Is Technology Killing Photography?

[Chris K]

I think it’s a mistake to say that photography = art. It is an artform, yes. But just like you can use a paintbrush to paint a room or a painting, you can use a camera to create art, but you can also use it to record something you saw.

I don’t besmirch anyone who isn’t looking to create a work of art. Most times I go out with a camera, I’m not looking to create art. I’m going outside to enjoy the world, and the camera is like a “fidget spinner” for my eyes—it gives me something to keep my mind occupied, and help me see. If I find something I like, I take a photo of it, and sometimes those photos are good. But generally, those photos get filed into my PC and don’t see much action, because if I’m honest, I’m not really in it for the art.

When I do attempt to create meaningful art, it generally doesn’t go well unless it’s a subject I am enthusiastic about. Birds and trees and streetlights at night are neat, but in the end I don’t really care all that much about presenting those subjects, so I just snap away and ‘leave a lot on the table’ creatively, as I wander off to the next photo.

The photos I do put creative energy into are generally of family. That’s why you won’t see many photos from me: I don’t post photos of people on the Internet, unless they asked me to.

Is technology destroying what I’ll call “capturing photographs”? No way. It’s making it easier, and if the goal is to “get a shot”, the more technology the better. Like Steve said, we’ve all got ‘perfect’ photos of songbirds leaping off a branch these days.

Is technology destroying art? That’s much more debatable. I’d still say no—technology democratizes art, allowing people who could not meet minimum technical standards to attain those standards. And when you increase the talent pool from a few technical experts to all of humanity, you’re going to find some outstanding artists who previously would have been overlooked. Many of them better than many of us technical experts. And I say, ‘hooray for that!’

To draw a parallel, imagine a world where Stephen Hawking could not communicate. We would be less well off as a species without his contributions.

For technology to destroy art, you’d have to assert that technology creates art. And that’s false. Artists create art.

 

[Doug Herr]

... technology democratizes art, allowing people who could not meet minimum technical standards to attain those standards. And when you increase the talent pool from a few technical experts to all of humanity, you’re going to find some outstanding artists who previously would have been overlooked. Many of them better than many of us technical experts. And I say, ‘hooray for that!’

To draw a parallel, imagine a world where Stephen Hawking could not communicate. We would be less well off as a species without his contributions.

 

[fcotterill]

Always enjoy Steve's videos as they always seem to have that bit of common sense that plenty others lack.

That being said... I do think he only addresses half of the side of that coin and he does it with a bit of rose tinted glasses.

While technology is neither good or bad in itself and won't kill anything, it's impact on the zeitgeitst can harm photography quite a lot...

I have a theory that something problematic is happening with photography in the background (especially wildlife photography) and @Steve could help me validate/invalidate it with a simple data point: What is the trend for average age of your workshop participants in the past ~5 years? Has the average age increased or decreased?

Birding and Bird Photography are growth industries. I suspect certain social media personalities might well help catalyze this interest and attract aspirants into Bird photography and related genres of outdoor photography. This applies particularly in Europe

How Many Wildlife Photographers are there?

This question came up in a discussion about the new Z II Nikon cameras. It's an elephant in the room IMHO. The reports below examining the economics of ecotourism and wildlife management suggest the wildlife photography industry is significant, both in numbers and economic worth. Even if these...

bcgforums.com

The Rise of Wildlife Photography

fyi, interesting article with its perspective from within France, notably observations by Vincent Munier on ethics as well the artistic versus technical aspects, as well as conservation benefits The genre is definitely growing, even though accurate estimates of numbers of participants are a...

bcgforums.com

I'm asking this as I have the feeling most technological leaps in the past ~5 years have been more about making it easier for older people to stay in the hobby (more automation, lighter gear) while inadvertently creating a barrier for younger people who don't have that much time/disposable income to enter/stay in the hobby.

Wildlife photography has always been expensive, if one bought the top tier telephotos then available, and one or more pro cameras. I'm talking about 1980s - 1990s.

25 years ago, a D1 was also has a lofty RRP, and it was a few years before the more affordable Entry DSLRs launched, which could be paired with Used lenses.

Film was an added cost and no less formidable.

And if I'm right, that's gonna hurt photography in the long run (less photographers means less innovation in images and a smaller market for camera makers meaning slower innovation in technology).


PS:
Just for fun, some numbers: in 2013 there were about 100 million cameras shipped. In 2023, about 7.8 million. Now, correlation is not causation, but it seems that the march of technology didn't do that much to halt falling sales.

And some anecdotal numbers: in 2013 I went with about 20 people to a camp for nature photographers. This year only 2 of those 20 people still actively do nature photography.

It will be interesting to know how many teenagers enter the Younger categories in wildlife photography competitions. This area is being promoted. Used gear is relatively affordable.

But few emerging photographers are in the position to afford Workshops and traveling etc.

Perhaps, a few keen youngsters might be sponsored to attend such workshops (?)

 

[fcotterill]

Just for fun, in 2010 there were global purchases of 296 million smartphones - all of which had cameras. Over the 10 year period from 2014 to 2023 there have been 1.2-1.5 Billion smartphones sold per year. Camera sales are up dramatically - and stand alone cameras with interchangeable lenses are a rounding error.

I had a paid shoot yesterday. For stills I had a Z8 and a Z6. The video guy had a Canon 90D and an iPhone 15. About half of his video was with his smartphone - mainly B-roll but paid work just the same.

The ILC industry appears to be climbing out of its dip in sales but obviously far below the halcyon years when DSLR sales peaked.

There's a distinct upswing in sales of ILCs to younger photographers, particularly in Asia. This includes the widespread upsurge in a return to film photography, although film is probably not returning to wildlife photography

Cameras are back – why they’ve grown for the first time in 13 years, despite the power of iPhone and Android phones

Mirrorless and digital compact camera sales are on the up

www.techradar.com

 

[StefanSC]

Is technology destroying art? That’s much more debatable. I’d still say no—technology democratizes art, allowing people who could not meet minimum technical standards to attain those standards. And when you increase the talent pool from a few technical experts to all of humanity, you’re going to find some outstanding artists who previously would have been overlooked. Many of them better than many of us technical experts. And I say, ‘hooray for that!’

But if you can buy tech to cover for the photographer's limitations and you can buy your way to decent photos by going to workshops and guided tours, doesn't that sound more like a plutocracy than a democracy?

And what incentive would a budding artist have to enter a field where often it feels that you can't do the job without very expensive gear and where anything you put out is quickly drowned in a sea of content?

 

[Chappy]

Me thinks you paint with way too broad a brush. You've probably heard of the shrinking/vanishing middle-class; I believe the assumption that all people of a certain age have those resources is unfounded (but please feel free to provide support for that claim). As for that last part, we must go to different places; yes, it's probably an older set making it to the expensive safari tours, but there are plenty of young people out there buying the gear, using it and making fantastic photography with it.

Chris

When my wife and I became empty nesters we had more time and finances to do the things we wanted to do. I have been into photography since I was in high school but life gets in the way to do many of the things you’ve always wanted too. When we became Empty nesters we got bored and started doing many of the bucket list things we didn’t have time for. Our priorities changed as well as we focused less on our careers and more on life. We just got back from a trip to San Antonio and the Texas coast. Family reunion in San Antonio and relaxation and photography on the Texas coast. 15 years ago there was no way I would have taken that trip with planting crops next week.

 

[Geoff_G]

Technology can be overwhelming but typically I've embraced new features and capabilities. But photography has always been about the use of light, aperture, SS, and composition (see Ansel Adams). There isn't any technology that ferrets all that out to make a fine image. Maybe someday cameras will analyze the scene and provide feedback to the photographer as to how to improve the shot but until then, as it should be, it's left to the photographer. Yeah, technology may help you get photo's you were incapable of getting with a pin hole camera but if the use of light, aperture, SS, and composition isn't there the photo falls flat.

 

[FB101]

I am another who is in violent agreement with the views expressed by Steve in that video, especially for wildlife photography.

I do have to say that for street photography and documentary, I like sometimes to use technology limitations as an amplifier to the creative process - going back to a Leica M6 with film and manual focus, or even a Leica IIIg with its minuscule rangefinder - it forces to work and see differently. Any camera, even an A1 or a Z8, can be dummied down to take functionality away but to me it doesn't feel the same (probably all in my head) - Even a fuji X-Pro 3 or X100 can more easily emulate a low-tech experience.

And it has nothing to do with lamenting the old ways; somehow, I find the constraints help me focus on the creative side. Less "spray and pray" more "observe and be decisive" because the gear forces me to slow down. And for sure, I can slow down the A1, but it doesn't trigger the same mindset somehow.

For wildlife, removing the technical complexity is what enables focusing on creativity. On street photography, i feel differently for some reason. For example I rarely use a zoom, I like the constraint of a single angle of view (but I alternate depending on the day between 28, 35, 50 and 80mm). Ultimately it's personal; what does trigger you to get creative?

 

[Zep33]

This is one of the most interesting discussions I've read in a long time and I haven't even watched Steve's video yet

 

[Chris K]

But if you can buy tech to cover for the photographer's limitations and you can buy your way to decent photos by going to workshops and guided tours, doesn't that sound more like a plutocracy than a democracy?

And what incentive would a budding artist have to enter a field where often it feels that you can't do the job without very expensive gear and where anything you put out is quickly drowned in a sea of content?

I get the joke and the point.

I think issue remains that you still need to be an artist. Gear and workshops and spotters can get you to the photo, but that’s about it. Creating a piece of art that makes people feel something is the missing part that technology can’t solve. Unless you count the concept that “infinite monkeys on infinite keyboards will eventually produce Shakespeare”.

If you want a graphic example of the difference between an artist and a competent technician in the creation of photographic art, please buy me a ticket to one of Steve’s workshops, and watch what happens when I sit next to some talented photographers.

 

[Doomrider74]

I get the joke and the point.

I think issue remains that you still need to be an artist. Gear and workshops and spotters can get you to the photo, but that’s about it. Creating a piece of art that makes people feel something is the missing part that technology can’t solve. Unless you count the concept that “infinite monkeys on infinite keyboards will eventually produce Shakespeare”.

If you want a graphic example of the difference between an artist and a competent technician in the creation of photographic art, please buy me a ticket to one of Steve’s workshops, and watch what happens when I sit next to some talented photographers.

Why do you need to be an artist? Photography can also be very journalistic, and these can often be far more engaging than "artistic" shots.
This is where AI manipulation of images really becomes problematic as photographic journalism relies on the integrity of the image. If you start manipulating the scene too much, other than adjusting levels, you are destroying that integrity.

 

[hef19898]

There doesn't have to be such an impenetrable membrane between the two. There hasn't really ever been such for a lot of classic photographers, from Man Ray to Ansel Adams. Use the tools you're given or don't, but don't judge so harshly those who produce good works with them.

I tend not be a purist, but I can respect someone else's mode of operation of it gets good results.

Chris

There is a reason why a lot of photo competitions ask for RAW files at a certain stage. Using a Z9 with subject detection shooting at 120 frames per second and then cloning in wing tips, manipulatinh the background and replacing the sky is not even digital art if you ask me, it is lazy. Digital art is fine, bit spaying and prayong woth fixing evetything else in post is not the the kind of photography, or art, I appreciate.

There is so much fakery in the world, that some things should remain honest and as true as possible. Using modern tech to make things easier is good, using to ignore the basics is done at one's own risk. And manipulating photos without saying so is, well, cheating and lying. Manipulating them and saying so openly is art, and there is no critizing art. Selling anything as something it is not isn't art so.

 

[bleirer]

Why do you need to be an artist? Photography can also be very journalistic, and these can often be far more engaging than "artistic" shots.
This is where AI manipulation of images really becomes problematic as photographic journalism relies on the integrity of the image. If you start manipulating the scene too much, other than adjusting levels, you are destroying that integrity.

I agree, though I'd lump journalistic photography in with art in some cases. Yes it's up to the integrity and ethics of the publication and the photographer to not distort or mislead. Not even ai, in some cases even over saturation can make someone seem enraged or flustered when they are not, or even choice of perspective or angles can amplify or mislead.

 

[hef19898]

It is so easy to manipulate the audiance with pictures even without outright manipulation. It is even easier with it, generative AI (not there is a lot of actual inteligenve involved besides the marketing term) is turbo charging that. Doing so with a BIF photo for a photo contest is on one end, the least problematic one. There are other, much more dangerous, use cases.

 

[Chris K]

Why do you need to be an artist? Photography can also be very journalistic, and these can often be far more engaging than "artistic" shots.
This is where AI manipulation of images really becomes problematic as photographic journalism relies on the integrity of the image. If you start manipulating the scene too much, other than adjusting levels, you are destroying that integrity.

You certainly don’t need to be an artist. I certainly am not. I just like to take photos.

(Rereading my previous post, I did say “you need to be an artist.” I meant to say that to create art, you need to be an artist, rather than just have access to hardware and scenes. I didn’t intend to say that we must all be artists. Sorry for the clumsy context!)

 

[Chris K]

There is a reason why a lot of photo competitions ask for RAW files at a certain stage. Using a Z9 with subject detection shooting at 120 frames per second and then cloning in wing tips, manipulatinh the background and replacing the sky is not even digital art if you ask me, it is lazy. Digital art is fine, bit spaying and prayong woth fixing evetything else in post is not the the kind of photography, or art, I appreciate.

There is so much fakery in the world, that some things should remain honest and as true as possible. Using modern tech to make things easier is good, using to ignore the basics is done at one's own risk. And manipulating photos without saying so is, well, cheating and lying. Manipulating them and saying so openly is art, and there is no critizing art. Selling anything as something it is not isn't art so.

Subject detection, high frame rates, white-balance-in-post, autoexposure, and all the other technical marvels we enjoy today are all just ways to make it easier to get the result we intended. How can that be bad?

Is art better if it requires self-flagellation? Am I a better person if I walked uphill both ways to school in the snow?

I say, make it so easy that an infant can do it. If everyone were capable of creating art, we’d see more art, and we’d see some very good art that we would not have otherwise seen if it were gated behind money or time investments.

 

[MartyD]

The technical aspect of taking a photograph is pretty easy to define and improvements in technology have made a sound technical photo easier to obtain. In fact, it is now possible to take a technically good photography in situations nearly impossible not that many years ago. Technology tools have leveled the technical skills playing field. The creative or artistic aspect of photography is not that easy to define nor is it that easy to learn. It seems that some photographers just have that eye for photography that many of us don't have or at least don't have yet.

I was a high school teacher and it was interesting to watch how writing in the classroom changed once word processing had become common. All writing became technically pretty much the same, same font, good spelling, and better grammar. What separated the good writers from the rest was not good penmanship and spelling, it was their ability to write. The actual task of putting words on paper spelled correctly was no longer a separating factor.

 

[peachfront]

Great video and spot on.

I will add one to what you said that will likely irritate some but it’s not my intention.

Money. I think a lot of people can’t afford to keep up with the improving tech and since they can’t have it they bash the technology. They won’t have the advantage the other guy has so they crap on it.

People often say well I’m not a pro so I’m not spending that much on a camera or lens. To me that is either they don’t value the ability to get the shot, don’t take their photography that seriously and or can’t afford it.

It’s not a bad thing but I find it’s often why people will have a negative opinion about some gear.

I think the tech has made bird photography cheaper. As a tiny not very strong person, I can get shots with a Nikon Z7ii + 400mm prime + 1.4 teleconverter that were out of my reach say, 10 years ago, when all my buddies on my tours were big, strong guys with (I strongly suspect) a lot more money. I agree with Steve, some people might have a negative opinion because suddenly taking a technically OK photo of a bird that shows the diagnostic field marks isn't enough to make the fans fall down on the ground gasping with admiration. You used to be able to "buy" being a great bird photographer, now it takes something more.

 

[peachfront]

Interesting discuss @Steve I remember reading Heather Angel's books when I was young thinking these are amazing photos and they took a lot of skill on behalf of the photographer and as such were beyond my capabilities. Now anybody can take such photos with today's gear.

I remember her books too & thinking exactly the same!

 

[peachfront]

Always enjoy Steve's videos as they always seem to have that bit of common sense that plenty others lack.

That being said... I do think he only addresses half of the side of that coin and he does it with a bit of rose tinted glasses.

While technology is neither good or bad in itself and won't kill anything, it's impact on the zeitgeitst can harm photography quite a lot...

I have a theory that something problematic is happening with photography in the background (especially wildlife photography) and @Steve could help me validate/invalidate it with a simple data point: What is the trend for average age of your workshop participants in the past ~5 years? Has the average age increased or decreased?

I'm asking this as I have the feeling most technological leaps in the past ~5 years have been more about making it easier for older people to stay in the hobby (more automation, lighter gear) while inadvertently creating a barrier for younger people who don't have that much time/disposable income to enter/stay in the hobby.

And if I'm right, that's gonna hurt photography in the long run (less photographers means less innovation in images and a smaller market for camera makers meaning slower innovation in technology).


PS:
Just for fun, some numbers: in 2013 there were about 100 million cameras shipped. In 2023, about 7.8 million. Now, correlation is not causation, but it seems that the march of technology didn't do that much to halt falling sales.

And some anecdotal numbers: in 2013 I went with about 20 people to a camp for nature photographers. This year only 2 of those 20 people still actively do nature photography.

That's not about photography. That's about demographics & the destruction of the middle class. There is no way to talk about this without talking about politics so I'm going to not say any more but I would ask you to think about what other clubs you belong to (mineral collecting, gardening, dog or cats or bird/pets, book club, whatever) that does NOT have an aging over-60 demographic. Have you met recently? Are the members still around or ...?

 

[PhotoLover]

That's not about photography. That's about demographics & the destruction of the middle class. There is no way to talk about this without talking about politics so I'm going to not say any more but I would ask you to think about what other clubs you belong to (mineral collecting, gardening, dog or cats or bird/pets, book club, whatever) that does NOT have an aging over-60 demographic. Have you met recently? Are the members still around or ...?

I'm seeing a lot of younger people getting into pickleball. Despite the stereotype of the old person dinking and moving real slow ..... of course, that is a sport with minimal equipment costs . I like playing with younger partners. They can run down shots pretty well.

Most people wind up sorta hanging around people their age, and I do more hobby stuff now than I did pre-retirement due to time as well as money constraints. This includes travel. And like many people, I acquired more money as I got older. I'm around people my age in most activities; just like when I was younger.

The new camera features are about improving the product, not helping older people. It's capitalism in action. I like my 500 pf because it is light, but I can manage heavy things pretty well. It's just a better lens. It's always been the case that top end gear (photography gear and otherwise) is too expensive for most people. Always. I got out of photography when I was younger due to the cost and hassle of film. I grew to truly hate film. I love digital. A lot. Yeah for technology.

It does remain stunning to me how many younger people are glued to their phones and prefer virtual activities (like gaming but never in the same room, only online) to IRL activities. Many office people work remotely; fewer activities with work friends. If your life is virtual, you probably won't see me (and I'm a former software engineer, thus I like tech) cause I'll be outdoors a lot. Anyway, my point is that many younger people seem to have many virtual activities, so they are buying good computer gear and software.

But I wander off topic. Technology is cool. Some of the new processing tricks do make you think. I just posted a picture of a dragonfly in flight that would have been difficult without pretty solid AF, then I used the relatively new AI denose in lightroom, and finally decided to use Topaz Gigapixel to fill the frame a bit more versus additional cropping. Is that "bad?" I don't know. The picture isn't that much better than if I'd used older noise reduction techniques and cropped tight versus Gigapixel. But it is better.

 

[peachfront]

Most people wind up sorta hanging around people their age, and I do more hobby stuff now than I did pre-retirement due to time as well as money constraints. This includes travel. And like many people, I acquired more money as I got older. I'm around people my age in most activities; just like when I was younger.

Not me, I was used to being the youngest person in the room for, um, decades. It's weird now to look around & realize I'm no longer even remotely in that category...

 

[PhotoLover]

Not me, I was used to being the youngest person in the room for, um, decades. It's weird now to look around & realize I'm no longer even remotely in that category...

I feel your pain on that realization ....

 

[Piecat]

Great video and spot on.

I will add one to what you said that will likely irritate some but it’s not my intention.

Money. I think a lot of people can’t afford to keep up with the improving tech and since they can’t have it they bash the technology. They won’t have the advantage the other guy has so they crap on it.

People often say well I’m not a pro so I’m not spending that much on a camera or lens. To me that is either they don’t value the ability to get the shot, don’t take their photography that seriously and or can’t afford it.

It’s not a bad thing but I find it’s often why people will have a negative opinion about some gear.

I have to chuckle when looking back when the a1 first came out and all the hate towards Sony and those who bought the camera and possibly switched brands from those who shot a different brand that couldn’t do what that camera can do. Fast forward a few years and now that other brands have a competitive camera which they have all bought it’s crickets. No more you don’t need this or that because now they have it.

I guess it’s human nature but just because you can’t or don’t see the value in something isn’t a reason to dismiss something new.

I’ve experienced that with the a9III. Either it’s “just shoot video that’s not photography”, “or that’s to low of MP, or my favorite I shoot single frame because I capture the moment and don’t need more than one frame.” That one got me rolling. If you are that good please work for National Geographic.

I am one who can’t afford to have it all. Sure a 600 with TC would be super cool but I can’t afford to shoot two brands at that level and don’t have a desire to switch brands again as the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. We all have to balance want vs need vs finances.

You, my friend nailed everything with this reply. My delema is AF tracking (Nikon) , weight & $.
I’m no pro, but I feel the a7RV has everything I need over my D500 and 180-500 lens. Being 65 is not the excuse, my arthritis is. The a7RV now has the menu updates to make setup better.
I thought about the z8 with a converter, but that doesn’t help with tracking.
Thanks again for your input.

 

[macwalter]

Great video and spot on.

I will add one to what you said that will likely irritate some but it’s not my intention.

Money. I think a lot of people can’t afford to keep up with the improving tech and since they can’t have it they bash the technology. They won’t have the advantage the other guy has so they crap on it.

People often say well I’m not a pro so I’m not spending that much on a camera or lens. To me that is either they don’t value the ability to get the shot, don’t take their photography that seriously and or can’t afford it.

It’s not a bad thing but I find it’s often why people will have a negative opinion about some gear.

I have to chuckle when looking back when the a1 first came out and all the hate towards Sony and those who bought the camera and possibly switched brands from those who shot a different brand that couldn’t do what that camera can do. Fast forward a few years and now that other brands have a competitive camera which they have all bought it’s crickets. No more you don’t need this or that because now they have it.

I guess it’s human nature but just because you can’t or don’t see the value in something isn’t a reason to dismiss something new.

I’ve experienced that with the a9III. Either it’s “just shoot video that’s not photography”, “or that’s to low of MP, or my favorite I shoot single frame because I capture the moment and don’t need more than one frame.” That one got me rolling. If you are that good please work for National Geographic.

I am one who can’t afford to have it all. Sure a 600 with TC would be super cool but I can’t afford to shoot two brands at that level and don’t have a desire to switch brands again as the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. We all have to balance want vs need vs finances.

I agree with that. I have a good friend who would really benefit from mirrorless but he poo poohs it but I know he doesn’t want to spend the money. I resisted til a year age saying the latency would be a problem etc then got to try a z9 and a Sony a1 and a canon r5 all of which were an eye opener. I think the same goes for CPUs. I had to upgrade two computers to use the new cameras and you need more than the base model.