Culling your photos? Some advice in The New Yorker

Thanks for the article.

This was interesting:

The late Erich Hartmann, a past president of Magnum, once showed me his friend Henri Cartier-Bresson’s negatives and contact sheets, stored at the famous photo agency’s New York offices in rows of three-ring binders lined up on shelves. Sheet after sheet contained not a single photograph I recognized. Some worked, most didn’t—not even for H.C.B.
Click to expand...
 
raydm6 said:
This was interesting:
Click to expand...

Yet, people here still talk about keeper rate etc. It does not matter. Even the greats made a lot of bad photos. The key is that their best photos were better than most everyone else. That said, the article was a bit thin on real advice for serious photographers.
 
Even good photographers take, mostly, forgettable photos.
The smart ones (like HCB) just don't show them to anyone.
"Greatness is always improbable.
Petty and dull, that is probable."
Tao Te Ching
 
So Mike Johnson's advice for culling your iPhone photos is to go through them with fresh eyes giving each one of them time to breath? Gosh, why didn't I think of that?
 
jsrockit said:
Yet, people here still talk about keeper rate etc. It does not matter. Even the greats made a lot of bad photos. The key is that their best photos were better than most everyone else. That said, the article was a bit thin on real advice for serious photographers.
Click to expand...

I posted this in another thread recently, and paraphrased here: it's not the photos you take, it's the ones you show...

Learning how to cull is as much a talent as is creating the image. Learning how to see whether any of what's been culled is worth showing is yet another learning curve. You can teach composition, color, form, dynamism, narration (in western culture we read text and imagery left to right, top to bottom) and critique, but none of that necessarily equates to a compelling image.

Self critique. What is the image's narrative? Who is the intended audience for the image? Why show this image at this moment? And, does any of the above translate into a compelling image, an image the viewer will return to?

Talent, skill, practice, persistence. Repeat. If all else fails, spend some time with Rembrandt's drawings and sketches. Look at what he selected to record, then visualize them as photos... http://www.rembrandtpainting.net/rem...ings_start.htm
 
There's too many variables that go into 'what to show' unless there is already a frame of reference (or context) that can be explained and agreed upon by a wide audience. But whatever the context, (historical event, horrific expose, personal indulgence) what's agreed upon in the emotional connection and understanding of that world for the viewer. Too be able to choose those images is often up to a very good editor.
 
mapgraphs said:
Learning how to cull is as much a talent as is creating the image. Learning how to see whether any of what's been culled is worth showing is yet another learning curve.
Click to expand...

Oh believe me, I know... and then there's contextualizing the images into a cohesive project as well.
 
Nitroplait said:
I have enjoyed "The Online Photographer" since the beginning, in the mid 00's. One of the last worthwhile photography blogs left.
Click to expand...

PaulW128 said:
Agree 100% Nitroplait. Mike Johnston is a great writer, whatever he chooses to write about.
Click to expand...
On any given day there is a better than even chance that whatever he is writing about has nothing to do with photography. I stopped reading his blog a couple of years ago. Too much blah, blah, blah about blah, blah, blah. Who cares about his diet, his addiction, his eye surgery, his trees falling down, his interest in audio equipment, his passion for playing pool, etc. And when his blog entry was about photography, it was about as valuable as his article on culling your photos linked to above. That being said, he does seem like a nice enough guy.


PaulW128 said:
If you don't happen to agree, just don't read the article!
Click to expand...
It is sort of hard to decide whether you happen to agree with something until you read it, so that's not really helpful advice.
 
ptpdprinter said:
On any given day there is a better than even chance that whatever he is writing about has nothing to do with photography. I stopped reading his blog a couple of years ago. Too much blah, blah, blah about blah, blah, blah. Who cares about diet, his addiction, his eye surgery, his trees falling down, his interest in audio equipment, his passion for playing pool, etc. And when his blog entry was about photography, it was about as valuable as his article on culling your photos linked to above. That being said, he does seem like a nice enough guy.



It is sort of hard to decide whether you happen to agree with something until you read it, so that's not really helpful advice.
Click to expand...

A long life and lots of experience have taught me that there is nothing that has "nothing to do with photography". All of my experience enters into my work, in one way or another. Including (or perhaps especially!) breakfast.
 
ptpdprinter said:
On any given day there is a better than even chance that whatever he is writing about has nothing to do with photography. I stopped reading his blog a couple of years ago. Too much blah, blah, blah about blah, blah, blah. Who cares about his diet, his addiction, his eye surgery, his trees falling down, his interest in audio equipment, his passion for playing pool, etc. And when his blog entry was about photography, it was about as valuable as his article on culling your photos linked to above. That being said, he does seem like a nice enough guy.

It is sort of hard to decide whether you happen to agree with something until you read it, so that's not really helpful advice.
Click to expand...


Seems to me you have a pretty good idea of what MJ usually writes about so why bother reading any of it?
 
Thanks, everyone. Interesting posts so far.

ptpdprinter: The article is mostly for subscribers to The New Yorker, most of whom (I imagine) aren't serious photographers and may have lower standards for advice than you (reasonably) do.
 
I have a cupboard upstairs contain contact sheets, negatives and box after box of transparencies, from mid 1970s up to today, its frightening how it builds up, even more scary how often it gets revisited/neglected. Add to this digital images over recent years, my point is this, my photo library like my life is disorganised at best, what to od? I am stuck for an answer. Back in the day if I got a couple of keepers per roll I was happy!
 
Andprayforrain said:
Thanks, everyone. Interesting posts so far.

ptpdprinter: The article is mostly for subscribers to The New Yorker, most of whom (I imagine) aren't serious photographers and may have lower standards for advice than you (reasonably) do.
Click to expand...

I don't t subscribe to The New Yorker, so I was doubtful I would be able to read the article because most of their content is behind a paywall, but I was able to read the article by clicking on the link at the top of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom