I hear this all of the time, but does someone know an example of a truly horrible photographer who is universally panned yet is making a living in photography?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hmmmmm... Okay. Yes. You're right. If you don't want to do it, and your income doesn't depend on it, why bother?
On the other hand, I'm not sure that I can imagine such a minimal interest in photography. As you say, "That's my opinion and may not work for others."
Cheers,
R.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I'm about ten years older than you. My photographic career has been a very different journey from yours, but I find myself bored to tears with the majority of photography being produced today. I've thought about that a lot, and I'm convinced that the medium is irrelevent... digital or film... what's changed is the overwhelming amount of it; most of it poorly done. The "problem" with digital in general isn't that it's not "film" but that it's available to everyone, everywhere who then feels the need to publish every result every time they push the shutter release, or whatever serves as a shutter release. And then there's some blog or social media site that puts it out there. Very little is original any more. We're overwhelmed and overloaded with images... some of them even very good images, but because we're SO bombarded every day, it's tough to find the joy in them.
In the "old days" we waited breathlessly for Nat Geo, or Vogue, or Life, or Look and saw images of things we knew we'd likely never see in person. Big images. Some color, some B&W. They expanded our world. They inflamed our imagination. They somehow made the world seem challenging and somewhere we wanted to explore. We knew that those images were just the tip of the iceberg about what was really out there and we wanted to grab those experiences for ourselves.
For those of us in the U.S. mid-west, New York and L.A. seemed so cosmopolitan, and so exotic and romantic... London, Paris, Bombay, Cape Town... may have all been on Mars, but we got to see all those places through the lenses of the magazine photographers. And the images were stunning... or gritty... or whatever emotion they evoked... but evocotive they were! They all spoke of lives we could aspire to live... someday.
Today, we're bombarded with images. iPhone images... p&s images... poorly done images... if you want to see something, you just type the place into Google, and there are more images than you can stand to look at in one sitting. And most of them are, frankly, not worth looking at. We're overloaded... bombarded... tired of seeing them.
The old images still talk to us as they still spark those dreams. If they'd been digital they'd still have done that because they were new and fresh, and the world was challenging and exciting. That, is what I believe the problem to be. There are still amazing images out there. There are unexplored places. There are images yet to be made, but how to differentiate those images from from noise is what has become the problem. Places and fashion and art are all mundane because we're inundated with them. That makes images of places and fashion and art mundane because little is new and fresh any more.
Sometimes it's good to take a break for a while. Take the opportunity unload some of the noise... re-evaluate what you want to see, and then really begin looking again with fresh eyes.
thegman
Veteran
You may be talking about me. For me, it's hobby, not an art, not a calling, just a hobby. My interest is relatively strong at the moment, but probably as distraction from other things.
Joosep
Well-known
No. You are not alone in that boat.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Nice. My wife said this morning, "All the places I still want to go, and haven't seen, I want to visit 50 to 200 years ago." The places we dream of -- the South Seas, Egypt, wherever -- are the images that were constructed before we ever read or saw them, and they no longer exist. Do we actually want modern Lhasa, Tahiti, even Delhi (which I first saw 30+ years ago)?
Cheers,
R.
JeffL
Well-known
Nice.
(The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.)
(The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.)
benlees
Well-known
None is better. Many of my pictures are motivated by base sentimentality. Pictures run the gamut, do they not? This is why the OP is tilting at windmills.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Well, you're right, Roger. Even Ansel Adams' work, love him or hate him, can't be duplicated today because of air quality issues. I can't tell you how many times over the years in the '80s and '90s I tried to get a shot of Half Dome... and got haze instead. The world has changed, and although we may be more physically comfortable in many ways (at least in the industrialized nations) I'm not sure all of those changes have been for the better.
On Edit... one more thought... I had the opportunity to visit the east coast of Australia in 2006. I expected... well... to see things Australian. And I did, in fact, get to see a few things that were natively Australian, but Sydney, Melbourne and the Gold Coast are, for all intents and purposes carbon copies of southern California from Morro Bay south to the border. Burger King, MacDonald's, and the Hard Rock Cafe were everywhere. Culture, at least in the English speaking world has become very homogenous.
zauhar
Veteran
The OP is responding (I think) to the tension between those who see no significance in process and medium, and care only about the "final product", and those who know that the process is an integral part of what is created. The process is where the "magic" lies.
This is a debate that appears on RFF in various guises, usually film vs digital, but also "real human relationship" vs social media. I think it is a central issue of our time, and I appreciate the OPs thoughtful take on this .
Randy
This is a debate that appears on RFF in various guises, usually film vs digital, but also "real human relationship" vs social media. I think it is a central issue of our time, and I appreciate the OPs thoughtful take on this .
Randy
KM-25
Well-known
I see it big time, a lot of style has been lost in the transition, especially from some of my long time favorite NG photogs. You could *really* feel their style and knowledge of the materials they used at a near-subconcious level, now...not so much.
But I hear ya' man, that is why after using both mediums for a long time, I have gone nearly all back to film and darkroom work, and I make a full time living off of it. It just feels so good to fully get back to what my gut instinct tells me is the way forward.
And it is a combination of the journey, the way you arrive at a finished photograph and the photograph it self, staring you in the face with that look that film use can give so consistently.
In this day and age, there is the computer and all the little devices that are also one...
And then there is everything that is not a computer....thank god. So keep using film, it is the future of many a great artist.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
hepcat
Former PH, USN
It was mostly a function of particulate diffraction. Air standards were much more lax in the 1980s, and smog from the Bay Area and Sacto was blowing into the valley and piling up in those days. The valley even had smog alert days back then. Even 'clear' days had smog. It's probably better today than it was then.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Point taken but I never cease to be amazed at what heavy orange or red filtration can do.
Cheers,
R.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Well, that's an interesting way to phrase the question. Because i began in the Film Era, i began as a fan of photography in general. But, now that there are two media, there is now an issue of 'which type' you're a fan of.
I can't say i'm "just in love with film." I do see digitally-created images that i like/love/respect. But, never nearly as much as the film stuff. I'm not trying to look for a digital/film argument. I'm not trying to discern between them.
It just happens that i noticed a trend — my diminishing interest in looking for new work, online, especially. And, that seems to coincide with the domination of digital images. I used to spend so much time on flickr and several others, and saw so much fantastic work... and now, those same sites leave me cold.
On one hand, perhaps it's just that there was a great rush to use those sites, and most of the worthwhile photographers have already put up their work and i've seen it. Or, it's that the old work they put up is what was interesting to me, and now the new digital stuff... isn't.
Even the people i used to love, who are still working for the same magazines — their pages just aren't as interesting.... Haven't seen an interesting Meisel or Testino or Lindbergh image in years. I used to worship those guys. The quality of what they do is still high. It's just that the character — their personalities — are no longer evident. Too much sameness.
There's great value in the new tech. Being able to shoot at low light levels without noise is fantastic, for example. Back in the (near recent) day, you wouldn't even bother trying to shoot color if you couldn't use an ASA under 400. That opens a lot of opportunities. People are learning photography more quickly. MORE people are learning photography. That should all be positive. But....
Back to the Audio analogy. There was reported to be some sort of listening test, where an audience was presented with a digital recording of music. Then, that same recording was mixed with a small percentage of noise/hiss. Listeners preferred the 'less clean' version. That was from a while ago, and perhaps it was just familiarity with analog that affected preferences. We like what we know. I wonder if the results would be different today, when so many people have only known digital audio.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Ooh. Well said. Thank you.
KM-25
Well-known
I only look at photography on the web when I need to research something, otherwise, I get a headache and often a bit of reflux with all the never ending circles of praise with the False Admiration Societies.
I had a conversation with an art director in NYC this morning who I am working with on a really fun ad campaign. She told me congratulations on a nice magazine cover......I asked her how did she see it in NYC? She replied that in order to keep her sanity, she relegates her intake of photography to the "Venues", not places like Flickr, etc. Can't say I blame her, regardless of how many diamonds there may be hidden in the rough...
The internet presence of photography is simply too much of a good thing surrounded by a lot more not-so-good things...
daveleo
what?
Wonderful thread on complex issues. I have only a penny of a comment.
Ultimately you get to the point of having seen basically everything, and you want to see something new and stimulating. But very few brave people dare to produce "new and stimulating" because either (1) it doesn't pay the bills or (2) all they will get is abuse from the veteran "experts" (who want "new and stimulating" as long as it looks the same as they've been loving for the last 50 years).
@OP . . . I think you need to get away from looking at other people's work for a long while, meditate on the mountaintop and come down with your own new ideas. Film or digital . . . whatever.
Ultimately you get to the point of having seen basically everything, and you want to see something new and stimulating. But very few brave people dare to produce "new and stimulating" because either (1) it doesn't pay the bills or (2) all they will get is abuse from the veteran "experts" (who want "new and stimulating" as long as it looks the same as they've been loving for the last 50 years).
@OP . . . I think you need to get away from looking at other people's work for a long while, meditate on the mountaintop and come down with your own new ideas. Film or digital . . . whatever.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Exactly! Most of the places I go disappoint me, as I have seen photos taken there before I was born, and when I get there
It is all a tourist trap. Maybe I need a Tardis instead of a new camera...
dabick42
Well-known
I once sniffed at a digital camera, handled it, switched it on, looked through the viewfinder, marvelled at all the completely unnecessary (to me) gizmos and doodads therein and thereon, shrugged and walked away.
I'm an amateur film-only photographer who doesn't feel the need for a digital camera, although I fully understand the reasons that compel an increasing majority of photographers, especially professionals, to use them.
I, however, prefer the simple, angst-free life of a film user.
To me, nothing beats the pleasure of using 60, 70, 80 year-old Leica cameras and lenses with today's amazingly good B/W and colour films and seeing the high image quality that this craftsman-made equipment is really capable of producing.
I'm constantly astounded at the quality I manage to wring out of my ''golden oldies'', just as I constantly marvel at the skill and ingenuity of the experts who designed and made these exquisite mechanical masterpieces.
Compared with these jewels, digital cameras are technically marvellous, emotionless, plasticised computermabobs... (!)
I'm an amateur film-only photographer who doesn't feel the need for a digital camera, although I fully understand the reasons that compel an increasing majority of photographers, especially professionals, to use them.
I, however, prefer the simple, angst-free life of a film user.
To me, nothing beats the pleasure of using 60, 70, 80 year-old Leica cameras and lenses with today's amazingly good B/W and colour films and seeing the high image quality that this craftsman-made equipment is really capable of producing.
I'm constantly astounded at the quality I manage to wring out of my ''golden oldies'', just as I constantly marvel at the skill and ingenuity of the experts who designed and made these exquisite mechanical masterpieces.
Compared with these jewels, digital cameras are technically marvellous, emotionless, plasticised computermabobs... (!)