Thoughts on a Guardian article.

https://www.theguardia​n.com …ies-photographers-gallery

I find the article interesting, in large part because it is based on photography from the 1970's. Toward the end of the article the writer makes the statement "I really don’t know why we stick to the word photography any more. There should be a different term, but nobody cared about finding it.”

One of the definitions of photography is "the art or practice of taking and processing photographs." If I take that statement apart while introducing a timeline, I first got started in photography in the late 1950's working for a professional that specialized in child photography. He also had a retail shop and when I went off to college in 1961, he gave me his last Kodak Retina IIIC as a parting gift. Photography in those days was predominately "the art or practice of taking" the photograph. Professionals and a few avid amateurs did their own processing. More importantly the amateur very carefully composed his subject with an eye toward composition because every frame cost you 50 cents (more or less). As a student, on a student's budget, I chose my subject matter carefully!

In the late 1960's I got married and the professional submitted about 300 proofs. A few years ago my niece got married, the digital era was clearly evident because the photographer submitted 2000 proofs. Today, with digital, clearly we are in the "processing photographs" portion of the definition.

Is photography dead? IMO, no, it is alive and well. We have just shifted the creative element from the "taking" portion to the making the image look good phase.