Are Cell Phones Killing Photography?

Very interesting! I want to buy a macro lens for my iPhone and take pictures for my shop with my phone.

Cell phone cameras are NOT real cameras, I don't care how good the photos look!

This is a very interesting debate. I was very into photojournalism at one point and I always found myself scoffing at those that tried to be "professional photographers" when they had no skill with a camera. Photography is it's own art. I feel camera phones are almost more honest in this aspect. You can tell it's from a phone and that in itself limits everyone.

I love photography as art. The immediacy of my iPhone, and the hipstamatic apps, are amazing. With camera phones, it makes taking a picture available to those who normally wouldn't or couldn't have a "real" camera. I think there is plenty of room for both.

This subject is hotly debated in many forums across the web. I think there's a line where freedom of creativity and snobbery collide. Technology has advanced. Old school film photographers from the late 1800s would say we have it so easy with our digitals, right? It will morph further. I say let people enjoy creating what they do. It feeds the soul. :)

I've never really liked the hipstamatic instagram stuff. I think it was Stan Einzig who said, something to the effect of "just because you can use a pen, doesn't mean you can write a good novel."

Good article! I don't have a fancy picture phone though. Why pay more than $30 a month? I can check the internet if I want too. Make calls, texts. I'd rather have a fancy camera.

Several weeks ago I went to my local aquarium to take pictures with my DSLR. I had to fight with all the mobile phones to get a shoot of almost everything. It was weird but it was then I realized things have changed. Not sure if for the better or the worse. I don't want to give up my DSLR and I don't want to give up my iphone camera. I like them equally but they serve different purposes in the photo world to me.

A camera is a camera. It is what you do with it that matters.

What PoleStar said. Owning a phone doesn't make you a good photographer. That said, it's not the intention or the expense or the "authenticity" of the equipment that makes a good photograph either - it's the skill of the person who took it, regardless of whether they were using a $5000 lens or a $10 broken holga or a samsung T750TI.

I agree about some of the snobbery. Remember when digital came out and so many hung onto film and developing studios? Now, the immediacy of the digital image to go anywhere in the world in seconds has truly shaped our ability to communicate with the images around us and our interpretation of them as art.

Photographs have always been effected by the equipment from which the image is derived. From the most primitive camera to the most technologically advanced super wonder to simple cheapo cameras — the type of instrument will inflect the image as will the skill and vision of the person operating the camera. Furthermore, the development of the image is yet another layer of potential for the image to be altered. Materials have changed, cameras have changed, inks have changed, and papers have changed. There was a point in time when art institutions were insistent on sticking their heads in the sand and not acknowledging photography as an art form. Hell, back in the day there was controversy over the imagery of Dorothea Lange. People are always going to argue. Without people like Alfred Stieglitz we might have never had the opportunity to argue these points. The sort of nitpicking and pretend knowledge that folks use to discriminate against a technique behind the creation of an image is often stupefying.

I go back and forth. My personal belief is that photography is about capturing the essence of what you see.....not what you use. There will always be a debate in areas like photography between old school and new. Just like when we are telling our grand kids that things were better when we read those book thingys.

No one ever asked Van Gogh what kind of brushes he used...

Cell phones are no more killing photography than the 35mm camera did when it first came out...or for that matter when digital cameras started to become prevalent. Photography is all about interpretation of reality...which is what art really is about. It's this interpretation that's important...not the tool or device used!

I don't think so.....they are just another way of capturing a moment!

Will cell phones replace cameras, heck no! I would never trade my SLR for a iPhone camera. Also, just because a cell phone can manipulate an image, so can Photoshop! The cell phone camera is not really at the heart of this issue, it is the journalist. Journalists must ask themselves if they are there to capture news and history or if they are there as an artist, two very different things! Back in the days of film, you could buy black and white film or color, the black and white added a certain aged charm to the images but no one had issues with that.

most news these days is slanted, faux, biased, and sensationalized anyway. seems no surprise that photos would be enhanced in order to elicit and emotional response. not saying that it's right, just saying that it's no surprise.

Photography really isn't about the camera any more than oil painting is about the brushes or even the paint. That said, it isn't even necessarily about the image that results. It's the creative spark inside the artist, who wants to capture what she sees as a way to express her feelings about the world. As makers, I think this is a really important point to remember because it's what keeps our work alive, rather than allowing it to become nothing more than a product to pander to the marketplace. So we should feel free to enjoy all the capabilities of our SLR (and DSLR) cameras, Photoshop and our iPhones with utter creative abandon!

Cell phones are just the latest manifestation of digital photography. I think that it's digital imaging that's changing the face of photography, not iPhones or even the Hipstamatic app.

Definitely that McLuhan thing of the new technology rendering the old one into an art form. Except now it's the new technology that becomes an instant art form, whether it's b/c these apps put an instantaneous stylistic flourish over the image, or b/c it's simply a new 'thing'. Certainly a pendulum will swing in the other direction back towards analog/film/lo-fi, as it did when graphic design was totally amped out on digitally generated aesthetics which ushered in hand-drawn graphics/aesthetic...

Technology that makes it easier for people to express themselves creatively should be embraced. It also forces the 'experts' to keep up with the tools, learn new skills, and try new techniques to advance their own art and keep it fresh.

Digital is great, but after going back to using standard film cameras for some of our outings, we've rediscovered the surprise and social element of film. That is, the fun and anticipation of getting your films developed and then sharing the actual copies with friends in person- making the recollection of events photographed a much more social interaction. Posting pictures online is social too but less so without the face to face meetings.

My 16 and 20 year olds love cameras. Digital and film. Both of them posted a photo on facebook each day for 1 year! The 365 project. Taken with real cameras. Nuf said in our house.

I, too, see the double edged sword, but I am happy to see people taking photographs of candids as they did when film(black & white and slide) was common to every household. People are documenting life and we cannot be displeased with that. I read a quote on Facebook that sums this up entirely: "A photographer went to a socialite party in New York. As he entered the front door, the host said ‘I love your pictures - they’re wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.’ He said nothing until dinner was finished, then: ‘That was a wonderful dinner; you must have a terrific stove." --Sam Haskins

I am a distance-school photography student. The school is very explicit in stating that they don't care what camera you use for the course, they only care that you do the assignments and learn what you need to learn. This is one of the older photography schools in the country, too, not something like Stratford Institute. I used to do portraits with an office-supply No. 2 pencil on typewriter paper. (They sold, too.) There are people right here at Etsy making jewelry with discarded cans and wrappers. The art is not in the material but in how it is put together. Cell phone camera photographs are every bit as much photography as those made with a Nikon D90.

I have always loved taking photos but never thought of myself as a photographer, just a hobbyist. I received a good 35mm camera for graduation only to find 5 years after that I couldn't use it because developing was so expensive, now its almost vintage! (only 10 year latter!) I was so against digital pictures because of this till I got my iphone this year.Now I have over 5000 pictures just from February (lol!) for a hobby it is quite fulfilling to find something that gives me the thrill my old camera did;) Id love to use my old camera but for now aps are fun

Technology is always going to change photography. Doesn't anyone remember the time when all you had was film and if you "got" the shot, you "got" the shot. There was no looking at your camera's screen to check for lighting problems or if you should re-shoot the image. A true photographer knew whether he/she got the shot. You'd bring your film in and get it developed or develop it yourself. And either you would have an amazing photo or nothing. To me that's photography.

the cell phone is just another tool in the long line of cameras, all increasingly more 'democratic', ubiquitous and convenient than the previous generation. It is, of course, what you do the tool that counts! Being a long-time collector of vintage cameras, photographs and related paraphernalia, I'll always love the charm and appeal of the analogue, well-built, well-crafted stuff. I also hope people don't forget (how?) to appreciate the 'old school' craft & quality of a hand-made BW photo made in a traditional dark room. The quality, look and feel of that kind of print is irreplaceable, and each is totally unique....

