For me photos have no value

[FrankS]

You forgot about the important qualifier word that I've previously pointed out: can

Digital prints can be made with very little effort. (Fact)
Since satisfaction is earned through effort (I guess that's just an opinion but satisfaction gained through little effort would be hollow),
digital photography can be unsatisfying. (Simple logic based on 2 previous statements)
The OP complained of lack of satisfaction, so I suggested another path which can (there's that qualifier again) be more satisfying, as it is for some, including me.

 

[taskoni]

I have become totally immune to criticism of my photos. This lack of not defending my own work is either due to extreme overconfidence or indifference, but whatever it might be, I won't blink if someone were to absolutely trash the photos I have made or make.

For me photos have no value; therefore, I see that to defend something that has no value is a waste of time. By value I mean, monetary as well as aesthetic value.

Unless its not family photos, I can repeat a shot in most cases and even if I can't it does not bother me. I always think, how would I react if the hard drive that holds my photos dies and interestingly, there is no sense of worry, I can delete all the photos I have taken so far and start afresh.

The question is then, why do I bother with photography when I have no interest in photos? The answer is that taking photos has become a habit and a habit that I enjoy, but photos themselves hold no interest for me whatsoever.

If you ask a question and you know the answer, why would you open a thread like this? Shoot without memory card or film in the camera, it will be cheaper too..
BTW, I am a smoker but i am not interested in the cigarettes...

Regards,

Boris

 

[Godfrey]

You forgot about the important qualifier word that I've previously pointed out: can

Digital prints can be made with very little effort. (Fact)
Since satisfaction is earned through effort (I guess that's just an opinion but satisfaction gained through little effort would be hollow),
digital photography can be unsatisfying. (Simple logic based on 2 previous statements)
The OP complained of lack of satisfaction, so I suggested another path which can (there's that qualifier again) be more satisfying, as it is for some, including me.

So can film prints. As I said before... And you have changed your statement again.
Enough.

G

 

[FrankS]

Wait. What has changed? I challenge you to point it out to me, otherwise it's just a cheap trick to pretend you've won an argument.

This has been my point all along. Maybe you have misunderstood it.

And about film prints: Spectra instant film? Pffft!

 

[zauhar]

I asked my wife, a psychiatrist, what category the OP falls under in the DSM IV. (I changed the story to 'cooks all the time but doesn't eat his own food' as a close-enough analogy to avoid violating HIPAA rules.)

She says there is no specific diagnostic category that covers this, it would just fall under the broad category of 'obsessive-compulsive disorder'.

I know this is very disappointing.

Randy

 

[noisycheese]

NC, I don't know anyone in that world, that works seriously, that thinks like that. I have several good friends that still teach and one that is retired and none of them would subscribe to this. I find this more prevalent in the herds of the ignorant that are now flooding into the arts and have no value on what they create and what others create because the ease at which it is done and have no interest in understanding that argument was settled in the world you talk about almost a century ago and they all take such pride in their ignorance.

Upon further reflection, perhaps those are some of the people I have encountered. God knows there's no shortage of ignorance regarding photography these days.

 

[airfrogusmc]

The educated photographers that I know whether they were educated formally or self educated are totally into photography. The act of shooting, the creation of prints and the showing of their work. And they all know the history and have a huge respect for those that have come before and have an enormous value for their work and the work of others. They all went through a lot of hard work to get the knowledge and the respect for the art form.

It seems to be the ones with little knowledge of the history or the art form that are flooding into also have little respect for what they create or what others create. No reason to be tied to any of it. No investment. And their work shows it.

 

[rondo]

Dear OP, Could it be that you are simply depressed?

 

[KM-25]

It seems to me that the viewpoint expressed in the original post smacks of the brand virulent pretentiousness that flourishes in both photographic academia and the fine art gallery world. This is why I avoid both these environments like the plague.

Huh, really? Because I find that being personally and professionally tied into both now more than ever, there are lots of genuinely happy, non-pretentious people who are either extremely talented or truly happy to be in the company of such, often with impressive and inspirational knowledge of photographic history and such.

And I am happy to say I am now represented nationally in the gallery my work is shown in, especially considering I am darkroom printing only, truly a joyous thing to not have to have computers near my work at all.

 

[35photo]

The educated photographers that I know whether they were educated formally or self educated are totally into photography. The act of shooting, the creation of prints and the showing of their work. And they all know the history and have a huge respect for those that have come before and have an enormous value for their work and the work of others. They all went through a lot of hard work to get the knowledge and the respect for the art form.

It seems to be the ones with little knowledge of the history or the art form that are flooding into also have little respect for what they create or what others create. No reason to be tied to any of it. No investment. And their work shows it.

This is so spot on its not even funny! Well said sir..

 

[Hsg]

I read all the posts and other than the suggestion that I should shoot film in order to add 'value' to my photos, I don't see any other suggestion on how to add value to photos and make them something other than just another drop in the ocean of still photos.

Make large oversized prints? That is one way of adding value to photo, but if you're not going to exhibit them and sell them, what are you going to do with those large prints? And how much money do you have to spend to make those prints? In other words, add value to the photos by spending money on them?

A still photo has become trivial, common and ubiquitous. There are just too many photos, too many kinds of post-processing, too many people taking photos. In fact the reality out there is that photos have no value. Those who still make money from their photos are lucky, but they're endangered species.

I'm looking forward to some miracle that will make photography valuable again.

'Value' is something in the mind. You value a relationship and after sometime you don't value that relationship. This is what happens with activities and hobbies and even art.

 

[noisycheese]

For me photos have no value

Photographs have value to some people. That's why some are purchased (the usage rights) and others are stolen. The act of buying or stealing a thing indicates that it has intrinsic value to someone...

 

[Corran]

value

Last year I finished up a 2-year project and had a large exhibition with my friend of about 40 (half and half between us) images. These images were of a historic cotton mill that was in the preceding 2 years slowly dismantled and torn down. It was built over 100 years ago. The exhibit drew a huge crowd at the opening and continued bringing in people throughout the period it was up - the gallery director told me it was one of the most-visited exhibits they had ever had.

The images had "value" because they showed something of significance. The mill was gone. There will never be another image made of it. The images inside, outside, and around the mill that we took are a historical record and documentary of the gradual destruction of this historical icon. Others took pictures of the mill during this process but we showed the entire story and used our photographic voice to create a cohesive show that had "value" to the community.

My point is - perhaps you need to find something of value to photograph, rather than wondering why your images don't have value intrinsically. You're right - the vast majority of images taken have no real value at all, or at best are only of value to the photographer. I take a lot of landscape images and shoot a lot of film for my own enjoyment. They have value for me, but probably for most people, unless they like the aesthetic quality.

So perhaps you need to find something of value to photograph, not just expect value from your snaps off-hand. That's just my opinion.

 

[Richard G]

One of our finest photographers on the forum has a wonderful quote in his signature, from Giacometti, the sculptor. "I no longer work for anything other than the sensation I have while working."

 

[mwoenv]

To go back to the OP, it's interesting that you are inspired or interested enough to capture an image, and then feel nothing for what you created.

I also do not care about criticism, but not because of confidence or indifference, just that I captured what I saw or felt and I recognize it may or may not appeal to others.

 

[Doug]

Let's not let this thread devolve into personal bickering...

 

[--s]

A still photo has become trivial, common and ubiquitous. There are just too many photos, too many kinds of post-processing, too many people taking photos. No matter how much you ignore that fact and continue to live in a neurotic bubble of 'photo artist', the reality out there is pretty harsh. In fact the reality out there is that photos have no value. Those who still make money from their photos are lucky, but they're endangered species.

I'm looking forward to some miracle that will make photography valuable again.

'Value' is something in the mind. You value a relationship and after sometime you don't value that relationship. This is what happens with activities and hobbies and even art.

It seems to me you are kind of „lost in the crowd“.
If you consider the internet as your photographic reference frame, you may come to the conclusion that your photos are worthless, they are just drowned in the flood of which they are part of.
But if you look into your own soul instead of looking for appreciation from others, maybe you find a different meaning for your photos. Well made family photos, for example, may be of great value, if not now, then in decades to come.
Shoot for yourself, not with the others in mind.....

cheers,
smp

 

[KM-25]

Let's not let this thread devolve into personal bickering...

The person who started this thread who kind of has a track record of these types of topics has been given a lot of good advice, some of it pretty thoughtful and personal at that. And yet, the latest reply to these ideas contains:

"No matter how much you ignore that fact and continue to live in a neurotic bubble of 'photo artist', the reality out there is pretty harsh. In fact the reality out there is that photos have no value."

I think this says it all and tells me that the thread ought to be closed and this person move on....

 

[Ranchu]

There's no sense in taking photos if you don't want photos.

 

[Sparrow]

I read all the posts ... BIG EDIT ... and hobbies and even art.

Ah! ... you've been reading Sontag is that what this is? ... the answer is to stop! ... Sontag is a pointless authority on photography, just ignore her

(sorry Doug if Sontag counts as a person)