Companies slowly abondoning photographers?

[Roger Hicks]

How far (just out of curiosity) ? I try to do that too and not just lament the absence of photography related exhibits in my city but there's only so much I'm willing to pay for to go see an exhibit somewhere

Every year, about 500 miles each way to the Rencontres Photographiques in Arles, where I stay for a week. Every now and then to Paris (300 miles each way). So far this year, local exhibitions in three towns/villages, up to about 20 miles each way: another 5-6 to follow. And when I'm travelling, whatever I can get. I saw Edward Curtis's pictures in Slovenia and then there are exhibitions at photokina every two years and Focus on Imaging in Birmingham every year.

Thinking of which, when I was staying with relatives in Selma AL I drove to Birmingham (the other one) for a Karsh exhibition.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think you're confusing the raison d'etre of Flickr and social network sites.

It's about volume and social experience, not gallery quality technical photography. Flickr hosts the whole spectrum of photography in a few clinks, things most people might not otherwise see. Flickr is about content en masses, not reproduction par excellence.

No gallery could do what Flickr does because most galleries have a gatekeeper curatorial system so you see THEIR interpretation of good photography, browsing outside those boundaries deliberately limited.

Sure, the gallery may be technically superior. But technical superiority in photographs has always been a very, very tiny niche of appreciation by the same people who own loupes.

Flickr is like seeing Earth from space then zooming in where you want to go. A gallery is like walking down one path, staying on that path, and, albeit beautiful and often sublime, someone else chose for you what to see.

No, no confusion. The highlighted portion is exactly right. RFF is the only 'social medium' in which I habitually engage on line, and it ain't to see the pictures. Without 'gallery technical quality' I'm just not very interested.

EDIT: There's a LOT more to the experience of seeing real pictures in a real gallery than the things that are appreciated by 'people who own loupes'. Frankly, that description is is insulting nonsense.

SECOND EDIT: 'A gallery' doesn't mean much. There are lots of galleries and they change their exhibitions. I probably see 150-200 exhibitions a year, most of them in Arles.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ZeissFan]

The cellphone camera is "good enough" for most people, just as digital P&S cameras were "good enough," as were the film P&S cameras.

And the fact that a cellphone camera user can post a photo to whatever, wherever and whomever at anytime and nearly any place means that it has supplanted the point and shoot as the camera of choice.

This is supported by the dramatic drop in sales of the digital P&S.

On the pro and serious amateur side, there will always be a need for better cameras, better lenses and better software tools than what the average P&Ser uses.

Frankly, Adobe screwed us with prices for its Creative Suite that few could afford and then repeatedly upgraded the software. Truthfully, most people use only several tools: crop, tone, adjust levels, clone (for those scanning negatives) and (un)sharpen. Did we really need 11 versions of Photoshop at $99 an upgrade -- or whatever Adobe is asking?

 

[Lauffray]

Every year, about 500 miles each way to the Rencontres Photographiques in Arles, where I stay for a week. Every now and then to Paris (300 miles each way). So far this year, local exhibitions in three towns/villages, up to about 20 miles each way: another 5-6 to follow. And when I'm travelling, whatever I can get. I saw Edward Curtis's pictures in Slovenia and then there are exhibitions at photokina every two years and Focus on Imaging in Birmingham every year.

Thinking of which, when I was staying with relatives in Selma AL I drove to Birmingham (the other one) for a Karsh exhibition.

Cheers,

R.

Ah yes, well I live on a much bigger sparsely populated continent 🙂
I wish it was a little easier to hop to NY and back, they get the best stuff in this corner of the world

 

[Exdsc]

Right now I still do not understand your definition of personal "work."

In my case, personal work means the work or photos that I consider a work in progress, like a draft in writing sense. On a practical level as I said before, I really would like to know how the colors look online, the contrast and sharpness etc.. Getting an image to look just right online, on most monitors, is an art in itself.

 

[Exdsc]

The camera is now an accessory to the network. But today's cameras do't play nice with the network, so people default to the lower IQ of a smartphone because there is a convergence there where the collection/organization/sharing capacity of the iPhone trumps the IQ of the dumb dedicated camera.

That is a very good point. the camera makers are stuck in an outdated business model.

 

[Aristophanes]

No, no confusion. The highlighted portion is exactly right. RFF is the only 'social medium' in which I habitually engage on line, and it ain't to see the pictures. Without 'gallery technical quality' I'm just not very interested.

EDIT: There's a LOT more to the experience of seeing real pictures in a real gallery than the things that are appreciated by 'people who own loupes'. Frankly, that description is is insulting nonsense.

SECOND EDIT: 'A gallery' doesn't mean much. There are lots of galleries and they change their exhibitions. I probably see 150-200 exhibitions a year, most of them in Arles.

Cheers,

R.

Equating galleries to superiority is just snobbishness. Very few places have access to such galleries as you do, the exception to the norm. And you are still looking at what others want you to see. They edit.

And you can access top-quality photographs without printing.

