artlover wrote:
I find that most of the nature shots I see are PHONY.
I only do landscape and find much of the stuff I see in other
peoples work is unnatural. I wrote about the insertion of objects
into photos, last year. But what do I know, I never took any
courses. Who buy pix anyway?
As they say " stupid is and stupid does".
Taking photography in college is fruitless. There is nothing
left on the table.
Is Photography a dying art?
I think the funeral was held some time ago.
Only a very few who own a camera actually use it any more, having replaced
it with a . . Digital Image Maker.
(Acronym - DIM)
A digital 'camera' bears little resemblance, internally, to an aged Leica
or Nikon camera. Today they are merely computers built to resemble
the cameras of yesterday.and of course we have seen 'Photographers'
replaced by Digital Image Makers.
I'm a DIM doesn't sound very romantic though, does it?
And where we had Photographers spending hours in their dark
Darkroom, today we have even children creating amazing
digital images with the help of presets, plug-ins and computer programmes
that simulate the art of old.
And of course, the audience for this art goes, "wow", thereby ensuring the
market for this equipment and its output for ever.
Digital 'cameras' produce amazing results and manufacturers of the hardware
and software and interpretive programmes are continually attempting to
ensure the results simulate the film of old.
From Sepia screening to Black and White conversion, to removing blemishes
to inserting clouds. All fantastic stuff!
But spare me, Fine Art Photography it ain't.
Digital manipulation it is.
And few of us anywhere have resisted the urge to go down the Digital track.
Why should we!
Modern life is all about immediate gratification and ease of use.
Photography and Photographers?
Nearly dead and gone. :cry: