For me photos have no value

[Michael Markey]

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....

I share your concerns whenever I see threads like this.

The good people of this forum are generally helpful and polite and I can`t help but feel that sometimes this is taken advantage of.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Photographs are finally fetching prices that were once only reserved to other art forms like painting. I am a commercial/advertising photographer and last year was the best year I have ever had. Sorry some feel photographs have no value but the reality is they actually do.

 

[35photo]

An article everyone should read here, and you might begin to understand where I am coming from and others might be coming from as well..

http://luminous-landscape.com/life-photographer/

 

[OurManInTangier]

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.

When a relationship is over the healthiest thing most of us can do is move on from it, leave it behind and try not to let bitterness and/or regret overcome us. Perhaps one day a better relationship can flourish where before there was only rancour, perhaps not.

Photographs are finally fetching prices that were once only reserved to other art forms like painting. I am a commercial/advertising photographer and last year was the best year I have ever had. Sorry some feel photographs have no value but the reality is they actually do.

I'd like to add to this sentiment if I may. As another commercial photographer who, like many of us, has come through a tough recession I'd suggest that photographs (commercially speaking here) actually have a renewed value. People are very aware of the value of good work now, possibly after some less than successful attempts to save money during the tough times.

I can't comment too much on whether photography outside of the commercial sphere holds value, as it seems absurd to me to suggest otherwise. Even if it's solely a case of self expression, surely there's nothing quite so valuable as that?

 

[KM-25]

I just woke up, had an idea for a variation of images that are already part of a series. This happens a lot....I physically sleep but the elves in my creative sphere...do not...and they often serve me "breakfast in bed".

This speaks to momentum and that is a powerful thing as it often takes the path of least resistance. Often in a lot of things in life I hear it's your attitude, not always your looks that increases your chance of finding love. It's your attitude not entirely your acumen that finds you good fortune in business or getting that job promotion.

So like the above it is your attitude....your inner inertia that creates a momentum of whether or not you will be satisfied with a creative pursuit or not. For a couple years post recession, I had kind of a poor attitude regarding the state of the photography business as a whole and if I should worry or not. Long story short, I made cognitive choices to change my attitude, it made a difference in getting jobs and in the expression of my work. A dedicated effort to change your path in life is often all that is needed to make all the difference....but it is momentum that keeps you there.

Now my attitude is great, has been for a number of years and the jobs and now fine art sales are great too. But the best part? The ideas, the creative output flows like wine in Bordeaux. Not only is it plentiful and genuinely good, it happens fast, almost instantly at times. My satisfaction in creative output rides on momentum.

If momentum is important, than attitude is everything in shaping it's direction. When I said above it might be time for the op to move on, I did not mean that to say get lost. I meant it to say don't stay in a relationship that is not healthy, find your inner bearing and have a good attitude so that you can find the one you actually belong in.

Photography might not be it for "HSG" but that does not mean it is not "it" for anyone, as clearly evidenced here. But for now, momentum is carrying the op a different direction than he wants to be going. Only he can disrupt that enough to see that direction change.

 

[ferider]

Interesting thread.

There is obviously a whole spectrum of photographers: from the left extreme of those who photograph to photograph, without much interest in the result like the OP, to the right end of those who are only interested in the result, for whom the actual technical task of taking and developing a photo is a chore.

The OP is in good company: why else would Winogrand have left 2500 rolls of undeveloped film and 6500 rolls of developed but not proofed exposures ? Or see the above quote of Giacometti.

So, just because you are somewhere else in the spectrum, doesn't mean there is something wrong with the OP; whatever makes him happy makes him happy, not you.

I am somewhere in the middle left of the spectrum and understand where HSG is coming from. I have only so many walls to hang pictures to, and can make only so many coffee table books. I value criticism and enjoyment of my pictures by family and close friends only. I'm not much interested in social media, except for RFF.

So there. Not everybody wants to become a professional photographer, or be discovered as an artist. If you do, all the power to you, but we are all different.

Roland.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I can't comment too much on whether photography outside of the commercial sphere holds value, as it seems absurd to me to suggest otherwise. Even if it's solely a case of self expression, surely there's nothing quite so valuable as that?

I agree Simon and I think any real personal work comes from a very honest place and a burning desire to capture something that is seen in a personal way.
The fact that several photographs lately have sold for the kind of prices that was only reserved for other art forms, like paintings, shows that there is indeed monetary value to photographs and well as that personal value you mentioned. To the OP and others that don't value photography; if you have neither then my question would be why be involved at all in the process? If you gather no personal gain from it then why do it and therefore why bitch about it?

 

[paulfish4570]

amen, frog ...

 

[airfrogusmc]

Yes but Winogrand was also interested in the final output. If not then why study it in college? Why exhibit? Why teach it? He did all of that and he processed his own work so the proof is indeed in his actions.. He just did a lot of work and he said he liked to put distance between what he printed as finals and when he shot them to detach himself and look at them later through fresh eyes. He would sometimes wait a year to process his negs for that very reason.

 

[ferider]

Yes but Winogrand was also interested in the final output. If not then why study it in college? ... He just did a lot of work and he said he liked to put distance between what he printed ...

