Especially with social media and the fact that now nearly anybody can very easily just take a photo with their phones

Are you implying the photography is an activity limited to the elite ?
The improved access to photography equipment and the display of the product as taken the elitism out of the activity.

Clearly photography has changed radically in the digital age. But that doesn't change the fact that a image is considered art and the skill of the artist makes a difference.

Photography has never been a major interest for me. I just want to record images for the memories. On the other hand I can appreciate the skill involkved in taking an image that stirs one similar to a painting or sculpture.

Real photography with actual FILM.. is not uber expensive and limited to the rich or the elites. Its actually affordable for those who wish to dabble in it. Its just not as instant as digital photography is.

Play with the digital....learn the basics and move to film to do stuff difficult on digital.

I think technology has enlarged the art of photography, and just when I think that 'everyone is a photographer,' I see someone's art that blows me away.

When you speak of "Art" there are many forms. The fact that digital makes it easier in some ways is a good thing. The artist must now expand his/her thinking to new horizons.

But in the end it all belongs to the eye of the artist and the eye of the beholder. With that said if your looking to get into photography then there is no better time then the present.

I think the OP is confusing artistic photography with taking a simple snapshot. Has the digital age changed they way we take pictures? Certainly! An argument can even be made to say that many aspects of photography have grown more complex with the digital camera. These new cameras do so much more than film equivalents did. Sure much of what was done with physical equipment (filters, some lighting, certain lens equipment) is not built in via software but that doesn't remove the skill it takes to compose and properly meter a quality image.

Film shooting and development does take a special skill... yet so does any quality digital post processing. The means has simply evolved to reach the same end... and personally I'd say it is a greater end in the digital age. I'm more of purest with my photographs to where I'm not heavily editing in post... but what you can achieve nowadays is far greater, far more complex, and far quicker than it was 20 years ago.

Not at all. New technologies have increased access to photography. But new technologies have increased access to all art forms. The thing is that not every photographer is an Ansel Adams. Just as every muralist isn't a DaVinci. Photography is simply the easiest art for people to try their hands at with little fear of damaged egos. Jane knows that her drawing skills aren't great, and that if she draws there maybe someone that criticizes her art. She also knows that a bad photo is rarely really criticized in this day and age. People just scroll by. Many people simply blame the equipment, namely cell phone cameras.

A good photographer can take any camera and make great photos. Better equipment, made possible with new technology, simply makes his/her job easier.

And the film vs digital debate is pointless. Both mediums are great and at this point provide nearly identical results. If you know what settings to use for each situation, you can be sure to get the same results from both mediums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annaanna

Especially with social media and the fact that now nearly anybody can very easily just take a photo with their phones

---

Short answer is no.

Long answer requires you to define art. To define what is art and what isn't. That is more of a personal thing then a hard and fast definition. Is someone's iPhone picture of their kid Art? It probably wouldn't hang in the Louvre, but it could hang proudly on Grandma's fridge for a few years.

What has happened is that the means to create art are widely distributed. Is everything art? Maybe. Some great photos are taken on your Galaxy.

On the plus side... digital photography has allowed many more people to dabble in this without a huge upfront investment and instant results for their experiments. If anything... I would believe it has encouraged more people that otherwise might not have in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

On the plus side... digital photography has allowed many more people to dabble in this without a huge upfront investment and instant results for their experiments. If anything... I would believe it has encouraged more people that otherwise might not have in the past.

---

Not to mention that with this coverage, there is more of a chance of something beautiful being seen and photographed.

What do you think about smartphones and its effect in regards to photography? I read an interesting article in which the writer suggested that smartphones are "threatening to devalue art" since it is is so easy to take a photo without a thought for the worth of the image

As ever art is in the eye of the beholder, or the agent trying to punt it...
Is photography really a true art form ?
The "instant" camera probably more to devalue that point many years ago..