Everyone is taking photos... But then what's wrong with that?

GSNfan

GSNfan

Well-known
Local time
2:57 AM
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
644
View My Gallery
A semi-famous photographer said he could not take photos in a certain event because there were 30 to 40 'amateurs' (and he used that word) in front and blocked his shots...

I found his comment really arrogant, did he expect everyone to step aside so his holiness takes his shots? What gives him more right to take picture of 'something' than the amateur with his/her camera?

We hear people complaining all the time that there are too many people with cameras taking photos, flicker is a landfill of useless images, all quality is lost in the overwhelming quantity etc... It seems as if people like everyone else to stop taking photos so their photos stand out. This sort of absurd fisherman mentality as if photos are fish and have a limited quantity in a certain pond is becoming really tiresome.

But then again, its mostly the self-appointed guardians of photography, the semi-famous and almost famous photographers that are making the most noise with their complaints...

Anyway, now that photography has become truly democratic and we don't need some semi-famous photographer to show the world to us with their photos, don't you think we should also take the attitude that everyone has the right to take photos as they like.
 
Got no problem with that.

Sorta like what's been going on the in thread "Sontag Squared." Ms. Sontag in her esay "On Photography"making her comment about the need for an "ecology of images." Really , I like the way these self-appointed elites try to dictate to us plebians how we should live our lives and what we should or should not do...
 
Paul Luscher said:
.... Really , I like the way these self-appointed elites try to dictate to us plebians how we should live our lives and what we should or should not do...
Click to expand...

Indeed, I'm beginning to feel as if the same people that we or I hold in esteem are actually the same people who have caused this current stagnation in still photography.

Photography is still in its infancy and yet there is talk of doom and gloom simply because the same so called elites can longer make money because their images have become irrelevant and so is their style...
 
Photography has been subjected to the same pressures that all other content forms in a digital age have been over the past ten years.

And, like in all the other media, the "old guard" doesn't like it and wants to stop or at least slow the progress. In a way you can't blame them. But it's not the way forward.
 
Hi,
I am new to the forum, but this post caught my eye.
I was recently trying to take photographs at a Rally Championships in the UK. Not only were us paying spectators kept a good 200 metres away from the cars (health & safety don't you know!!), but in the one area where we could get a half decent shot of cars going through a water splash, all the pro photographers were gathered a few yards from the water blocking the view in their day-glo jackets and messing up any image that us amateurs did manage to get. I found this particularly frustrating as we had paid £25 to get into the event and of course they would have got in for nothing.
 
The semi famous photographer may just have been describing what happened. There's nothing in what he said that was necessarily arrogant rather than plainly descriptive.

Welcome, Jerry!
 
For me, I worry about the democratization of photography because it has made us all "little fish in a big sea". Back in the '50s when HCB, Erwitt, and Smith were taking photos, it was a lot easier to be a "big fish in a little sea". So be it. For me, it's more of an existential crisis. My photos mean a lot to me, but I feel that they are washed away in the tide of images people see every day.

It is what it is; there's no reversing the tide now.
 
hipsterdufus said:
For me, I worry about the democratization of photography because it has made us all "little fish in a big sea". Back in the '50s when HCB, Erwitt, and Smith were taking photos, it was a lot easier to be a "big fish in a little sea". So be it. For me, it's more of an existential crisis. My photos mean a lot to me, but I feel that they are washed away in the tide of images people see every day.

It is what it is; there's no reversing the tide now.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your honesty but if you have what it take to be a 'big fish' you'll become a big fish no matter how many other fish are out there. HCB did not become famous because he was the only one, he became famous because he changed the rules. In India they have a saying that every lizard dreams to grow up and become a crocodile... Whether we're a lizard or a crocodile, we should leave it to time.

But then again even HCB would want to us to leave his ghost and many other top photographers alone.


Photography is not some cheap solution to existential crisis as a lot of people mistake it to be.
 
GSNfan said:
It seems as if people like everyone else to stop taking photos so their photos stand out. This sort of absurd fisherman mentality as if photos are fish and have a limited quantity in a certain pond is becoming really tiresome.

But then again, its mostly the self-appointed guardians of photography, the semi-famous and almost famous photographers that are making the most noise with their complaints...
Click to expand...

I've seen this in the music world too. People think that they are good and if they were just discovered, they'd "make it big." While one of these bands may be good, they are not disctinct / good enough to stand out. I feel the same way about photography. If your work is really great or original (not just good or competent or copy cat photos), and it is out there in the public's eye, it will be noticed eventually.

To me, it is the viewers job to decide if the photos are worth looking at. I look at photos everyday and ignore many too. However, the truly great ones are the ones I remember... and still have time for no matter how many images are in the world.

To say someone should not make photos is to say they aren't good enough. Photography is something to be enjoyed and that means everyone is entitled to do it. However, that doesn't mean people have to look at them.
 
Last edited:
GSNfan said:
I appreciate your honesty but if you have what it take to be a 'big fish' you'll become a big fish no matter how many other fish are out there.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with this. I've seen plenty of amazing photographers, whether they shoot street, art, surreal, etc. And none of them have been "discovered". None of them can make a living off from the amazing images they shoot. I have a hard time believing that it's just as easy now to make as big of an impact in photography as it was in the 1950's. No facts to back it up, but I think most photographers would agree with this statement.

Photography is not some cheap solution to existential crisis as a lot of people mistake it to be.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not positing this statement as a fact, but merely as an opinion. Many people find meaning in their art. Photography can produce art. Existentialism states (loosely) that it is up to the individual to find meaning in life. I don't know how photography and art can be excluded from that, if it works for someone...
 
jsrockit said:
I've seen this in the music world too. People think that they are good and if they were just discovered, they'd "make it big." While one of these bands may be good, they are not disctinct / good enough to stand out. I feel the same way about photography. If your work is really great or original (not just good or competent or copy cat photos), and it is out there in the public's eye, it will be noticed eventually.

To me, it is the viewers job to decide if the photos are worth looking at. I look at photos everyday and ignore many too. However, the truly great ones are the ones I remember...

To say someone should not make photos is to say they aren't good enough. Photography is something to be enjoyed and that means everyone is entitled to do it. However, that doesn't mean people have to look at them.
Click to expand...

The music analogy is a good one. Photography is sort of like music industry and making it big is as hard as becoming a famous singer.
 
I like to get my solutions to existential crisis as cheaply as possible, personally.
 
Last edited:
Why are 41 people taking the same picture of the same thing?

It sounds to me like these "elites" have done a fricking good job of dictating to these "plebians" what they should be looking at. Is the 'semi-famous guy' any more stagnant in his approach than the 40 other photographers doing the same thing?

Don't get me wrong, I hear the commercial photographers around town bitching to high heavens about collapsed stock and "everyone being a photographer", and of course, that's a bad attitude, and lends one to question the value of a commercial photographer when everyone can take the same picture. Yet at the same time, there are plenty of photographers whose work has risen above by walking away from the 41 others and doing their own thing. And this has nothing to do with being famous or not.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Not sure I agree with this. I've seen plenty of amazing photographers, whether they shoot street, art, surreal, etc. And none of them have been "discovered". None of them can make a living off from the amazing images they shoot. I have a hard time believing that it's just as easy now to make as big of an impact in photography as it was in the 1950's. No facts to back it up, but I think most photographers would agree with this statement.
Click to expand...

Its not impossible, its just that with more photographers there is more competition... And like everything in life competition is a good thing because only the very best will make it and the rest will fade away... You should confront that as an exciting challenge and not something to get you down. After all you have nothing to lose.

I hope you're not positing this statement as a fact, but merely as an opinion. Many people find meaning in their art. Photography can produce art. Existentialism states (loosely) that it is up to the individual to find meaning in life. I don't know how photography and art can be excluded from that, if it works for someone...
Click to expand...

Of course its an opinion but a I believe in it. For one if you hinge your whole existence on photography you run the risk of living for photography and taking set backs you face with your photos as setbacks in life which is misguided... You should always stay grounded in objective reality. Photography is part of your life but not everything... Just take a look at all the misunderstood artists and their quiet despair and you'll feel much better about the fact that you have the option not to follow in that direction.
 
GSNfan said:
A semi-famous photographer said he could not take photos in a certain event because there were 30 to 40 'amateurs' (and he used that word) in front and blocked his shots...
Click to expand...

Sorry, if you a Pro and hired to document a event, something like that is really ... annoying. Because they have fun, you pay the bill...
 
I don't see how the democratization brought on by the internet combined with the explosion of digital capture (that's what we're talking about) could hurt photography.
Does it makes hard to find interesting work buried under a mountain of mediocre stuff? Perhaps, but then again the internet itself is an outstanding platform for filtering, promoting and amplifying good stuff (e.g. blogs, platforms, collectives).
Does it make it hard for new artists to emerge? I doubt it. Good work, coming from a vision and dedication, will have more opportunity to emerge.
It's almost a darwinian process: the democratization brought to the surface so much excellence that people serious about photography feel pushed to get better and better at it. This can generate either excitement or frustration. To each one deciding in what side to stand.
Back to the music example: many bands won't make tons of money with just selling records, hence the comeback of live music fueled by self-promotion - anyone feels that is a negative outcome?


GSNfan said:
Anyway, now that photography has become truly democratic and we don't need some semi-famous photographer to show the world to us with their photos, don't you think we should also take the attitude that everyone has the right to take photos as they like.
Click to expand...
 
haempe said:
Sorry, if you a Pro and hired to document a event, something like that is really ... annoying. Because they have fun, you pay the bill...
Click to expand...


This is the point the "semi-famous" photog was likely trying to make. Turning it into to an "Us vs. Them rant" is really silly and a bit chippy imo. Everyone no matter what they do for a living has some complaint about their job. Amateurs making a pro's job more difficult whether it's photography, or the proliferation of the Bloggosphere watering down journalism.... is a valid complaint. But I think it is just a complaint. Not some sort of battle cry. In other words. The status of amateur photographers is safe from the semi-famous and famous pros of this world.
 
Maybe grocery stores should stop carrying milk because its hurt the milkmen's business?

Photography is less of a commodity than it was 50 years ago. Is there any use in moralizing it? Whether it's 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad' - it will not change.

There still are, and will always be great photographers. It's easy to look back and see all the great photographers from the past - their work has survived. The chaff has been burned from the past, and we enjoy the rest. Is there more chaff today? Who cares. It doesn't make great art less great. I think it makes it better, personally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom