At a Crossroads: Will Photography Diminish or Evolve?

At a Crossroads: Will Photography Diminish or Evolve?

Photography, a medium that has consistently reinvented itself, now stands at an unprecedented crossroads. Revolutions like AI have led to a profound reevaluation of photography's role and essence. Is photography evolving or diminishing as an art form in this era of rapid technological change?

The Democratization of the Medium

The advent of digital cameras and smartphones brought high-quality photographic tools to the masses, radically democratizing the field. Undoubtedly, this accessibility nurtured and continues to introduce new talent, but it also floods the market, making it harder for seasoned professionals to maintain their unique standing or to even stand out amidst the veritable onslaught of images.

However, this saturation has also pushed established photographers to diversify their offerings, expanding into high-end production, video, workshops, and online education. By showcasing the nuance of their craft, seasoned professionals can retain value even amidst an abundance of casual photographers. Arguably, this diversification leads to more income security, at least for those who are successful at. 

In a technologically disrupted industry, learning adaptability is vital. Photographers must diversify their knowledge across specializations most immune to automation, such as bespoke fine art pieces and events. By focusing on skill-intensive services and niche offerings, they can retain market value despite saturation. The key is crafting a personalized brand that connects directly with their community and offers something unique rather than competing on price in an oversaturated mass market.

Technological Advancements

Advancements in camera technology and software have opened up new horizons in image quality and manipulation, allowing photographers to explore previously unimaginable creative avenues and making it easier than ever to get shots that were once the domain of only the most seasoned pros. However, an over-reliance on technology could eclipse the fundamental skills and artistic judgment that define great photography. Anecdotally, I've seen a lot of that from photographers who buy a nice camera and open a business, only to be quickly outmatched by the slightest problem that arises. 

The more people can do something, the harder it becomes to establish value. 

Indeed, as cameras and editing tools become more advanced, foundational expertise like lighting, composition, and concept development risk being viewed as secondary. However, the sheer abundance of images also means curation and quality stand out more than ever. Photographers who master both classical techniques and new digital capabilities will retain their competitive edge.

The Artistic Integrity

Digital technology has undoubtedly expanded the creative palette available to photographers, enabling a broader range of artistic expression. While some degree of post-processing has always existed in photography, critics argue that excessive manipulation severs the medium’s ties to depicting reality. Yet others counterargue that the very definition of photographic art is subjective and ever-evolving. As artificial intelligence technologies blur the lines of reality further, these debates over authenticity will likely intensify.

The problem is that while it has long been possible to create extreme edits that defied reality, it used to take years of experience and advanced skills. In that sense, it limited how much we saw images that were essentially lies, and when one made its way into a place it shouldn't have been (journalism, for example), it was a big deal, causing anything from a news story to a mass moral outrage. But as automatic tools that can perform extreme edits in a compelling manner become more commonplace, the acceptance of the presence of fake images increases, and the public's willingness to maintain a threshold of integrity decreases. That should worry both photographers and non-photographers alike. 

As computational photography blurs the line between reality and alteration, the ethical implications become increasingly significant, especially in fields like photojournalism. Questions on plagiarism, originality, and intellectual property will come to the forefront. Standards and protocols safeguarding attribution and preventing exploitation of generative models for deceptive purposes will need to be established within the photography community, and yet, even then, there are so many photos being created by so many people that I fear this is a horse that will not come back to the barn.

The Impact of Social Media

Social media platforms offer photographers instant exposure to large audiences, a stark contrast to traditional galleries and publications. As a corollary, there's a constant pursuit for virality. The craving for likes and shares can drive photographers to cater to popular trends, often at the expense of artistic depth and authenticity. The practice becomes homogenized, and there are arguably few things more tragic for an art form than that. 

The quest for virality does little to encourage unique voices. 

The psychology of instant gratification and validation through social media metrics can undoubtedly influence creative choices. Be honest: how much time do you spend checking your social media every day? However, rather than decry these changing tides, professionals can thoughtfully adapt by balancing passion projects with trend-focused offerings. The key is to leverage popularity for exposure while upholding personal artistic standards for select high-value commissions. This is part of the reason why many professionals advocate so strongly for personal projects. Someone has to make the trends, after all.

