameras are becoming better with every iteration.  Also, the rapid rise of mirrorless cameras in the past 2 years is also driving that change. We have to adapt to that. See the huge increase in investment and shift in marketing from DSLR cameras to mirrorless cameras by both Canon and Nikon.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 19, 2019)

The problem with a lot of "photography" now is  "immediate gratification". Most cell phone shots are rarely, if ever printed. Within seconds of being taken they're uploaded to one of several social media sites, where it's longevity is rated in hours before being replaced. Overall it seems to give a skewed idea of the amount of experience/time required to produce a quality image, that can be enjoyed for years.

Then you get into the cost factor. Lets face it, professional photograps are a luxury item that many middle class families simply can't afford. Talking with a car salesman friend the other day, who described a customer that had been turned down on a car loan. The couple had a big home mortgage, three car payments, two jet ski payments, and a boat payment. They were trying to buy another car for a child that just turned 16. Despite the fact that the couple were both college educated and had good jobs, they were maxed out on spending. Granted not every family is mortgaged to the hilt but most families would have to think hard about spending several hundred to thousands, on a family photo, with so many other things pulling at those dollars.

It used to be that you could find a "family" photo studio like Olan Mills, JC Penny, Sears, even Walmart in every town. Remember the $9.99 specials? Now Olan Mills has closed most of their locations, and you'll be lucky to even find a JC Penny or Sears store still open. Granted they were cookie cutter images at best, but they served a need. In large part these were the first photography businesses, to suffer from the entrance of cell phone and the internet.


----------



## WilliamK1974 (Nov 19, 2019)

Derrel said:


> "So, how do you know photography? Were you two in school together? Oh, oh, oh, you two were roommates, right?"...



Yeah, he set me up with his cousin on a blind date one time, and she flashed everyone at the restaurant, but things got more than a little awkward when I took his sister to a fraternity dance and she sorta over-exposed herself...


----------



## mrca (Nov 19, 2019)

How did digital take the "heart" out of photography?   What do you mean by heart?  My eye, mind and heart are in all my photos to quote Cartier-Bresson.  The image can't be trusted or believed?   Trusted for what? Believed?  Why, it may not ape what was in front of the camera?   Do folks trust Picasso's work?  Photography doesn't have to be a photocopy of what is in front of the camera and most of the time it is an improvement.   Realistic and life like is realism, if you like that, fine, but in the world of art, that is only a small slice of the genres in painting...and the same for photography.    It can be an expression of the artists vision, not necessarily a photocopy of reality.  Folks who think that might try reading something on the history of art or the history of photography.


----------



## Original katomi (Nov 19, 2019)

Talking of pro photographer, I was at a family wedding not so long ago and they had a pro in to shoot the wedding.
He was anything but professional, just did stock boring shots, had the look and feel that he did want to be there.
Comment above about people not being to afford family portraits is so true, esp my g kids gen. they seem to think a few phone pics are it. I did a  family day out shoot for them a few years ago, must do another soon, and they were quite surprised when I printed the images for them.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 19, 2019)

mrca said:


> How did digital take the "heart" out of photography?   What do you mean by heart?  My eye, mind and heart are in all my photos to quote Cartier-Bresson.  The image can't be trusted or believed?   Trusted for what? Believed?  Why, it may not ape what was in front of the camera?   Do folks trust Picasso's work?  Photography doesn't have to be a photocopy of what is in front of the camera and most of the time it is an improvement.   Realistic and life like is realism, if you like that, fine, but in the world of art, that is only a small slice of the genres in painting...and the same for photography.    It can be an expression of the artists vision, not necessarily a photocopy of reality.  Folks who think that might try reading something on the history of art or the history of photography.


half hour with photoshop, any decent user can put their girlfriends head on their favorite pornstars body and put it up on here as a genuine self done photograph.

That's NOT art or photography.

That's why digital has no heart to it. No soul, no substance. Not when a 16 year old kid can put himself in a photograph of Emery or Amundsen Scott taken at the apex of their expeditions.

That's the difference between things known as radio and television. Radio was innocent because everyone listening to the radio program saw their own interpretation of that "dark foboding castle upon the hill at midnight".  TV killed that innocence by forcing 1 image upon everyone who watched the program.