Not looking at 30000+ photos is a lot of distance.

My point is that there can be reason and satisfaction in the process of taking a photo, independent of the result and what happens to the result.

Henri Cartier-Bresson: "Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks."
Garry Winogrand: "Photography is about finding out what can happen in the frame. When you put four edges around some facts, you change those facts."
Robert Frank: "It is always the instantaneous reaction to oneself that produces a photograph."

Etc.

BTW, HSG, I do like the photos that you posted in http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2432401#post2432401 and below.

Roland.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Yeah my dad always told me to listen to what people say but the real truth is in what they do. If Bresson wasn't interested in the final result then why the exhibits or the books? And Winogrand why his output or Frank and The Americans. The truth is usually in actions. And their actions speak volumes.

And for Winogrand when you shoot 5 and 6 rolls everyday for years and you don't process the work you shot for months maybe a year or more you always have a large backlog.

And they all must have had value on their work. You didn't see them just giving it away. Bresson wasn't exactly a poor man when he died. Royalties from his books are probably still benefiting someone in his family or estate. And The Americans is till selling as are Winogrands books and work. They put value on what they created and they put value on what others created. Winogrand said he really liked the work of Evans and Frank and said they were probably his biggest influences. That's valuing photographs.

 

[ferider]

Yeah my dad always told me to listen to what people say but the real truth is in what they do. If Bresson wasn't interested in the final result then why the exhibits or the books? And Winogrand why his output or Frank and The Americans. The truth is usually in actions. And their actions speak volumes.

I don't disagree with you. But think about it: on RFF, we only react to what people say - we don't know their actions, really.

Plus, I feel the most powerful photos of Frank and Bresson are the ones documenting a big cause with a solid medium (The Americans, French Resistance, Ghandi, Life Magazine, etc.), not week-end strolls documented on flickr. Winogrand is another story. Hard to understand a genius, I guess.

Roland.

 

[noimmunity]

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.

As long as we continue to look at the common in terms of an additive or subtractive calculus of individuals that pre-exist the common and from which the common is contractually built, we will continue to oscillate between the extremes of abject worthlessness and fetishistic heroism.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I don't disagree with you. But think about it: on RFF, we only react to what people say.

Plus, I feel the most powerful photos of Frank and Bresson are the ones documenting a big cause (The Americans, French Resistance, Ghandi, etc.), not week-end strolls.

Winogrand is another story. Hard to understand a genius sometimes.

Roland.

I think all great work is about bodies of work. One great at bat wont put a baseball player in the hall of fame. One good photograph doesn't make a good photographer either. But if you are a photographer and have no value on what you or what others create then the question has to be why do it and why care so it then becomes why comment? And what are they doing on a photography forum if they don't see any value in any of it.

 

[bobbyrab]

I think all great work is about bodies of work. One great at bat wont put a baseball player in the hall of fame. One good photograph doesn't make a good photographer either. But if you are a photographer and have no value on what you or what others create then the question has to be why do it and why care so it then becomes why comment? And what are they doing on a photography forum if they don't see any value in any of it.

I actually think it's been one of the more interesting threads of late. I like the fact that the OP is being honest rather than stating what forum protocols suggest is the right response.
To some extent I get his drift, I find the more photos I see the less often I'm impressed, so for example the first time you see a particular compositional technique it seems like the work of a photographer with a great eye, then you find it's a fairly well worn technique and you reappraise the work that first impressed you.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Techniques are just tools. Not unlike the physical tools (camera's, lenses, software, etc) used to express a vision. They can be used or abused. I'm not saying that all work is good but if you don't think your work or the work of others can have value or does have value then I still have yet to hear what is the point of creating something that has no value to anyone including the creator?

 

[locheeboy]

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.

Hi HSG,

Ye should celebrate, you've killed the Buddha...😎

 

[shadowfox]

It's funny how different we all are.

I never look at the LCD screen except to use the menus to set up the camera. And I mean NEVER, the image is just too small to be interesting or useful to me. I only look at images on my computer.

The one thing I really hate in photography is the darkroom, and I have worked in them plenty. I am glad to let anyone print for me. The only saving grace of a darkroom is you can make out with your girlfriend while you wait for film to develop (that must have been a college darkroom 🙂).

Fred, it would be awfully boring if we are all alike, right?

I guess I am more in the majority in that I do check the preview LCD. Since I shoot with film camera I was able to do that less, thankfully 🙂

 

[shadowfox]

There's no pause with digital photography either, if you choose not to look at the screen after every shot. There's no requirement that you do so. First thing I do on every digital camera is turn off auto-review. Sometimes I don't get a moment to look at what's on the card for a long time; I usually don't look until I upload the card to Lightroom for processing.

We will continue to disagree.

G

Of course there no requirements to look at the screen often.
But my point is how many did it constantly vs those who don't?

Are you going to tell me that there are more people who don't look at LCDs all the time? If that were the case, camera manufacturers would cease to outdo each other in putting the best display in the back of digital cameras long time ago.

I am not sure what we are disagreeing on.

 

[FrankS]

An analogy would be to buy a machine gun, but only use it in single shot mode. Who does that?