20% off all products!   Sale ends tonight at midnight EST.

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 
 

Patrick Witz

9 Years Ago

Is Good Quality Photography Dead?

There are billions of photographs on the internet... some intensely wonderful, many are nice, a considerable number are of questionable quality, and a few I honestly wish I had never come across and wish I could erase from my memory. There are as well dozens and dozens of internet sites to sell all those good, the bad, and the ugly photographs. I see more and more paintings and substantially modified/manipulated photographic images selling. Questions... Are NON-modified good quality photographs still selling? Is the basic really good photo hanging on the wall a thing of the past with everybody having cell phones, tablets, and mega-sized TV slideshows to view digital images? Do the typical one-click "photoshopped" "Instagram" looking photos actually sell? Are manipulated images a fad? Are manipulated photos "cross-over" paintings the way to make sales? I know a lot of excellent photographers who have opted out of photography due to the huge mega-pixel images Joe-Public can take with their cell phones (my son-in-law's phone has twice the mega-pixel's of my year-old DSLR... I pack in gear, adjust the settings, lighting, and he pulls his out of his pocket and clicks. I think my images are pretty darn good, but his as well turn out pretty good with a one finger click). Is it time to put away the camera and pull out the paints?

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Melissa Bittinger

9 Years Ago

It 's not dead, just changing. "You have to adapt to survive" a quote from a professor that is the one thing my mom remembers from college. It's stuck with me once I heard it too.

Definitely not dead, just look at the recently sold. Quite a mixup of 'straight' photos and others and paintings...so somebody is buying them. Of course, I can't promise they weren't taken with a cell phone! Don't think cellphones offer RAW yet....

 

HW Kateley

9 Years Ago



A cell phone camera, like any camera has it's strengths and weaknesses. While some of them have the potential of taking excellent pictures in common circumstances, they don't have the range of use of any current dslr.

 

Murray Bloom

9 Years Ago

Patrick, you've fallen into the trap of megapixel worship. Yes, some camera phones have lots of them, but they suffer from inferior optics and tiny sensors. All else being equal, I'll take a 12mp DSLR over a 20mp phone any day. In a side-by side comparison, the phone shots just don't stack up against those taken with a 'real' camera.

Having said that, you've discovered what many of us have known for a very long time. The world (and Internet) is glutted with 'good enough' photography. Many people who would earlier have been blown away by professional/artist quality images (and might have purchased them) are now satisfied with phone pictures, often their own. POD sites like FAA don't care. They exist to make prints, or print images onto objects like phone cases, mugs, etc. It makes little difference where the image comes from. FAA has even gone so far as to suggest that, with a mat and frame, anyone can turn their images into Fine Art.

My opinion is that, with the exception of photographers with a recognizable and in-demand style, it makes little sense to shoot pictures with the idea of selling a lot of them. There's also the issue of non-originality. How many brightly colored sunsets, pseudo HDR images, or macro flowers and bugs, can be absorbed by the buying public? As more people take pictures, their formulaic nature grows and grows.

Regardless how self-affirming a sale can be, it's not really a validation of you, the photographer. Anything can sell, given the right combination of image and buyer. You can either lament the changes in the visual world, become angry with them, or continue to make pictures that please you and touch your own soul. I've chosen the last option, and have put the 'need' for sales out of my thoughts.

 

HW Kateley

9 Years Ago



@ Murray. Good points. Along this line, I have considered a second account with just one style of work. I do a lot of different things, which I like, but I wonder of it confuses potential buyers.

 

Pat....I'm a painter of Originals.....that won't change!
And, for the joy of it....I photograph and/or tweak only my own artwork....why? To enjoy the potential and fulfilment of electronic products that celebrate the diversity now available.....

I love this brave new world.

 

Patricia Strand

9 Years Ago

Good quality anything is never dead.

 

HW Kateley

9 Years Ago


Lookin' a tad green fairly often though...

I dunno. For art, I'd say no. For anything mass market quality is not what wins, imo. Something only has to be good enough, then it's cost and recognition that succeeds.

 

Technology always changes things; just ask some of the earliest pioneers in that new-fangled thing called 'photography'.

I was a traditional photographer -- darkroom experience and all -- from the time I was in middle school. Just at the time I was feeling a bit restricted with photography, along came scanners and Photoshop, so I jumped ship to the dark side (digital art). Of course, this was long before camera-phones and Instagram, and gaining acceptance was an uphill battle -- one that, in many ways, I'm still fighting.

These days, about 85% of my art business is digital art -- whether it be my photo-based images or straight-digital work. Digital art is my primary focus, and I couldn't enjoy it more.

If digital art and photo-manipulation is a fad, here's hoping the fad lives at least as long as I do! ;-)

 

Paul Cowan

9 Years Ago

Photos have always been manipulated whether in the darkroom or in PS. There used to be limits, now the ability to manipulate is almost limitless so people use it. I sell traditional minimally manipulated photos - they do fine as stock, less well as "fine art", whatever that is, but I'm not promoting them.
When I was in the UK recently, everywhere I went there seemed to be hotels and bars adorned with black and white traditional-looking photos, so they are selling in some places.

 

HW Kateley

9 Years Ago



@Paul - This is why it always gets me when I see contests that say "no digital manipulation" or something to that effect.

 

@HW -- That's part of the 'uphill battle' I mentioned. Someone who claims to be a fan of Ansel Adams will be openly disdainful of 'photo manipulation'.

It's laughable, in some ways.

 

Bradford Martin

9 Years Ago

There seems to be a growing notion here that photography is not art until it has been manipulated. Some will say it has always been that way and point to Man Ray or Ansel Adams. I started my photo career as a slide photographer. Selling prints and being published was secondary. The slide is a witness to the scene and the art was in positioning, focusing, light and exposure. Besides development time it was all in camera. I entered serious competitions where the judges worked for years, even decades to reach the status of competition judge. I also gave slide shows, often set to music, which was an art form in itself. My prints were done by hand, but not by me. I considered the person who made my prints a partner. I learned scanning and Photoshop in the mid nineties and did some work but I was a lot more interested in in the basic adjustments than content manipulation.

When I started submitting to stock agencies I had to deal with the over-processed rejection. Even small adjustments in RAW can cause pixel degradation. Sharpening was disabled in RAW and the unsharp mask is not used, so as to keep noise and artifacts down. So basically I was doing straight photography with a little levels adjust. It had to be right in camera. That is changing now as stock photo standards have been reduced to accommodate the masses.

When I first started selling through FAA, which was my first successful attempt at POD selling, I uploaded images with very little processing. I made many sales in the first few months even before I went back and reprocessed.

One thing I noticed looking at others is that supersaturation sells. Muted softer tones were once preferred for hanging in a home. Now peoples taste have changes. Just as they like their food with added sugar they like prints with bold colors. I wonder if this is true now at shows and galleries or due to the fact we are selling online.

I am guilty of saturation creep. I have begun to use the vibrancy slider a bit more now also.

I spend a lot more time editing now but It is mostly subtle manipulations.

I play around with some HDR and effects sometimes but my goal is for it to look "real". I don't like my work to look manipulated, even if I spend an hour processing. I would like to be selling more but I am very pleased with my sales. I resist jumping into the latest fads. Real is always in style.

As for pixel count I use a 12 MP Nikon D300. Still takes great photos. My other camera is an iphone 5. I have never sold a thing for print or publication with a phone camera photo.

 

Walter Holland

9 Years Ago

“Good quality anything is never dead.”

I agree, Patricia. Yet I will add a caveat. I refer to the “NON-modified good quality photographs” (as you put it, Patrick) as straight photography. And yes, this kind of photography still sells.

For more on Straight vs Pictorial photography, there has been much said about both on this thread.

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1845653

 

Roy Erickson

9 Years Ago

Walter - who ever created "non-modified good quality photographs" (straight photography)? It all went through a darkroom, post processing, somewhere. Digital photography is or can be no more or less manipulated that any other film has ever been. The quality is all in the photographer's ability either in setting up the camera and the shot or in their (or someone's) post processing of that image. I don't discount what Ansel Adam's accomplished - but neither do I worship at his feet that he was some pinnacle master of the art.

 

Paul Cowan

9 Years Ago

This large format film image has been digitally enhanced - you would need to work hard to get the full range of tones on a print from the negative, dodging and burning different parts - but I suspect some would call this "straight photography".

Art Prints

 

Mike Savad

9 Years Ago

if a pro photographer pulls out because he's afraid of the competition a phone can produce, then he wasn't a good photographer, because while they are getting impressive - you still need to compose images.

plenty of good unaltered images sell. i do hdr, i don't consider what i do, a filter. since there is no one click except for contrast enhancing and that's a low amount anyway. i sell my things just fine. there are plenty of images that have been filtered that sell. it's not the process it's the marketing and how well the image looks after. the thing about photography is - it's everywhere. and at a certain level everyone's photos look the the same. using a filter of some kind makes it different, doing it as an hdr, makes it different. mine are designed to look like oil paintings for example.

---Mike Savad

 

Edward Fielding

9 Years Ago

When someone worries about the competition having better equipment, I have to wonder if they actually believe photography is an art form in the first place. Photography is still all about capturing light.

Post-processing is the new darkroom. New tools to master, explore, play with - its up to the artist to know when to stop.

Just keep in mind that all of the bad photography out there sells the good photography.



 

JC Findley

9 Years Ago

I posted an image yesterday straight out of my Samsung Galaxy S5. It is arguably has the best camera on any phone. The image was shot on a tripod and I used the timer. It is 18 mega pixels of cell phone goodness. While the image was impressive to me FOR a cell phone shot it still pales in comparison to shots done with a ten year old, 12 MP Canon 5D. At best, it will print at half the size of the Canon’s images and at that it still won’t be as good as that size from the Canon.

Yes, consumers can and do shoot what they want with their cell phones BUT if they want a quality large art print, they will still need to buy elsewhere.

 

Crystal Wightman

9 Years Ago

Like Melissa said, It's not dead, just changing.

Most of my work sold is photography that I did not turn into "art". Just straight photos, simply enhancing the picture is what I mostly sell. I have in the recent years started to turn my pictures into digital art. I enjoy playing around in photoshop, adding textures, layers.

There is a buyer for everything.
I have seen some down right crappy pictures get sold. Bad right out of the camera, making it worse thru photoshop. When in reality the person (can't call them a photographer) should have deleted the picture.
I know this one photographer, who is really good, take pictures for himself, never plans on selling and his work is straight photography.

 

Walter Holland

9 Years Ago

"At best, it will print at half the size of the Canon’s images and at that it still won’t be as good as that size from the Canon."

Not to mention the glass! :-)

 

Walter Holland

9 Years Ago

"Walter - who ever created "non-modified good quality photographs" (straight photography)? It all went through a darkroom, post processing, somewhere.”

I certainly understand that, Roy. Yet I suggest you read the thread I posted regarding Straight photography vs Pictorial photography.

I spent years shooting on film, and working in a darkroom, Roy.
Please follow the link I posted.

 

Judy Kay

9 Years Ago

Instead of "pulling out the paints"...better be prepared to pull out the pc...as the same holds true with painting.

 

John Haldane

9 Years Ago

Lots of good comments. Don't call treated photos something other than photography - they are photography as much as Ansel Adams' were/are photography. He burned and dodged in the darkroom a lot - he said it was "fixing what God got wrong" with the lighting.

This is a powerful photo speaking to homelessness - it may have been treated in Photoshop, but it is still a photo. Keep your cameras, improve your composition and lighting and learn how to make them pop. That's what Ansel did with the tools of his day; we just have better tools now. Like was said above "adapt or die" is the rule of the jungle. :)

Sell Art Online

 

Valerie Reeves

9 Years Ago

Instead of "adapt or die," I prefer the motto my husband tells his political candidates: "Adapt and overcome."

 

Tony Murray

9 Years Ago

Yes it is dying, some might have to rely on their imaginations more to keep up.

 

Patrick Witz

9 Years Ago

Interesting conversation and input. Agreed, photography isn't dead, but it is from all your comments and my own feelings, definitely changing. No doubt, digital has considerably changed the photographic landscape. I for one, enjoy the vast digital manipulation opportunities and the varying results. I found it interesting to see the vast array of opinions regarding what is and isn't a "real" photograph... yes they are all photographs, regardless of use of filters, adjustments, etc. ... my point was not to question what is and isn't "real" photography, it was about the artistic freedom to manipulate the image into something that no longer exhibits the "normal" (if there is one) raw photographic image straight from the camera. Yes, darkroom processing (been there, done that, and hated the smell) has always been around and has today become digital filters/settings. Almost everyone has tweeked an image to some degree, even Ansel Adam, but the degree of tweeking (not twerking) is becoming extreme in an attempt to mimic painting. Practically all the image processors have an "oil", "watercolor", etc. painting filter/settings (some do it better than others) and many digital artists literally digitally paint over their photos (again, some better than others). Adaptation is key to survival and I know people will like what they like regardless of what has been done to the image if anything at all. HOWEVER, is a manipulated photo a photograph when it starts to resemble an abstract painting? Doesn't that then become Mixed Media? I've always considered mixed media to be like acrylics, papier-mâché, and a toothpick lumped together to create a piece of "art". So is a photograph with filters of various sorts added by machine or by hand to an extreme degree no-longer a photo, shouldn't it then be termed mixed media?

 

Abbie Shores

9 Years Ago

I believe so, yes. But I am in the minority. If a photograph has been filtered to resemble something else then I called it digitally manipulated/mixed media. After all, I used two distinct things to create the work. Camera and Gimp. I am not talking about tweaking (not twerking) but full on watercolour/oil painting/manipulation which, by the way, my oil paintings are not...they are real oil paintings lol

 

Paul Cowan

9 Years Ago

"Even Ansel Adams" tweaked? A large part of his of his book "The Print" is dedicated to tweaking techniques, from selective dodging and burning to print toning and adjusting chemical/paper combinations and even such things as tilting the plane of the easel and enlarger head to correct for converging parallels! He was a master tweaker.

 

I don't refer to my extremely manipulated work as 'mixed media'. Primarily because even though the term might technically apply, the general public won't see it as such -- buyers don't 'do' jargon and insider-speak. They have certain preconceptions of what constitutes mixed media, and digital art is not what they expect or understand as fitting that term.

Most civilians are already confused enough about digital art; why muddy the waters even more?

When I've taken a photo beyond what I would generally do in a traditional darkroom, I call it 'digital art' or 'photographic art'. When I use a faux-painting treatment, I refer to that as 'painterly effects'.

 

Walter Holland

9 Years Ago

I agree, Paul. Adams was certainly a master of both sides of the photographic process.

In my days in the film darkroom I certainly enjoyed all the tricks, including dodging and burning, different combinations of paper and developers, superimposing negatives, cutting and pasting, the use of filters, and certainly toners---such as selenium, and sepia.

But this discussion---in my opinion---continues to come down to (in many cases)---the question of straight photography vs pictorial photography.

I am reminded of Robin Williams while on Inside the Actors Studio when he was asked how he explained the mental reflexes he deployed.

As James Lipton later stated, Robin never explained anything, he simply demonstrated the phenomenon.

As it is with the subject matter here. One may not be able to articulate the difference between straight and pictorial photography but through demonstration the audience may be able to tell.

Warning. Strong adult content.



 

Roy Erickson

9 Years Ago

No matter what, or should I say how, you produce the finished photograph - as long as you haven't added some other media - like painted over it with oil/acrylic - it is still a photograph. Mixed media is just that - you use two DIFFERENT media to produce the work of art. IF you are working on a watercolor and it just needs that little something extra, let's say you want to add texture to it - so you 'enhance' it with acrylic applied it impasto like - that would be mixed media. how you manipulate a photo to create your finished photo - doesn't "mix" the media any more that if you were processing film in a darkroom and you done what Ansel done - it was still a photograph.

NONE of this has anything to do with the OP of is "good quality photography dead". It's not - the box and the processing have changed - but there are still very many really good photographers that produce GOOD QUALITY photographs - just as in the past there were many folks that took photographs that were "so-so".

 

Jenny Rainbow

9 Years Ago

Its still selling, Patrick, but you are right on that point that more and more ugly and simply non professional photos for nowadays selling the same way. Its the deep roots I think for that people's priority. I was graduated as Fine Art Artist and pretty long ago I first time visited Europe and was quiet shocked to see the absolutely UGLY sculptures which was calling the art on the old beautiful european streets!
I was trying to understand what makes those things to attract ?? And arise the answer when you always surrounded by the beauty you need something ugly just for the difference. Kind of fed up with beauty.
As for me. I rised in the ugly bedrooms faceless workers' quarters, gray and uncomfortable - the tension to the beauty was essential and still is. And I think mostly its just lack of taste make the avarage photographer to produce and for the buyer to buy such poor quality photographs. And I mean it. Well definitely not my clients and Im not crying that they prefer the ugly things, Im happy and appreciate MY buyers, and the sense of taste in art they have. And i truly realize that only the BEAUTY will rescue the world. Period.

P.S. The enchanced photography is just kind of different art, its makes the photographer become also an artist, make things flexible. Its just different, and tastefully done its also turning into the art.

 

Paul Cowan

9 Years Ago

Jenny, I think the ugly art installations are there not because there is too much beauty but because the ability to elicit a strong response - even disgust - is considered in some quarter to equal artistic merit. So you have "plasticised" human bodies, where corpses are preserved with different coloured plastics and displayed to gawkers (who could see the same things in medical textbooks if they were really interested), you have unmade beds proclaimed as "art", along with rotting corpses of sheep etc etc.
I'm too old-fashioned (and unartistic) to swallow the idea that this ranks as fine art. I do like Banksy, though, he's clever, funny and connects.

 

Jenny Rainbow

9 Years Ago

Paul, there is a sense in your opinion, Im agree. But I know also by the Universe law - the ugly things affecting the minds in a bad way, the people even not noticing when the changes in their mind arriving to the point of no return - they become to accept the ugly things in their lives in everything not only in art. Its manupulation. And to feel when ugliness coming into your life its essential...
Strong response of public - its strong affection for the minds, dont you think this way? I think artists = photographers should be responsible for what they are profucing. But its the point for another discussion...

 

Phil Lowe

9 Years Ago

I just sold two last night here, and have sold dozens on the two stock sites where I am a contributor. Here are the two photos I sold here.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/4-great-blue-heron-in-flight-phil-lowe.html

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/northern-cardinal-in-winter-phil-lowe.html

The Cardinal also happens to be one of my biggest sellers on Shutterstock.

I'll let others be the judge as to whether my photography is good, but based on sales, I think photos are still selling pretty well. ;)

 

Jenny Rainbow

9 Years Ago

Congratulations, Phil!

 

Bradford Martin

9 Years Ago

Yes Phil I saw you sold those and was wondering how the sale was made. Glad that there are still some buyers out there that like a realistic looking bird or wildlife photo for hanging on a wall. Congrats. Waiting on my turn.

 

Tony Murray

9 Years Ago

For a work to be "Mixed Media" it has to actually have the various media visible. It's not a process but an end product.

 

Lesley DeHaan

9 Years Ago

I've sold work I've edited with an iPhone app (I didn't take the photo with my phone, I just edited it there). There are some amazing apps and programmes you can get and they can do something that could conceivably take me hours to recreate in PS - if I could at all. Poo pooing new art and techniques as bad is close minded and leaves the complainer behind.

Photography Prints

 

Joseph C Hinson

9 Years Ago

"Is Good Quality Photography Dead?"

No.

Without reading the entire OP or any of the responses, the answer is no. The larger answer is, "Why does it matter to you?" As photographers, we should all just do what pleases us and not give a rat's butt about anything else.

 

Semmick Photo

9 Years Ago

Nope, 40 million quality images on Shutterstock and 300,000 new quality images added every week.

 

Drew

9 Years Ago

Is Good Quality Photography Dead?
Nah, one can take great photos with their smartphone. LOL

 

Mario Carta

9 Years Ago

The only photography I do is taking pictures of my copper sculptures, I find this type discussion very interesting, but I am very happy that I'm not in the predicament photographers are due to technology and the internet, I guess the only thing I have to worry about is if the the 3D printer starts printing objects in copper.

 

This discussion is closed.