“You've no need to believe a photograph made after a certain date because it won't be made the way Cartier-Bresson made his.”
I hope this sparks up some debate. David Hockney, a photographer of some repute suggests that thanks to software programs like PhotoShop, photography is dead.
What do you say?
Seshu is an Avon, Connecticut based headshot photographer and family portrait photographer. He edits and publishes Tiffinbox and produces Tiffincast for photographers like you!
Latest posts by Seshu | Editor & Publisher (see all)
- 10 Steps To Stay Positive In Times Of Great Stress - July 13, 2022
- Why You Need To Read “Personal Branding For Photographers” Now - April 28, 2021
- How To Master Your Website Content Step By Step? - December 16, 2020
- Documenting Life During The Lockdown Around The World - July 4, 2020
- Food Photographer Lisa Nichols’ Personal Photo Project: “Take Out Only” - June 24, 2020
Robb Hill says
Is photography dead? Not yet, but “light writing’ in the manor of Henri-Cartier Bresson is certainly taking it on the chin. When I say photography, I mean, camera, lens, film and lots and lots of walking and time. The result of which are images of things that happened in front of the photographer.
I’m not saying photography that way is truth, far from it. What I’m saying is photography (for me anyway) is about seeing, interpreting and understanding the world around you as you react to it. The way I’ve defined photography is very possible in the digital age.
But photography is growing a third arm and that arm is Photoshop. We all use Photoshop everyday; it’s a great and completely indispensable tool. But it’s creating an area of photography that no longer involves “light writing” as I stated above. The best example of what I mean is the 2004 winner of the Santa Fe Project Competition, “Looking Back” by Maggie Taylor. According to her statement on the site (http://www.photoprojects.org/programs.cfm?p=Winners) she took tintypes, scanned them and manipulated then digitally.
Today, a camera or a photograph, is so far removed from the end product, it is hard for me to call it photography. (For the record, I think Taylor’s work is great. I saw some original prints here in Chicago and was stunned.) It’s not the work of people like Taylor or Pedro Meyer that have me in a quandary, it’s calling it photography that I have issue with.
If you look at the winners of last years Santa Fe project competition, it’s comparing apples and oranges. How does someone compare long-term documentary projects with a project like Taylor’s? (Again, I’m not pooh-poohing her work.)
Photography with the help of Photoshop is becoming more like painting. I find this odd because, during the Victorian era photography tried to seem like painting to gain acceptance. Then people like Alfred Stieglitz fought tooth and nail to get photography viewed as ART in it’s own right.
My main argument is this (and it’s a very personal argument): Photography is about going out into the world and getting your feet wet. Henri Cartier-Bresson said it best, “I believe that, through the act of living, the discovery of oneself is made concurrently with the discovery of the world around us.”
But going out into the world is only half of the process; I’m a strong believer in the craft of photography. There’s nothing I like more than making fiber prints, time in the darkroom is very much part of the process. This duality in the entire process of photography, the intense experience with the outside world then the very personal experience of the darkroom, allows for a deeper connection to the subject.
It’s not the art produced with Photoshop that I mind, it’s the process that leaves me cold. Working with a computer removes me from the organic process that is photography. (Before everyone starts thinking I’m some old crank who refuses to get into the now, let me say that the biggest commercial job I’ve done to date was with the Canon 1DS. I loved the camera and the results.)
But I’m getting slightly away from my argument. How do you compare the end results of work done using a documentary/street/snap-shot/ style and work generated mainly with computers? Is it all photography? Right now most people are saying that it is, but I’m not sold.
Robb Hill says
Is photography dead? Not yet, but “light writing’ in the manor of Henri-Cartier Bresson is certainly taking it on the chin. When I say photography, I mean, camera, lens, film and lots and lots of walking and time. The result of which are images of things that happened in front of the photographer.
I’m not saying photography that way is truth, far from it. What I’m saying is photography (for me anyway) is about seeing, interpreting and understanding the world around you as you react to it. The way I’ve defined photography is very possible in the digital age.
But photography is growing a third arm and that arm is Photoshop. We all use Photoshop everyday; it’s a great and completely indispensable tool. But it’s creating an area of photography that no longer involves “light writing” as I stated above. The best example of what I mean is the 2004 winner of the Santa Fe Project Competition, “Looking Back” by Maggie Taylor. According to her statement on the site (http://www.photoprojects.org/programs.cfm?p=Winners) she took tintypes, scanned them and manipulated then digitally.
Today, a camera or a photograph, is so far removed from the end product, it is hard for me to call it photography. (For the record, I think Taylor’s work is great. I saw some original prints here in Chicago and was stunned.) It’s not the work of people like Taylor or Pedro Meyer that have me in a quandary, it’s calling it photography that I have issue with.
If you look at the winners of last years Santa Fe project competition, it’s comparing apples and oranges. How does someone compare long-term documentary projects with a project like Taylor’s? (Again, I’m not pooh-poohing her work.)
Photography with the help of Photoshop is becoming more like painting. I find this odd because, during the Victorian era photography tried to seem like painting to gain acceptance. Then people like Alfred Stieglitz fought tooth and nail to get photography viewed as ART in it’s own right.
My main argument is this (and it’s a very personal argument): Photography is about going out into the world and getting your feet wet. Henri Cartier-Bresson said it best, “I believe that, through the act of living, the discovery of oneself is made concurrently with the discovery of the world around us.”
But going out into the world is only half of the process; I’m a strong believer in the craft of photography. There’s nothing I like more than making fiber prints, time in the darkroom is very much part of the process. This duality in the entire process of photography, the intense experience with the outside world then the very personal experience of the darkroom, allows for a deeper connection to the subject.
It’s not the art produced with Photoshop that I mind, it’s the process that leaves me cold. Working with a computer removes me from the organic process that is photography. (Before everyone starts thinking I’m some old crank who refuses to get into the now, let me say that the biggest commercial job I’ve done to date was with the Canon 1DS. I loved the camera and the results.)
But I’m getting slightly away from my argument. How do you compare the end results of work done using a documentary/street/snap-shot/ style and work generated mainly with computers? Is it all photography? Right now most people are saying that it is, but I’m not sold.