Newsweek Article saying digital is killing photography

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Frank Calidonna, Dec 8, 2007.

  1. Just wondering if anyone has read the article in Newsweek online?

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/73349

    Not sure if it is in the print magazine too. I think it is way off base.
    A lot of photographs using film were hardly based on reality. I don't
    think that is the standard that makes a photograph art or important.

    Frank
     
    Frank Calidonna, Dec 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Frank Calidonna

    Victek Guest

    Just wondering if anyone has read the article in Newsweek online?
    >
    > http://www.newsweek.com/id/73349
    >
    > Not sure if it is in the print magazine too. I think it is way off base. A
    > lot of photographs using film were hardly based on reality. I don't think
    > that is the standard that makes a photograph art or important.
    >
    > Frank
    >

    The author mainly seems to be lamenting the fact that digital technology
    facilitates forgery. For those intentionally trying to distort the truth in
    images digital photography certainly makes the process easier, but just
    because it's easy to abuse digital tools doesn't mean everyone will do so.
     
    Victek, Dec 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. No photography isn't dead. Like a living creature is has and will evolve.
    Right now it has evolved in to many creative forms. And, of course one of
    those forms is people trying cheat others by creating digital fiction and
    passing it off as real. This kind of things happens with just about anything
    from handbags, to sunglasses to memory cards to software and so. Anything
    that isn't legitamite is a fake trying to pass itself off as something real.
    This has been happening with most everything for thousands of years. Digital
    cameras and Photoshop only made it easier.

    The other aspect of the fakery is that 99% of it is just really poorly done
    and easy to spot. Even the special effects magicians in Hollywood don't
    create fake things that really look real. We choose to ignore the fake and
    just enjoy what we see.

    Personally, had digital cameras never came about, I think with in 100 years
    or probably less photography (film and darkroom) would have become as dead
    and extint as the dinosaur. Digital if anything has saved photography and
    brought photography to the masses in a way that just about everyone can do
    and everyone can enjoy. Probably for the first time in human history future
    generations a 1000 years from know will have a massive amount of useful,
    interesting and historical photos and videos to explain the 20th and 21st
    centuries. That is of course we can figure out a way to back it all up so
    that it doesn't just go poof in a cloud of digital bits. This is the areas I
    am most concerned with.

    Oh, and yes even stuff as mundain as Suzzy's 6th birthday pictures will be
    of interst to historians 1000 years from now.

    The Spider
     
    The Spider Formally Seated Next To Little Miss Muf, Dec 8, 2007
    #3
  4. Frank Calidonna

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Dec 7, 9:47 pm, "The Spider Formally Seated Next To Little Miss
    Muffet" <> wrote:


    <snip>

    > Personally, had digital cameras never came about, I think with in 100 years
    > or probably less photography (film and darkroom) would have become as dead
    > and extint as the dinosaur.


    </snip>

    What the heck is that supposed to mean? Whether taken out of context,
    or in relation to the rest of your post, that statement makes
    absolutely no sense.


    --
    YOP...
     
    Nervous Nick, Dec 8, 2007
    #4
  5. Frank Calidonna

    Marvin Guest

    Frank Calidonna wrote:
    > Just wondering if anyone has read the article in Newsweek online?
    >
    > http://www.newsweek.com/id/73349
    >
    > Not sure if it is in the print magazine too. I think it is way off base.
    > A lot of photographs using film were hardly based on reality. I don't
    > think that is the standard that makes a photograph art or important.
    >
    > Frank
    >

    If the author's kind of thinking had prevailed, we'd still
    be scratching pictures on the walls of caves.
     
    Marvin, Dec 8, 2007
    #5
  6. Frank Calidonna

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Victek wrote:
    > Just wondering if anyone has read the article in Newsweek online?
    >>
    >> http://www.newsweek.com/id/73349
    >>

    > The author mainly seems to be lamenting the fact that digital technology
    > facilitates forgery. For those intentionally trying to distort the
    > truth in images digital photography certainly makes the process easier,
    > but just because it's easy to abuse digital tools doesn't mean everyone
    > will do so.


    I don't have time to read the article so thanks for summarizing.

    Digital has had the effect of devaluing images because there are
    so many of them and they are so easy to produce and duplicate.

    It's doubtful we'll ever see Moonrise of Hernandez NM (Ansel Adams)
    done in digital. Instead we see 8000 out of focus pictures on a CD.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Dec 8, 2007
    #6
  7. Frank Calidonna

    Scott W Guest

    On Dec 8, 7:08 am, Bill Tuthill <> wrote:
    > Victek wrote:
    > > Just wondering if anyone has read the article in Newsweek online?

    >
    > >> http://www.newsweek.com/id/73349

    >
    > > The author mainly seems to be lamenting the fact that digital technology
    > > facilitates forgery. For those intentionally trying to distort the
    > > truth in images digital photography certainly makes the process easier,
    > > but just because it's easy to abuse digital tools doesn't mean everyone
    > > will do so.

    >
    > I don't have time to read the article so thanks for summarizing.
    >
    > Digital has had the effect of devaluing images because there are
    > so many of them and they are so easy to produce and duplicate.


    I for one value my images more not that I am shooting digital and
    shooting a lot more photos.
    When I was shooting film I did what a lot of people did, only shoot
    those things that seemed worth the film. The problem with this is a
    lot about our past is lost this way. I take a lot of photos of our
    day to day lives, things that I would not have photographed with film
    (but now wish I had).

    I also am taking photos in a wider range of conditions, much more
    indoor photography with available light.

    And I notice that others that have switch from film to digital started
    to get more interesting photos, my parents are a good example of this,
    with the digital they just shoot what catches their fancy at the time,
    this is a very good thing.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 8, 2007
    #7
  8. Frank Calidonna

    acl Guest

    On Dec 8, 8:08 pm, Bill Tuthill <> wrote:


    > I don't have time to read the article so thanks for summarizing.
    >
    > Digital has had the effect of devaluing images because there are
    > so many of them and they are so easy to produce and duplicate.


    That's like saying that so many scientific papers are being produced
    nowadays that they are being devalued. They're not, something that is
    valuable is still valuable, and the overall level is higher. But a
    larger sample, even with a higher mean, can still have a lower minimum
    value. So what?

    >
    > It's doubtful we'll ever see Moonrise of Hernandez NM (Ansel Adams)
    > done in digital. Instead we see 8000 out of focus pictures on a CD.


    I think Ansel Adams didn't do what he did necessarily because he
    thought his work was of value (although I am sure he did think that),
    but because he was obsessed with doing it.
     
    acl, Dec 8, 2007
    #8
  9. Frank Calidonna

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2007-12-07 20:21:31 -0800, Nervous Nick <> said:

    > On Dec 7, 9:47 pm, "The Spider Formally Seated Next To Little Miss
    > Muffet" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> Personally, had digital cameras never came about, I think with in 100 years
    >> or probably less photography (film and darkroom) would have become as dead
    >> and extint as the dinosaur.

    >
    > </snip>
    >
    > What the heck is that supposed to mean? Whether taken out of context,
    > or in relation to the rest of your post, that statement makes
    > absolutely no sense.


    For one thing, film photography is dependent on a scarce resource:
    silver. It also uses chemicals that sooner or later were going to have
    much stricter controls placed on them. Perhaps that is what he meant.

    However, people have been using the scarce resource and dangerous
    chemical argument to 'prove' the imminent demise of photography for
    more than 50 years.
    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, Dec 8, 2007
    #9
  10. Frank Calidonna

    bugbear Guest

    Bill Tuthill wrote:
    > Victek wrote:
    >> Just wondering if anyone has read the article in Newsweek online?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/73349
    >>>

    >> The author mainly seems to be lamenting the fact that digital
    >> technology facilitates forgery. For those intentionally trying to
    >> distort the truth in images digital photography certainly makes the
    >> process easier, but just because it's easy to abuse digital tools
    >> doesn't mean everyone will do so.

    >
    > I don't have time to read the article so thanks for summarizing.
    >
    > Digital has had the effect of devaluing images because there are
    > so many of them and they are so easy to produce and duplicate.
    >
    > It's doubtful we'll ever see Moonrise of Hernandez NM (Ansel Adams)
    > done in digital. Instead we see 8000 out of focus pictures on a CD.


    Check the work of Gregory Crewdson.

    BugBear
     
    bugbear, Dec 10, 2007
    #10
  11. Frank Calidonna

    Chris Savage Guest

    On 2007-12-10, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    > Bill Tuthill wrote:
    >> Victek wrote:
    >>> Just wondering if anyone has read the article in Newsweek online?
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/73349
    >>>>

    >> It's doubtful we'll ever see Moonrise of Hernandez NM (Ansel Adams)
    >> done in digital. Instead we see 8000 out of focus pictures on a CD.

    >
    > Check the work of Gregory Crewdson.
    >


    AFAIK he 'shoots' 10x8 film then manipulates the resulting scans.
    Actually, he shoots nothing, never touching the camera himself, he's
    more of a director than a photographer. So, on a few counts, there's no
    comparison with AA.

    But I do like the results that are published under his name.

    --
    Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
    Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
    - Billy Bragg
     
    Chris Savage, Dec 10, 2007
    #11
  12. Frank Calidonna

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Chris Savage wrote:
    >
    >>> Victek wrote:
    >>> It's doubtful we'll ever see Moonrise of Hernandez NM (Ansel Adams)
    >>> done in digital. Instead we see 8000 out of focus pictures on a CD.

    >>
    >> Check the work of Gregory Crewdson.

    >
    > AFAIK he 'shoots' 10x8 film then manipulates the resulting scans.
    > Actually, he shoots nothing, never touching the camera himself, he's
    > more of a director than a photographer. So, on a few counts, there's no
    > comparison with AA.
    >
    > But I do like the results that are published under his name.


    Thanks, interesting work!
     
    Bill Tuthill, Dec 11, 2007
    #12
  13. Frank Calidonna

    Paul Furman Guest

    bugbear wrote:
    > Bill Tuthill wrote:
    >> Victek wrote:
    >>> Just wondering if anyone has read the article in Newsweek online?
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/73349
    >>>>
    >>> The author mainly seems to be lamenting the fact that digital
    >>> technology facilitates forgery. For those intentionally trying to
    >>> distort the truth in images digital photography certainly makes the
    >>> process easier, but just because it's easy to abuse digital tools
    >>> doesn't mean everyone will do so.

    >>
    >> I don't have time to read the article so thanks for summarizing.
    >>
    >> Digital has had the effect of devaluing images because there are
    >> so many of them and they are so easy to produce and duplicate.
    >>
    >> It's doubtful we'll ever see Moonrise of Hernandez NM (Ansel Adams)
    >> done in digital. Instead we see 8000 out of focus pictures on a CD.

    >
    > Check the work of Gregory Crewdson.


    Thanks, interesting.
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 13, 2007
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    757
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  2. Mark Test

    Newsweek Story just that a Story

    Mark Test, May 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    687
    Jack Linthicum
    May 22, 2005
  3. Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,690
    ASAAR
    Dec 10, 2005
  4. Bill Hilton

    Even "Newsweek" disrespects the Oly 4/3 !!

    Bill Hilton, Mar 2, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    290
  5. Jeffy3
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    983
    Jeffy3
    Dec 17, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page