[StiffLegged]

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.

Hahahahahahahahaha! Ya gotta hand it to Wheatfield, nobody tells ’em like him!

(it is said he still drives his Grandpappy’s Buick Model 30 because everything built since just isn’t motoring)

[beholder3]

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.

+1

Best post so far.

I'd add that I do expect that a "photo" actually is without heavy content manipulation, otherwise it is just a digital image, same as a comic book image.
So I do expect the type of art/product in front of me to be declared honestly, just the same as I want to know if I eat actual meat or plastic tasting like meat.

[Lord Lucan]

Photography got a terminal disease when automatic exposure came along.

My father (a semi-pro) didn't set exposure by eyeballing the light or using Sunny Sixteen, With his entirely manual Rollei TLR he used a Weston light meter. He didn't use it dumbly ethough, but tried different directions and parts of the scene etc. I don't treat my "Automatic" camera any differently, using it in Manual mode much of the time and aiming it around for the meter's recommendation. It is just more convenient than carrying a separate light meter. For a snap shot (or a snapshot), like if I saw an aircraft crashing, a bridge falling down, or the Prime Minister being assassinated, I'd use Auto or Green Button mode.

[Cerebum]

I think the old film and darkroom skills are being kept alive by a happy band of film shooters, but they are few and far between, so, not dead I recently moved back to film and like @filmfan have a glorious Voigtlander vitomatic ii. Re mirrorless on auto, anyone with an enquiring mind will have a look and see what the settings do thereby keeping digital skills alive and even mobiles have led to an interest in photography but that is very much on a personal level because most people don't give a toss how a picture was made

---

Last edited by Cerebum; 01-18-2022 at 06:13 AM.

[DAdamsSnaps]

Photography has changed . . .things change . . .technology changes things.

We get old, the hobby doesn't. New, younger, fresher, individuals will jump in and will put their own spin on things. If it catches on it will become the new norm, if not, it'll fall to the wayside.

Post production is a part of life in photography. A wise man once said to me "Ansel Adams would have LOVED Photoshop and Lightroom" . . .

Why there are so many "purists" (old people) that feel the need to bash on "the youth" is beyond me.

[HazyJ]

You should always remember that being a professional only means that you do whatever it is for money. it does not automatically mean that you are good at it. The word "amateur" comes from "amour" and means that you do whatever it is for love. If you love something then you are quite likely to be good at it.

[chiane]

A long time ago, common sense and skill ruled photography. If you needed to deal with alot of sun, you got a lens hood on your lens. If you were dealing with reflections in stuff, you got a CPL on that lens and fiddled till it was good again.

Now, in the world of photography those basics concepts are GONE.. I am serious. Really I am. I guess the ability to use the AI feature in photo shop has destroyed skill or common sense. Afterall the certified professional photographer course of study is 35% digital post production. And the CPP test itself is going by several older tests found online, roughly 40% digital editing based.

And roughly 10% based on basic camera knowledge like shutter speed, iso, aperture, and dealing with common issues solved with a lens hood.

On forums i have been, people who have sold services as a photographer for 10 or more years, have been excited by newbies to cameras, who have exclaimed "i did a shoot with a friend, i took 400 photos and I actually got ONE that was good enough to edit in photo shop".

And called them skilled...

I attended a wedding a few years ago. It wasnt great but i had taken my nikon d7500 and my vitomatic II to do some specialized photos. I wasnt allowed to take them out of the car sadly.

The so called professional photographer was an idiot. Sure the woman had scouted the the wedding spot 2 weeks before but had not been smart enough to go back the previous day due to the weather changing.. fall weddings outside require that effort you know. SO when the wedding started, the woman could only do half the photo work because she couldnt PUT A LENS HOOD on the lens..

Could not comprehend that she would have to change positions for shooting based on those conditions, just absolutely failed..

But worse yet was her "student/assitant". They TRIED to do a photo of the bride inside a room with the blinds closed... absolutely could not do a thing. They had to turn the lights on and open the blinds wide open.. Even though the camera being used by the 'profesional" was a Nikon D5.

And in the photos I saw.... the camera had been left in the auto exposure setting.....

Old man yelling at clouds.

[StiffLegged]

… The word "amateur" comes from "amour" and means that you do whatever it is for love. If you love something then you are quite likely to be good at it.

Sigh. I wish that was true.

[MOXAM]

A long time ago, common sense and skill ruled photography. If you needed to deal with alot of sun, you got a lens hood on your lens. If you were dealing with reflections in stuff, you got a CPL on that lens and fiddled till it was good again.

Now, in the world of photography those basics concepts are GONE.. I am serious. Really I am. I guess the ability to use the AI feature in photo shop has destroyed skill or common sense. Afterall the certified professional photographer course of study is 35% digital post production. And the CPP test itself is going by several older tests found online, roughly 40% digital editing based.

And roughly 10% based on basic camera knowledge like shutter speed, iso, aperture, and dealing with common issues solved with a lens hood.

On forums i have been, people who have sold services as a photographer for 10 or more years, have been excited by newbies to cameras, who have exclaimed "i did a shoot with a friend, i took 400 photos and I actually got ONE that was good enough to edit in photo shop".

And called them skilled...

I attended a wedding a few years ago. It wasnt great but i had taken my nikon d7500 and my vitomatic II to do some specialized photos. I wasnt allowed to take them out of the car sadly.

The so called professional photographer was an idiot. Sure the woman had scouted the the wedding spot 2 weeks before but had not been smart enough to go back the previous day due to the weather changing.. fall weddings outside require that effort you know. SO when the wedding started, the woman could only do half the photo work because she couldnt PUT A LENS HOOD on the lens..

Could not comprehend that she would have to change positions for shooting based on those conditions, just absolutely failed..

But worse yet was her "student/assitant". They TRIED to do a photo of the bride inside a room with the blinds closed... absolutely could not do a thing. They had to turn the lights on and open the blinds wide open.. Even though the camera being used by the 'profesional" was a Nikon D5.

And in the photos I saw.... the camera had been left in the auto exposure setting.....

Quite agree.

Post processing apocalypse.

Try the 100ASA site, where some photographers are still relying on correct principles. One of twenty images posted for curation show real creativity.

Post processing's has its place but when you start adding or subtracting (other then dust), is it really photography anymore? Not in my opinion.

Michael O'Hara Photography
oharaphoto.ca
Pentax K1

[Signguy]

A long time ago, common sense and skill ruled photography. If you needed to deal with alot of sun, you got a lens hood on your lens. If you were dealing with reflections in stuff, you got a CPL on that lens and fiddled till it was good again.

Now, in the world of photography those basics concepts are GONE.. I am serious. Really I am. I guess the ability to use the AI feature in photo shop has destroyed skill or common sense. Afterall the certified professional photographer course of study is 35% digital post production. And the CPP test itself is going by several older tests found online, roughly 40% digital editing based.

And roughly 10% based on basic camera knowledge like shutter speed, iso, aperture, and dealing with common issues solved with a lens hood.

On forums i have been, people who have sold services as a photographer for 10 or more years, have been excited by newbies to cameras, who have exclaimed "i did a shoot with a friend, i took 400 photos and I actually got ONE that was good enough to edit in photo shop".

And called them skilled...

I attended a wedding a few years ago. It wasnt great but i had taken my nikon d7500 and my vitomatic II to do some specialized photos. I wasnt allowed to take them out of the car sadly.

The so called professional photographer was an idiot. Sure the woman had scouted the the wedding spot 2 weeks before but had not been smart enough to go back the previous day due to the weather changing.. fall weddings outside require that effort you know. SO when the wedding started, the woman could only do half the photo work because she couldnt PUT A LENS HOOD on the lens..

Could not comprehend that she would have to change positions for shooting based on those conditions, just absolutely failed..

But worse yet was her "student/assitant". They TRIED to do a photo of the bride inside a room with the blinds closed... absolutely could not do a thing. They had to turn the lights on and open the blinds wide open.. Even though the camera being used by the 'profesional" was a Nikon D5.

And in the photos I saw.... the camera had been left in the auto exposure setting.....

So much of what you state is sadly true! In the end, however, you still need to know/feel what makes a professional photograph as opposed to a picture regardless of capture/post editing. My hope is that eventually true art with a camera will win out. Our business is sign design/fabrication. We see tons of "logos" that people make on their own with the "one click wonders" of PS. When we help them really look at their logo and compare it to national chain logos eventually, for the most part, they see their own short comings and that pretty much ends their excursion into logo design. I think that many people will, in the end, see that their "photographs" taken with their phones just don't seam to have that "awe" factor (as Gavin Hardcastle would put it) and will either look into how to achieve it or will simply get disgusted and give up. I'm in the achiever group myself. I continually try to get myself in places where I'm more likely to see a real photograph opportunity and try my best to make my pix look like what I see in my mind - still VERY much to learn, but I'll keep working at it unlike many people I know that after a couple hundred shots either sell the camera or leave it packed away. I'm going to just keep shooting no matter what any trend comes along!

