[dsmithhfx]

I don't agree or disagree with the statement, but I do think it has a certain validity. Wim Wenders is a great and influential cinematographer, with very interesting visual, narrative and social ideas. His film "Paris, Texas" opened an awareness of new vistas (literally and figuratively) for me personally, as I'm sure it did for many photographers. Just-Published Photographs That Inspired Paris, Texas: Wim Wenders Written in the West, Revisited - Vogue

[biz-engineer]

No it's not how to set up a shot, it's the time taken to setup a shot that has changed. When you only have a limited supply of film you tend to spend more time thinking before you shoot, as you may have only one shot to take. Yes it's different now in the digital world, I see it every time I travel and observe other people shooting. Phil.

Digital shots being free even prevent a lot of folks to go the extra mile to compose a shot worth the cost of film and development. I know some people who got bored with photography because they sprayed and prayed, it did not workout, they concluded they are not gifted for photography and gave up.

[Rondec]

I think what Wim is getting at is now people just snap away and don't really "compose" a single shot like you used to when shooting film. Now people tend to take dozens of pictures of the same thing, as you never have to think about how many shots you have left in your roll of film.

The uniqueness of the "one shot" is now gone in the digital world, now it's just hundreds of random shots to sort through.

I actually agree with him.......

Phil.

Maybe. I think people discount how many bad snaps were taken back in the "glory" film days. Looking through my parent's photo albums there isn't much composition there, but there certainly are memories. That is the market that the cell phone cameras have captured. Maybe they took fewer images back in the old days, because of the cost of film and developing it, but the quality wasn't a whole lot different.

People who care to learn still go through the same process and will eventually get there, the same as in the past. It is just a little cheaper to do your learning (once you own your camera).

[photoptimist]

Maybe. I think people discount how many bad snaps were taken back in the "glory" film days. Looking through my parent's photo albums there isn't much composition there, but there certainly are memories. That is the market that the cell phone cameras have captured. Maybe they took fewer images back in the old days, because of the cost of film and developing it, but the quality wasn't a whole lot different.

People who care to learn still go through the same process and will eventually get there, the same as in the past. It is just a little cheaper to do your learning (once you own your camera).

Exactly!

One of our local photolabs had their printing machines visible through a glass wall. You could readily see the never-ending stream of not-composed, not-sacred pictures coming from all the happy-snappy cameras.

At some level, the rise of the internet is creating the perfect environment for cultivating even more "good" photographers than every before. Whereas the budding enthusiasts of the film generation were lucky to get feedback from a few friends and family (of dubious honesty and quality), today's digital photographer can post their images online and get feedback from the world.

A place like PF could not have existed when Wenders was taking pictures. But now PF exists and it enables a much broader range of people to become true photographers in the sense of people who care about the images they take. The availability of the internet (and the low-cost of digital) makes it a lot easier to improve.

[ChristianRock]

A place like PF could not have existed when Wenders was taking pictures. But now PF exists and it enables a much broader range of people to become true photographers in the sense of people who care about the images they take. The availability of the internet (and the low-cost of digital) makes it a lot easier to improve.

I was just coming in here to say something like this, but you said it much better than I could...

[sqrrl]

Very similar in tone to Walter Benjamins 'art in the age of technological reproduction', maybe Barthes 'camera lucida' a little in the way he looks at nostalgia - interesting views, but I struggled with the ghost-writing.

I do like his photos - reminds me of Eggleston.

[leekil]

I interpret Wenders' comments differently than others are --

Wenders, too, now regards photography as a thing of the past. “It’s not just the meaning of the image that has changed – the act of looking does not have the same meaning. Now, it’s about showing, sending and maybe remembering. It is no longer essentially about the image. The image for me was always linked to the idea of uniqueness, to a frame and to composition. You produced something that was, in itself, a singular moment. As such, it had a certain sacredness. That whole notion is gone.”

I think he's talking about photography being a much more private thing, a contemplation of something that was before you. Now, everyday photography is not about contemplating something, but about advertising something, broadcasting it, and it is more about the transmission of an activity than the contemplation of the scene before you. That is why he is saying that what happens today is no longer "photography".

So Instant Stories is also an elegy for the Polaroid itself, and all it stood for. “At the time, it was part of everyday life, another thing you used for living – like food and air and the stinky cars we were driving and the cigarettes everyone was smoking. Today, making a Polaroid is just a process.”

In this part, he is similarly lamenting the removal of the Polaroid as a part of everyday life. Whereas before you had it around to document things in your personal life, it's lack of ubiquity in modern times has relegated/elevated it to just another photographic "process", as opposed to something that is part of life.

He isn't talking so much about the technical aspects and composition as much as he is about the changes in the practice of photography.

---------- Post added 10-12-17 at 08:27 PM ----------

The cultural changes, really.

[twilhelm]

I interpret Wenders' comments differently than others are --



I think he's talking about photography being a much more private thing, a contemplation of something that was before you. Now, everyday photography is not about contemplating something, but about advertising something, broadcasting it, and it is more about the transmission of an activity than the contemplation of the scene before you. That is why he is saying that what happens today is no longer "photography".



In this part, he is similarly lamenting the removal of the Polaroid as a part of everyday life. Whereas before you had it around to document things in your personal life, it's lack of ubiquity in modern times has relegated/elevated it to just another photographic "process", as opposed to something that is part of life.

He isn't talking so much about the technical aspects and composition as much as he is about the changes in the practice of photography.

---------- Post added 10-12-17 at 08:27 PM ----------

The cultural changes, really.

This is the line of thinking I have also. We've become a "social network" society and images are the perfect medium for that. Everything we do, everywhere we go, we have a "selfie" shot for the world to see.

Before we had digital we took our pictures for similar but different reasons. "Good" shots made their way into an album or a slide carousel so we could share those moments. Those that didn't make the cut were relegated to a shoe box in the bottom of the closet.

As social networks change and/or disappear, there will be some disappointed people when they reach our age and realize all those snapshots they wanted to share with their grandchildren have been lost to the great internet. And the rest of us will still have our albums of prints...

[normhead]

This is the line of thinking I have also. We've become a "social network" society and images are the perfect medium for that. Everything we do, everywhere we go, we have a "selfie" shot for the world to see.

Before we had digital we took our pictures for similar but different reasons. "Good" shots made their way into an album or a slide carousel so we could share those moments. Those that didn't make the cut were relegated to a shoe box in the bottom of the closet.

As social networks change and/or disappear, there will be some disappointed people when they reach our age and realize all those snapshots they wanted to share with their grandchildren have been lost to the great internet. And the rest of us will still have our albums of prints...

The photo books I put together today are miles ahead of anything I ever did with photo albums Every picture is processed to a level that would be simply impossible with film, with appropriate text added where needed.

The difference between my photo books and my moms albums is night and day, and I often make multiple copies so I get one, my daughter gets one, my canoe buddies get them sometimes if it's an album including a trip they were on. I easily craft a book with different sizes of images cropped to fit together for interesting layouts, page by page. There are endless advantages to digital for the home photo book maker.

Not all people do photobooks, not all people made albums either. Some have a huge number of old photographs stored in boxes and suitcases,
I have a whole computer that does nothing but hold old images, for easy access.

So, once again, the reality of some doesn't match the reality of all. What some people remember as true is still true, for some people. It's the writer that has changed. He can't do what he used to do, but he could, he just doesn't., so he blames it on digital cameras or something new that he perceives as being somehow imperfect and makes sweeping generalizations to emphasize his point.

But in I think his point is, he's old and he's seen a lot of change, and he personally hasn't kept up. He sees others exploiting the new technologies and feels left behind. So he invents reasons asserting that people do today isn't as good as what in his mind people used to do.

A careful analysis of what people used to do and what they do today is going to see a logical evolution based on existing technologies. But that isn't going to be a plus or minus equation. People spend a certain amount of time taking pictures and have since the Brownie. It's essentially the same process it always was, just with different tech.

These guys blocked a busy path for 5 minutes getting this shot just right. Don't even bother trying to get away with non-sense like "people don't set up their shots." Personally, having witnessed 50 years of photography, I'd say the equipment has changed but people just do what they always did, in terms of time and preparation involved.



What's different today is the ease of sharing our photos with others.

[Rondec]

This is the line of thinking I have also. We've become a "social network" society and images are the perfect medium for that. Everything we do, everywhere we go, we have a "selfie" shot for the world to see.

Before we had digital we took our pictures for similar but different reasons. "Good" shots made their way into an album or a slide carousel so we could share those moments. Those that didn't make the cut were relegated to a shoe box in the bottom of the closet.

