Photography, a dead art?

Question

I'm taking photography and it is something I like very much, I've even considered becoming a photographer after I graduate....but I have to ask is photography becoming a dead art?

I know alot of people will be quick to disagree with me but, with the new digital technology it seems like anyone can take a cool, beautiful, or interesting photo....so is there really any point in becoming a professional photographer?

I can understand artists, painters, etc. Some people have no artistic skill and others are gifted beyond belief...but it seems like the photographer really depends on the quality of his camera (lighting, etc) not his own ability. So what is really the difference between a professional photograher and an amateur with a digital rebel?

give me your thoughts.

thanks for the good responses...however I would like to know some specific things that seperate a pro from an amateur.

Answer 1

The difference between a professional photographer and an amateur is comparable to the difference between an architect and a designer. The designer can make a living at doing drawings, but the architect has committed him or herself to a lifetime of studying and improving every aspect of how their trade works. I am an architect by trade and a serious amateur photographer. I do not call myself professional because I do not make most or all of my living by doing photography. That is the technical distinction between saying your an professional or an amateur. The non-technical aspect is a little harder to explain, but here goes.

I belong to a fairly large camera club in my area. In this club are people who have point and shoot cameras, those that own entry level SLR's and those that have mortgaged their firstborn children to have the latest and best equipment. While it is generally true that the more expensive the equipment the more expertise in photography the owner has, it is not always the case. I know several very wealthy people who have cameras that are way beyond their current capacity to fully understand. I also know a thirteen year old boy who has an inexpensive camera but a wonderful eye for all things photographic. I guess what I'm getting at is that in the hands of a true photographer a pinhole camera is as good as the best Nikon or Canon camera on the market.

Photography in many ways is like writing or poetry. I love to write because I can share my thoughts and views with others through verse or through stories. Others can see a little of how I see the world through the way I meter the verse or tell the story. Things like my characters, the plot, the scene; all are saying something in the background about who I am. Photography is like telling a story and the better the photographer, the easier his work will convey what he or she is trying to get across to their audience. Anyone can take a "picture". The world is full of cameras and people capable of pushing a button. What the world is not full of are people who can capture a part of themselves in their images. People who can tell a story with their photographs, who can make you laugh with a photo of a happy child with spiky hair and one front tooth; people who can make you cry with the loss felt right through the paper of a soldier cradling his fallen friend; people who can make you outraged with a close up shot of homeless person being abused; people who can make you see the issues of the day in a whole new light because they feel, they breath, they exude; who they are, what they believe, what matters most to them and possibly a plea for you to feel and see the same way in each and every image. That is professional photography.... and that is why the world will always need someone who can tell a story with a picture. That is difference between the professional and the amateur.

Photography is not dead. It is more alive and vivid now than ever before. With new technology comes new avenues to share what is important with each other and an increased obligation to do so. Look deeper into photography, beyond the equipment. I think it will change the way you view the world and I think it will deepen your understanding of the world around you. May your journey go well!

Answer 2

It fully depends on what the artist does with the medium. I'll agree that traditional photographic methods have a texture to them that I find lacking in digital photography (even though much of it can be simulated with software filters). But that doesn't make it more artistic necessarily than digital photography. I think frame composition, for example, is much more important than the technical medium used. And I think choice of subject matter is more important as well. If either is poorly chosen or executed by the artist, then it's not art regardless of the medium. And the opposite is also true. So there's more to art than the medium. That said, because of the inherent limitations of traditional methods, they tend to require more creativity from an artist, so a valid argument can be made that it's a superior medium. Digital photography can be massaged and manipulated after the fact, so in a way it allows people to cheat and mimic artistry. Then again, learning how to properly manipulate a photograph can in itself be considered an art. It's a good question, I don't know that there's a fully satisfying answer to it. I do prefer traditional methods, but I wouldn't say that digital photography has killed film. Art, like all things, evolves with time. Sometimes evolution produces something inferior to what preceded it. Digital photography is still rather new, so give it some time and perhaps it will prove to be a more genuinely artistic medium by which an artist can express himself.

Answer 3

The thing you have to remember is that equipment does not make the artist. Sure there are cameras that will do everything for you at the single push of a button. There are also cameras out there that cost over a thousand dollars and have options for every setting imaginable. Just because you own a professional camera doesn't make you a professional. Just like with painting or drawing, it's not the equipment you have but how you use it.

A lot of the "anybodies" out there taking pretty pictures don't see the difference between taking a beautiful picture and taking a picture of a beautiful thing. A professional photographer doesn't just take a picture of what's there. A professional goes beyond that. Also, what someone else said, it's about consistency. A professional should be able to get as good results in the suburbs as they would in the savannah. It's all about vision, about knowing what separates a picture of a beautiful thing from the coveted beautiful picture.

Advancements take place in any sort of art form. Centuries ago, painters had to grind their own paints from substances that were difficult and costly. These days you can buy premixed paints in tubes at the store down the street. No matter what the advancements, talent always stands out.

However, just because photography is far from a dead art doesn't mean it's an easy career choice. There is a lot of competition out there, from professionals and amateurs alike. A lot of being any sort of artist is knowing how to network and promote yourself.

Answer 4

No, it's a very alive art.

Whatever the tools you have, it's the artist that makes art out of something, not just copy something on an object. Digital cameras lets people take tons of pics, and have fun and all that, but if you don't have creativity (no software, hardware will do that by itself) and know how light works, textures and composition options, and lots of other things, you will get a very nice crappy picture ;)

I think that you're wrong when you say "but it seems like the photographer really depends on the quality of his camera (lighting, etc) not his own ability.". A photographer is the one that knows how to use the tools he/she has and use them efficiently and creatively. If you don't know how to use different lights and reflectors and umbrellas and lots of other stuff, it doesn't matter if they're the best lights, flashes around or just cooking stove bulbs placed by a toddler.

Maybe, you'll have tougher challenges as a photographer than you would have 50, 20 or 10 years ago. Stuff has gotten cheaper and better, and easier to use. So you must know how to use the basis better and faster, and also know what's just been released and what is a good thing, and what is just a marketing gadget (like digital zoom). Before, mayor breakthroughs came just now and then, and all you needed to know was photography equipment. Now you will need to keep abreast of technology and know about imaging software, photo retouching software, laptops, and WiFi, and internet, and this and that. And always keep in mind that, even if you have Photoshop or any other image processing software, it's very important to take good pictures.

So, keep up the work! If you really want to become a professional photographer, go for it.

Answer 5

Digital technology has made it easier for more people to ENJOY picture-taking, yes, and many point and shoot cameras that have automatic apertures and shutter that adjust automatically and lenses that focus automatically, and many of the photos LOOK nice but... just because they're focused and seem to have relatively good exposures doesn't mean they're "picture perfect," pardon the intentional pun.

There's a lot more to photography than just good focus and exposure. There are many other elements that some of these "modern-day photographers" are acutely unaware of... like a good composition, for example. They lack the experience and know-how that comes with YEARS of snapping away after careful viewing and much thought.

Yes, they take a few dozen images in hopes of getting one or two usable images but that is EXACTLY what differentiates the would-be photographers with THE photographers: knowledge, experience, know-how, talent, skills, etc. It doesn't come with the camera; it comes with TIME spent learning the craft.

A few years ago, I went to a shopping area, and I saw a couple of guys with a huge wicker chair and a huge bedsheet draped on a fence behind the wicker chair, and they were beside a van with a small generator, they had a small printer and a sign advertising themselves off as "photographers." They had a digital camera! Wow, I had to bite down very hard to keep myself from laughing out loud! Well, at least they knew how to point the camera at the subject... that's about it... and they called themselves "professional photographers." Ha!

The best stove ain't gonna make the best baker, just like the best and most expensive hammer ain't gonna make the best carpenter.