I am not sure why photography was ever considered as a medium to capture reality. Reality has always been manipulated in photographs by the user. One of the first documented cases of photo manipulation was back 1860s when Lincoln's head was printed on the body of John C. Calhoun by Mathew Brady. Brady is probably most famous for his Civil War photography so one has to wonder what manipulations may have been applied to those images. And, his photos were often transcribed to lithography plates to be reproduced in newspapers. There is another great opportunity to manipulate the journalistic image. How often are pictures in today's newspapers shot with a wide angle lens? That distortion right there warps the perspective. The distance between objects are dramatically exaggerated, and is often used to the photographer's advantage. Just being able to control the contrast of an image in the darkroom can influence the viewer. I remember my first exposure to digital journalism was while watching the evening news as Desert Storm erupted, and seeing soldiers running across sandy dunes. Either the image capture was compromised or the transmission of the footage, but clusters of pixels often haloed the soldiers, just for a split second, but it was inherent to the medium at that time. Was it intentional? I doubt it, but it is a quality I will always associate with Desert Storm. Is that footage less credible because of it's flaws. How about the slow, choppy video footage captured with iPhones from every country with protesting citizens right now?. Or is that not journalism because it was captured by regular citizens. Even the most straight forward images can not accurately represent truth all by itself. Eddie Adam's famous photograph of General Nguyen shows a visually menacing chiseled figure shooting a restrained horrified prisoner. The victim looks very young and not very militant in a plaid shirt. Immediately upon seeing the image you sympathize with the victim. The story that goes along with the image paints a different perspective. The prisoner is believed to be responsible for the death, only hours earlier, of six of General Nguyen's godchildren. If you put a camera in my hand, you're going to get a trace of my perspective no matter how neutral I try to be. It is inevitable.

I don't think so. There is a huge difference in the quality of a photo. Real cameras capture a different feel than the cell phone cameras.

Not only that, some researchers are also suggesting that our love of mobile phones could slowly be killing off the bee population. Don, http://bestbusinessbrands.blogspot.com/

I really interesting the article! And I think cell phones never kills photography. A large part of the development of human technology, I want to see that, makes it easier to see and to be able to see our efforts are sometimes considered.

Interesting. I think taking photos by using a real camera looks more precious, especially camera with film. ;)

Answer: nope... of course.

I think they both are equally as important. I like all the referances to painters, so true does anyone question their type of tools?? Example: I forgot my camera when I went to my sons school art show. Thankfully had my phone to take pix.

I like cameraphones for what they're good at - taking quick instant photos like a disposable camera or Polaroid. I wouldn't really use them to take 'arty' photos because they just aren't high quality enough, but I still enjoy it and I certainly dont see anything wrong with them!

Good point. Phones are taking the place of so many things.

@agregraymond I so agree. people tend to imagine that photojournalism shows the neutral truth, but all it shows is what someone else chooses for us to see. While I'm quite happy using my camera for photos & my phone for phone calls, I have no problem with people calling phone-pics "real" photos.

Photography is more than just capturing the perfect picture...it's about capturing a mood surrounding an event. Most of us strive for perfecting our Etsy photos with our digital cameras, but our cell phones can capture those spontaneous shots. How many times have I missed the shot on my Canon because I'm fiddling with all the buttons, trying to make it perfect. Cell phones, at least right now, are mostly point and shoot. And in some ways it's better to get the shot and capture the essense of the picture, than miss the opportunity alltogether.

I was fortunate to be able to get the latest iphone and the camera is truly astounding. Have started to use it now to take item photos for my shop. High resolution, sharp, and if I take the photos in mid-day light, I haven't had to edit the images much. This is a joyful thing for amateur photographers like me. Thanks for the article :)

Even when photojournalists used film to shoot subjects they had to choose a film type, which would automatically change the mood of the photo. Portra brings out the warmth in skin tones, while Fuji films are great for making green plants pop. It's very hard to draw a line on what's real and what's art. If you take a photo in warm interior lighting without white balancing the exposure, is that "real" or should you balance for the yellow lighting, as the human eye does? I don't think anyone is fooled into thinking that a hipstamatic photograph didn't use filters to achieve a nostalgic look. Now if an arm was removed in photoshop, or a red head changed to a brunette, I'd be much more upset. That's definitely considered misleading manipulation.

