Question:
Has new technology ruined the art of photography?
Anna-Marie
2015-11-09 09:13:55 UTC
Has new technology ruined the art of photography?
Sixteen answers:
Prophotoman
2015-11-14 12:05:57 UTC
The fact that photography has gone digital has not by any means ruined photography as an art form. Before a photographer takes a photo, whether it's on film or on a digital sensor, he or she has to decide what they will impart to the viewers of their work. A camera is nothing more than a tool... a tool that, in the hands of a photographic craftsman, will reproduce the image the photographer had in mind the moment the image was created. There's an old saying among professional and accomplished amateur photographers. The camera is the easel, the lens is the paint brush, and the film (sensor) is the canvas upon which the photographer paints his or her vision. Photography is painting with light, no matter what the medium. A photographer sees the world from a different perspective than the vast majority of people. What the average person sees when looking at a beach is nothing but sand and water. A photographer might see a distant galaxy. See my example below in fine art photography.



Examples of my digital work can be seen by copying the address below and inserting on the URL line.

.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_nowak/sets/



I have been a professional photographer since 1971.
KMR
2015-11-09 11:05:37 UTC
A photographer can choose to fully embrace digital technology or go "old style" with film, but just because you put a high-tech camera in the hands of every Joe on the street doesn't mean there will be more good photography than there was before.



Has technology flooded the marketplace with crappy cameras and a deluge of Gawd-awful photos ad nauseum. You bet. But technology tends to do that with anything. Technology still only produces the tools to create art, but the creation of what is considered art remains the domain of the USER of the technology.
und_ich_fliege
2015-11-09 11:58:17 UTC
What has really ruined the respect towards the art of photography is the marketing by manufacturers that make people believe that they can produce excellent quality photographs with little to no effort. I have heard countless times people saying that all they need is a "better, more expensive" camera so they can produce quality work that took a lot of time and was the result of years of learning and practicing. I think gullibility and lack of appreciation for arts and culture has done more harm to photography than the technology itself.
Thorpe-le-Soken
2015-11-09 09:29:45 UTC
Technology has certainly opened up photography to a lot of people and, with so much clever automation, has made is easier to capture a decent picture more of the time. I don't think technology has come close to replacing the skills of a competent photographer.



The serious photographer will still want control of the lighting, the framing, the composition, the depth of field, the separation of subject and background and the clarity of the purpose of the photograph (which is not necessarily just to capture a sharp snapshot). Technology can certainly help with some of that but not all by any means.



The risk to the professional photographer may be that we all think we can do it with our automatic cameras and fail to appreciate the technical and artistic skill of the professional. Technology increases the options for the serious photographer as well as for the casual taker of snap shots so it may well have opened up new artistic options. Whether a nation of happy snappers will appreciate genuinely good photography is doubtful but they will continue to enjoy the capability photographic technology puts in their hands.
?
2015-11-09 10:21:13 UTC
Not at all, great images are still being made.



Photography has exploded now that every smartphone and tablet has the capability to produce snaps then share them quickly & effortlessly.



As the old saying goes, 'quality over quantity'



There's more poor images on display than ever before, in the past they would have been hidden away in an album, technology has just given kids a new platform to experiment with that's all.
Roy
2015-11-09 09:27:04 UTC
Depends on what you're referring to. If you mean technology in general, yes. If you mean newer dSLR cameras, no.



Newer cameras can have larger apertures and faster shutter speeds, allowing for some of the best photography the world has ever seen. Lenses like a macrolens can let you take a vivid and detailed image of something like an insect.



As for new technology, smartphone cameras are getting good enough so that you can see a nearly perfect image... in its small screen. The majority of photos taken are never printed, anyway. Have you seen all the shitty images on Instagram, Facebook, and other websites? Everyone with a device with a camera thinks they're a ******* photographer. Most people don't realize that some of the best photos happen in the dark, or in very bright light, so they can't take proper pictures of them anyway. Regardless of the conditions, dipshits with camera-phones whip them out and take like 50 pictures they'll never look at again.



So yeah, new technology has ruined the art of photography. My photography professor likes to refer to smartphone cameras as "PHS ("Push Here, Stupid") cameras."
Sumi
2015-11-09 11:04:13 UTC
This ignores the fact that just because you or anyone can easily use a phone to take a photograph, that the photo is not going to necessarily be of a professional quality. Your question basically dismisses the fact that it's the photographer that makes the photo not the camera. Not to mention that the image quality and capabilities of the $9 camera in the iPhone6, is very, very low.



Digital has had a very negative affect on the industry as far as the corporations are concerned. However, for the photographers, it's an amazing time.
?
2015-11-11 21:33:28 UTC
Not quite but severely diminished it. Not all that long ago people would take 100 or so snap shots ( I hesitate to call them photographs) a year and 99.99 % of them were absolute crap. A photographer would get good to great pictures 25% of the time greater chance if they were obsessive.

