[BigMackCam]

Owning a high-end camera of any sort doesn’t make you Alfred Stieglitz. Having Photoshop doesn’t mean you can shoot anything, at any setting, and always “fix it in post”. The basics of photography will always get you, like gravity always gets the skydiver.

Absolutely! Furthermore, using Photoshop doesn't automatically mean you're a bad photographer who can't take decent photos without it. A lot of excellent, highly-capable photographers use Photoshop and other image editing tools to subtly improve already-good photos that were taken with skilful application of fundamental and often specialist skills. Dodging and burning, fine-tuning contrast, sharpening, spot removal etc. - these (and more) are all valid improvements that were made to photos in the darkroom long before digital photography and Photoshop came on the scene...

[Kiwizinho]

I think there are more good photographers today than in the day of film. Digital allows instant feedback of what works and what doesn't work.

I did not keep great records back in the film days so I could not always reference what worked and what didn't. There were a lot of rules that people would remember (ie sunny 16) this would get you in the ballpark. But with digital there can be a lot more experimenting. I would think that course spent a lot more time explaining exposure because the impact of messing it up was greater

I very much can attest to this based on personal experience. My first digital camera was a Kodak P&S, no RAW, only 3M pixel, awful jpg compression, but it did have manual aperture and shutter speed options, and most importantly it didn't cost money to take photos beyond the initial purchase price.
Up until that time, I'd used a Pentax SLR, and to be honest, not many of the photos I took were good. With the digital P&S I started taking a lot more photos and started learning from them. Because of the P&S limitations, I still used the SLR, but I found I started taking better photos.
I can remember even my Pentax film SLR had scene modes (just two, action and landscape), so cameras obscuring what's really going on with exposure has been there since long before digital. I understand now that 'action' means high shutter speed, and 'landscape' typically means depth of field, so I'm likely to pick Tv or Av respectively, so that I can control the parameters that matter to me and let the camera set the others.
Of course I have the luxury of multiple metering modes, and instant ISO change that I didn't have with film, so I can theoretically go and shoot a studio portrait and a sports action image within minutes of each other without having to mess around changing film.
When I look at someone else's image, I neither know nor care what technical knowledge they have about photography. What I care about is what impact does the image have on me. If it leaves no positive impression, then I don't care if it was captured with a Hasselblad by someone who recites the exposure triangle in their sleep or an iPhone by someone who thinks shutters are things you put over your windows; it's still a poor image as far as I'm concerned. The inverse is also true.

[StiffLegged]

When I look at someone else's image, I neither know nor care what technical knowledge they have about photography. What I care about is what impact does the image have on me. If it leaves no positive impression, then I don't care if it was captured with a Hasselblad by someone who recites the exposure triangle in their sleep or an iPhone by someone who thinks shutters are things you put over your windows; it's still a poor image as far as I'm concerned. The inverse is also true.

Well said, I take the same view.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

May I politely and respectfully say that’s ripest tripe: there have been conveniently small, automated, pocketable cameras around for the past fifty years. Photography as we know it practiced has always been a mix of happy snappers, hobbyists, hardboiled professionals and Henri Cartier Bresson/Ernst Haas. It’s still no different. Of course someone will bewail the demise of Kodachrome or the collodion process, but what exactly is the difference between digital convenience and film convenience in terms of finished results?

Just my take on things, no offence intended or taken.

Do not know if the tripe is ripe, but the OP suggests that photography is dead. Perhaps that is a result of his illustrations that you must make a picture like you did half a century ago. I do not care if the big names all go to easy photo taking, if anything I applaud it. You can make memorable pictures with your phone, or any small photographing tool in my view. I like to see how all those 8 and 9 year old kids are taking pictures and compare the results. It is fun and that is what photographing should be, we must not take it too seriously. An expensive kit means nothing, what comes out of your camera, does!

[wadge22]

I do not care if the big names all go to easy photo taking, if anything I applaud it.

I'm of this opinion as well. One of the best uses for a consumer DSLR (or now mirrorless) is a new mom or dad who wants to get pretty good shots of their family. I applaud them having foolproof tools to accomplish that goal, and I think it would be silly to tell them they should be worrying about learning everything that makes the shots good. If photography becomes a passion for them, then it will be time to read up (or watch some youtube) on the finer points of the the theory. If not, who cares! Viva el boton verde!

[RobA_Oz]

Who was it, who declared that painting was dead because of the advent of the camera?

[BigMackCam]

the OP suggests that photography is dead. Perhaps that is a result of his illustrations that you must make a picture like you did half a century ago. I do not care if the big names all go to easy photo taking, if anything I applaud it. You can make memorable pictures with your phone, or any small photographing tool in my view. I like to see how all those 8 and 9 year old kids are taking pictures and compare the results. It is fun and that is what photographing should be, we must not take it too seriously. An expensive kit means nothing, what comes out of your camera, does!

Well said, and I agree wholeheartedly. We oughtn't to be snobbish about the tools and methods others use in photography. If what they produce is pleasing to them or those of us viewing their work, that should be good enough. If their photography isn't so good, well... we shouldn't deride them. Perhaps if they're looking for feedback we can advise them - gently and tactfully, with plenty of encouragement - and help them get better results without feeling embarassed or bad about themselves.

Regardless of AI and any other technical assistance afforded by the latest cameras, smartphones and software, the photographer still has to consider subject matter, colour and/or tonality, lighting and composition... the aesthetic elements of the photo. However much technical automation and assistance a photographer may rely on, if they can combine those aesthetic elements to produce a pleasing image, they have my admiration. It's not easy, as my extensive back-catalogue of poorer photos amply demonstrates All the technical skills in the world pale into insignificance by comparsion to these aesthetic aspects, IMHO...

EDIT: Merriam-Webster's definition of photography is "the art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces". That's all it is - just capturing images on a sensor or film. So... no, photography most certainly isn't dead. It's merely evolving

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-17-2022 at 03:57 PM.

[Wheatfield]

Photography got a terminal disease when automatic exposure came along. Every technical improvement to cameras that took another part of the decision making process away from the photographer was a sign that the terminal disease was getting worse.
My own opinion is that photography went onto life support when digital cameras took over the market.

[reh321]

The photo below is one of the few I took at a {female} friend’s wedding. Her new husband was very active in stage plays, and viewed a modern wedding as the ultimate in such things, so he hired a photographer who basically ran the whole thing. This photo shows the photographer photographing the cake cutting preparations. My flash set off the assistant’s slave as I knew it would; my settings allowed me to get a reasonable photo anyway. My new bride was the woman in red, so I had a perfectly good reason for taking this particular photograph. A week after the honeymoon, the bride called me, asking about my photos, because her new husband had decided that the pro work was awfully expensive, and I had to explain that the four of them {groom, bride, photographer, assistant} had spent most of the time hidden away taking pictures, so I had few of her and him - most of mine were of the guests at what could have been any party, and this picture became emblematic of the event to me.

[reh321]

The photo below is one of the few I took at a {female} friend’s wedding. Her new husband was very active in stage plays, and viewed a modern wedding as the ultimate in such things, so he hired a photographer who basically ran the whole thing. This photo shows the photographer photographing the cake cutting preparations. My flash set off the assistant’s slave as I knew it would; my settings allowed me to get a reasonable photo anyway. My new bride was the woman in red, so I had a perfectly good reason for taking this particular photograph. A week after the honeymoon, the bride called me, asking about my photos, because her new husband had decided that the pro work was awfully expensive, and I had to explain that the four of them {groom, bride, photographer, assistant} had spent most of the time hidden away taking pictures, so I had few of her and him - most of mine were of the guests at what could have been any party, and this picture became emblematic of the event to me.

By the way, my story dates back almost forty years.
Having enough money to purchase a nice medium format kit has not made people dumber or less imperious since then.
Our older daughter got married almost three years ago; our other daughter had a small ceremony {because of Covid} 1-1/2 years ago.
In each case, I introduced myself to the official photographer and said she should warn me if she found me to be in the way;
we got along very well.

[VSTAR]

Photography got a terminal disease when automatic exposure came along. Every technical improvement to cameras that took another part of the decision making process away from the photographer was a sign that the terminal disease was getting worse.
My own opinion is that photography went onto life support when digital cameras took over the market.

Automatic exposure has been here for a long time. My final Fujica 35mm
Camera had automatic exposure. It did not take away from the photographic experience or the technical ability to take a photo. It was and is, to me, just a tool. Digital cameras and life support…I believe it just opened up photography to many more people. Sort of like people that dismiss photos taken by a phone..they are still photos…and many are very impressive. All of these technical advances are just tools. The biggest change from film to digital is that in years to come photos will not be available. For instance if one had the negatives then a photo could be made even 50 years later. With digital a lot of photos are going to be lost to future generations.

[JohnMc]

Photography got a terminal disease when...

"You push the button, we do the rest," was coined about that time if memory serves.

[jgnfld]

...like gravity always gets the skydiver.

Well maybe not such a gory mess nor as deep a hole in the ground, at least!

[Kiwizinho]

Who was it, who declared that painting was dead because of the advent of the camera?

I have a wall full of paintings as a result of the fact that I own a digital camera. My sketching skills are not good enough that I can create realistic drawings of scenes I see freehand, but a digital camera, a projector, and a bit of time spent tracing means that I have a rather nice art collection that a few people are envious of.

I used to think that I was cheating, until I discovered that some of the most famous artists in history used either projectors once they were invented, or camera obscuras to produce realistic art.

Next time someone puffs up their chest and argues that they craft images the 'old fashioned way', as it's the only way to go, I'll drag out my Windsor and Newton oils, and ask them how old fashioned they want to go?
I know my colour reproductions are fully archival, and they have more of a unique personal touch than any Photoshop master can achieve.

In fact, I wonder if they might even count as NFTs without any electricity required, as each is completely unique and impossible to reproduce a completely identical copy.

[DeadJohn]

In the olden days professional photographers learned about film. Today they learn digital workflow. Different tools.

Film skills are mostly dead. Photography is not dead.