Interesting ! My opinion , phone for call and camera for pic Nadin

Any art is only art in the eye of the beholder and then, only if it brings enjoyment. If photos are manipulated to mislead or distort it's one thing. If it's manipulated to enhace the beauty, what is the harm? It's done to bring enjoyment to the beholder, and that's what art is all about.

its likely...

I can't stand the snobbery that's involved with the arts regarding materials and approach- it's the paramount reasons why I never became an exhibiting artist! Digital was hissed at by the oh-so-cool film purists, mainstream Hollywood is hissed at my arthouse film makers... it's all ridiculous. Anything that puts creativity in the hands and minds of 'ordinary' people should be celebrated. Even scrapbooking deserves a place! When the phone came out, it was said it would kill letter-writing. When the comic book became popular, it was said to be the death of proper reading skills. The TV would kill both phones and conversation, video killed the radio star etc etc. Media evolution will always be met with doomsayers.

Let's me out... don't own a cell phone...

I personally believe art is art. It doesn't matter what tools you use, it is what you use and say with/in the piece.

I was suprised at how easily I managed to 'improve' some holiday photos that I had scanned into my computer. This was before digital cameras were common and way before phones had cameras in. As all pictures can be altered I cannot see how one tool can be accused of killing the end result. The best and worst part of the digital age is the instant access that we have to all information. I take more pictures now that I can delete anything that has not worked, When I was worrying about the cost of film and developing I took fewer photos. My camera is preferred but if I dont have it with me I am glad my phone has a camera.

I don't think cell phones are killing photography. It's great to have your phone camera handy when you forget your camera. It is true that more people are taking pictures and one has to "fight" for a spot to take a photo. Yes, times have changed. I was in a store during a hail storm and everyone ran to the windows to take a picture of golf ball size hail. It was strange but also kind of exciting. I agree with whoever said that putting the opportunity to capture art in the average Joe's hands is a good thing. Digital cameras are awesome-you can take as many pictures as you want-you are bound to get some great ones. As an artist I used to be a snob about photography. I used to not even consider it art but in recent years I've seen some amazing photos. I'm sure camera companies will come up with cameras that don't come close to comaparing with what the new cameras can do.

I think that there is a natural tendency among many artists to feel like the way they do things is the best way. Some people take that feeling farther than others and cross over into outright snobbery. I have talked to a number of photographers that still feel like digital photography is not really art but times change. I usually use a DSLR but on a recent trip I only had time to grab my "point-and-shoot" to get a few shots. (No smart phone here and the camera on my phone is pathetically low quality.) I assumed that the pictures would not be good enough because I wasn't using my "good" camera. I was pleasantly surprised when I realized that one of my snaps came out wonderfully composed and really pretty good quality. Sometimes we just get it in our head that things will always be a certain way but times change and we have to change with them. Art is the communication of one person perspective; the more effective this communication the better the art ... whatever the medium.

I think all sorts of tools can be a great thing for creativity, and there is nothing wrong with using a cell phone to snap a photo. It's nice if it is introducing more people to photography. As a general rule, these photos aren't usually going to be as good as what can be produced by say a DSLR, but there's a place for them too. Cell phones are great for snaps, or occasionally for news if nothing else is impossible. My partner is a photojournalist- I think he would take exception to the idea that employing cell phone apps (essentially filters which *distort*) are covered by "policies toward the practice" which "are murky". At the newspaper where he works that would a fireable offence. Journalistic photos should never be distorted (unless clearly labelled a 'photo illustration' and used as art). Newspapers, if they really do have "murky" policies, must catch up to technology and clarify guidelines.

Oh, how I remember taking the last photo...and the can't wait to drop off the film at the local grocery store kind of feel. The waiting, the dreaming, and the always element of surprise when that one special moment, captured memory, in processed form ended up being a close-up of your index finger. Cry. Or worse yet the roll of film that got lost!! And relying on the "say cheese" frozen moment can sometimes be the best picture, unedited that stays (the way you want it) all in your head! Flash forward, I do love the instant grat. that comes with my iphone photos, but in the days of being patient with anticipation, we could all use a little more of that. Inez Dunn

I don't feel that its the kind of camera that is "killing" photography- but the apps and editing tools which alter the photographs. Babies with brilliant blue eyes, photoshopped photos pieced together for 1 etc. These may be gorgeous in the end- but is it reality?

