This New York Times Lens Blog post by James Estrin should not be missed by anyone interested enough in photography to be a member of this forum.

Thank you for posting this link. Very interesting article.

Thanks, BD, for the link. Some interesting considerations were raised. I would think that the fine-art photographer is less threatened by such a proliferation of visual presentations....as opposed to the photojournalist who is likely to have to contend with multitudes of sources competing with his/her work.

Agree. Anyone with the ability to take a picture today likes to be called a "photographer". But the ability to point-and-shoot will never replace the ability to point and create and thereby to point and evoke; to see something special and use the tool that is photography to share that individual vision with others. In the world of painting, for example, this ability to go beyond the ordinary is why the Mona Lisa continues to smile at us mysteriously and why we so dedicatedly preserve the Sistine Chapel while thousands, perhaps millions, of other paintings have long since crumbled to dust and every day more are passed over on eBay and at garage sales and end up in the landfills. In photography, a recent set of images I saw reminded me that no one will ever replace the crisp photo of the returning WWII vet kissing that white-clad nurse on V-Day or the hurried shot of Mussolini and his closest compadres hanging upside-down at that gas station in Italy...and so on.

There are many, many people who have excellent photographic technique but who lack true and inspiring vision. Conversely there are those who can use a cheap cell phone and capture an image we will remember for the rest of our lives.

So at the end of the day, perhaps the real - eternal - question is: what choose you?

If you choose the path of vision (visionary?), then, as it has always been throughout history, your path will be an oft-lonely one. Even in this age of instant fame, it's become even less than 15 minutes; technology has decidedly outpaced evolution and sensory overload has created chronic cultural ADD. But while it may be harder to separate the wheat from the chaff these days, standouts always seem to find a way to eventually reach the top. But only we can decide for ourselves if we have it in us to pursue with the dedication required and to accept that it may well be that our vision won't be appreciated until after we're gone.

PJ.

Originally Posted by black mamba Thanks, BD, for the link. Some interesting considerations were raised. I would think that the fine-art photographer is less threatened by such a proliferation of visual presentations....as opposed to the photojournalist who is likely to have to contend with multitudes of sources competing with his/her work.

I think there is more too this, than that, Scurious. The problem is that the proliferation of cell phone cameras, which now are ubiquitous, coupled with the explosion of social media, is drowning us in images - I can't even bring myself to type "photographs," most of which are of things that even most people with digital point and shoots wouldn't have 'wasted' pixels on, let alone serious photographers with serious film cameras. As Estrin notes, every bit of food on a plate gets phoneographed, and tweeted or posted to Facebook, where people "Like" it or don't. And what people "like" and "share" tends to be the crap. This isn't by any means just an issue for photo journalists, it is an issue for anyone who is vaguely serious about photography, and there are precious few of us left. It of course raises the question: When everyone has a 'camera,' is anyone a photographer? The vast, vast majority of people - including well educated people, wouldn't know a quality photograph if it bit them in the eye. To them, a good photograph is one with realistic color rendition and a subject that or who is in focus. Look at the absolute crap, purile treacle, that circulates on the Web - sun sets over icebergs, images of German castles that have been photoshopped into fairy tale illustrations, wedding photos that - I can't begin to describe what those godawful things look like or are. But how often do you see a truly outstanding photographic image that is shared and reshared? Damn rarely. Art photography? Most people don't know what art photography is - if they did, that Australian woman who sticks babies in cabbages wouldn't be the world's most successful photographer - in terms of books, calendars, etc., sold. And, for that matter, Moonrise Over A Big Rock would not be most people's idea of gorgeous photography. ;-)

Originally Posted by bdcolen Most people don't know what art photography is - if they did, that Australian woman who sticks babies in cabbages wouldn't be the world's most successful photographer - in terms of books, calendars, etc., sold. And, for that matter, Moonrise Over A Big Rock would not be most people's idea of gorgeous photography. ;-)

Gee, I kind of liked my moonrise over a big rock. Now I feel so ashamed.

Originally Posted by bdcolen I think there is more too this, than that, Scurious. The problem is that the proliferation of cell phone cameras, which now are ubiquitous, coupled with the explosion of social media, is drowning us in images - I can't even bring myself to type "photographs," most of which are of things that even most people with digital point and shoots wouldn't have 'wasted' pixels on, let alone serious photographers with serious film cameras. As Estrin notes, every bit of food on a plate gets phoneographed, and tweeted or posted to Facebook, where people "Like" it or don't. And what people "like" and "share" tends to be the crap. This isn't by any means just an issue for photo journalists, it is an issue for anyone who is vaguely serious about photography, and there are precious few of us left. It of course raises the question: When everyone has a 'camera,' is anyone a photographer? The vast, vast majority of people - including well educated people, wouldn't know a quality photograph if it bit them in the eye. To them, a good photograph is one with realistic color rendition and a subject that or who is in focus. Look at the absolute crap, purile treacle, that circulates on the Web - sun sets over icebergs, images of German castles that have been photoshopped into fairy tale illustrations, wedding photos that - I can't begin to describe what those godawful things look like or are. But how often do you see a truly outstanding photographic image that is shared and reshared? Damn rarely. Art photography? Most people don't know what art photography is - if they did, that Australian woman who sticks babies in cabbages wouldn't be the world's most successful photographer - in terms of books, calendars, etc., sold. And, for that matter, Moonrise Over A Big Rock would not be most people's idea of gorgeous photography. ;-)

Hmmm .... strong opinions from a documentary photographer; trashing beautiful images that please people... over mundane street work. Images that many people pay for.

Documentary photogs who believe they are artists because they capture a moment make me smile.

I recognize that - that moment can, turn people around and can be more relevant than art, but it is not original or creation and it is not art... that's my opinion.

If one says a composite photo is not photography, it is true; the image maker is creating an image that was not seen, can be called art. If a documentary photog captures a moment and excludes some of what was seen; presenting an image to make a point - that is not art, but good craft (aesthetic journalism?). Like her work or not the cabbage lady is an artist (not a photographer) using her camera as a tool (like a brush) to produce images (not seen) for her clients.

The documentary shot of a couple of monks with police holding them down comes to mind, that was printed in newspapers. The original image included a gang of monks that had been throwing rocks at those policemen. Inclusion of this in the printed image would have produced a different story and justification of the police actions.

I've seen a lot of Facebook style postings here, more since the name change. Many have been posted under the guise of learning, fair enough... that's what this community wants, no problem.

Perhaps photography is being devalued everyday

Seems to me, some of the proliferation of photos have a basis in the perceived need to contribute to the concept of community, without regard to the value of what is shown or said; add some self indulgence and it equals boring. Nothing wrong with boring, it's just... well... boring.

The link is a good one, because it can make the reader think... (it made me do so)

Hey kdog... did you put the moon there?... (a Lik job?)...

Nice shot...

Originally Posted by torags Hey kdog... did you put the moon there?... (a Lik job?)... Nice shot...

Thanks, Rags. No it's real and took a lot of planning and effort to get. Had I known the whole genre was crap, I wouldn't have bothered!

B.D., that is exactly what I meant by "technology has decidedly outpaced evolution and sensory overload has created chronic cultural ADD". We have some pretty freakin' amazing technology at our disposal now, if you ask me, but what with the normal human need for recognition (lest we be left behind to be eaten by a predator), we're collectively still mostly at the "monkey discovers button" stage and all that gleeful pushing has resulted in image overload.

I would bet there were legitimate laments when paints and brushes became more widely available, and there were laments of how magazines would ruin it for good writers. Neither one turned out to be true, of course. Slowly but surely, as with all previous advances in the arts, a standard will come to be understood by the collective and those who strive to reach the highest bar will rise above the flotsam and jetsam of the everyday.

We have the ability to vote with our dollars (and our "likes" and such). I personally won't pay money to go see crappy art, regardless who does it. Nor do I make purchases of items featuring crap images. I suppose it may be said that those of us who take photography seriously have a duty and an obligation to teach; a lot of this should be part and parcel of the childhood educational process, whether in a traditional setting or home schooling. Heck, I've gotten into it (mildly) here about the difference between a true photograph and a graphic created with a photo and Photoshop. (Hint: too much PS does not a true photograph make.)

PJ.

Originally Posted by bdcolen I think there is more too this, than that, Scurious. The problem is that the proliferation of cell phone cameras, which now are ubiquitous, coupled with the explosion of social media, is drowning us in images - I can't even bring myself to type "photographs," most of which are of things that even most people with digital point and shoots wouldn't have 'wasted' pixels on, let alone serious photographers with serious film cameras. As Estrin notes, every bit of food on a plate gets phoneographed, and tweeted or posted to Facebook, where people "Like" it or don't. And what people "like" and "share" tends to be the crap. This isn't by any means just an issue for photo journalists, it is an issue for anyone who is vaguely serious about photography, and there are precious few of us left. It of course raises the question: When everyone has a 'camera,' is anyone a photographer? The vast, vast majority of people - including well educated people, wouldn't know a quality photograph if it bit them in the eye. To them, a good photograph is one with realistic color rendition and a subject that or who is in focus. Look at the absolute crap, purile treacle, that circulates on the Web - sun sets over icebergs, images of German castles that have been photoshopped into fairy tale illustrations, wedding photos that - I can't begin to describe what those godawful things look like or are. But how often do you see a truly outstanding photographic image that is shared and reshared? Damn rarely. Art photography? Most people don't know what art photography is - if they did, that Australian woman who sticks babies in cabbages wouldn't be the world's most successful photographer - in terms of books, calendars, etc., sold. And, for that matter, Moonrise Over A Big Rock would not be most people's idea of gorgeous photography. ;-)

Huh. I like babies with cabbages on their heads. I like photos of moonrises over big rocks. Maybe I'm not snobbish enough-- I even think that movable type was a good idea.

And I think everyone should be allowed to try to create art, regardless of aptitude. I even have a watercolor set I drag out from time to time to embarrass myself with. (No doubt the great masters are shaking their heads in disgust because I don't grind my own pigments.)

