Culling your photos? Some advice in The New Yorker

[Andprayforrain]

Enjoy: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/your-camera-roll-contains-a-masterpiece

 

[Freakscene]

That’s Mike Johnston from The Online Photographer. A great writer.

Marty

 

[sojournerphoto]

Great article, thanks. Always liked Mike Johnston’s writing.

 

[raydm6]

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.

 

[jsrockit]

This was interesting:

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.

 

[Canyongazer]

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

 

[ptpdprinter]

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?

 

[mapgraphs]

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.

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

 

[Saganich]

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.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

Oh believe me, I know... and then there's contextualizing the images into a cohesive project as well.

 

[Nitroplait]

I have enjoyed "The Online Photographer" since the beginning, in the mid 00's. One of the last worthwhile photography blogs left.

 

[PaulW128]

I have enjoyed "The Online Photographer" since the beginning, in the mid 00's. One of the last worthwhile photography blogs left.

Agree 100% Nitroplait. Mike Johnston is a great writer, whatever he chooses to write about. If you don't happen to agree, just don't read the article!

Paul

 

[ptpdprinter]

I have enjoyed "The Online Photographer" since the beginning, in the mid 00's. One of the last worthwhile photography blogs left.

Agree 100% Nitroplait. Mike Johnston is a great writer, whatever he chooses to write about.

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.

If you don't happen to agree, just don't read the article!

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.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

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.

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.

 

[PaulW128]

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.

Seems to me you have a pretty good idea of what MJ usually writes about so why bother reading any of it?

 

[ptpdprinter]

Seems to me you have a pretty good idea of what MJ usually writes about so why bother reading any of it?

I read his blog for a while so I know what he writes about. It is why I stopped reading him. Against my better judgment I read his article in The New Yorker linked to above.

 

[Andprayforrain]

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.

 

[lxmike]

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!

 

[ptpdprinter]

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 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.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Even good photographers take, mostly, forgettable photos.
The smart ones (like HCB) just don't show them to anyone.

You could buy Magnum's Contacts book and see what he was machine gunning.