While some may be inclined to consider it photography's golden age it was, more accurately, the medium’s Holocene – that period from approximately 1928 through 1998 when the ecosystem was relatively stable and development that was directed, deliberate and predictable was encouraged. But that era has ended. Bluntly, it is what we accept as photography now and what we accept in the next few years that will determine the future of medium as either vibrant and relevant or one reduced to insignificance.

What we refer to now under a blanket reference of “photography” has, in the past 15 years or so, diverged rapidly into various constituent media driven primarily by advances in available technology.

At the outset of this discussion this needs to be made absolutely, perfectly, crystal clear — there is nothing “wrong” with any of these constituent elements but the questions pertaining to the where and how they fit in the imaging continuum must be answered.

The second thing to be aware of is that this is strictly about the non-commercial market which, in reality, dwarfs the commercial side and has a marked tendency to inform the commercial market over time.

Some may argue that this is an attempt to assign arbitrary definitions to the media and is totally irrelevant because it is all “art”. Others might argue the divergence is simply the result of a natural process that reflects dynamic and energetic innovation and development.

The difficulty with the first argument is that even the art world embraces the idea of separation by definition – there is oil painting, acrylic painting, watercolor, pen and ink, pastel, and even a separate category for digital painting.

The natural process argument seems more plausible on the surface but the problem here is that “natural process” in many ways changes the fundamental essence of the medium and once the essence is changed it is no longer photography.

While it is the position here that photography is more akin to writing than art, perhaps it’s time for photography to follow art in one aspect – classification of work by how it is produced.

In the past, photography was “divided” into categories by the assumed skills of the photographer. In most cases these classifications were self-assigned but there was enough structure in the ecosystem to support the designations. There were, in order of assumed skill levels, the hobbyist, the amateur, the advanced amateur, the semi-professional and the professional.

Manufacturers would design and market hardware and film for these groups. The photographic press would tailor its reporting to the interests of these groups and various sources would provide photographers in a “less-skilled” group with tutorials and encouragement to “move up in photographic world”.

Ocver the past 15 or 20 years, that classification system morphed into division by a photographer’s chosen genre. We now have equipment and processes for the portrait photographer, the landscape photographer, the travel photographer, etc. The skill level no longer truly matters as we are seeing cameras, software, lighting, accessories, etc., marketed on a genre basis.

So perhaps it’s time that we begin to categorize by the method of production.

As of now, it seems there are five different classifications of “photographic” production:

  • Personal Photography: This would be essentially family photographs, holiday photographs, vacation photographs, friend photographs, etc. These are designed to be shared within a limited and specified group, much as sending a selection of 3R prints through the mail. This would be photography that is considered to be “straight out of the camera” with minimal processing. Perhaps the photographer only needs to adjust for clarity, crop the image or adjust the size of the image for posting to social media. Think of posting a photo from Janie’s graduation while at the event. Or think of the photographer wanting to post a vacation photograph to a social media account. The reach here is larger than that of personal photography

  • Straight Photography: This would be the digital equivalent of printing from a high quality color slide in a wet darkroom. There is the capability to control the exposure of the image along with the contrast. There is the ability to control the color response and there is the ability to crop the image. This too is considered to be an image straight out of the camera but “readied for prime time”. Both Straight Photography and Personal Photography are faithful to the scene photographed.

  • Altered Photography: This is really a bridge between Straight and AI Photography. The difference here is that while Straight Photography is faithful to the original scene, Altered Photography allows some to significant deviation from the original scene, generally in the name of “improving” or adding “visual impact” to the image. This could include moderate to extreme enhancement/revision of existing colors or tones (color grading, tone shifting, etc.), replacing background, removing elements that the photographer feels may be distracting, adding elements like a dramatic sky, etc. Notice that the emphasis here shifts from scene to the image.

  • AI Photography (also referred to as Synthetic Photography): AI photography is an area in which the image presented may have very little resemblance to the actual scene that was photographed. AI Photography puts all elements of the image under the photographer’s control. Lighting can be changed, all colors can be altered, objects can be added, deleted or moved at will, etc. Much of the sales pitch for this type of imaging boils down to “the only limit is your imagination”. Composits also fall under this realm.

  • Virtual Photography: (Virtual photography had, in the past, been defined as a form of “screenshot photography” but it seems to have expanded recently to include other forms of only-digital image production.) This is an area where the image is produced entirely in a non-reflected-light digital environment. These images are generally based on textual cues.

Here is the problem — as we move through the continuum into elements three, four and five we get further from the essence of photography, specifically the concept of “drawing with light” and we get more into the concept of “drawing with digits”. And yet we continue to either imply these are somehow photographs or we simply refer to them as photographs.

This is not a difference without distinction, however, as the more one moves through the continuum the more the one moves from the semantics, syntax and pragmatics of photography toward representation and interpretation of art. And the more this happens the greater the need to identify and separate the disciplines. If the universe of imaging types continues to expand and diversify under the singular blanket name of “photography” the impact on the entire universe would be detrimental.

The impact and unique character of images made purely through reflected light (essentially images made within the constraints of elements one, two) will be significantly diminished. And, to a point, we are seeing that already happen with some people assuming any image has been altered with the question/statement “oh, it’s photoshopped” and diminishing its value as a “traditional” photograph.

We are seeing a fundamental shift to simple appreciation of presented images. This is most evident on those photo sharing sites that allow public comments (Flickr, 500px, Behance, etc.) where there is little to no discussion of the content of the image, no discussion of the motivation for the image, no discussion of why the image was created. Comments generally simply praise the work with “nice”, “beautiful capture”, “wonderful”, “great image”, or similar non-specific generalities. Which leads, ultimately to the expansion and unquestioning acceptance of image types regardless of generation. This is simply focusing the process inward, demanding it become more self-reflexive.

At some point in the not-so-distant future this will simply become image generation for no other purpose than generating images and will disorder the non-commercial imaging universe. Ultimately, family photographs, vacation photographs, etc., will continue but as one moves through the imaging elements, the system will become so increasingly disordered and so inwardly focused that it will simply stop serving any purpose other than reinforcing its own increasing disorder. If allowed to continue it will eventually come to a point where it can be no further disordered and become simply irrelevant.

Used here, disordered means that under the umbrella of the term “photography” there are, in actuality, so many variations and such divergence in image preparation and production — ranging from absolute straight-from-the-camera photography to textual cue and sketch cue AI production and possibly some methods not yet fully devised — that the term photography will become, in essence, a nonsense term with little or no real meaning. With this transition, the age of photography as an independent, vibrant force in the image making arena will come to an end.

Some may argue this portends a future path for imaging that is neither guaranteed nor even viable given all of the variables that can come into play.

This may be very true but with the seeming willingness to accept and absorb almost any media that even partially resembles photography in either production or appearance, it could very possibly happen. And this includes anything that may have started life as a single photograph regardless of where it ends.

Here is where imaging can take a more-than-obvious clue from the music industry rather that the art industry.

The music industry classifies its products by the type of music produced – and there are many different types. Techno, classical, blues, country and jazz are among the multitude of distinct classifications for music products. Whether produced by an internationally recognized musician, performed by an amateur “garage” band or played on a radio station, that product still falls within its intended classification. Whether produced by a musician recognized in another classification or not the product still falls within its intended classification.

With the recent diversity of image production ranging from straight photography to those produced by artificial intelligence all falling under the umbrella of photography, the imaging industry needs a way to separate images for the protection of all and to allow the continued development of each specific area without compromise to or impediment by the others.

What these classifications would be called or how they would be defined is certainly beyond this discussion but if we as a community are concerned with the protection of all areas of imaging this is something we need to strongly consider and advocate.

Some may object to this concept as being a restriction on creativity as they fear pigeonholing however there is nothing in this concept the holds one being restricted to producing work in only one area. Certainly various areas can be explored – remember that established painters explored the “new” field of photography while maintaining their “brush and canvas” work.

Some may object to this concept on the basis that any predefined classification would not fit their particular work. And while this may be true on the very surface it is also true that the music industry has created dozens of main classifications for its product and there are hundreds of sub-classifications.

Again, this is to protect all and allow the continued development of each specific area without compromise to the others. It should be noted here an image fully created in a public artificial intelligence ecosystem was entered in a photography contest and won… need more be said…

For a PDF version of the article click here

 

Copyright 2023, Don Althaus, M.A. All rights reserved.