damn, PHOTOGRAPHY's dead, ain't it -- :(
 

2HP

huh?

man, sometimes you don't make any sense. What does some dude getting his head blown off have to do with photography?

yeah.. at one point i must agree..but there are still photographers who stick to the basics..

those two pictures are pulitzer winners -- they're from a time when it meant something to have been in location A1, with camera A2, and subject A3, at hour A4... all of that is gone now -- we are not struck by images in the same way anymore -- because they are no longer "captured moments" -- and i ALWAYS make sense, but sometimes only to myself -- :)


2HP

sure -- there will always be traditionalists -- but it's the E Y E that has changed and, i'm afraid, irreversibly -- we simply CAN'T see the same way anymore -- o


2HP

Basics are no longer applied or necessary now. you can have a software that would clean your bad photo shots.

I respectfully disagree...from 2004 Pulitzer Prize Feature Photography winner Carolyn Cole:

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2004/fe...orks/cole8.jpg

2005 Pulitzer Prize Breaking News Photography winner:

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/br...zone%20003.jpg

ADG Webmaster

don't mind iwantchixxx...He's a true moron.

I have to say that is the biggest load of rubbish and uneducated crap I have heard in years.

It is like saying we cant walk anymore because of the car.

Sorry Jack , Captured Moments do and will exist..........

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/fe...ionheart17.jpg

This image shows that people still walk around with their eyes open and can envoke joy in someones heart for some kid they dont know.

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/br...zone%20001.jpg

Fallujah - Iraqis chant anti-American slogans as the charred bodies of four U.S. contractors hang from a bridge over the Euphrates River. The incident marked increased violence by insurgents based in Fellujah. (Photo by Khalid Mohammed, March 31, 2004.)

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/363/waterloo8zp.jpg

Captured on someones cell phone at Waterloo Station.They arent a trained photographer.

lol I love this last one.. :1orglaugh

Photography is good, but it always depends where you are and what you are shooting..

* 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

The technology to manipulate photos has existed almost as long as the camera has. The Soviet Union used darkroom editing to remove people they didn't want to acknowledge, for example Leon Trotsky. Ansel Adams spent hours printing his photos, modifying the original negatives to get the results he wanted. Playboy used airbrushing to "improve" their centers for years before photoshop became a standard.

The difference is now people know it can happen, whereas before it was hidden in the studios and publishing houses.

Photography is probably more alive than ever with camera phones.

People love the cpatured moment and love to send it to a friend!

I see one thing in common above the pulitzers.


What from the 60's was an honorable countries photos of history have turned into photos of distane and hatred for America.

No longer a country of freedom but occupations for a buck. Photography has captured this transition of "Hero" to "Zero" very well in the last 20-30 years.
Photography was/is and always will be "What it is".
There is nothing that can change that.

Believe it or not...

"New Rome" is falling.
And it will be in vibrant full color depictions that reveals the sickness of the American Leadership and people. Our faulty government system that went from a Democracy to near Theocracy/Fascism.

So keep the cameras rolling.

Spoken like a true non-photographer.

We had this conversation briefly in San Francisco.....Photography isn't gone, it's evolving. Having a good eye still sets the shit aside from the rest.

Please guys do not post such pictures.... This is not so good. I think so....

This is ONE aspect of it and I have to agree with it.

I agree with 2HP about photography being less important but I wouldn't say it's dead. Nowadays ANYONE can take a picture, good or bad, and can show everyone. Before, being a photographer was a profession only few would have. Today, everyone's a damn photographer. Just look at all the kids posting on this board asking if they can make a living shooting content...

My point is that, when the amount of input increases, as it has in terms of photos, the importance of each individual one starts to decrease. Kind of like the income of every individual webmaster, since so many are starting out these days. :Graucho There will ALWAYS be masterpieces, but nevertheless the "noise" the rest of the occurances make will make sure these aren't as many as they used to be.

Shut the fuck up, pussy. :321GFY

I have a feeling he didn't mean YOUR eye, as a photographer, but rather OUR eyes, as consumers of photography. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, though.

This is very true. This is what I call the "deformalization" of photography. The other end of the spectrum from where we began our PERSONAL relationship with the medium -- once people made appointments, got dressed-up, waited hours in a room while the photog set-up, then had to sit motionless for a miserably long time while the exposure was made.

The new ubiquity of "cameras" (of devices that have a CCD in them) is also having a profoundly transformative effect. Easy upload access to The Network means the point of access is also now becoming a point of instantaneous content production.

When you extrapolate that trend forward a few years, restrictive attempts like 2257 are revealed in their FULL IGNORANT ABSURDITY.

2HP

Photography is not dead, far from it.

http://www.redlightmodels.com/fun/colbert.jpg

J.

fuck pics, take video!

lol

The eye of the spectator, Aaron -- NOT the photographer's eye -- :winkwink:

2HP

Still, I disagree.

Photography...Great photography...Takes skills in and out of the dark room. An artist is still an artist even if they use photoshop instead of the traditional dark room.

People should appreciate the photography for what it is rather than complain of what it has become. :2 cents:

People, Aaron, are uneducated little maggots who'd rather watch soap operas, read drama on GFY and go to see Arnold say "I'll be bahck!" Hats off to the artist, but you can't (easily) educate the consumers. What's art for you may be shit for others and vice versa. And then, every once in a while, a publicist/marketer steps in and takes on an artist to hype up. We've seen many examples of this, in many of which the "art" was quite questionable. Don't wanna get into a debate over what's art and what's not, as that will ALWAYS be subject to personal taste. But I hope I've succeeded in making a point here.

Don't construe a complaint from this thread. Change IS death. No doubt, we are learning to acknowledge new forms of artistry, new forms of excellence. A NEW AESTHETIC has developed, which allows for a different (no less rich) relationship between "image makers" and "image consumers".

But, the truth remains, the effects of what it has become possible to do with images in the digital realm, have destroyed the power, the resonance photography once had -- a power and resonance based on the link between image and moment in time.


2HP