An article in Newsweek by Peter Plagens asks “Is photography dead?” It presents in concise outline the talking points: realism and it’s relevancy, PS manipulation, ethics of manipulation, “fantasy” photography, etc. As an amateur photographer who got seriously interested at the tail end of film, I’ve found this an increasingly interesting question - but not for myself - rather, for the art form itself.

As far as my photography is concerned, I find digital manipulation often boring at best and cloying at worst. I have to clarify that. All digital photography needs a minimal amount of manipulation by its very nature (if you want the gory technical details, write me). So, yes, I do use PS (for very specific touch-ups), but mostly just use Picasa (free from Google) to take care of my everyday shots. But, no, I do not use PS to create elaborate manipulations.

What attracts me to photography is, in general, its ability to allow one to ponder the daily (very much an Impressionism technique): freeze the slices of life’s moments, capture a flavor of someone’s personality in a portrait, appreciate the wonder of the everyday objects (e.g., macros). I don’t think photography is dead, as long as photographers continue to see the art as a process and the camera as a tool. The sublime of any art is its ability to interpret the daily and imbue it with new relevance and meaning.