2HousePlague

* Yes, there will be images still being made the "old-fashioned" way for a long, long time.

* Yes, some of these may be judged "exceptional" in accordance with the pulitzer standards of merit.

* Yes, there will probably always by little men who work all day in shadowy cubicles and can spot a photochop with 99.9% accuracy.

When I said "photography is dead" -- I didn't mean that the cameras had disappeared or that photographers have stopped using them - or even that GREAT photos will cease to be taken and win pulitzers. I am not talking about that at all -- what has changed is... US, all of us -- We, the people who will look at the pictures when we see them published in magazines, hanging on walls or hotlinked on GFY. WE have changed.


Of course, Julius -- and, for your case, see bullet #2 above. But, there's no denying that the relationship between people and the images they see around them has changed. We may consider, judge and ultimately decide a photo is a "good" photo, even using (as I said) the same old standards of merit we always have. But, now that we know it's possible to create (and don't HAVE to take) images that LOOK REAL, but aren't, the emotional reaction is diminished.

When I was a kid, I remember leafing through magzines like LIFE and National Geographic with a sense of awe and wonder -- because I knew (because my HEAD knew and my spirit FELT) these were "little windows" to one special, irreproducible, un-fakeable moment in time. There was an excitement in looking at them, an EMOTIONAL INTENSITY, built on FAITH that what I was looking at had really happened.

But, now, even if I IKNOW that an image has not been "post-produced" -- SIMPLY BECAUSE I HAVE INTEGRATED THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN -- my feelings towards it, and towards ALL images is different.


2HP

__________________
tada!