Before the Internet.

Old timer here. Been taking pictures since 1969 when I bought a Minolta Hi-Matic 9 and discovered 35mm film. Through friends learned to develop and print my own B&W. Never got up to speed with the computer generation or digital cameras. This is probably because I have a very impatient nature with technology. I'm a slow person and everything happens too fast for me on a computer and if you accidently touch the wrong key the whole screen can go change, you don't know what you did or how to get back.


I think I'll go set up my bathroom darkroom now and feel better.
 
I've been photographing since the 1970s, strictly as an amateur. Prior to the WWW, I printed more than I do now, but find it just as easy to share images online.

I don't social network, but write a blog and maintain a Flickr stream mainly to support the blog images. And enjoy healthy discussions on fora such as RFF. So I'd say my participation in the WWW is limited, or restricted, purposefully by my intent. I was never a socializer as a youngster, but had my own interests, and could care less about what others' think; that remains true today. So I use the WWW as a tool, while remaining in control of its usage.

~Joe
 
I don't know, I don't think about the internet too much. I took down my web site over a year ago and I'm still pretty busy. I just do what I do and some folks like what I do.
 
mugent said:
Digital on the other hand has changed a lot for me, it's made me take more photos, but removed the 'craft' element, which is both good and bad, I love the feeling of achievement of processing and printing film images, but do not have the time to do it, and after a while, it begins to become tedious.

Digital removes this problem, but makes photography too 'easy' from a technical point of view, so it's a mixed bag for me...
Click to expand...

Not to start yet another film vs digital debate, but I disagree with your statement. There is still an element of "craft" in digital photography, assuming you want to do more than just shoot in camera JPEGs. Even after moving to 100% digital in my photography, my goal is still the same as when I was shooting film - produce a print that I can hold in my hands, show to someone, or frame it and hang it on my wall. To produce the best possible print, I shoot raw, post process and print on an inkjet. There is "craft" at each of those steps along the way to producing that final print.
 
The internet has given more people access to photography than ever before.

More people now know how to achieve a higher quality than ever before as the exchange mechanisms of the network multiply talent and understanding amongst individuals and groups, crossing borders at will.

It has given legions of people access to equipment and knowledge bases they had little to no knowledge of prior.

The internet has made possible the display billions of excellent photos to emulate ad learn from from accidental, individual one-off shots to whole collections of hard working masters working to a vision.

The internet has forums like this for for the rapid exchange of ideas to enhance and encourage, and critique and correct, both personal photography and the community of photography.

The internet has allowed for the rapid, international transactions for equipment and images.

The internet has fostered a global understanding of unique and esoteric systems, processes, equipment, techniques, and aesthetics all related to photography.

Those that feel threatened by all the new entrants, competitors, and possibilities are those most likely to say photography has declined as a medium of expression.

This is a Golden Age of photography where millions previously shut out or unaware are adding their images to the global stream.

Enjoy. It's beautiful.
 
Thanks for everyone who took the time to contribute. I value the insight.

I think the main change I want to make is to care less about online display and print a lot more. Even if they are only 5x7's. A big stack of prints is more enticing than many tumblr pages!
 
I photographed the Mohammed Ali-Oscar Bonavena title fight in Madison Square Garden and the photos were used on front pages of magazines and newspapers all over the world. A lot more than a few million hits, I think, and for just one photo. I started taking photographs professionally around 1960. Photography was an entirely different universe then. It beats me how you even get a photograph noticed these days. Another problem is all these digital photosnappers who think they can take photograph but cannot who are buying photographs that, frankly, stink. I'm not bad-mouthing every digital photographer, only the great mass of clowns who just bang away on the shutter with no thought, no art, no class and no hope. If you climb mountains you can stop now and then, enjoy the view, and maybe take a great photo or two. But these days there are people whose goal in life is to climb mountains as fast as they can. No stop to smell the wild flowers, no great photos, just a tick on a digital watch. Who needs it?
 
Harry S. said:
I'm thinking about what it means to be a photographer....
... Chasing likes, reblogs, faves on social media feels like...not the right reason for photography...
... I'm after something more fullfulling, more zen, more noble even. Perhaps something that photographers did prior to the internet changing our lives...
...The question is what is that?
Click to expand...

Participation in the online photo world (or sharing your work in any way) doesn't have to mean that is THE REASON you photograph, does it? Whatever you end up doing with your pictures doesn't negate a more basic purpose in making them.

Photography is a pretty personal activity at its most basic level. What is a photographer doing but relating to the world? Merely pointing your camera, is a reaction to the world and an act of positioning yourself in it. Photographs are about the subject and about the photographer. And about the space between them.
 
Very interesting thread.

I think one of the biggest changes that the internet has made to working photographers is that it's condensed the time work is allowed to take.
Clients want the work almost instantly, so that they can get it up online to get blog and social media traffic to them.

It doesn't always allow for work to be the best it could be.

I stopped updating my flickr back when a pro account ran out, and I realised that I could very very easily be going over the 200 photo free account limit in a month, having stopped uploading, I didn't start again when they changed the system over.

I do use Tumblr, and I think it's a great site, I used to posted 3 or 4 shots from my phone each morning while I was having breakfast, and that routine really suited me, and meant that I was regularly putting fresh content up.

Since they dropped the blackberry app, I don't update nearly as often, (I've tried the iOs one, and it's not for me), I'm not happy with that though, I need to find a way that works for me.

I wouldn't say that the site influences my photography, I dislike the aesthetic of a lot of stuff that seems very popular on there, (the VSCO film pack, underexposed lacking in contrast look is a particular dislike of mine) so I have the opinion that people will either like my work or not, those that do, I appreciate that they've taken the time to look, and that they've seen something that they like, and those that don't, well I'm ok with that, and there's some people's work that I like keeping up to date with on there.

I think there's a double edged element to how easily consumable it makes photography, one one hand it's easily accessible to lots of people, on the other hand it's very easy to scroll through not paying proper attention to people's work.

The other double edged sword about photography on the internet is there's so much wonderful information available, and I've hugely benefited from that.
On the other hand it gets damn expensive finding out about cool bits of equipment that I think "ooh I'd like to try that" about haha
 
Before the internet, I worked as a photographer in a small advertising studio. Mostly packshots.
Even then, 'art' photography was mostly an expensive hobby, something one did on weekends and during vacations. Very, very few people saw my 'personal' photos. There were art clubs and photographers clubs, but any discerning 'pro' photographer knew they were to be avoided as the pest : breeding grounds of the insipid, the second-rate, the mindless, and the so derivative it had to be called plagiarism. Middle-aged men, bragging about their camera's and lenses and so-called 'professionalism'. That was the time the meme of the 'dentist photographer' started it's life.
The internet isn't much different, but on a much larger scale. It still is mostly an expensive hobby, but now millions of people are showing their photos to the grand global photography club. The good thing is that there are now thousands of great pictures to be found, the impossible thing that one has to wade through billions of nothing.
That, I find truly daunting. With images as with music, we are swamped with entire supertanker loads of boring clichés. And maybe even worse is the realization that most of my 'work' is not much else than those clichés I am so terribly bored with.
I like getting a favourable response when showing my photo's on the interwebs, but that is the only thing I gain from this exercise: a lot of investment in material and in honing skills, for a few likes. But my photo's are being seen by a lot more people than 20 years ago.
I publish most of my photos, the ones I deem worth looking at, on the RFF Gallery and on Facebook. (I hope this may prepare people I am likely to meet, so they are not too disconcerted when I start clicking a camera in their face.)Most of my 'friends' there, I have not or rarely met, and much of what they have to share does not really engage my attention (again, a mountain of clichés).
Frankly, knowing that a few tens or maybe even hundreds of people have appreciated your work is a very thin reward for a very expensive hobby.
I think I do it for the process : from shooting through to choosing which ones to show. And again, I prefer going through negatives rather than digital, because of the overabundance in digital. Because film is expensive, I'd rather take one good shot, than thirty-six I have to choose from. With digital, I just shot and shot, just to make sure, you know, and the result was a gigantic magma of mostly sameness. With film, I 'wait for it!', and then go for an entirely different photo. Much less goo to wade through.
And I'm still waiting for somebody to ask for a print, so I have a reason to set up my darkroom again. (or send a high resolution file;))
 
Last edited:
It's odd to get fb friend requests from young people who have a tenuous link to you, as if they collect friends to validate themselves. It would seem pointless for photographers to collect likes & mentions without them leading to further gigs or useful contacts.
 
PatrickCheung said:
I think the combination of both things, polaroids and access to a darkroom helped me realize the importance of the print.

A print could make someone smile and laugh. It brought up conversation and brought back memories. It was a physical manifestation of a process. I think digital can do that to a certain extent, but maybe just differently than a print does. I spent a few nights with my girlfriend and friends looking through the prints we made and just talking about them and the moments in them.

Maybe leaving a comment and receiving a like is somewhat similar, but I liked how the print brought us together.

I also recently discovered my parents' photo albums from when they were young up till my birth and early childhood.... seeing those photographs and being able to touch them was an experience that couldn't have been replicated through an online gallery.

I think I'm going to re-do my online gallery, keep it as a gallery of my favourite/best photographs. Maybe I'll keep my facebook and instagram for digital moment storage and sharing, and print (via plotter or enlarger) all my photographs and place them in albums! I also think I want to print large and hang them up on my walls and invite some friends over to share :)

Maybe all that above is what it means to be a "photographer", to take photographs you enjoy and share them with those you wish to share them with in whatever way you see fit.
Click to expand...

Patrick, well said and expressed.
I too believe that prints can bring people together.

Photo-books can do that also and in some ways it's better because you get to see a photographer's work in numbers instead of just one-by-one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom