# Is Photography Going Out of Fashion?



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 26, 2009)

I think it's peaked.

People are getting bored with photography. They're getting so bored that they're calling it 'Image Capturing', or anything other than 'Photography'.

Digital technolgy has made photography easy and instant for all. It's never been so popular. But, are the novelty freaks getting turned off?


----------



## Herbsman. (Jul 26, 2009)

I fucking hope so, 'cause then there'll be less shite on flickr


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 26, 2009)

I see more and more people with DSLRs so I doubt it.


----------



## CyberRose (Jul 26, 2009)

I've recently took up photography (well, I got a DSLR for Christmas and have used it several times since then!)

Never knew I'd encounter any snobbery or be referred to as a novelty freak! 

I do sometimes wonder where my new found hobby is going tho - am I trying to be an actual artist or have I just acquired an expensive camera to take holiday snaps? I've decided I'd like to be somewhere in the middle, so that when Christmas comes around people will _know_ they're getting summat to hang on their wall as a present, but it will actually be summat _good_ to hang on their wall!


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 26, 2009)

I don't care where my photography hobby is going.  I enjoy taking photos.  Other people sometimes like them.  Good enough for me.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 26, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I don't care where my photography hobby is going.  I enjoy taking photos.  Other people sometimes like them.  Good enough for me.



That.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 26, 2009)

I care.


----------



## lobster (Jul 26, 2009)

More and more cameras now come with video capabilities , not sure if that is through consumer demand or just the manufacturers adding more features...

Sure your get folks with their new toys that take all sorts of photos they would not normally take and then once they are bored they will only take them out reluctantly when its a family event . 

Everything enters "fashion" at some stage.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2009)

More people are enjoying taking photographs than ever before.


----------



## Herbsman. (Jul 26, 2009)

its a shame fewer people are printing them though.

or, more people are printing, but those people are printing fewer.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 26, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> ...
> 
> Never knew I'd encounter any snobbery or be referred to as a novelty freak!
> 
> ...



No snobbery and no fingers being pointed. Photography is more popular than it has ever been, but I think the 'amateur' fashion and wannabe pro aspiration thing has passed its sell by date.

Several reasons why I think that. Worth looking at input from others before I form my own view mind.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 26, 2009)

I reckon with digital photography you can take more photos but you end up keeping less of them. If I look through stacks of my old 35mm pictures I find loads that are rubbish photographs but which are great anyway because of the memories that go with them. I rarely chuck away printed photographs, but digital ones are so easy to get rid of that I rarely stop and think about it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I think it's peaked.
> 
> People are getting bored with photography. They're getting so bored that they're calling it 'Image Capturing', or anything other than 'Photography'.
> 
> Digital technolgy has made photography easy and instant for all. It's never been so popular. But, are the novelty freaks getting turned off?



Who cares what happens to the novelty freaks?


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 26, 2009)

The same thing happened to amateur radio and short wave listening. Digital technology killed the hobby in that it became boring and therefore no longer a challenge. This is maybe why I have stuck to film because digital reduces that unknown quantity called chance. Take 36 photos and you might get one worth putting further effort into. Take 500 digital and that chance good photo is lost,  as who is really going to bother looking for it!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 26, 2009)

yes.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 26, 2009)

no.


----------



## starfish2000 (Jul 26, 2009)

I did photography at college , worked in a uni darkroom for 2 years then a voluntary co-op place briefly, then went back to the midlands and my interest waned.

Just got back into it this year and DSLR's are great, Im even hankering after a rangefinder at some point


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2009)

It's like porn. In the old days, it wasn't that available, not that easy to make, etc. Now with computers and the internet, it's easily available, and easy for amateurs to make and distribute, for money or for free.

Just like photography. Anyone with an interest can access or produce and distribute photos.

Seems like porn isn't going anywhere. I doubt photography will either.


----------



## isitme (Jul 28, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It's like porn. In the old days, it wasn't that available, not that easy to make, etc. Now with computers and the internet, it's easily available, and easy for amateurs to make and distribute, for money or for free.
> 
> Just like photography. Anyone with an interest can access or produce and distribute photos.
> 
> Seems like porn isn't going anywhere. I doubt photography will either.



same as music....

in a way it's a shame because if people are still around to see 2100 i bet there won't be any 1000 pictures of the 21st century like you can get for the last century, but that's progress....


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It's like porn. In the old days, it wasn't that available, not that easy to make, etc. Now with computers and the internet, it's easily available, and easy for amateurs to make and distribute, for money or for free.
> 
> Just like photography. Anyone with an interest can access or produce and distribute photos.
> 
> Seems like porn isn't going anywhere. I doubt photography will either.





Porn is the subject. It's always been around. Photography is the medium. Digital photography is a very new medium.

Porn has gone from paper and pen to photographs to video to digital production and distribution. Porn hasn't changed.

Photography has lost it's 

It's naff like the new Mini is now naff. There's just to much of it about. As a hobby for aspirational wannabes it's lost it's promise. We are about to see an abundance of quality second hand kit going for peanuts on ebay and other places. It will be a good time to buy second hand quality kit that very few people will want.

Most of the enthusiasts here were probably always in to photography. I'm talking in far more general circles.

Question is; what will the digi hobbiests want instead of a camera? I think video is to complicated for most. Probably video games again. They seem set to stay.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

You're a bit snobby for a bum.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> You're a bit snobby for a bum.



why are the majority of your pictures in Black & White?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> You're a bit snobby for a bum.



Poshest bum on the streets mate. 3* hotel, eating out twice a day, hanging out with the rich folk in the marina and on the beaches.


----------



## fubert (Jul 29, 2009)

Herbsman. said:


> I fucking hope so, 'cause then there'll be less shite on flickr



lolz


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Poshest bum on the streets mate. 3* hotel, eating out twice a day, hanging out with the rich folk in the marina and on the beaches.




_Don't fear god,
Don't worry about death;
What is good is easy to get, and
What is terrible is easy to endure._


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> why are the majority of your pictures in Black & White?


 
I am colourblind. What now, dickface?


----------



## fubert (Jul 29, 2009)

And another thing. On Flickr why do people go "nice capture". Why don't they just say "nice picture". They're pictures, I've not caught anything, at best, borrowed it.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

Maybe they think it's a trap/soul-catcher?


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> I am colourblind. What now, dickface?



you are a B&W snob. everyone can see that. thick fuck.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

How come you didn't use your super secret special language that time, language snob?


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

fubert said:


> And another thing. On Flickr why do people go "nice capture". Why don't they just say "nice picture". They're pictures, I've not caught anything, at best, borrowed it.



because _generally_ the images are no Photographs...but captured glimses of a scene.

because _generally_ these Images are caught...happenstance...they do not rely upon the Light or even sometime the Subject...but purely and simply because a person has a camera(digi) they can and do taken pictures without care...due to the perception of minimal cost.


I watch HUNDREDS of people everyday day  take THOUSANDS of digital images...most are not taking Photographs...they are "capturing".."catching"..."snatching" a record of their existence in that place at that time...the image become I was here...not what I saw/see/feel of that instant...but where I was in my time. Sadly.



FFS.. "capture" has been around since at least 2000..get over it.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

Snob.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> How come you didn't use your super secret special language that time, language snob?




I learnt to type how I think not how I speak.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> Snob.



inverted elistist.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

Snobbery.



boskysquelch said:


> inverted elistist.



Gibberish.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

so what youre trying to say Refused is Fuck is that you in particular jus happen to take pictures of certain quality. with certain regards to light, with certains regards to composition & tones(pffft)...all accidentally and preferentially with regards to a genetic mixup.

and then you bring them here to share for no reason other than you have & afford the technology to do so.

Pseud.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

Why is your hair grey? Hair colour snob.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

Why do you bother?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

I see your retard language has disappeared now that you're spouting cod-psychology. I have no need to justify myself to you, a snob.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 29, 2009)

fubert said:


> And another thing. On Flickr why do people go "nice capture". Why don't they just say "nice picture". They're pictures, I've not caught anything, at best, borrowed it.



Digital/electronic terminology, innit. Goes back to the early 90s with digital cameras and scanners to my personal knowledge, probably the 60s or 70s (anyone got an earliest use citation?).

It's distinct from 'taking a picture' as image capture devices may be doing it ways that are unrelated to traditional stills photography. 

A device that does both still photography and motion video is an obvious example; it avoids the conflict of terminology between 'taking a picture' and 'making a film'.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

I prefer my soul-catcher interpretation.


----------



## 6_6 (Jul 29, 2009)

Photography is not dead.
do you see photography = serious SLR? 

The digital wave of things makes photography more popular than ever.
There's different types of photography - instant, snappy snaps, digital, analogue...

It should not be exclusive or catalogised as a novelty or snobbish hobby only.


----------



## fubert (Jul 29, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> because _generally_ the images are no Photographs...but captured glimses of a scene.
> 
> because _generally_ these Images are caught...happenstance...they do not rely upon the Light or even sometime the Subject...but purely and simply because a person has a camera(digi) they can and do taken pictures without care...due to the perception of minimal cost.
> 
> ...



Thanks. I still think it makes them sound like wankers though.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

I think it sounds like some people don't have as much  of an understanding of the diversity of language used on the Net or IRL, that they think/thought. tbh.

_tusses_.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

fubert said:


> Thanks. I still think it makes them sound like wankers though.


 
They are wankers, fubert.


----------



## untethered (Jul 29, 2009)

When was photography "in fashion"?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 29, 2009)

In the "good old days" of course...


----------



## untethered (Jul 29, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> In the "good old days" of course...



The good old days were great.

I don't remember photography being terribly in fashion, though, any more than _writing _was in fashion.


----------



## untethered (Jul 29, 2009)

I suspect the real premise of this thread was "when was there a clear distinction between serious amateur photographers who devoted huge personal resources to taking large numbers of photos and the rest of the population?".


----------



## Padcore (Jul 29, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Digital technolgy has made photography easy and instant for all.



Has it?


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

Padcore said:


> Has it?



for the majority that would sit & consider this post... I imagine. yes.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 29, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Porn is the subject. It's always been around. Photography is the medium. Digital photography is a very new medium.
> 
> Porn has gone from paper and pen to photographs to video to digital production and distribution. Porn hasn't changed..



The methods of production and delivery have changed, as has the availability. Just like photographs in general, aka, photography.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

untethered said:


> I suspect the real premise of this thread was "when was there a clear distinction between serious amateur photographers who devoted huge personal resources to taking large numbers of photos and the rest of the population?".



I imagine that the OP has been recently engaged in widening his horizons  & passing comment upon the language he finds puzzling through a lack of shared field of experience.

/cod


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 29, 2009)

fubert said:


> And another thing. On Flickr why do people go "nice capture". Why don't they just say "nice picture". They're pictures, I've not caught anything, at best, borrowed it.



I know why they say it, but it always seems a little pretentious to me, somehow. I usually say, 'nice photo'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 29, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> I watch HUNDREDS of people everyday day  take THOUSANDS of digital images...most are not taking Photographs...they are "capturing".."catching"..."snatching" a record of their existence in that place at that time...the image become I was here...not what I saw/see/feel of that instant...but where I was in my time. Sadly.
> .



The process might involve capturing a scene, etc, but what you end up with, is a photograph.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The methods of production and delivery have changed, as has the availability. Just like photographs in general, aka, photography.



everything has changed. Fox Talbot took Photographs. No one has take Photgraphs ever since....cept maybe the Pinholists.

Do you ever eat advacados?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 29, 2009)

untethered said:


> I suspect the real premise of this thread was "when was there a clear distinction between serious amateur photographers who devoted huge personal resources to taking large numbers of photos and the rest of the population?".


----------



## fubert (Jul 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I know why they say it, but it always seems a little pretentious to me, somehow. I usually say, 'nice photo'.



Yeah that's what I think too.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 29, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> everything has changed. Fox Talbot took Photographs. No one has take Photgraphs ever since....cept maybe the Pinholists.
> 
> Do you ever eat advacados?



I eat avocados, and I take photographs with my digital camera.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The process might involve capturing a scene, etc, but what you end up with, is a photograph.



sounds like you are wrong.etc


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 29, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> sounds like you are wrong.etc



Perhaps it sounds that way, but in fact, I'm not.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 29, 2009)

Camera snobs have become unhappy with the fact that it's no longer necessary to spend thousands of dollars on boxfuls of equipment in order to make photographs. Digital technology has made photography much more accessible. But even so, that doesn't mean that it has become immediately possible for everyone to make good photographs. That has to do with something other than just the technology.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

TBH I took some of my favourite pictures with a disposable camera.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I eat avocados, and I take photographs with my digital camera.



you eat testicles and point a machine that records a voltaic difference by capturing/metering a portion of light reflected of the scene proferred; records the combined recordings of that event to data that you may access via other technologies.

The use of the word photography has been a misnomer since it's incorporation into common language IMO.

I can live with it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 29, 2009)

I did an art project with the street homeless drug users and The Photographers' Gallery with disposable cameras.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 29, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> you eat testicles and point a machine that records a voltaic difference by capturing/metering a portion of light reflected of the scene proferred; records the combined recordings of that event to data that you may access via other technologies.
> 
> The use of the word photography has been a misnomer since it's incorporation into common language IMO.
> 
> I can live with it.



It probably is a misnomer, but it's the word we've come to use.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> TBH I took some of my favourite pictures with a disposable camera.



When I worked for William Eggleston & Elliot Erwitt, so did they.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It probably is a misnomer, but it's the word we've come to use.




and by the same logic the Net community of digi based photographers(sic) have long used the term "capture" for digital photographs(sic_agin).

Heyho.

Tide's now right... I'm off to land this week's crabs & lobsters


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 29, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> and by the same logic the Net community of digi based photographers(sic) have long used the term "capture" for digital photographs(sic_agin).
> 
> Heyho.
> 
> Tide's now right... I'm off to land this week's crabs & lobsters



Yes, but I still don't much like the term, just as I don't like the use of the word 'impact' as a verb. Personal preference.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> When I worked for William Eggleston & Elliot Erwitt, so did they.


 
Ok.


----------



## 6_6 (Jul 29, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> everything has changed. Fox Talbot took Photographs. No one has take Photgraphs ever since....cept maybe the *Pinholists*.



Funny you brought that up.  Just the other day I made my own pinhole camera with cardboard boxes and 'captured' some quite interesting scenes.

I don't understand why the word 'capture' is snobbish


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 29, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> are the novelty freaks getting turned off?



gosh i do hope so those relentless tosser posures and their 'alt art' lifestyles and their excrutiatingly boring opinions on others artisitic worth are frightfully tiedious....


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 29, 2009)

all of this is bollocks tho the nostalgia about old photographs from bygone ages and how they may or may not as increasingly we learn (bresson I'm looking at you), were as posed and set up and also as snatched as captured as they are now the difference is that there was also the school of classical photograhpy which has fallen out of fashion much as folk music and classical music exchanged places to the general public so has the original stuides made with light and it has gone more into capture of historical record. 

That's ok but it would be a shame to see the classical photography the study of light dissappear.  fortunately we aren't at the point were this is likely to happen anymore than classical music is in danger of dying out and modern digital technologies are still in their infancey once sensor technology takes off then it'll be limitless in what we can do.

in the mean time pointless pontificating about whether or not the quaility of people photos is of a higher or lower standard than your own is a shit small minded way to go...

particularlly if your own standard leaves as much in terms of good photography (as opposed to whether I like the style or subject of your photographs) to be desired. 

people in glass houses and all that stantley.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 29, 2009)

untethered said:


> When was photography "in fashion"?



When it promised a glamorous lifestyle.

It's dying.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 29, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> gosh i do hope so those relentless tosser posures and their 'alt art' lifestyles and their excrutiatingly boring opinions on others artisitic worth are frightfully tiedious....



Well, yes - quite my point 

You obviously missed my earlier post


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 29, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I did an art project with the street homeless drug users and The Photographers' Gallery with disposable cameras.



You iz teh 

Photography is dead. Buried even. The masses will desert faster than they deserted the other cool stuff.

(The quoted post excepted). Sort of knew you sensitive folk would take exception and feel a bit rattled even though I clearly stated I wasn't pointing fingers (least at genuine enthusiasts).

FlickR has killed photography. On the other hand, perhaps it's given real enthusiasts a new lever?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 29, 2009)

You are dead inside.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> You are dead inside.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 29, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> You iz teh



Yeah, I am.



Stanley Edwards said:


> Photography is dead.



That's the title of the current Rhurbarb Rhurbarb project.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 30, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Well, yes - quite my point
> 
> You obviously missed my earlier post



You dearhard have missed mine...

still what exactly have you got against the common man picking up the magic picture box and hamfistedly recording their lives and posting it else where for others to see.  

do we ban girls aloud and force people to only listen to brahms?  

sure there are different asthetics to the two and preference might dictate which you'd rather hear in a given situation, but that's all it is.  

unless you are some kind of excessive cultural snob who would rather harp on about some obscure little pecadilos to justify their own largely monsterious behaviour.   I mean really.  

who made you cultural tzar?

is the skill set which has always been limited to a few who have the time and deication to spend to learning the craft and do those group of people have a higher level of knowledge about the subject is a moot question.  

is what has become of the popular secular use of cameras to record history of our linal existance as it unfolds acceptable to you and if it is go out there and shoot it.  embrace that spirit and don't fear for the idea that you are living behind the lens one step removed. 

unless you are.  but then you need to ask your self is it the camera which is placing the barrier between you and your subject or is it just a metaphore for the barrier you are placing in between you and them.

So which is it.  

As boskey said if you are using your camera as a metaphore you wanna watch that.   it's not healthy.  Might even get you killed if you end up thinking your invincable behind the viewfinder.  cos you're not. at best at least it'll serve as a reminder you are doing it.

then all you need to know is why you do.

oh and stanley.

for the record.

you totally like do.

maybe that's why you've got this conflict between classical and popular photogrpahy.  

you know.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 30, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> ...
> 
> still what exactly have you got against the common man picking up the magic picture box and hamfistedly recording their lives and posting it else where for others to see.
> ..




Absolutely nothing. When did I ever say I had?

All I've said is that I think photography is going out of fashion. It's peaked. It is (perhaps now was) more popular than ever. The 'must have a nice digi SLR as a fashion accessory' crowd are losing interest. Losing interest because it couldn't deliver the promise. Everyone knows that now. The cool factor has long since past.

You understand now? Or, will you always be a dumb fuck twat arguing with yourself?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 30, 2009)

Holga's are apparently cool with the hipster twat crowd now. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, could you?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 30, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> Holga's are apparently cool with the hipster twat crowd now. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, could you?



Hipsters with Holgas are just twats. Nothing  there.

The thread title is actually a question open for debate. Never claimed to be judge and jury.

Another dumb fuck twat arguing with themselves for sake of arguing.


But, I am right of course


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 30, 2009)

Yeah, hipsters have nothing to do with what's fashionable. They always do the opposite of following new trends.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 30, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> Yeah, hipsters have nothing to do with what's fashionable. They always do the opposite of following new trends.



Exactly. They're sheep. Yesterdays news.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 30, 2009)

...


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 30, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> All I've said is that I think photography is going out of fashion. It's peaked. It is (perhaps now was) more popular than ever. *The 'must have a nice digi SLR as a fashion accessory' crowd are losing interest.* Losing interest because it couldn't deliver the promise. Everyone knows that now. The cool factor has long since past.



from my perspective what I see is people purchasing a dSLR & underestimating, both pre & post purchase, the variety of allowances & range of adjustments available... too much info to take on....too many parameters available to consider & justify adjustment "accurately" unless the user is VERY conversant with _quite a lot_.

the things are very lack lustre once in the hands...especially if the user has already delighted in the use of compact/point n shoots and the Default(s) of processed output.

but that is much more a RTFM *& THEN SOME* dSLRwise thang ...whereas most pnses or compacts/moby are governed within parameters that were allowed or chosen via purchase/recommendations/reviews.


Traditional photography is pretty sewn up as for the last 20 odd years.. in a technicaly sense... E6 & auto-focussing/VR lenses being the last two improvement leaps of film based photography.


Digi imaging, the process of  scene capture & conversion, ain't over yet.

Even the language. 


And the whole Holga/Russki thang has been goin on since at least 1982...so that ain't no_where_nu.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 30, 2009)

I didn't say it was new.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 30, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> They always do the opposite of following *new* trends.





Refused as fuck said:


> I didn't say it was *new*.



grow up


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 30, 2009)

This trend is percieved as new, thicko, not the camera. I'm taking about fashion trends.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 30, 2009)

Out of fashion? 

There are more photographers than ever before ...


----------



## weltweit (Jul 30, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Out of fashion?
> 
> There are more photographers than ever before ...




Photographer = Someone with a camera


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 30, 2009)

Stanley Edwards has confused the height of popularity (it's peak) with "going out of fashion". One doesn't necessarily follow from the other.


----------



## disco_dave_2000 (Jul 30, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I did an art project with the street homeless drug users and The Photographers' Gallery with disposable cameras.



Yeah, I did something similar with disposables and young people from Toxteth. No idea if it was fashionable or cool - but they enjoyed it and at the end of the day that is what it is all about for me.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 30, 2009)

disco_dave_2000 said:


> Yeah, I did something similar with disposables and young people from Toxteth. No idea if it was fashionable or cool - but they enjoyed it and at the end of the day that is what it is all about for me.



bingo!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 30, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Absolutely nothing. When did I ever say I had?
> 
> All I've said is that I think photography is going out of fashion. It's peaked. It is (perhaps now was) more popular than ever. The 'must have a nice digi SLR as a fashion accessory' crowd are losing interest. Losing interest because it couldn't deliver the promise. Everyone knows that now. The cool factor has long since past.
> 
> You understand now? Or, will you always be a dumb fuck twat arguing with yourself?



what do you not get about the simple fact you are being a snob about a vaste range of people intentions in buying a camera.  has it occured to you that a large percentage were put off photography in both it's popular and classical forms because of the expense of processing things properly.

and if you're so het up on who's behind the lens rather than what they shoot then you should have started with the box brownie or anything else whichh brought compact cameras to the masses...

as i siad you orignal question is moot.  nothing to answer, the only question is why you rally against something which happened years ago and you now don't seem to like it's technological advances.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 30, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> This trend is percieved as new, thicko, not the camera. I'm taking about fashion trends.



sorry old chap I don't fancy you and prefer not to bum-fuck men. thanks all the same.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 30, 2009)

The Snob has spoken! Listen all ye to his photography gospel, or be damned to an eternity of flickr arselicking.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 30, 2009)

I hate Flicker ....... 


I am a pbase person!


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 30, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> The Snob has spoken! Listen all ye to his photography gospel, or be damned to an eternity of flickr arselicking.



yup that's you that is... an arse-licking fluckr fan_bwoi innit.

get alife.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 30, 2009)

Get a life, He sayeth! So bought a dishwasher, did I! Verily and yea.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 30, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> Get a life, He sayeth! So bought a dishwasher, did I! Verily and yea.



I saw this and thought of you.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 30, 2009)

Well placed.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 30, 2009)

Why do so many people here think I'm being critical and judgemental about people taking photographs?

Digi SLR's are sold on an aspirational level. It wasn't me who promoted the lie.

Very few digi SLR owners are professional photographers, but they are sold as pro tools of a trade that many aspire to, or want to be seen as being a part of. Now, so many people have them we all know the truth is very different. That is all.

FFS! Idiots.


----------



## untethered (Jul 30, 2009)

Very few musical instrument owners are professional musicians.

Is music out of fashion now?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 30, 2009)

Musical instruments were never sold as tools to an aspirational lifestyle. Well, not in the same way as cameras.

Obviously hit a very raw nerve here


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 30, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Musical instruments were never sold as tools to an aspirational lifestyle. Well, not in the same way as camera.



The fuck you say.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 30, 2009)

What is an aspirational lifestyle?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 31, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What is an aspirational lifestyle?









PMSLOL 

It's a lifestyle you can obtain in your head if you wear the right clothes and carry the right gear. A lifestyle fuckwits buy into to try and fool others.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 31, 2009)

Unlike you, the very definition of lifestylist. How does that picture have anything to do with whatever point you're failing at making?


----------



## kerb (Jul 31, 2009)

it's cos you're a sell out refused

wearing a suit is the epitome of your corporate wannabe lifestyle trend setting aspirations


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 31, 2009)

lol


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 31, 2009)

kerb said:


> it's cos you're a sell out refused
> 
> ...



It's cos his fucking fop bearing loser twat.

All image - no bollocks.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 31, 2009)

I have to reiterate:

How can something be going OUT of fashion when there are more people than ever doing it?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 31, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> It's cos his fucking fop bearing loser twat.
> 
> All image - no bollocks.


 
And you made this detailed psychological analysis based on one picture? Define "fop bearing", btw.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 31, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> PMSLOL
> 
> It's a lifestyle you can obtain in your head if you wear the right clothes and carry the right gear. A lifestyle fuckwits buy into to try and fool others.



Is this a definition you've made up yourself?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 31, 2009)

Why not, he's made up pretty much everything else on this thread?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 31, 2009)

kerb said:


> it's cos you're a sell out refused
> 
> wearing a suit is the epitome of your corporate wannabe lifestyle trend setting aspirations



I might disagree with Refused on his choice of suit, but lots of people have to wear a uniform of one sort or another on their jobs.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 31, 2009)

I think that comment was firmly tongue in cheek. By the bum's standards having a job makes you a sell-out.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 31, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I might disagree with Refused on his choice of suit, but lots of people have to wear a uniform of one sort or another on their jobs.



Choice of suit?

FFS! All he needs is a blue rosette on lapel and clipboard under his arm. He's a total fop loser.

As for 'aspirational lifestyle' thing; it's a label applied to advertising theories. The idea that you buy a product to buy into a lifestyle you aspire to. In this instance, a big Canon pro digi SLR would represent the assumed lifestyle of a high flying, successful pro photographer. That's the dream you buy.

It's a world of bullshit I ran away from


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 31, 2009)

That is one of the shallowest and snobbiest posts I've seen on urban75 and that takes some doing.

Yeah, I've not been into photography since I was 15, using film cameras. I just bought an SLR I could only just afford because wanted to be seen with one. You are The Real Artiste. Snobby cunt.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 31, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Choice of suit?
> 
> FFS! All he needs is a blue rosette on lapel and clipboard under his arm. He's a total fop loser.
> 
> ...



I don't think that applies to most people who buy cameras.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 31, 2009)

Stanley Edwards: True til Death.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 31, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I don't think that applies to most people who buy cameras.



It applies to most people who buy pro digi SLR's. Very few buyers are actually professionals.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 31, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> That is one of the shallowest and snobbiest posts I've seen on urban75 and that takes some doing.
> 
> Yeah, I've not been into photography since I was 15, using film cameras. I just bought an SLR I could only just afford because wanted to be seen with one. You are The Real Artiste. Snobby cunt.



You fuck with me, then expect me to fuck with you.

Sad fuck, style mag driven, wannabe loser.


----------



## untethered (Jul 31, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> It applies to most people who buy pro digi SLR's. Very few buyers are actually professionals.



Professionals / non-professionals.

Good photographers / bad photographers.

Serious photographers / casual photographers.

Distinguish.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 31, 2009)

untethered said:


> Professionals / non-professionals.



Professionals earn the vast majority of their income from photography. Pro/Am's earn part income. Amateurs/non-professionals do it for the love of doing it - not the money



untethered said:


> Good photographers / bad photographers.


Subjective. Unanswerable in this context. Personally I like the work of Thomas Struth amongst many others.




untethered said:


> Serious photographers / casual photographers.


 I guess a serious photographer is one who learns their craft beyond the basics. Casual photographers are happy to just snap away and look at nothing more than subject and composition.


----------



## untethered (Jul 31, 2009)

Now which of these categories of photographer might plausibly and legitimately own a digital SLR?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 31, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> You fuck with me, then expect me to fuck with you.
> 
> Sad fuck, style mag driven, wannabe loser.


 
lol

Your internet penis must be huge.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 31, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> It applies to most people who buy pro digi SLR's. Very few buyers are actually professionals.



So what? Just because some marketer stamps 'pro' on something, doesn't mean that starry eyed morons think they will become a 'pro' by buying it.

Some people just want a good camera, and they'll tolerate the bullshit ad labels that come with the product.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 31, 2009)

untethered said:


> Now which of these categories of photographer might plausibly and legitimately own a digital SLR?



All of them could own one legitimately. Perhaps they bought one with their own hard earned, or received one as a gift may be.

WTF is your point?

I have simply stated a theory about the way they are sold to sad fucks like Refused. He reads all this crap mags telling him what he should aspire to and what shit style suits he should wear and what bad taste specs to buy all at inflated prices. To people like him, a pro digi SLR represents a false dream he was stupid enough to believe in the same way that he thinks he looks attractive if he spunks all his dosh on bad style as featured by the pretty male models in the mags he reads. He knows he's an ugly sad fuck loser getting into debt really, but he can ignore that if he continues to believe the bullshit and get into even more debt.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 31, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> So what? Just because some marketer stamps 'pro' on something, doesn't mean that starry eyed morons think they will become a 'pro' by buying it.
> 
> Some people just want a good camera, and they'll tolerate the bullshit ad labels that come with the product.




Of course.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 31, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> lol
> 
> Your internet penis must be huge.




WTF is an internet penis?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 31, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Of course.



Meaning, that they simply want the product, and are not aspiring to some fictional lifestyle through the purchase.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 31, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I have simply stated a theory about the way they are sold to sad fucks like Refused. He reads all this crap mags telling him what he should aspire to and what shit style suits he should wear and what bad taste specs to buy all at inflated prices. To people like him, a pro digi SLR represents a false dream he was stupid enough to believe in the same way that he thinks he looks attractive if he spunks all his dosh on bad style as featured by the pretty male models in the mags he reads. He knows he's an ugly sad fuck loser getting into debt really, but he can ignore that if he continues to believe the bullshit and get into even more debt.


 
Fantastic. 
Do you think you're coming off well here? Because you sound like a jealous brat. Not jealous of me, that other people who aren't as visionary as you have access to the same tools.




			
				Refused said:
			
		

> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, could you?


----------



## kerb (Jul 31, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I have simply stated a theory about the way they are sold to sad fucks like Refused. He reads all this crap mags telling him what he should aspire to and what shit style suits he should wear and what bad taste specs to buy all at inflated prices. To people like him, a pro digi SLR represents a false dream he was stupid enough to believe in the same way that he thinks he looks attractive if he spunks all his dosh on bad style as featured by the pretty male models in the mags he reads. He knows he's an ugly sad fuck loser getting into debt really, but he can ignore that if he continues to believe the bullshit and get into even more debt.



Wow. You know how to sum up a man. 

I'd listen to him Refused. Stanley is obviosuly trying to save you from the trapping of debt and servitude because of your camera. He's like some of those painters who hated photography just as the technology was being discovered and looked down on it because they weren't "painters" or "artists" (in the traditional sense) 

Well fuck you edwards. I'm getting my credit card out and spunking the lot on an M8 so I can be like a modern day Bresson and get my mum to bankroll me travelling around the world to get the shots


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 31, 2009)

If there is one person on urban75 who is in love a "lifestyle" it's Stanley Edwards.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 31, 2009)

Not really sure why I'm bothering 

I open a thread with a question and some idiots take offense. It obviously matters to them that photography should be fashionable. What's more, my opinion obviously matters also. That makes me happy in one way. In an other way, they're obviously so fuck stupid, sad fashion victims that I really couldn't give a shit what they thought 

Refused posted the photographic evidence that he's a sad fuck loser himself. If he can't see that, no-one can help him.

Kerb is obviously another tosser. Photography is my first medium of choice when it comes to art. Do I care if it's fashionable, or not? Well, yep. I might just do. Because when it goes out of fashion it means I can upgrade and pick up the bargains the sad fuck fashion victims left behind at about 25% of the price


----------



## weltweit (Jul 31, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Because when it goes out of fashion it means I can upgrade and pick up the bargains the sad fuck fashion victims left behind at about 25% of the price



Don't wait too long, people are doing this already when the gizmo kids upgrade to the latest thing they are selling their old kit at good value. 5Ds for £400 D200 for about the same.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 31, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Don't wait too long, people are doing this already when the gizmo kids upgrade to the latest thing they are selling their old kit at good value. 5Ds for £400 D200 for about the same.



I expect a 5Ds to be available for less than €200 before Christmas.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 31, 2009)

Right, so photography is going out of fashion.  I will stop taking pictures straight away get rid of my cameras as soon as possible.  I don't want to be seen to be yesterday's man at all.

What should I take up to be fashionable, that is suitable for an ex photographer?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 31, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Right, so photography is going out of fashion.  I will stop taking pictures straight away get rid of my cameras as soon as possible.  I don't want to be seen to be yesterday's man at all.
> 
> What should I take up to be fashionable, that is suitable for an ex photographer?



Video gaming and wearing poxy specs obviously. Don't you fucking start. Photography is going out of fashion. Fact. Does it matter? No. Fact.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 31, 2009)

I have started so I'll finish.  I am not going in for video gaming, that doesn't let me pose around with male jewellery like photography did.  Poxy specs I can do though, they don't call me Foureyes Fred for nothing down the pub.  Video gaming is crap, that just means you spend your time indoors staring at a screen for hours on end...

...Oh


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 1, 2009)

The Real Artiste said:
			
		

> Not really sure why I'm bothering



We all know why, Stanley.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 1, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> All of them could own one legitimately. Perhaps they bought one with their own hard earned, or received one as a gift may be.
> 
> WTF is your point?
> 
> I have simply stated a theory about the way they are sold to sad fucks like Refused. He reads all this crap mags telling him what he should aspire to and what shit style suits he should wear and what bad taste specs to buy all at inflated prices. To people like him, a pro digi SLR represents a false dream he was stupid enough to believe in the same way that he thinks he looks attractive if he spunks all his dosh on bad style as featured by the pretty male models in the mags he reads. He knows he's an ugly sad fuck loser getting into debt really, but he can ignore that if he continues to believe the bullshit and get into even more debt.



you're quite bitter about something


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 1, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Photography is going out of fashion. Fact. .



So say you.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 1, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> A
> I have simply stated a theory about the way they are sold to sad fucks like Refused. He reads all this crap mags telling him what he should aspire to and what shit style suits he should wear and what bad taste specs to buy all at inflated prices. To people like him, a pro digi SLR represents a false dream he was stupid enough to believe in the same way that he thinks he looks attractive if he spunks all his dosh on bad style as featured by the pretty male models in the mags he reads. He knows he's an ugly sad fuck loser getting into debt really, but he can ignore that if he continues to believe the bullshit and get into even more debt.



This sounds like some sort of twisted love/obsession.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 1, 2009)

There once was a time that in order to make good photos, one had to know how to twirl certain knobs, make adjustments to calibrated wheels, know where and when to hold up meters, etc.

Now, thanks to computers and digitalization, that process has been made simpler, and has therefore become available to more people.

But whether or not one was good at turning the knobs, or now is good at adjusting the settings, or placing the filters, the question still remains: can the operator make art? Because making art is something beyond spinning the dials, or making the settings.


----------



## sim667 (Aug 1, 2009)

our enrolments for the GCSE, A-level, ND and HND go up a lot every year and have been doing so for the last few years.

In the UK alone we produce more photography graduates than there are jobs in the entirety of europe (From BJP)....

There's over 5000 professional photographers in london (Was told by an official from the AOP).

I dont think its going out of fashion just yet.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 1, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> the question still remains: can the operator make art? Because making art is something beyond spinning the dials, or making the settings.



Photographers don't make art.

Photographers make photographs!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 1, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> you're quite bitter about something



I'm not bitter about anything. I think Refused is a complete and utter nob end of waste of space, but as for the thread topic; I've simply asked if photography is going out of fashion?

IMO it is. It has peaked.

Why is everyone getting so upset about it? Because fashion matters to some?

So what if a big D5s becomes unfashionable? It will be more affordable. Uncool. I like that. I don't give a shit what others think of my camera, lenses, or clothes for that matter. I like it when people appreciate my photographic art, but I'm not that bothered that few get it.

I don't like Refused. I don't like the constant crap he spouts my way, but I don't care because he's a half wit dum fuck who knows fuck all about photography beyond what the fashion mags tell him he is supposed to know.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 1, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Photographers don't make art.
> 
> Photographers make photographs!



Artists can make art using photography as a medium


----------



## big eejit (Aug 1, 2009)

I was reminded of this thread when I read this short story by William Boyd in today's Guardian, specifically this bit: 

_Fernando Benn's show at No Parking is called "WAR"/WAR. It consists of a series of huge photographs, six feet by six, of famous war photographs: Robert Capa, Hubert Van Es, Don McCullin, Philip Jones Griffiths, Tim Page – all classic shots, almost all familiar to Bethany. Fernando Benn has cut them out of books, pinned them on his studio wall, photographed them so that they are framed by the background and blown them up. Benn is standing in the middle of the gallery idly supervising the hang. He's a man in his 40s wearing a leather jacket, jeans and red cowboy boots. He hasn't shaved for a few days. "Great, fantastic," he says. "No, no, leave it there. It's fine." Bethany asks him if she can get him a coffee or a water. "I'll have one of Howard's vodka and oranges," Benn says. When Bethany hands him his drink she senses him looking her up and down. "You're new," he says. "You weren't at No Parking for my last show. What's your racket, darling?" Bethany says she's interested in photography. "Photography is dead," Benn says with a cough-laugh. "Who was it who said that? Now we're in the digital age, photography has lost its veracity because it can be manipulated so easily – yeah? The photographic image has lost its power." But you're a photographer, Bethany says, unreflectingly, how can you say that? "I'm not a photographer," Benn says, a little wearily, "I'm an artist who chooses to work in lens-based media." He gestures at his photos. "These are digital pictures of photos shot on film. It's the only way they can achieve any power, any veracity."_

Nice one Fernando / Neville.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/01/william-boyd-short-story-snapshots


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 1, 2009)

Very obviously touched a raw nerve with the snob angle.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 1, 2009)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Artists can make art using photography as a medium



Oh,

Artists can make art

But 

Photographers make photos!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 1, 2009)

Are we doing the "Is Photography Art" debate now?  It is about time it was resurrected.  It first emerged in the 1850s and ran for a couple of decades.  It then recurred at the turn of the century.  Then it popped up again from 1929 for a few years.  Then it made an appearance in the the 1950s.  It seems to have come to the fore every ten years after that.  I suppose it is due for a re-run.

I stand with PH Emerson up to a point.  The point where he retracted that is.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 1, 2009)

Well get to it if you wanna  

Me I am not an artist, I am definately a photographer.

What I produce are photographs not artworks..

And I do the minimum in PS so even there I am not being artistic .. 

I just use the camera and lenses etc filters perhaps to create a photo ..


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 2, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Oh,
> 
> Artists can make art
> 
> ...


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 2, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> Very obviously touched a raw nerve with the snob angle.



He's got a bit of a point though, hasn't he? You are a tool.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 2, 2009)

That might be true, but it has nothing to do with anything. The snobbery is amusing, though.


----------