I love the fact I can spontaneously capture moments with my iphone camera that just wouldn't be possible otherwise, as I am not in the habit of toting a camera around. Yesterday I photographed my sleeping dog in a wonderful peaceful pose, that would not have been possible if he'd heard me sneaking downstairs to get the proper camera. He is an inspiration for my designs so back-pocket camera is always at the ready.

Cell phones have so many features and functions, it's hard to say it is a really "good" camera. Phones are nice for convenience, a quick record on the go, but cameras are specifically made for capturing images, and in my mind they trump any phone camera feature.

We should just learn to accept the visual culture is changing. Yes camera phones are amazing for documentation as well as art photography. I do agree that cameras far better for photographs, but, I doesn't mean that when I take a picture from the iPhone is not just as artistic. Images are not objective but subjective, when we create something it is subjective. Let art be what it is art regardless of how its made, as long as no one gets hurt

I wonder what people used to do before the cell phone era, its applications for texting, and the options to take or not to take pictures? (I know). Yes, change is forever cultivating our perception on how we interpret and perceive things to be in our daily lives....it's revolving, every second...but personally, camera verses iphone....it's a personal choice for what you have in mind to accomplish. We live in a microwave society....and the mentally for most individuals is everything tends to be instantaneous, need it yesterday or the day before that...In essence, for the sake of modern technology let the iphone be used for what people use it for, and the camera, well, let it be used for what it is meant to capture, through the eyes of the photographer...

you know the saying "different strokes for different folks" ....what pleases the eye can and in many cases is indeed different for each person. If one takes a photo with a "phone with camera" and someone likes it ....no harm done that I can see. I LOVE taking photos but do use my camera because I like to and if I didn't........well I might use something else. :0) May God bless!

I learned photography back in the film days. You shot your images, you sweated while you processed the film, and you breathed a sigh of relief when your beautiful image was revealed. This was a process and took time and patience. I agree, the camera phones are great, although I do not own one myself, but feel camera photography is totally different. I love a film camera and I admire those that can use a film camera to capture beautiful photographs. But admit that it is a skill, although different, as well for those that use the camera phones and create rather than capture a beautiful image.

I'm checking out the hipstamatic. As I've been taking pictures on my iphone the past few years, it reminds me of the old days with my polaroid: I can't mess with dials and whatnot to adjust the apeture, color or focus very much, and have no idea what the shot will look like beforehand. I take a bunch of pictures, and surprisingly, some of them come out as truly beautiful--and moreso because they are unexpected--works of art. If anyone is interested in reading more about Photography and art, and the arguments photojournalism and photography have always sparwned about the nature of truth and reality and its manipulation, the classic works by Susan Sontag "On Photography, " Roland Barthes "Camera Lucida," and Walter Benjamin are still very relevant today. Also worth noting: Errol Morris's articles on the subject in The New York Times.

Well I don't have an iphone but I do have a small Nikon coolpix that goes everywhere with me. Sometimes my DSLR is just too bulky to take (try walking around the supermarket with it slung around your neck, you look at bit silly!). Because I always have my little camera though it means I have caught some really awesome shots that I would have done otherwise. I guess taking a photo with your phone is the same. I probably wouldn't sell any of those pics though. Maybe if my medium was different I would though. The photos I sell are usually ones I have gone out specially to take.

I dont think it matters what medium you use to take a picture! Its the picture itself that important. The picture is what draws us in and makes us feel that connection, not the camera.

I agree with others who note that the most important thing is the eye and heart of the photographer. The phone cameras are just another new tool to use or not depending on your personal preference. They certainly have a place in this world. Probably one of the biggest advantages of the camera phone is that you can sort of remain in the background when shooting say a "police action" in lower Manhattan as opposed to using a big ole DSLR.

I have had the same camera for years. It's not fancy or perfect (for example you have to shake it to get it to do the close ups right) but I love it and I work with it well. The quality of photography has absolutely NOTHING to do with the camera. I've taken cell phone pictures that look like they're right out of a National Geographic :)

It's an interesting take, that camera phones are encouraging creativity. I find the opposite. I can't tell you how much it urks me when a photo comes up on a social networking site with "photo stats" like they are real photographers, choosing what lense to use, at what zoom, etc., when they are really just clicking the effect they want to add to what would be a very mediocre photo otherwise. It's posted as if they are an amazingly talented photographer with a great eye and untapped talent. They may very well have fountains of undiscovered talent and passion ready to burst but rather than being so LAZY, why not purchase an actual camera and learn how those effects are created? If they have the money for an iphone, they most certainly have the money for a decent camera. I'm all for taking advantage of the technology of smartphones, just don't call yourself a photographer because of an app, or be ready to actually learn something about the art photography with a REAL camera.

The best camera is the one that's with you.

I don't think it matters what type of camera you use - you can still create interesting photos and share your world with others. It's all about experimentation and different photography styles. If you use a Holga, 4x5, 35 mm, a SLR, or a cellphone to create and explore, it just doesn't matter. I am all for more people enjoying photography in different ways.

Wow, an interesting article and so much debate by so many people. I don't use an iphone. Infact I now use a Cannon DSLR and sometimes, with it I use my Kodak Duaflex to create the old vintage images. It is a challenge to me. However, I realize that in this day and age, there are a variety of ways to create an image. When I was younger, I worked in a photolab processing film. My dad taught me that capturing what you see with your eye and conveying that message is not easy. I can understand why certain camps are annoyed with this new process, while others embrace it. However, personally I guess I love the idea that when I need them, there are tools available to go to the next step. Back in the day, one would use the darkroom to add or take away from the final image. Now days, we have apps, various cameras and photoshop. I personally, don't feel that it takes something away. I feel that I can embrace these options should I need them. At this point, I am enjoying using my Cannon digital camera and my old Kodak Duaflex together. However, I love....learning and continue to keep my heart and head open to all the possibilities out there to create and give back to the world!

Very interesting post. I agree that photo journalism presents a specific problem. While photography never gives us objective reality, its illusion of objectivity gives it a specific power in society that I think demands additional care. It doesn't matter if you digitally alter images with iPhone apps or Photoshop -- the issue is that the image was altered such that it changed the emotional quality of the image. This is when I think it is no longer appropriate for 'photo journalism.' Anyone remember the OJ trials? Most papers/magazines ran OJ's mug shot as the received it. I believe it was the NY Times who ran the same photo, but altered it so it looked darker and more sinister. They took a lot of heat for that one. Specific cases aside, it is an editor's responsibility to be sensitive to these kinds of biases. While it serves no end to can claim a photo is 'objective,' managing this spectrum of bias is crucial.

I think cell phones are SAVING photography. With the advent of digital cameras, soft, flattering photos became a thing of the past, and we are suddenly bombarded with unflattering high-res photos that highlight ever pore. Further, cell phones are less intrusive than cameras. Most people become stiff and uncomfortable when they realize a camera is pointed at them. Cell phones allow you to get natural, unposed shots of people. Apps like Instagram and Hipstamatic bring back the ARTISTRY and make it easy for everyone to take beautiful photos. Long live cell phone photography!

You get what you pay for. If you want to use a cell phone to take pictures, you may get some good shots, but the quality is capped and the megapixels are limited. I recently invested in a digital SLR and it was worth every penny!

What an interesting post! I can't decide how I feel about this. I agree more with those of you who say photography has always been manipulated and a cell phone camera is no more going to change that than any other kind of camera would. I think cell phone cameras are more for boredom and messing around with photography (with iPhone apps like Instagram where anyone can tap into their artistic side) but you can't compare it to the quality of a Nikon or a Canon. It'll be interesting to see how the future pans out though, perhaps camera phones will be able to do even more amazing things as the technology develops.

I think cell phones, along with all other digital cameras, are killing photography. Pictures are losing their spontaneity, why would you want to go through a dozen pictures to find the "perfect" (more like overly-posed and fake) one, when you could have ONE perfectly random picture that captures the moment perfectly?

The question is similar to the one that was posed initially regarding digital art and the use of filters. In the end I think the answer is that in art, there is room for pretty much anything and everything. It's the fact that someone is making it (or at least trying to) that is important.