This kind of thing has been going on for centuries across all sorts of media. It doesn't stop the great stuff from being great or the bad stuff from being bad.

I'm not convinced that the proliferation of cell phone pics on the Web is going to have any lasting impact on the art and craft of photography. Just as cinema didn't spell the death of theater and TV didn't kill cinema (and YouTube hasn't replaced TV), serious photography will survive on its own merits. Yeah, sure, there are billions of disposable images floating around, but we ignore them just like we ignore the millions of bloggers who have nothing interesting to say. Sturgeon's law (90% of everything is crap) is nothing new.

On the other hand, the business of photography will likely be altered in unpredictable ways--weddings may be crowd-sourced, news media may rely more on the free submissions by amateurs, photo editors may become more valuable than photographers. A decreasing number of images will ever find their way to print, and probably in the not too distant future display technology will far surpass print in resolution, color gamut and (especially) dynamic range. But I don't think that any of that is going to substitute for the value some of us place on the product of a fine photographic eye. Photography will survive even if the photograph as physical artifact becomes obsolete.

Originally Posted by Richard I'm not convinced that the proliferation of cell phone pics on the Web is going to have any lasting impact on the art and craft of photography. Just as cinema didn't spell the death of theater and TV didn't kill cinema (and YouTube hasn't replaced TV), serious photography will survive on its own merits. Yeah, sure, there are billions of disposable images floating around, but we ignore them just like we ignore the millions of bloggers who have nothing interesting to say. Sturgeon's law (90% of everything is crap) is nothing new. On the other hand, the business of photography will likely be altered in unpredictable ways--weddings may be crowd-sourced, news media may rely more on the free submissions by amateurs, photo editors may become more valuable than photographers. A decreasing number of images will ever find their way to print, and probably in the not too distant future display technology will far surpass print in resolution, color gamut and (especially) dynamic range. But I don't think that any of that is going to substitute for the value some of us place on the product of a fine photographic eye. Photography will survive even if the photograph as physical artifact becomes obsolete.

Well said. But what do you hang on your wall?

Originally Posted by kdog Thanks, Rags. No it's real and took a lot of planning and effort to get. Had I known the whole genre was crap, I wouldn't have bothered!

Most don't know the technical aspect of the shot, besides the resolution & capture. It looks like a sun setting with a moon rising, simultaneously.

How close am I?

Originally Posted by torags Most don't know the technical aspect of the shot, besides the resolution & capture. It looks like a sun setting with a moon rising, simultaneously. How close am I?

Spot on, Rags. I researched the date months in advance where the moonrise would occur exactly at sunset. That happens maybe once a year like this. Also taken into account is the azimuth of the moonrise which tells you where on the horizon that the moon will rise. Armed with that information, I arrived in Sedona well before the moonrise and drove around with a compass and scouted a location with the view I wanted of Cathedral Rock as viewed at the same angle as the moonrise. I climbed up on a knoll set up my tripod and sat staring at this damn rock as the sun sank lower and lower into the horizon at my back. Amazingly, just when I was worried it wouldn't happen, the moon popped up right at peak alpenglow on the red rocks and I got my shot.

This shot is not original of course. It's just another one of those iconic southwestern bucket list shots. Although, variances in the orbits of the celestial objects in question will make each one of these shots unique. I really lucked out on the timing on this one because the color was exquisite.

So yeah, given the months of planning and a couple of days invested to get a shot like this, I do reserve the right to get my panties in a bunch when someone equates the whole genre to the likes of a cell phone snapshot.

Rags, cool your jets. I'll get back to this topic in a couple of days, but my straight forward take is the article didn't come to a conclusion or view beyond there are many, many more banal pictures being captured and shared without any particular intent.

Do you want to lift your storytelling above the fray?

Originally Posted by michswiss Do you want to lift your storytelling above the fray?

How do I do that ?

Originally Posted by NYT A photograph is no longer predominantly a way of keeping a treasured family memory or even of learning about places or people that we would otherwise not encounter. It is now mainly a chintzy currency in a social interaction and a way of gazing even further into one’s navel.

I think this statement is complete bullshit. If anything, the proliferation of cell phones and social media have given family members, especially those who are spread out, to share their lives with not only other family members but their friends. Calling those photos "chintzy currency in a social interaction" is pretty disingenuous.

Originally Posted by ian408 I think this statement is complete bullshit. If anything, the proliferation of cell phones and social media have given family members, especially those who are spread out, to share their lives with not only other family members but their friends. Calling those photos "chintzy currency in a social interaction" is pretty disingenuous.

I agree Ian. Actually the proliferation may make family "prints" more valuable.

I suspect access to digital family shots will be basically unaccessable due to the number (without titles). It will be like looking thru a full dumpster for a postcard.

I'm perplexed by photographers who keep their stuff on tetra bit hard disks.

Originally Posted by torags I suspect access to digital family shots will be basically unaccessable due to the number (without titles). It will be like looking thru a full dumpster for a postcard.

That's where services like SmugMug and other sharing sites could offer products that were more archival in nature (and less sharing).

The big danger is probably more the proliferation of Facebook sharing and the possibility those services go away and those photographs are just gone.