An absolute must read
bdcolen
Registered Users Posts: 3,804 Major grins
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.
bd@bdcolenphoto.com
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
0
Comments
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.
"Where beauty moves and wit delights and signs of kindness bind me; there, oh there, whe'er I go I leave my heart behind me." (Thomas Ford, 1607)
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Link to my Smugmug site
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)
Nice shot...
Link to my Smugmug site
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.
"Where beauty moves and wit delights and signs of kindness bind me; there, oh there, whe'er I go I leave my heart behind me." (Thomas Ford, 1607)
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.
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?
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?
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. :giggle
Link to my Smugmug site
Do you want to lift your storytelling above the fray?
How do I do that ?
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.
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.
That's a good idea.
I'm sure facial recognition will play a role in archival retrieval but the amount of mis hits would be beyond human scale (my guess)
Facial recognition is pretty good. And it you've only got to search the pool of known images (ie; friends and family), it'll be pretty easy. The real issue will be training people to archive or providing them tools to make that easy for them.
I guess this whole topic was discussed when the Brownie came out and probably again when the Instamatic and Polaroid did again (albeit in smaller groups
The Falling Man
PJ.
"Where beauty moves and wit delights and signs of kindness bind me; there, oh there, whe'er I go I leave my heart behind me." (Thomas Ford, 1607)
Wow.... well done vid and fitting post for today
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
Very true.
The discussion of digital photos, families, and archives is a prime example. There is a company out there that's already worked out a system to deal with all of those problems, and it's in use daily by ordinary people. But there's a reason it might not have been mentioned already. Let's work through it, starting with a summary of some of the questions already asked:
Q: How can a family possibly organize their photos in a way they could be found in the future?
A: Well, they oughta tag 'em.
Q: Who wants to tag 10,000 photos?
A: Face recognition would speed that up quite a bit.
Q: Won't face recognition take up too much resources, false hits, etc.
A: Picasa, iPhoto, Aperture, Facebook, etc. already have consumer-friendly face recognition in the market.
Q: Wouldn't there be other ways of organizing family photos other than individuals?
A: Oh, maybe by key life events, events with friends and family...
Now let's talk about the company that is doing this.
As you import photos, it's already checking your contact list for face matches. That dramatically lowers the computational requirements because the universe of faces is suddenly very small. To avoid false hits, it asks you to confirm the faces it's identified. Since you want the photos to be in the context of family history, the album is dated and you can assign a location. It will appear on a historical timeline next to other photos and events entered at different times.
What you have, in the end, is a virtual photographic diary, automatically arranged by time, searchable by family member, event, location...
What I just described is how Facebook already works.
The irony I'm talking about is that I suspect a lot of the people who are asking these questions might be some of the same people who often post how much they hate Facebook and never use it. Now, I hate Facebook as much as the next guy, but I sort of have to use it, and sort of fortunately, this means I have some understanding of what they're doing and I have to admit some aspects are pretty well thought out. To integrate Facebook Timeline/Events/Albums/Locations in a useful way requires a ton of personal information, which is why we hate Facebook, but they have certainly worked out a blueprint for organizing a family's digital life. (Which I hope someone else can do much better.)
Q: Oh, but isn't Facebook evil so they keep all your stuff? What happens if they fold, is your family screwed?
A: You should use the option that lets you download a copy of your entire account, including every photo album you ever uploaded. I do this every year or so.
The guy's writing from Perpignan; if you're writing from there, it's best you either have something to say or you say something loudly. He's an effective wordsmith but he contradicts himself. Hopefully he's a better photographer than he is a blogger. I don't think he thought much about what he wrote here.
This "The question is: How does the photographic community harness this explosion of visual energy to expand its audience? This is what needs to be focused on." seems kind of like an effete Chicken Little. If he has any thoughts about it, it might be interesting to know what they are.
I think he's just got enough hot air to rise up and float around and be visible.
This is excellent, I had no clue. Thanks, colourbox.
I do think the fact that everyone is a photographer now will increase the appreciation for serious photography but only by a small percentage. When I started getting serious about photography five years back or so, I gravitated to certain tastes and genres. There was a lot I didn't "get" or like. My tastes have changed substantially and artists like Friedlander or Sternfeld, Shore and Soth, are now some of my favorites (among many others). But I don't think a majority end up making that leap. Most people much prefer Robert Kincaid to Goya, and that's okay ... sort of ....
All of that said, I do believe the biggest impact is on the ability to make a living for the truly gifted committed photographers, and by that I mean those with a real vision and something to say. But that has always been a problem for artists. Sure, it's tough to rise above the ever-increasing noise but the one's that do, that push the hardest or have the vision and the drive to claw their way to the surface (and the trust fund), will still be appreciated, even if it isn't necessarily by the "masses."
For myself, a person of middling talent who just started to get good enough to get magazine assignments when the bottom dropped out, I see no chance to make a living with photography. I'm starting to believe this may have been a blessing. I've refocused and continue to refine my personal work, still skipping around yet trying to settle down within at least a handful of multiple personalities, but finding the joy in the avocation of truly trying to "see" as opposed to succumbing to the soul suck of shoving the roundness of personal fulfillment into the unforgiving square hole of commercial vocation. There is still hope for enough scratch from the "right" kind of work to pay for equipment. (ahem, Le Monde, still waiting for that wire transfer) and I can live with that.
In the end, I just want a coherent body of work that evolves and for which I can be proud as I continue to change the way I see the world. Someday maybe someone will even "get it."
He is channeling the angst that many committed professional documentary photographers, photojournalists and others are feeling right now within those communities. To those serious enough and talented enough to sacrifice everything, up to and including their lives, the ability to make a living from this work, and therefore the ability to do this work at all for so many truly talented visual storytellers, is very much in jeopardy. It ain't chicken little at all when you got Pultizer (and World Press Photo) winners who can't get work, end up working at Walmart, or worse, shooting weddings full time.
So, I think his question is a good one, and one everyone is asking, and for which there really are no answers in a landscape that is changing with exponentially increasing speed.