----------



## mrca (Nov 19, 2019)

_Pocket, you are parroting a photoshop complaint that is 15 years old and  those of us using photoshop found those posts cliched..  Most photoshop/LR doesn't involve head swaps or liquified photos.   So 16 year old morons who do such changes define photography?   How does that mean digital has no soul or substance?  Does film have more?  Radio was innocent?  Like War of the Worlds?       Let me guess, you don't use photoshop.  And don't worry about head transfers being art, 99.9% of photos taken aren't art, just snapshot including those taken with a 3000 dollar camera.  But by your analysis, radio wasn't as innocent as books because everyone heard the same voice and intonation.  _


----------



## Original katomi (Nov 19, 2019)

Digital taking the heart out of photography...Bovine waste. Thats like saying the type writer took the heart out of writing.
I am going to stop before the moderator has words with me


----------



## Derrel (Nov 19, 2019)

There has been some real fertilizer offered up here by two posters.

Pocketshaver, Photoshop is just a tool. I think perhaps you should be reminded of the amount of image manipulation and composite images which were done in the period 1870 to 1890. I used the word "reminded" because I am somewhat certain you are unaware of the history of what predated the type of dry,representational,straight photography that you apparently seem to idolize. I would suggest that you get a copy of Beaumont Newhall's book , The History of Photography, and learn for yourself about theperiod That lasted roughly 35 years in which photographers were typically interested in allegorical storytelling photos, most often made from two or three negatives combined into one final picture , and also you should look at what was known as pictorialism as opposed to the f64  post World War II ideal that you seem to idolize so much.

As far as making prints, most people who were serious about their Photography in the 1960s shot slide film, and very few of those pictures were actually printed, but were instead collected in archives which basically sat in the dark, save for the occasional long and boring slideshow once or twice per year. Making prints or not making prints has absolutely nothing to do with sincerity or in degree of commitment to Imaging. Prints are fine, but they cannot be sent worldwide to multiple outlets without great cost. We now have a way to share and disseminate photos that involves no print, and it is not all about " immediate gratification"as much as it is a reflection of where we are in time in history. We no longer look at woodcuts from famous battles, but we see immediate photographic evidence of what a battle really looks like within seconds or minutes or hours because we no longer live in 1755 or 1865, but because we  live in 2019. I am not typing this, but am instead doing speech to text on my Samsung Android phone. Would my words have greater validity if I were to write them with a quill pen on parchment and send them via Pony Express to some office in New York where the words would then be printed with linotype? Equating the method of delivery with the sincerity or conviction of the artist is a Fool's errand, and it's in my opinion " lazy thinking". There has been a tendency to pejoratively dismiss all sorts of things about the modern world with a desire for "immediate gratification", and this has been going on for more than 50 years . We used to have to write letters to communicate with people far away, but then we were able to call them on the telephone, and now we can text or email them. Does this mean that the feelings we express in an email are somehow less sincere than feelings which were expressed in a handwritten letter 100 years ago?

Back to the urgent question, is photography as we know it dying? Well, that depends on what photography you know. Is photography the same today as it was in 1985? No it is not Instead of crappy 4 by 6 inch color prints shot on Kodacolor Gold 200, we now shoot on color positive digital single-lens cameras with 24 to 50 megapixel resolution. Equipment is better. Prints are relatively less expensive. It no longer costs $0.50 per image. We can now make unlimited copies of an image with absolutely no quality loss. We can share one single photo with the world for free, or nearly so. It used to cost 19 to as much as $0.59 to make one small color print which had to be shown to one person at a time,but now we can snap a photo, and upload it to a website and it can be seen around the world within a minute or two. But just because our  work can be seen quickly that has got nothing to do with intent or with quality or with degree of commitment to image-making. This is 2019, not 1929, not 1959, and not 1989. The past is what it was, and some serious intellectual honesty is required, and a lot less knee-jerk finger-pointing is in order.

If we were to ask the question, " is medicine as we know it changing?" the answer would surely be,  "I sure as hell hope so!"


----------



## mrca (Nov 19, 2019)

Derrel, I recommend a project I undertook 10 years ago based on Newhall's book and Hirsch's Seizing the Light to take each stage of photography starting with it's origins and learn about it then attempt to reproduce it as much as possible using a modern camera.   It is invaluable to know how we got here not to mention learning different or unusual styles that can be incorporated in your work.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 19, 2019)

Dry plates took the heart out of wet photography...


----------



## mrca (Nov 19, 2019)

Ah for the days when you had to break some eggs to take photos.


----------



## webestang64 (Nov 21, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Dry plates took the heart out of wet photography...


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 2, 2019)

If  I plant them seeds, can I grow my own dry plates.


----------



## bepsdubai (Aug 9, 2020)

Photography will not die. Yes, believe me. Yes, I can understand that mobile phones have created some difficulties for us, but still you can see people who like professional photo shoots. Like in wedding people will choose a professional photographer for their wedding. So you don't have to worry.


----------



## Jazz-Vinyl (Aug 9, 2020)

SquarePeg said:


> I don’t have a problem with Facebook or Instagram “likes”.  My comment was more focused on the fact that people like the sub standard photo.



My Dad was a Professional Photographer for most of his adult life.
He said virtually the same thing in the late 1960's.  In his day, the "Instamatic" cameras were the bane of his existence.

He also used to say to me:

A Photograph is something you hang upon your wall,  and admire.
A "Pitcher" is something you pour milk out of.

He was reacting to the living in the South of the USA...here everyone called photographs, "pitchers"..."you take pitchers" was often heard  

And so it goes...


----------



## mrca (Aug 9, 2020)

In 1900  Kodak introduced the brownie camera which opened up photography to the masses.   People probably forcast the death of professional photography.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Aug 9, 2020)

The quick answer is yes photography as we know it is dying. But photography as my grand kids know it is alive and well. 

So to is ; viewing of movies, you do not need a theater; television,  you do not need an antenna; listening to music, radios tapes,CDs and records are things of the past.

Technology drives invention and with it social attitudes and opinion.  So, what was considered good photography in the past is now mostly passe or old school and what is fine art today will also become ho-hum some day. This does not mean it will be forgotten, it will simply be unique to the past. And yes, there will still be practitioners of the art. 

Heck, I still get a kick our of popping my head under the hood and snapping off a few shots with my 1910 cut film camera. However, I do not think it is likely to replace the phone camera any time soon


----------



## mariah1902 (Nov 26, 2020)

Yes of course the photography that we knew for a long time is dying. Actually it is dead. Photography was once only done by professionals and now every one can afford a camera and everyone takes photo. This thing changed the industry because among all these photography the real ones got lost and we would never be able to see the difference between a real one and the common one.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 26, 2020)

Jazz-Vinyl said:


> He was reacting to the living in the South of the USA...here everyone called photographs, "pitchers"..."you take pitchers" was often heard



This brought a chuckle, I still hear it from time to time. My dad drove me crazy by putting an extra "i" in film. Right up to the day he passed it was always "FILIM".



mariah1902 said:


> Actually it is dead. Photography was once only done by professionals and now every one can afford a camera and everyone takes photo



Gee, I was a "professional" as a teen in the early 60's and didnt know it. Seriously, you've overlooked the fact that there's still a large following of modern day photographers shooting film, and there's an even larger following shooting digital. The process and technology has evolved, but human creativity will always find a way to use it.


----------



## webestang64 (Nov 27, 2020)

And again................



webestang64 said:


> That question is a bit late...............True photography died back in 1888 when the pre-loaded Kodak camera came out.


----------



## limr (Nov 27, 2020)

I don't think photography is dead, but the horse sure does seem to be.


----------



## ARJ3717 (Dec 26, 2020)

Operating a device to capture images is not dead. 
Being a practitioner of the craft of photography seems to have gone out of style a ways back. I'm referring to those around when darkrooms, film loaders, and chemistry were the popular items of the day. Loading film into a camera, processing, printing, viewing slides, enlargements, etc.. etc. left town when the digital age approached. 

The disposable camera on every table at a wedding was signal enough of the door for beginning to close. Today we witness the age of "Everyone is a Photographer." Digital cameras, cell phones, and other electronic devices have simply hurried along the process to where we are now.
Many craftsmen of photography have left, leaving today's electronic media for the push-button instant gratification generation.
Professionals became professional by learning and practicing many facets of the process. The hours of education, workshops, trade shows, classes, presentations, all helping further along the knowledge required to produce a fine print or stellar slide in the projector. 
Ever wonder how many people today access information on the film manufacturers' web page concerning developer choices, development time, agitation, clearing, fixing, and drying? - Likely only a few select individual professional craftsmen!
Getting lucky with a couple of cell phone shots then posting to social media isn't really anything other than just getting lucky.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 26, 2021)

I like tapping into this thread, because I find other folks views interesting.

Being a good film photographer is like being a good stagecoach driver.   Even if you are the worlds best, your career choices are limited. It is essentially doing something the hard way, when a far easier approach is available.

One can argue the relative merits of film over digital but it is the consumer, not the photographer, that determines what a good photograph is. Over the decades that has changes from tin-types, to several black and white paper processes, to color prints and slides, to LED video devices.

The beauty of it is; one can slave over the dark room processes applying their years of accumulated knowledge to chemicals, film and paper; or one can slave for hours with post processing, applying their hard earned skills tweaking the perfect digital print. Either approach provides satisfaction to the doer.

Personally I like black and white photography, I find digital is easier and a great time saver, but for me occasionally setting aside time to tinker in the dark with film, chemicals and paper has its own merits.


----------



## mrca (Jan 26, 2021)

I doubt there is much demand for stage coach drivers, but the last time I sent in my film for development, instead of about week turn around it was more like nearly 4 weeks.   I agree beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder as Bambi Cantrell said, but most people are not skilled photographers or artists.   An artist must take the time to educate them so they appreciate and treasure the subtle differences between film and digital.  I sell prints up to 24x36 that I hand print on paper rated for 200/400 years.   When you print large, those subtle difference lost on a cell phone or monitor become much more apparent.   Digital is more like McDonalds, punching out another identical burger over and over efficiently and cheaply.  But go to Ruth Crists steak house,  yes, it is a burger, yes, there is a smaller pool of potential clients, but there are none the less people who appreciate the difference.   Same with taking photos that go to the soul of the subject.  My most treasured image after nearly 60 years of photographing is a boy pinning a bracelet on a woman's wrist.  He has a tender expression and I have cropped part of the womans face in post.  Would never make a magazine cover.  But to the mother who's son who has had cancer from 8 to 13 and never held a job, the bracelet he just won in a restaurant game is probably the first and last  gift he ever earned and gave to her.  I conceived the shot in a split second and had to shoot through my tears while choking up.  Actually had to step back and say, like in top gun, get back in there Maverick, to myself to keep shooting and a guy was nice enough to stop beside me not walking through the shot  because they had announced it was an event for this dying boy  in the wheel chair with half of his face stroked out. After he got it on her wrist and his mother wheeled his chair left, I turned right so she couldn't see my tears and I realized  the guy who stopped was inches from me.  As I looked up to thank him for not walking through the shot  I was surprised to see a gang banger about 6'5  and as I looked up saw tears streaming down his cheeks.   When I explain the shot to someone, I can watch the tears welling up in the eyes of even the toughest man.  The print ended up  on his casket 3 months later.   Taking photos that are powerful for the people involved have little impact on people who don't know the story behind what has been captured.  But once it is explained, people appreciate it.  Same with  the gorgeous grain or skin tones from 3200 film or portra, the butter soft tonal transitions, the unique look of a medium format film image.  Hey, a yugo gets you from point A to point B  but bmw, mercedes sell cars that cost a much as 100k.  However,  if your photographs are only the quality of a yugo, you had better be one hell of a marketer.  Taking just another crap image but on film, is still a crap image.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 26, 2021)

mrca

Yes your points are well made, but it is the subject matter that makes a fine print. Usually emotions play a large part in the definition of fine. Some of the dearest photos are painfully poor but they mean very much to the people involved. Whether a photo is a Yugo or a Mercedes depends on the viewer; case in point is to try and take a first grader's pictures off the ice box, if they are precious to his or her mom. 

To answer the op's question, photography is like music, it is alive and well. However, "photography as we know it", depends on what you like and do not like. Even the most skilled artisan who's photographic craftsmanship puts other's work to shame, will be out done and by meritocracy if their work simply does not appeal to their intended market.


----------



## Glostars (Feb 2, 2021)

I think Photography is just evolving, not dying. Things change or disappear, that's how it is in many industries. Photography, a few centuries ago, was accessible for just a few. Now, it is for everyone who has a phone. Photography, as an art, is changing rapidly just as technology changes. It is so easy nowadays to share information worldwide. In just seconds I can see and hear what is going on in the other side of the world. When the first cameras appeared that was something unthinkable. Now Internet, smartphones, image sharing apps, YouTube make everything possible for anybody, regardless their experience in photography, can shoot, edit and share great images with anybody online.
Professional photographers will have to adapt to the change. They can still make wonders with the lens. But let's face it, a teenager with an expensive smartphone will be capable of doing more than the most skillful photographer one or two decades ago.
Just my thoughts, I might be wrong. I love photography and I love the work of a good photographer.

All the best!


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 2, 2021)

SquarePeg said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > SquarePeg said:
> ...



I grew up with photo albums.  Those shots weren't all too terrific either.  Mainly just people standing in front of the camera, smiling at it,  with a statue in someplace they visited.   People have been shooting snapshots for 100 years.  It's just that now more people can see them.  Before, you'd have to invite them over and make dinner before you could pull out the albums or show them in your slideshow.  Then, they'd feign a headache and run home before you could show it even giving up their dessert pie and coffee.  Now we pull out our phones and embarrass them into watching forty pictures of the same thing from the same angle.  It makes you want to poke your eyes out.


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 2, 2021)

Grandpa Ron said:


> mrca
> 
> Yes your points are well made, but it is the subject matter that makes a fine print. Usually emotions play a large part in the definition of fine. *Some of the dearest photos are painfully poor but they mean very much to the people involved.* Whether a photo is a Yugo or a Mercedes depends on the viewer; case in point is to try and take a first grader's pictures off the ice box, if they are precious to his or her mom.
> 
> To answer the op's question, photography is like music, it is alive and well. However, "photography as we know it", depends on what you like and do not like. Even the most skilled artisan who's photographic craftsmanship puts other's work to shame, will be out done and by meritocracy if their work simply does not appeal to their intended market.


When you look at a picture of a person you love, you fall in love all over again.


----------



## Original katomi (Feb 2, 2021)

Re above post I have to agree.
So many pics I have of Mrs were taken on the phone because that’s what I had with me, that and she did not like pic taken
The phone allowed me to get pics that I would not get once I pulled out a DSLR 
Now that she has died those photos are now even more important


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 2, 2021)

Original katomi said:


> Re above post I have to agree.
> So many pics I have of Mrs were taken on the phone because that’s what I had with me, that and she did not like pic taken
> The phone allowed me to get pics that I would not get once I pulled out a DSLR
> Now that she has died those photos are now even more important


I'm sorry about your wife.  There's a lot to be said for snapshots.


----------



## mrca (Feb 2, 2021)

Some of my most awarded images were taken with  a 10 mp camera  and one of the worst nikon lenses in 2007.   It isn't the gear that makes the photo, its the photographer.  Ancil said the most important part of a camera is the 12 inches behind it.   But if you are trying to shoot in low light, or need extra reach,  beautiful bokeh, or wide angle or want to make a large print, sorry, those cell phones won't do it.  Just h ad someone come to me to see if I could make a 16x20 print from a heavily cropped 5 mp photo.  He was hiking so didn't want to carry the weight back in 2007.    Katomi, that is why  when I photoed weddings I made sure to photo all the older folks.  Many times it was the last good photo taken of them.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 2, 2021)

Original katomi said:


> Re above post I have to agree.
> So many pics I have of Mrs were taken on the phone because that’s what I had with me, that and she did not like pic taken
> The phone allowed me to get pics that I would not get once I pulled out a DSLR
> Now that she has died those photos are now even more important



Sorry about that, the loss of a loved one is always hard, but even the worst of images still give connections to the memories.  What if your situation had been reversed and you passed first, would she have had any photos of you??? I think about this often, but have yet to come up with a good solution. I'm always the one behind the camera....always the one taking pictures.  When the day comes, there's not a whole lot of photographic evidence that I was even here. Sure I've tried the group photos, selfies, and the occasional portrait, but they just don't come as easily as firing off those photos of family.


----------



## mrca (Feb 2, 2021)

Smoke great point for those of us who prefer to be behind the camera.  I am a portrait photographer who provides signed prints to my clients on paper with a 200/400 color/b&w life.  I have a photo taken of my father  and family in 1919 on the wall behind me, wonderful studio shot, beautiful light, classic pose of 5 people and all have their eyes open even with the long exposure of the day.   The photographer didn't sign the print and I wish I knew who he was but decades from now, long after I'm gone, people will be cherishing those prints, my legacy...and printed on epson legacy papers.


----------



## Original katomi (Feb 2, 2021)

No there is not a lot of photos of me


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 2, 2021)

mrca said:


> long after I'm gone, people will be cherishing those prints, my legacy...and printed on epson legacy papers.



But what about you????????? Will your family have "legacy prints" of you to cherish, or will they be like so many of the rest of us.....without???

@Original katomi  Same here, and I bet the same holds true for most photographers.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Feb 2, 2021)

Photos and memories are inseparable. I remember an old picture of my great-uncle in his military uniform. A cropped photo of him sitting on and Arabian stallion, he had his pointed helmet and his lance in hand. The photo was hung above my Grandparent's piano in the parlor. Oh the many adventures that ran through my young mind.

It was many years later my uncle told me that my great-uncle was a machine gunner in World War I, most likely drafted into the Prussia or Russian Army. The photos were staged studio prints, sent home by the solders.

No matter, many decades later I can still imaging him as the mighty Lancer, charging off to battle. Photos and memories are inseparable.


----------



## mrca (Feb 2, 2021)

Smoke, have a couple 7 light selfies, and one of them took best in class and best in show in a competition.  It hung in the Florida Museum of Photographic Arts last year so lots of folks saw it.  I have a cell phone photo in the gym with a 30 something who wanted his picture with a 70 yr old guy a couple weeks out of a bodybuilding competition- won my class by the way.   But I don't like my picture taken.  The guys in the secret witness protection plan don't like it either
... just kiddin.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 2, 2021)

mrca said:


> But I don't like my picture taken. T



Same here but, when I'm behind the camera those whose pictures I take don't always know it until after the fact either. I think at last count there were something like 6,000 images of my 5yr old granddaughter, and growing weekly. By comparison I'd be hard pressed to come up with  dozen of me in the last 5yrs.


----------



## petrochemist (Feb 3, 2021)

I think that very much depends on how YOU know photography.
Snap shot type photography has switched almost entirely to phones, but is FAR more common than it was 20 years ago, when people needed a dedicated tool for it.
Enthusiast photography with dedicated & highly capable cameras is also IMO more common than 20 years ago.
Professional photography is changing as these first two grow, but even if sectors of it are dwindling I don't see any signs of it dying.

Smaller businesses are far more likely to be providing their own shots, but many of these (e-bay sellers etc) didn't exist at all in the past, or simply wouldn't have included images in their advertising using classified ads instead. I expect larger businesses as well (as some of the smaller ones) will continue to want the best possible lighting/composition etc. so will generally continue to use professional services. Portraits for ID purposes are less likely to be shot by a professional, but people will still want top quality studio sessions.

Film usage took a drastic hit when good digital cameras became available. However it seems to be making a bit of a comeback.

Photography as a whole is continuing to evolve, but is growing not dying.


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 3, 2021)

Video also is adding to popularity as cameras do excellent clips as well as stills. Being able to show 4K video combined with stills in a slideshow on your 4K TV is loads of fun and rewarding.  Specialized TV's that act as frames to display your photography when the TV isn't watched is another stimulus.


----------



## Tballphoto (Mar 10, 2021)

Photography as we knew it is truly dead. Long live the photograph. 

in the days before digital photography was common place, people who dealt with photographs were of the mindset of "hey, this costs money. the film, the developing, the printing, etc so im going to take the best image possible".

When you work with film, your  brain is actively evaluating scenes before you take the photograph. Your brain is able after a while, to tell you if a setting, scene, situation, etc will turn out as a photo not only as "its properly exposed" but also with "wow this is a good image here" versus "why did i take a photograph of aunt millies cat playing in the litter box?"

In the digital age, there is an inherent belief system that "seeing makes it true". Its the "twue way of photography", your only a photographer if you have a studio, have 10-20,000 in studio gear, 10,000 in camera and lenses. Although a cell phone and a few images on instagram or twitter ALWAYS means your a professional photographer NO MATTER how bad the images are. 

In the film age people thought ahead of what they were doing. You had a bright day, you used a lens hood. Shooting an outdoor setting on a patio that had alot of glass windows in it? Use a CPL.... and so on. 
    In the digital age, you see people with 3,000 Digital cameras using 2,000$ lenses that arent capable of using a lens hood, a cpl, a ND, because "i can fix that with photo shop"


----------



## mrca (Mar 10, 2021)

Tball, with the proliferation of cell phone cameras, everyone has a camera with them all the time.  And they can check to see if they have a recognizable image and take another if they don't.   Getting a consistently sharp and well exposed image was difficult for amateurs before digital and if that is all a pro could do before digital, he could still make a living.   Around 2000, pros had to do more to survive.  You are a bit light on the 20 grand in lighting gear, pun intended, but amateurs have no clue and no lighting gear.  Their idea of a pose is holding up a glass, making a silly face yelling woohoo.   They have no idea of composition and clutter.  No control over depth of field.  No idea how to set perspective for a portrait.   Now, even serious amateurs won't understand the finer points of a perfect image, but it is up to pros these days to  educate them.  If you provide a quality image and product and show them the difference,  they will be bragging to their friends about it.  A pro has to be able to produce work that uncle harry with his kit camera and lens can't.   Many years ago, I had taken an image with a d200 and one of ken rockwells nikon 10 worst lenses.   It blew away the guest speaker/judge who shot with a flagship camera and 10k lens.  It's not the camera, as ancil said it's the most important part of the camera, the 12 inches behind it.


----------



## ARJ3717 (Mar 10, 2021)

When you think about it, photography has changed greatly since its inception in the 1800s. In modern times this translates into things simply changing faster for many of us. This experience is due to our presence in the days of film, slides, and the wet darkroom process where no importing, editing, or printing was needed.  Simply drop off your film, make a few decisions and notes on the envelope and pick it up in about a week. 
More megapixels, faster, cheaper, smaller, easier, is all that seems to matter and is evident yearly with the release of new products. Today everyone's a photographer with their cell phone. Not a professional photographer, but  "good enough" for what I need right now photographer. It seems that with no real thought about ever printing any images we use the image for as long as needed and then hit "delete." 
The artist, craftsman, or professional photographer using imagery to convey their message is always searching for new inspiration, new ideas, or subjects for their work and not just another "Snap Shot". 

The need will exist and remain for professionally produced images well into the future. Advertising, fashion, scientific, medical, industrial, forensic, and many other areas will continue. Images have not gone out of style, just turn on the television or turn on your computer. We are bombarded daily as a reminder!  Maybe some of us who are, or have been in photography longer term will not be able to participate in the above areas. Just maybe we need to take a different view or direction?  Our woes and complaints might be turned toward or for the positive if we decided on a new way to satisfy our photographic experience or needs.

Those that have the ability or interest might consider conducting a weekend workshop or educational offering where passing on the knowledge of the craft would benefit many. I have found many more dollars doing workshops than selling prints on etsy.com or a personal website. Specializing in an area of interest you enjoy makes it fun and stimulates interest among all participants.

I am amazed about the prolific numbers of newborn, wedding, business headshot, team photographers out there who are still in search of more ideas for business expansion but don't consider offering a lucrative workshop?


----------



## mrca (Mar 10, 2021)

One of the best projects I have undertaken was picking up 2 books on the history of photography then spending the next year attempting to produce the photos starting in 1840 to present.  Just like transportation has evolved from then, buggy whip makers are few and far between, fariers who shoe horses still work but not like back then.  But folks had to "improvise, adapt, overcome" as the Clint and a tat a lady marine had on her chest in a recent shoot said,  to survive.  Things are changing even more rapidly.     These days, my camera in auto on a tripod with the timer takes a "sharp, well exposed image."


----------



## Warhorse (Mar 10, 2021)

Yep, we are all constantly evolving...including photography.


----------



## mrca (Mar 10, 2021)

Right, so photography "as we know it" today is evolving and those that don't adapt, improvise, overcome are left behind.  We saw that in 2000 as pros with minimal skills of only sharp well exposed were no longer needed as digital enabled folks to take sharp, well exposed without training and experience.   As Bob Dylan said, the times they are a changin.


----------



## Soocom1 (Mar 10, 2021)

I have to agree with that sentiment.
The hard core reality is that photography has evolved ALOT from the early 1830's.  Were using technology that in 50 years will look primitive.

Its not that "photography" is dying, its that we have to change for one, but also education and teaching concepts of art and other aspects should be fundamental in school. rather than focusing on everything being racist.


----------



## mrca (Mar 10, 2021)

I was talking to a friend yesterday about using film and he mentioned he is  resurrecting his audio turntable and vinyl records.   Remember  the film is dead mantra?  My lab now is so   overwhelmed it takes almost 3 weeks for turnaround.   Soo, I agree, on education, I try to educate my clients so they appreciate what I am giving them.


----------



## greybeard (Mar 19, 2021)

More people are taking pictures and videos than ever because of cell phones.  Making a living as a professional photographer is much harder than it was years ago but, so is just about just about any type of artistic endeavor just as the printing press did for scribes.


----------