 

[HuubL]

I'm just back from 8 days in Tuscany and during the sole May 13th day in Florence I can testify that there were at least FOUR people using FILM cameras in this large city (three people I met by chance, and me). 😀

Just got back from Tuscany myself. On 7 May we were in Pisa and saw a man enter the duomo with a Leica M3 + Leicameter. Apart from two or three other tourists with film SLRs seen during the two weeks we were there, he was the only RF user. Any chance that he was you?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Equating galleries to superiority is just snobbishness. Very few places have access to such galleries as you do, the exception to the norm. And you are still looking at what others want you to see. They edit.

And you can access top-quality photographs without printing.

If you really believe both those statements, you are right -- for you. An awful lot of people would however disagree with you. EDIT: Do you think that galleries and the Rencontres are kept alive only by people you would describe as 'snobs'. Or might there be something you are missing?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Lauffray]

I think there's still quality content on the web, it just takes an insane amount of moderation, curation and browsing on your own time to find them, whereas the other model is one where galleries do that work then expose the result

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think there's still quality content on the web, it just takes an insane amount of moderation, curation and browsing on your own time to find them, whereas the other model is one where galleries do that work then expose the result

Very true. And when you do find the quality work, it's been homogenized in size, texture and (to a surprising extent) colour. This is why, for me, the "insane amount of moderation, curation and browsing on your own time" just ain't worth it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mwoenv]

Adobe, Yahoo/Flickr/Tumbler, etc. are mass market companies chasing the largest possible audience/membership possible for revenue. To get people to keep participating/buying, change is everything and the rate of technological change enables this way of operating.

In all this the importance of images is paramount but the value of any indivual image has been degraded as people consume images all day long every day and it has to be some spectacular or weird image to get any attention.

So what is photography anymore? And what should you think about these companies? I'm personally not interested in incessant change. I think you have to stick to what you want out of photography as the mass market churns on and view these companies accordingly. I just hope that traditional photography (especially film) doesn't get completely destoyed.

As for Fllickr, as an amateur I have learned quite a bit from being a member in some groups - about specific equipment, flash techniques, developing color film and prints, etc. Yes, it's for the mass market but you can get something useful out of it if you still need to learn.

 

[FA Limited]

i thought this post by Jeff Schewe about adobe was interesting, basically he is reiterating photoshop is not actually for photographers or amateurs but somehow became that way ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78151.msg626805#msg626805

 

[FA Limited]

i use flickr to share photos with my friends (for trips social events, etc.) but i only share via restricted links
i don't really post pictures up online for public consumption anymore ... i don't really think my photography is worth sharing anyways

 

[Sam N]

First adobe leaving photographers for its core business and now flickr transforming itself to cater the smartphone crowd... Do you get a feeling that companies are slowly abandoning photographers?

The lagging sales figures for cameras scared them?

The premise behind your question has problems. Who said Adobe abandoned photographers? Why can't flickr cater to smartphone users as well as other camera users?

 

[Bob Michaels]

Thank you, thank you. Excellent article by a non-Adobe person that all here should read and understand. It makes perfect sense.

However, you did omit the last paragraph in your quote. The one that said:
The thing I would caution people about is make your judgements based on reality and facts, not the bullshyte that has been thrown out there by a bunch of people with anonymous screen names on the internet...

FWIW: Bob Michaels is my real name.

i thought this post by Jeff Schewe about adobe was interesting, basically he is reiterating photoshop is not actually for photographers or amateurs but somehow became that way ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78151.msg626805#msg626805

 

[Exdsc]

Who said Adobe abandoned photographers?

Adobe itself, it said use lightroom and shut up, that's it. And Yahoo as well, "there are no professional photographers...", as was quoted earlier.


The premise of my question might not be logically sound but whether its true or not is dependent on user perception here, which so far seems be the case.

 

[Exdsc]

And here is a nice chart about why flickr did what it did:

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/

Just look at that yellow line, scary stuff.

 

[Lauffray]

And here is a nice chart about why flickr did what it did:

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/

Just look at that yellow line, scary stuff.

I wonder what happened about the time where all of those curves peaked ??

 

[Aristophanes]

If you really believe both those statements, you are right -- for you. An awful lot of people would however disagree with you. EDIT: Do you think that galleries and the Rencontres are kept alive only by people you would describe as 'snobs'. Or might there be something you are missing?

Last I heard a great number of distinguished patrons of the photographic arts were vying to spend many $$$ on photos taken by a chimpanzee.

I frequent galleries. I also know that a LOT of those same photos are online and originated in a digital, pre-print form, and will likely revert to an online presence after gallery showing. The gallery print is nothing more or less than expression of the same content which can be displayed multiple ways.

I, personally, fall into the category of wanting a photograph to be sized more like a photograph and not printed huge to compete with Turner at the Tate. The majority of the photographic experience was to flip through multiple prints, not step into the photograph. Somehow as TV's have gotten larger, gallery photos feel a need to do the same. Who is leading who here?

I also liked the chimpanzee photos. And I've worked as a grip on a Jeff Wall photo shoot (many, many years ago when he was just starting).