As social networks change and/or disappear, there will be some disappointed people when they reach our age and realize all those snapshots they wanted to share with their grandchildren have been lost to the great internet. And the rest of us will still have our albums of prints...

I think photography has always been about sharing. If you took a trip somewhere unusual, coming back and showing your slides or photos to your family and friends was part of the reason for taking them. That and remembering details of the trip long afterward.

The internet has broadened the ability to share. Facebook and Pentax Forum and other sites allow people with similar interests to share parts of their lives with others and that includes photos. It is a subtle shift, but certainly it isn't that much different from back in the film years.

If Wenders thinks that photography should be solitary then why is sharing his images now?

[Sandy Hancock]

What would Wim Wenders know? "Paris, Texas" was rubbish. But hell, Nastassja Kinski was cute. And Ry Cooder's soundtrack rocked. And every frame was a work of art....

Oh, and photography is just fine.

[dsmithhfx]

Two of Wenders' contemporaries, the artists Joseph Beuys and Heinrich Böll, coined a very interesting phrase, "success-aggression."

[c.a.m]

The art, craft, and process of photography has evolved and broadened.

While on vacation, sometimes my wife and I will take pictures of the same scene - a landscape, a street, an interesting object. In the lengthy time that I may take to consider and set up my shot and adjust my tripod and camera, my wife has already taken her 'snap' with her iPhone (of decent quality), sent it to our children or friends, and probably received back a comment or two. My shot, on the other hand, waits for me to post-process it at home, then sits on my hard drive.

'Photography' is not over.

- Craig

[RobA_Oz]

Well, I'm halfway along a river cruise along the Danube and Rhine and I have the advantage of seeing a lot of people taking photos, not only the people accompanying me, but many others doing likewise.

The cameras they use are about 50% smart phones and tablets, and 50% DSLRs, P&Ses (not dead yet, even if people aren't buying them at the same rate) and other compacts. I've only seen one or two Sony A7s, so far, and one other Pentax, but I digress.

The point about the lack of composition and the time taken is a moot one, and from my observation its not really that widespread, at least not here. Most people I see, including the selfie-mad crowd, seem to be taking some time to compose (too much, for what it is, in my view, but that's their choice), so they are concerned with the image, but what they're getting out of it is probably different to that for people like Wenders or many of us here. People like Edward Weston tried to extract the essence of the subject in their photographs, and they probably succeeded, but do we really imagine that the millions who took up photography at the same time were doing the same thing? I think we know they were mainly taking photos of their families and places they visited. So, how's that changed? Maybe they're taking photos of themselves and the places they visit now, but the egocentricity involved is the main difference.

[normhead]

Well, I'm halfway along a river cruise along the Danube and Rhine and I have the advantage of seeing a lot of people taking photos, not only the people accompanying me, but many others doing likewise.

The cameras they use are about 50% smart phones and tablets, and 50% DSLRs, P&Ses (not dead yet, even if people aren't buying them at the same rate) and other compacts. I've only seen one or two Sony A7s, so far, and one other Pentax, but I digress.

The point about the lack of composition and the time taken is a moot one, and from my observation its not really that widespread, at least not here. Most people I see, including the selfie-mad crowd, seem to be taking some time to compose (too much, for what it is, in my view, but that's their choice), so they are concerned with the image, but what they're getting out of it is probably different to that for people like Wenders or many of us here. People like Edward Weston tried to extract the essence of the subject in their photographs, and they probably succeeded, but do we really imagine that the millions who took up photography at the same time were doing the same thing? I think we know they were mainly taking photos of their families and places they visited. So, how's that changed? Maybe they're taking photos of themselves and the places they visit now, but the egocentricity involved is the main difference.

People who would never ask someone else to take a picture of them at a given location can now do selfies with their own selfie stick. All that's happened here is shy people can get something the rest of us always got by being more out going and social.

In that sense, selfie photography has levelled the "here's a picture of me at Niagara Falls" playing field. You don't have to interact with strangers to get what you want. You don't have to trust strangers to not run off with your camera. Personally my take on this is completely different. I'm happy those folks can get what they want, without interrupting my day because they want a picture of both of them. This is a good thing. I still get the odd person seeing my DSLR and assuming I'm the kind of guy who should take their picture, but it's much less of an occurrence the last few years, since the selfie stick.

It used to be this....

A stranger from the crowd pressed into service.Now it's this, no stranger needed.