The Survival of the Art Form

Established photographers often express concern about the impact of these trends on the public's understanding and appreciation of photographic art. Yet, the abundance of photographic content also allows niche aesthetics to thrive across micro-communities tailored to specific tastes. While mainstream trends may come and go, photographers devoted to unique styles can now easily find and engage their target audience, no matter how obscure the niche. By focusing less on chasing ephemeral mass trends and more on nurturing personalized communities, artistic diversity can flourish. Part of the problem, though, is finding those communities. When there's so much content, finding your little island amid an ocean can feel next to impossible. 

Furthermore, there's the issue of sustaining these niche communities. Once found, these communities need nurturing through consistent and engaging content, interactive communication, and a genuine sharing of ideas and techniques. For photographers, this means investing time and resources into community building, which is often a separate skill set from photography itself. The balance between creating art and managing a digital presence is a tightrope that modern photographers must learn to walk. This dual role can be taxing, but is a necessary adaptation in the evolving landscape of digital photography.

Conclusion

The question of whether photography is evolving or diminishing as an art form is complex and multifaceted. While technological disruption has brought both obstacles and opportunities, photography has consistently demonstrated its resilience and capacity to reinvent itself. After all, people need images, perhaps more than ever. Ultimately, the onus lies on photographers to navigate this landscape. I do believe there is room, but it is also easier than ever to be left behind. 

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments
32 Comments

Alex Cooke asked,

"Will Photography Diminish or Evolve?"

It will both diminish and evolve.

Fewer people will do pure photography, as we have known if for over a century. But even though there will be fewer people doing it that way, there will still be thousands upon thousands doing it that way. Just not quite as many thousands who did it that way before. And for those who continue to do traditional photography, it will continue to steadily evolve as advances in gear help us to do traditional photography more efficiently and as people come up with new, different, and creative ways to shoot.

I don't know Tom on a personal level, but by some interaction here, Tom, like me, will continue to shoot our favorite subjects just like we've been doing. And, there's a lot that will do the same. As Tom points out, however, it seems the trend will be to see this sort of shooting to slowly dwindle which is more the pity.

My concern is with the advent of AI and how it will impact more serious sides of society. I see world wide efforts to create misinformation that we be more and more difficult to detect. I suppose that this AI battle will more than likely create new opportunities for photograph 'detectives' to battle the 'forces of darkness' that would create situations that could cause a lot of problems be it political, personal, job related, and so on.

If someone with the skill set to create near perfect images that are meant to do harm decides to go after someone or some entity, it will create a nightmare that may be solved, but the harm done may expend resources that would otherwise be used for legitimate advancements. The coming years will be very interesting, indeed.

Ever deeper into the Matrix...

I'm curious why you think fewer people will "do photography" in the future? If you define photography as using imagery, created with a camera, to communicate some meaning, emotion, instruction, anything really, to other humans, then photography has grown by orders of magnitude in the past 30 years. Even as we look down on vernacular photography I'm willing to bet the average teenager in 2023 makes more images in a week than the average teenager in 1993 did in a year.

Do you see this slowing down in the future? The one thing AI can't generate is an actual image of something that really happened. If people want to communicate with each other about real things it's going to require real photographs.

This may not be the same art forms we've had in the past, but it will very much be photography.

Hey, Aaron!

You asked me,

"I'm curious why you think fewer people will "do photography" in the future?"

I said that I think that fewer people will do "pure photography" in the future. By pure photography, I mean taking images with a camera in a way that does not incorporate any by-default computer-enhanced image manipulation. I actually think that a LOT of people will do photography in the future, but that most of it will involve a higher level of manipulation than what has been done traditionally, and that most of this manipulation will be applied automatically.

I think that most smartphone users already use their phone's camera in a way that applies a lot of processing to the original exposure, via filters and computational manipulation. Most of them are probably not even aware of all the things their phones are doing to change and enhance the orginial exposure. This is not "pure photography", but rather a form of photography that also blends in a fair amount of graphic imagery to arrive at the final result.

So, in short, I think that more people than ever will be doing photography, but that fewer people will be doing "pure photography" which does not involve automated enhancements or adjustments.

Okay, I understand what you mean! I suspect our consideration for what is "too much" automation is based on what we use to. Digital cameras do an incredible amount of processing to an image before it's displayed on a screen, Lightroom lets us tweak that processing. It has to map the raw file into the pixels on our display and that requires guessing about exposure and color balance. I suspect this ease in getting the technical aspects of a photograph correct will only emphasize the importance of it's artistic aspects.