I see so many sites where every now and then some will post a few images that THEY think are "great" and ask for criticism (more like begging for praise) but the images are really not beyond just plain old mediocre snapshots and I really don't have the time to waste to suggest what I feel is wrong and how they could have improved upon it... they won't listen and they don't want to hear it... they're only after praise, let someone else do that. Besides, who am I to shatter someone's illusions?

Don't get discouraged. When you graduate, you, too, will see a few of the many images that I see today and say, "Nice... but I wish that person had...." and a list of things will come to mind... like the lighting not used correctly, or the the pose doesn't help the subject, or the composition is off... etc., even though it is focused and the exposure is "passable." The photos won't be on any magazine cover, that's for sure!

Answer 6

Yes, anyone can take a cool, beautiful, or interesting photo.

In the same way, anyone can get on a basketball court and make a jump shot.

But can that person do it consistently, gracefully, and while being guarded by the NBA's best players? No way.

Professionals have the talent and experience to consistently perform at that high level. Amateurs like me can't hold a candle to them.

I think the advent of digital technology has made photography more accessible to people, and as a result, you've got more people that think they can do it professionally. It's kind of an American Idol syndrome--getting a break into the music business has become more accessible through that show and look at how many people that honestly think they can sing try out. Time and time again in lots of different forums I see posts from people that have accepted paying jobs doing weddings/photo shoots/etc and they're asking advice for the most basic things and really showing that they aren't in any way, shape, or form prepared to actually do the job.

Answer 7

A pro can get the shot on assignment in minimal time and deliver the product ready for publication. Professional portraiture requires people skills, photographic skills and business skills. You are often breaking into someones busy day and expected to get the picture in 15 to 30 minutes max and get out of their hair and make them happy with the picture. You don't do that machine gunning with a digital rebel and no training or experience. A pro can do it with the digital rebel however..
Wedding photography is probably scarier than being a war correspondent. Everybodies nerves are on end. Everybody's in a hurry. The photographer is always in the way. The pictures better be good and "why do you charge so much?" Everybody thinks they know your job better than you. Aunt Bessie starts telling you who to photograph after you've already briefed the bride, groom and parents as to what shots you're gonna get and why. On and on. A professional doesn't outright tell old Bessie to head for hell but charmingly explains the brides wishes are foremost.
When you have a model, a stylist, an advertising rep out on a location shoot, time is money and you better not waste it You have to know your equipment, mission, and vision and get it done quickly and have the backup equipment to guarantee that you DO get it done on one trip.
Then there is the question of equipment. Softboxes, umbrellas, stands, remote slaves, reflectors,scrims, lenses, cameras,tripods,monopods,filters,backgrounds,props, etc...and how, when and where to use them.
A professional photographer is a technician and an artist. He paints with light. Good ones pre-visualize the print. Any hack can hang out a shingle that he's a "Pro". The proof is in the pictures delivered.

Answer 8

Well an amateur could take good photographs with a digital camera, but if they wanted to do it again with something else it wouldn't be quite as easy.

I don't think that it is a dead art because people are always paying for good pictures for cards, to hang up anything. Even as art work.

I am an amateur photographer and I know that I can't do as good of a job as a professional unless I decided to take classes for it, which I am planning to do.

If it makes you happy then don't worry about it. There are plenty of people out there that will appreciate your work.

Answer 9

that is complete rubbish. those little snap shots aren't art. Their is a world of difference between capturing your friend doing something stupid, and capturing an amazing photo-using artistic design and elements. Photography is the most up and coming art, along with film. their are advancements in it all the time, though you don't have to keep up with technologhy to be a photographer. Their are plenty of people working in traditional b/w, polaroids, cyanotypes, alternative processes, large format, etc. take more photography courses, and you will be able to see the difference.

Answer 10

GOOD GAWD, no is ain't dead child...i can still tell an amature shot from a good professional quality photograph with one eye open and my lovely and tallented wife nagging relentlesly.
there is a talent involved, don't sell it short.