Something Important

[sol33]

From the article:
> What the important audience wants now is the narrative, the story, the "why" and not the "how." The love, not the schematic.

Is this really something that has changed? When I look at a photograph, the "why" is certainly something that I care much more about than the "how." And the great photographers from the past certainly did care about the "why".

What I think changed more is the way we share pictures. It is so easy now to take a picture and instantly share it with a friend or with the world. This leads to a different type of communication and produces different pictures. But new technology does not have to be exclusive. I enjoy both, my cellphone and my analogue rangefinder. And all those digital filters that try to make cellphone photos look like analogue photos are proof that (at least a few) cellphone snappers are jealous about the aura of a physical object, which is something that their photos completely lack.

 

[Major Tom]

Well, I'm happy to accept anything I might have missed in my inbox.

People should generally not be "sorry" to disagree. An unsafe thing to say on an internet forum, perhaps.

It is one thing to disagree with a conclusion, but for me to say that of this article is like saying that I "respectfully disagree" that the moon is made of cheese: opinions do not intrinsically deserve respect, other than the obvious prerogative to say so, which I don't think has been called into question by myself or anyone. Other than the author's knowledge, conclusion and premises thereof, I have not trespassed with my scrutiny. As to whether I was otherwise diversionary or scurrilous, I put myself in the safekeeping of the reader.

On the general subject of the article:

I have seen what the younger crowd described therein do outside trade shows, and while their methods and outlook are new, all their expectations and aspirations boomerang as painfully as they ever did for any artist. Same fallacies. Same mistakes. The sea of failure has only been made ever wider and the tiny pool of success no more than a drop larger, and what separates the two has not changed. The tools are new, the field has expanded or shrunk in various directions, but the criteria are the same. And there will always be a market for people who know this, because while it is not sufficient for success, it is necessary. And success carries influence, from then to now and until the actual doomsday. And they will always defy explanations and predictions like this article, as they have before. And we are all the better for it.

 

[MCTuomey]

Thanks to Bill for the link and to Kirk Tuck for taking the time to post.

Agree with Kirk's assessment. Happy that some have the talent and insight to carve a niche for themselves to make and sell fine prints. Regret that it's a shrinking number as a result of the ease with which cell phone files slake the public's "thirst for images."

More than ever, it's time to make images that people want to own and display for their pleasure rather than just store on a phone.

 

[rivercityrocker]

I've read through this thread and I don't see anyplace where Kirk Tuck was "attacked" as some have put it. Yes, there were some relatively strong counter-opinions, but nothing I'd relegate as an attack.

Not everyone is going to agree with your opinions, when you put them on the web for people to see, and you are a public figure in the photography world, you have to take the criticism in stride.

I know this from experience because because I too am the author of a couple of dozen photography books and I write my own blog, as well as articles for other blogs, and print magazines. Even more coincidentally I live in Austin, TX too. If I got mad every time someone attacked me for posting an opinion they didn't like I'd spend half my day hammering out rebuttals.

That's just my 2¢...

 

[jean-louis salvignol]

Kirk returns to this theme with a critical angle of attack.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.fr/2014/05/and-while-were-on-subject-of-economics.html

To illuminate the background of this movement, which is the underlying logic of the photographic act, two contributions in French.


Baudrillard :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiHpGAjA33E


Barthes :


http://www.idixa.net/Pixa/pagixa-0704171838.html


JLS

 

[jean-louis salvignol]

To better situate the thought of Baudrillard, two quotes (emphasis are mine):

"The desire to photograph is the opposite of the desire to signify at all costs, to testify or inform. It is within the realm of sideration and illusion. In the order of disappearance, too, because if something wants to become an image, it is not to last, it is to better disappear."


“Behind the “blur”, lies the intuition that it is impossible for one to grasp reality in full focus, that it is impossible to capture the world in its fluidity, transience, and inaccuracy – and thus be a true witness. This is about capturing movement, the mode of apparition, in a sort of anamorphose and improvisation.”

Jean Baudrillard - Are we? 2006.

 

[Ronald M]

Disgusting. We finally have 35mm equal to med format quality and people are unhappy.

I will be keeping my digi Leicas and Nikon FX no matter what. They are my idea of perfection.

 

[willie_901]

I don't get it.

Film photography commerce is in the last stages of a transition from a mainstream to a niche business. In general niche status means availability goes down and costs go up. Niche business models can be very profitable and e-commerce makes quality niche services available to anyone who values those services. Large corporations rarely participate in niche commerce unless there is a marketing leverage to enhance their brand in the eyes of mainstream consumers. One example is Porsche, Ferrari, Mercedes and others offer complete parts and restoration services for their vintage automobiles. The cost is horrific and the service can be slow, but try buying a replacement parts for a 1955 Mercedes-Benz 300SL Gull-Wing coupe at AutoZone.

And

Printing photographs has been in decline for decades. I recently saw "Finding Vivian Maier". In the beginning of the film John Maloff discusses how long before he bid on Maier's belongings he and his family actively purchased abandoned storage locker contents as a sideline business. He commented over the years they discarded "tons of negatives" (as well as prints) because they had no commercial value.

So what's the difference if negatives and prints get discarded because there's no one left who cares about them, or if digital images become unavailable for the same reason?

The operative word here is care. If someone cares about digital images they will back them up to multiples devices in multiple locations and transfer them to new devices and.or formats as technology changes. At some point in time no one will care anymore and the images will go away. Prints of the same images may last longer. But again, if no one cares about them they will eventually be discarded as well.

Nothing has changed.

 

[Ronald_H]

I am afraid my comment will get lost in the noise, but I think Mr. Tuck is astonishingly right. I really did have a 'wow, there is really someone who gets it' experience. As a young middle aged (43) person I think I can straddle the young and the old. I do confess to 'classic gear lust' , and to touting my customized M2 proudly in public. But what if you reach the point that you actually own all your dream cameras? I found out long ago that it's not all about owning them, but also about using them. Well, at least for me. Its about learning and expressing, not about dismissing digital, Instagram and Facebook or even color photography. And it definitely not about feeling safe, smug and superior because I'm older, richer and more experienced.

And I also will confess to a mild case of social networking addiction. Why does no camera maker yet understand the impact of the immediacy of it all? But phones are too limited in photo quality and cameras too limited in connectivity. Attempts to meet in the middle (Samsung Galaxy camera) are frustratingly poorly executed. I lust for that breakthrough too.

But in the end what matters most are my pictures. I love them more than any of my cameras. And that's something I think the average RFF user is less concerned about than the difference between a Summar and a Summitar.

 

[Kevcaster]

Yes useful link and helped clarify my current responses to the way photography is progressing. I like the trend to EVF/mirror less, especially mirror less - why have them anymore? I also like the way that younger people use photography almost similar to the vision of George Eastman.
The use of old lenses is fully understandable for the older photographer, providing a satisfying link to the past and taking into account our unwillingness to abandon it. I suspect also this is a marketing person's strategy to wean us onto digital and I think we should consider that a useful confluence of interests. I am not deluding myself about old lenses having special qualities, modern lenses are really up to the job - I look forward to more in the mold of the Contax G1/2 series, smaller, lighter, fast aperture, nicely built without the old-git price premium; and also recognise that most digital users do not care about any of this and so I may wait in vain.
Nice thread
Kevin