Now the ratios are probably still the same but it you take 100,000 pics in a year 99.99% are crap but that means they have a fair number of decent pics in that mess. The fact they take them on their phones not using a decent camera means they cannot , if they care to get them printed ever have a decent size image of them no matter what their enhancement. That is pretty much the same ***** I have with some of the older fixed lensed snapshot cameras.

Professionally even with a good camera and good lenses , every thing seems to be saturation , saturation and even greater saturation . Aren't those colour intense ? Isn't that location brilliant? No it's fraudulent, that image does not exist in the human eye without modification and enhancement.

What modern tech had done is put cheap pics in the hands of everyone which makes them very unwilling to change for good pics
BriaR
2015-11-10 01:17:43 UTC
It has dumbed down photography.

Now to be a "great photographer" all you need is a smartfone, a few apps and an instagram account.

But the true art of photography is still there if you look.
2015-11-09 11:09:22 UTC
Judging from the proliferation of cell 'phone cameras on the market (worldwide), and the media companies eager to pay a few dollars for a mediocre snapshot, as opposted to several hundreds (or its worth) for a well-taken photograph by a knowledgeable, experienced, skilled fotog, I can understand why you ask the question. .



Yes, there have been a series of improvements in photography that made it possible for masses to enter the field, instructors and schools dedicated to photography, lab techs and camera/lens repair personnel and engineers, critics, writers, a slew of books authored and printed for sale... and that's not to mention other areas that have also brought about jobs to those not in the field of photography directly... truck drivers to deliver materials and parts to factories and to photography outlets, maintenance workers, security personnel, secretaries, bookkeepers, accountants, etc. There have been a steady progression of advancements, improvements and innovations from daguerreotypes to calotypes to dry plates to film (like the Brownie cameras that were the Point-and-Shoot cameras of their era, to rangefinders and eventually SLRs) and now digital technology with digital cameras and cell 'phone cameras that allows us to use our PCs and our wireless communication devices to store or share rather than enter a chemical darkroom for developing and printing our images. And now we have more people handling cameras than ever before in the history of photography and mankind.



But, it's very simple, anyone can paint a wall but extremely few can paint a masterpiece on canvas; industry does not and cannot stand still and soon, who knows, there may come a time when painting portraits may be machine-made. Remember, the great Master painters wasted much time grounding and mixing materials to make their paints, making their own brushes, often sanding wooden boards and stretching their own canvass, which they also had to prep before using... and today artists of all levels simply go to an art shop and buy their materials, equipment, tools and paints and have a vast variety to choose from, too. And even with the advancements in brush manufacturing, paint manufacturing, etc., even though we have more painters today (artists), we have fewer who can create an acknowledged, recognized Masterpiece!



Anyone can use a cell-phone, or a point-and-shoot camera to capture a crime in progress, a fire in progress, an accident, a spontaneous riot, government officials abusing their authority... the camera has become ubitquitous. Talent, skills, experience, knowledge... NOT ubiquitous. Still, we cannot stop progress (typewriters fell by way of the home PCs, right? There were companies that went out of business, and the workers lost jobs but most went into other fields. But we can now do so much with these modern-day computers and advanced programs that we couldn't do with typewriters). And communication has become almost instantaneous via the Internet, which became possible as a result of the PC. Today we even have pocket-sized computers we can walk around with!



The technological advancements, improvements and innovations now found in digital cameras have made it possible for KNOWLEDGEABLE fotogs to do a lot more and do it all quicker, too. It has made photography a ubiquitous and universal cultural phenomenon.



Personally, as an old photography enthusiast of over 40 years, it took me a while to accept the new digital technology that often befuddles and bewilders me, but I welcome the advancements wholeheartedly now.
deep blue2
2015-11-09 09:27:40 UTC
It's ruined the art of GOOD photography, yes.
Doug Freyburger
2015-11-09 13:07:53 UTC
New technology has moved chemical photography into the same realm as brush painting. Really good images reflect that.
Mike1942f
2015-11-09 09:28:44 UTC
No it has just made it a lot easier for more people to make and show ruined photography including instant fads of low quality.
?
2015-11-09 09:21:47 UTC
Not at all. When it comes to capture, some machines still need that human factor, where you calibrate and adjust light as you need/want. The fact that you have to use a pc as a "helper" is actually a benefit, being faster and all. However, you can still do it the old way, with the 3 trays of liquid and the dark room. I feel nostalgic just thinking about it...
John
2015-11-09 09:38:22 UTC
New technology has turned the entire art world on it's head, for better or worse.
Vinegar Taster
2015-11-09 12:50:49 UTC
No. There's a big difference between a photographer and a picture taker .

One great thing about digital cameras is you can't waste film . I can remember shooting a whole 24 exp. roll of 35mm , only to toss all the prints when I got them back .


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...