[Thwyllo]

I think this is why Pentax will prevail.
It is more that just 'getting the shot that will sell'.
It's about the user experience, the feel, the tactile enjoyment of photography...
one that not only 'get's the shot' but is also pleasurable to use.
...I believe this will make Pentax predominate in camera manufacturing for years to come.

I have been taking photographs for 50+ years and I currently own around sixty cameras, including at least half a dozen Pentax DSLRs, four Nikons, three Canons and umpteen mid-range/premium mirrorless and I can say without hesitation that Pentax does not have any noticeable edge over any of them. They all have their foibles and they all have their good points and they are all pleasurable to use in one way or another. In fact by far the two most pleasurable cameras to use I have found to be the Pentax Q series (which of course they no longer make), especially the QS1 married to the elusive but utterly amazing 08 wide angle zoom, and the Olympus EM10, closely followed by the Canon M10, none of which require the amount of button pushing that the average DSLR does and all of which are capable of outstanding results.

Point being, if you are hanging your hat on the criteria you mention I think you'll be sadly disappointed.

The simple fact is that there have always been a huge but inactive number of creative/artistic people capable of constructing an excellent photograph but who were put off by the sackfuls of gear needed as well as the mastery thereof. Thankfully the modern smartphone and mirrorless cameras have made high quality output, without having to intimately understand many of the ins and outs of photography, a reality, so all these folk have come out of the shadows and are frequently embarrassing people who are working with a ton of expensive equipment and I say more power to their elbow.

[Kphoto63]

True, the technology has changed but the art has not. Don't base your ideas on a single experience. I am pretty sure there were some painters that thought a large monstrosity of an 8X10 plate camera with an obnoxious and volatile open flash unit was the end also.

Try to open your eyes to new possibilities instead of sticking with one way of doing things. I mean after all, look at the technology you are using to post these ideas in a forum. I mean whatever happened to writing your thoughts on paper, mailing them in, then have them printed into a newsletter and then sending it back out in the mail to all the people who submitted and others who paid to have a subscription to your newsletter?

[corvin]

In reading this thread, it's amazing how much of it I find irrelevant. Not the comments. I've enjoyed those. Very insightful people on this forum and in this thread.

But more at the notion of photography being "dead". It may be for most others in the world. Dunno. Strange space to be in when everyone has a camera in his pocket. But for me...the way I live my life...if a day goes by when I'm not shooting and learning more, I really regret it (and the winter's rough for me that way). This is the only 2022 that I'll ever have...and I've got a few cameras and a pile of lenses. And it's going to be a great year for photography for me - dead or not. (Just got back from a winter Yellowstone trip.)

And the other thing...a certification? I need someone else to tell me whether I'm adjudicated worthy to shoot? And I've got to be a master of Photoshop to be a shooter?

Maybe I'm getting old. But I just don't give much of a darn what others think any more. I care lots if I'm getting more and more keepers...and that the keepers are getting better and better. But the rest of it? Nope. Not a bit.

YMMV. But you all have cameras and lenses. You've all taken remarkable shots. You've all improved with time and work. That matters. Not much else does.

[JohnMc]

Quite agree.

Post processing apocalypse.

Try the 100ASA site, where some photographers are still relying on correct principles. One of twenty images posted for curation show real creativity.

Post processing's has its place but when you start adding or subtracting (other then dust), is it really photography anymore? Not in my opinion.

Exactly, but I believe it was HP Robinson who said, paraphrasing, 'anything over ASA 25 was darn near criminal.' Maybe it was Warnerke.

[butchblack]

Times change, people change, technology changes. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Being older than dirt, I remember being captivated with push-processing B&W film to shoot without flash. Then I fell in love with Panatomic X. My first real camera was a Spotmatic. I consider the inability to know how to manually adjust a camera the same as not being able to drive a stick shift car. Comparatively few Americans know how to, they manage to get around, but they miss out on something good. Even my own shooting, what little I do these days, has changed. I bought a KP and fell in love with the Tav setting. I remember first getting into Photoshop. I was working in photofinishing at the time, and Photoshop gave me the promise of doing things that I always wanted to.

I don't think photography, the science of taking pictures, is dead or will die in the near future. What worries me is the belief by many that a smartphone camera can replace a DSLR. I answer questions on Quora, and I get that question in some form almost daily. Can you take a good photo with a smartphone? Of course. The caveat is that you have to understand light, composition, etc., to do so consistently. Otherwise, you fall into the shoot tons and hope something good comes out camp. There will always be people with a good eye interested enough to learn how to take a good photograph. What I fear dying are the amateurs learning enough to want to take the next step.