If we rewind 20 years, "pure photography" is using film and digital is a flash in the pan. So if we call it imaging and not photography then it will expand.

Alex Cooke wrote,

"I do believe there is room, but it is also easier than ever to be left behind. "

I am not sure what you mean by "left behind".

Success in photography does NOT mean having a lot of people seeing and enjoying your work. Success in photography does NOT mean being able to earn income.

Success in photography, as defined as an "art form", means that one is able to pursue creative ideas and work toward creating the images that are in the mind's eye. It is all about personal endeavor and inner satisfaction with the images one creates. That is the proper way to measure success.

Given that, how is it that some photographers will be "left behind".

As The Dude would say, "that's just your opinion, man" LOL.
There are different ways to measure success. But I guess in the strictest definition all the matters is the creation of the image.
Many photographers DO consider success to be sharing their work with others or being able to earn an income...the same goes for writers, musicians, performers, engineers, chefs...
Most people do not work in a vacuum.

Yes, many people are horribly misguided about what success really is and have a twisted, whacked view of it, that is why I wrote my comment.

So the question is: Will Photography Diminish or Evolve?

In order to arrive at an answer, the term photography should be defined. So let's turn to Wikipedia for a definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography) :

"Photography is the art, application, and practice of creating images by recording light, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film. It is employed in many fields of …“

Marvellous! So it's about the creation of a photograph. Photography has nothing to do with the digital, creative falsification of this photograph (aka digital image editing). Digital image editing is the ability to edit an image in the way that the digital image editor interprets it. However, this is then no longer a photograph, but a digital image. A digital image can be based on a photograph, generated by an image editing programme or created by AI. In this sense, my answer is Solomonic. The number of digital images created by photography will not decrease much. The possibilities for creating photographs will continue to develop logarithmically.

I will assume that you believe that Ansel Adams spending hours in the darkroom to 'fix' his photographs is okay? Just curious...

I am completely okay with that.

For the vast majority of photographers, our goal is NOT to have our images show exactly "what was really there", but rather, our goal is to create the best looking or most compelling image we can, regardless of whether it is true to what was captured in real life, or not.

***** EDIT: Well, let me correct myself ..... we want the images to represent what was there in a general. overall way, but not necessarily down to the details. *****

The photograph itself is not the end goal, but rather a starting point. The original photo that is taken with the camera is the "base" that we start with, as we then proceed to use other means to turn the image into what our eyes most enjoy.

The final image that we end up with isn't truly photography, but rather is a blend of photography and graphic art. Our final images would most accurately be described as "mixed media". And I'm totally okay with that, as long as I like the way the images look after they're all finished being manipulated.

Some good points. We use the edit to further create our vision in our photographs. Arguing over the definition of a photograph isn't a primary concern of mine.

The answer to your question results from the above definition of photography.

Note Tom said 'manipulated'. That makes my point as well.

No dairy farmer is honoured for the production of a particular cheese, for example, simply because milk from his production was used to make it. Nor will the cheese producer call himself a dairy farmer. Everyone does their job and produces a specific product.
This does not seem to apply a photograph. Everything is a photograph, as long as the DNA of a photograph can be traced in the metadata of a digital image …

Always a flawed argument. What about in camera picture profiles and other in camera features to enhance the exposure? I assume you think this is still a photograph, just not post editing, right? So using ISO and or exposure comp to increase the exposure is OK to still be called a photograph but using exposure or brightness in software isn't? As David Pavlich points out, what about analogue editing made in a darkroom?

Pretty soon all manufacturers will be implementing some sort of image fidelity verification protocol similar to what Leica recently did. On top of that, News organizations will implement some type of programing that will flag or identify these images as A.I. images vs human created and edited, vs straight out of camera images. They have to do something like this at some point or they risk being completely irrelevant as nobody would ever trust what they see in any image that comes up.

A couple of things. I agree with the "Nat Geo Rule", and I don't agree that Ansel Adams "manipulated" his photographs. Indeed, in strictest sense, Adams follows the "Nat Geo Rule" as all the burning and dodging he did was simply creative contrast control. It is the height of sophistry to invoke his name to justify manipulations such as sky replacement, and "element management" (such as editing out unwanted people on sidewalks), etc.

There is photography and there is graphic arts. Let us not confuse the two. Gursky's Rhein II, is a piece of fine art, but it is *not* a photograph in the sense of all of Adams' work as it was heavily digitally edited (i.e. that scene doesn't actually exist, without the buildings and people on the sidewalks etc.). There is a difference. Why do graphic artists insist on calling their work "photography"? It is nonsense.

e.g. How much manipulation will be allowed before an image jumps the gap between photojournalistic and graphic arts. I think this is the larger question that AI content creation presents. The "Nat Geo Rule" still applies, I'd think.

Sorry, Rodney. It's still changing the photograph. I choose Adams' work to give the 'get it right in camera' argument a little nudge. Even with his fantastic skill set, Adams made those images better by manipulating the image. Spin it how you like, it's still not the same as it was when the image was taken.

Sorry to you as well, David, look up the Nat Geo rule, and get back to me. I'm not the one spinning it, in a nutshell: you're looking for justification to call your graphic arts "photography" and it doesn't hold water for a millisecond.

Nat Geo can make all the rules it wants. If you take a picture out of the camera and alter it, it's not the picture that the camera took. I didn't have a dark room so the film shots that I took went to be developed and didn't spend any time being manipulated. In that sense, my film shots were more true to life than someone who manipulated their film shots in a dark room.

I don't try to justify my shots to anyone except clients that ask for something specific. As for the purists, they're the ones getting all wound up about today's photography. Call it whatever you like, it doesn't hold water for a millisecond...it's still photography.

Exactly. You're a commercial photographer, which really means you are actually a graphic artist, anyway. Shoot, sky replace, erase unwanted objects all you want to sell the shot (just don't expect to hang it at the MET as "Photography"). And that's all well and good. Your clients don't care, they want to see what they want to see, and you deliver, we get it. But the conversation is about photography as an art, artistic vision, previsualization, composition, and all those things you and your clients don't really care about. So, excuse the artists if they don't care what your opinion of what photography is. OK? Thanks.

You know what they say about 'assume'. My commercial clients were people that I made prints for. They might ask for a different crop or a different size than what I was selling, but I don't do replacements, adding/subtracting/multiplying/dividing. I make the print and if a person likes it and buys it, good for both of us. If the person doesn't like and doesn't buy it, then too bad for me.

Photography is one of the most subjective endeavors one can undertake. My opinion of what constitutes photography is worth no more or no less than your opinion or anyone other opinion. Opinions aren't facts. We disagree on whether or not doing hours of work in a dark room to alter an image is still a true out of the camera image. You say yes, I say no. We will just have to use the old cliche, we have to agree to disagree.

And a thumbs down? "I'll show him!"

So I can still call my images photographs if all I do is make adjustments to the exposure and contrast? Why does trying to define what a photo actually is really matter? Why is it so important anyway? There will never be an agreed general consensus on this.

Smartphones certainly have made photography (and videography) more convenient and readily accessible to many people. They have not made "high quality" tools any more accessible than they were before. Anyone who wanted to could carry around a point-n-shoot film camera back in the pre-digital era. The image quality from those pocket-sized 35mm cameras far exceeded early digicams. Now most people simply have a camera in their pocket all day long. Not because they care about photography but because it is built into their internet-connected-social-media-browsing device (aka their phone). This has exponentially increased the quantity of images being captured. It has not increased the quality of those images.

Photographers who produce real photographs will be revered and their work will have value that will increase over time.
Photographers dabbling in AI images will find their credibility and value diminishing.

Are real photograph only shot on film?

This conversation in FStoppers strikes me a bit odd considering the site's history of placing heavy-retouching, composites, extreme-editing and photoshop at the core of its identity.

You are right in that many of the photos that Fstoppers honors by using them as their "Photo of the Day" are obviously photoshopped so heavily that they do not resemble reality at all - especially the landscape photos.

But that is not necessarily contradictory, as I do not believe that Fstoppers has ever criticized anyone's imagery for being "fake".

Fstoppers seems to embrace and accept all forms of photography, no matter how much or how little it has been manipulated by computer-generated graphic enhancements.

Apparently this worked for Gursky:

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/gursky-the-rhine-ii-p78372#:~:text=....

Called "the most expensive photograph ever sold" but he calls himself not a "photographer" but a "visual artist".

In any case, I'm pretty sure Fstoppers is here to help sell advertiser's equipment and software and little else, so it would make sense to feature such things.