Here's a subject that has bothered me for years. I would enjoy hearing from you on this subject, too. Please feel free to leave a comment.
The entire concept of "a picture never lies" is no longer true. The computer age has done as much to harm photography, as it has done to help it. One thing cannot be denied - the computer has forever changed photography.
From Joseph Niepce's first photographic image in 1814, through the 1980s, photography remained relatively unchanged. Certainly, methods of capturing images and types of photographic mediums and equipment changed, but the validity of the viewed image was rarely questioned or doubted. The camera recorded the subject, film was processed and prints were made. It was fairly easy to decide if a photographer was talented or not. Just look at a bunch of his or her photos and if they had a reasonably large number of great ones, there you go.
I remember in the pre- computer, digital age (as recently as the mid 1980s), when I saw a really great photo, I would always wonder "how did he/she get that shot? Were they just lucky, or were they just that good?" The authenticity of the image never came into question, only the details of acquiring it.
I don't know about you, but for me that is no longer true. Now, when I see a jaw dropping shot, I wonder "is this a real shot, or is this the product of some Photoshop wizardry?" It causes me to question what I see. To my way of thinking, this is a bad thing. It has required me to re-think how the concept of photography fits into my head.
The entire concept of "a picture never lies" is no longer true. The computer age has done as much to harm photography, as it has done to help it. One thing cannot be denied - the computer has forever changed photography.
From Joseph Niepce's first photographic image in 1814, through the 1980s, photography remained relatively unchanged. Certainly, methods of capturing images and types of photographic mediums and equipment changed, but the validity of the viewed image was rarely questioned or doubted. The camera recorded the subject, film was processed and prints were made. It was fairly easy to decide if a photographer was talented or not. Just look at a bunch of his or her photos and if they had a reasonably large number of great ones, there you go.
I remember in the pre- computer, digital age (as recently as the mid 1980s), when I saw a really great photo, I would always wonder "how did he/she get that shot? Were they just lucky, or were they just that good?" The authenticity of the image never came into question, only the details of acquiring it.
I don't know about you, but for me that is no longer true. Now, when I see a jaw dropping shot, I wonder "is this a real shot, or is this the product of some Photoshop wizardry?" It causes me to question what I see. To my way of thinking, this is a bad thing. It has required me to re-think how the concept of photography fits into my head.
Photography has always struggled to be seen as a true art form. It was argued by many that if a monkey were sent out with a camera and an unlimited supply of film, eventually he would take a great shot. (The law of averages, I think they said. Plus, it's probably true).
Today, with digital cameras that practicially guarantee proper exposure and focus, and memory cards which can hold 100's of not 1000's of images, many of us have become the aforementioned monkey. And, armed with an ever expanding arsenal of post-processing software, we can take really mediocre shots and make them look world class. And then, in a heartbeat, they are posted to the internet for all the world to see and marvel at.
Some will say that this is a good thing, but is it photography? (It is definitely not the photography that existed before the computer age). What has this new freedom, afforded us by the digital age, done to photography? It certainly has changed it, but has it also cheapened it? We are so inundated with images everyday, that we are becoming more and more desensitized to good photography. Thanks to digital cameras and Photoshop, almost everyone can produce prize winning images.
And, so here lies the problem as I see it. I believe that when everyone is a great photographer (either because they take great photos, or using Photoshop they make great photos), then no one is a great photographer. I remember watching Harry Nilsson's animated movie "The Point". Our hero Oblio was lost in the forest and happening upon a road sign with a thousand arrows on it all pointing in different directions, he became confused. Then a tall man came along and Oblio asked him about the sign. The man looked at the sign, turned to Oblio and said "a point in all directions is the same as no point at all". My point exactly...
No comments:
Post a Comment