The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Death of photography... again

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member

Thanks, Jorgen, lots of food for thought.

And David Hockney has a charming sense of humour.

I had a good laugh.
 

Tim

Active member
I hopped into the time machine the other day and went back to 80,003 BC. I got to talking to Grog about his cave paintings.
He said he heard of someone trying out a new crushed rock colored pigment on wood. He didn't think it would catch on.

Someone then drew a line in the sand. :p :ROTFL:
 

Tim

Active member
Who needs cameras anyway, when there are pencils...

Timeless - Drawing - YouTube
YES... this was my roundabout way of saying that we humans embrace all sorts of technology and very rarely does it disappear. I suspect someone is doing cave painting somewhere even now. When photography came along did we drop painting/pencils/chalk etc - no. Same when digital came along some stuck to film. Sure.. the quantities of users of any medium vary.

I envy painters, good painters, I wish I could do it, but I can't so photos is my choice of expression.

The biggest issue film photogs face is they are dependent on manufacturers to make the film. Processing not such a problem as you can even develop film in coffee if you need to. Film cameras can be home made, could film be home made?
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Photographers had careers coating their own plates in the field because they had to be shoot wet. I can't see why anyone dedicated enough can't do the same (in fact a few do today). When Kodak started coating their own film, they did not need 20th technology. I am sure someone could come up with a air knife in their basement.
 

Tim

Active member
Photographers had careers coating their own plates in the field because they had to be shoot wet. I can't see why anyone dedicated enough can't do the same (in fact a few do today). When Kodak started coating their own film, they did not need 20th technology. I am sure someone could come up with a air knife in their basement.
Are these chemicals toxic? Likely!

Just need the plastic strip. Stick to MF roll film then no sprocket holes needed.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Hi Jorgen

This idea that photography must be fully untouched to be authentic is kind of unrealistic. next would be to use only unaltered raws, no JPEG´s, the next would be to have no firmware corrections in the camera at all, usage of wide angles will be prohibited as this is unnatural, same with teles........ where to start where to end. And as if negatives have never been altered by darkroom tricks to show better results.........(I´m not speaking of content changing composings....)

:)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I see your point, Stefan, but it's a very difficult area. Who decides when a photo goes from being documentation to propaganda? Photographers have been fired in the not too distant past for stepping over that line. Some of the winners in the World Press Photo of the Year contest seems to be edited well beyond what would have been acceptable just a decade ago. One doesn't have to remove or add objects or people to alter the message of a photo.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
There is no such thing as an "objective- neutral" Photo ! The subject you photograph,
the moment you shoot, the framing you chose, the perspective you take
EVERYTHING is an expression of your personal opinion and experiences.

So to draw a line is simply nonsubstantial - by definition........
To limit the personal expression by declaring this for good and others for bad is
a try to get an objective look that does not exist. Whoever tells you a photo
is objective is probably putting the most propaganda on you.
Always be careful if people tell you they won´t lie at you........ :)
Those are the worst !
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Satellite imagery is rather objective.

Photographs done by people are not in that choices are made, as Stephan pointed out. Certainly processing has been part of journalism for a long time. Eugene Smith and HCB certainly pushed the look of their images. And look at Herb Riis book How the Other Half Lives from 1890 has artificial lighting and staged scenes.

Now, I am not saying staging is good, but nothing has really changed. Photographers are in control of their craft and they use that control. This has always been true. The more things change...
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I agree with both of you, but with the tools available now, the effects can be made much stronger and within minutes of an event. Maybe that doesn't matter either, but I still find it scary because these images reach millions or billions of people within minutes. The immediate impression becomes very strong. Although technology has made the process faster, the human brain is still the same old.
 
Top