rodfelici
Newbie
I do not understand what is happening to photography.
We all know what happened in the last ten years, the quality level of cameraphone reached and exceeded the level of many classical cameras. Everyone has a phone always with him and the depressed sector of newspapers and magazines became used to take photos online for free or almost for free.
In the digital era, however, the overall quality of the non-professional photographers increased a lot, raising the level of visual literacy and the quality requested from a pro.
Today I took a look to the Magnum website, covering the events of Paris. The overall quality of images left me disappointed however.
I understand the difficulties they can have covering such unexpected, tragical events, but they are at Magnum photographers, we expect great images from them, and most of the shots seems to be random and meaningless instead. Is it the debacle of the classical way we intend photography?
Are the breaking news better covered by the movie made by the ordinary man and instantly uploaded on Facebook?
Could be something related to privacy and release form problems? Many photos does not show the face of anyone, or show people in a much broader context. It seems like the photographer was more worried about not running into privacy issues rather than create images communicative and full of meaning.
What do you think about that?
We all know what happened in the last ten years, the quality level of cameraphone reached and exceeded the level of many classical cameras. Everyone has a phone always with him and the depressed sector of newspapers and magazines became used to take photos online for free or almost for free.
In the digital era, however, the overall quality of the non-professional photographers increased a lot, raising the level of visual literacy and the quality requested from a pro.
Today I took a look to the Magnum website, covering the events of Paris. The overall quality of images left me disappointed however.
I understand the difficulties they can have covering such unexpected, tragical events, but they are at Magnum photographers, we expect great images from them, and most of the shots seems to be random and meaningless instead. Is it the debacle of the classical way we intend photography?
Are the breaking news better covered by the movie made by the ordinary man and instantly uploaded on Facebook?
Could be something related to privacy and release form problems? Many photos does not show the face of anyone, or show people in a much broader context. It seems like the photographer was more worried about not running into privacy issues rather than create images communicative and full of meaning.
What do you think about that?
Bille
Well-known
There was a thread on this about a week ago.
Google cache still has it.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jdscQ9O2AzAJ:https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php%3Fthreadid%3D153017+&cd=2&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de
Google cache still has it.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jdscQ9O2AzAJ:https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php%3Fthreadid%3D153017+&cd=2&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de
I think you expect too much from Magnum photographers and expect so little from the average joe that when Magnum photographers don't create something absolutely awesome, you're disappointed and when the average joe makes something that resonates, you didn't expect much in the first place, so it works.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
Obviously, with one exception, the Magnum pros arrived after the event was over, no way they can be everywhere, at all times, those who were there took the relevant photos, it is the really of everyone having a moderately high quality video/still camera all the time.