The Flickr photo; it's a "style" ???

Sofa King said:
Marshall McLuhan said the medium IS the message.
Click to expand...

If the medium is the message, and the medium is part of a corporation who's revenue depends on visitors and site traffic, and by way of viral advertising to gain market share they create a social networking site of amateur and professional photographers then by virtue of transitive property....wait, I dunno what I'm saying, I just lost my train of thought. I'm going to go watch commercials on TV now and shotgun a beer in my living room.
 
I find Flickr is in many ways parallel to the current world of movies.

Technology has democratized moviemaking like it has photography. While glossy digital eye candy and (as always) naked people sell big, there's space for everybody. There's plenty of active groups on Flickr devoted to film photography as well as neo-technicolor HDR.

The most popular of my Flickr photos barely breaks a few hundred views, but I've found it a great way to share and get a little feedback from people who aren't my personal friends. It's really been a great motivator.
 
flickr is great, I think, in aspect that many people post there what they want not what is cultivated by local photo group. In this context globalization is great. As RFF is.
 
Count me in, too. I've been on flickr for about 4 years now. I originally used it mainly as a place to store photos for my photoblog, which is just a virtual contact sheet. I still use it for that purpose, but have also found it to be extremely useful for networking w/other photographers, many of whom have become real world friends . . and use film (& RFs). It's also nice to see what other shooters are doing.

If there is any flickr "style," I think it's just a reflection of the prevailing aesthetics of current mass/popular photography, which happens to be overwhelmingly digital & oriented towards web & cellphone display, not prints.

willie_901 said:
I am in full agreement with Jan and Matt. Flickr is about sharing photographs (and now short videos). There is a social networking aspect as well.

I use RFF for information sharing (it's strong point) and Flickr for photo sharing (it's strong point). Each sites strengths and weaknesses are complimentary.

There's a lot of garbage as well as a lot of wonderful work on Flickr.

The generic Interestingness in Flickr's Explore[TM] is useless to me.

Here's a tip. Search for a subject you are interested in (bokeh, Noctilux, minimal, abstract, etc.). The default view is "most relevant". Then change the view to "interestingness". Chances are, the result will be photos you find useful. With this method I find Flickrs' rankings have a more specifc meaning.

If a particular photographer's photos appeal to you, go to their page and look at the Groups where they place their photos. Also, people who comment on their work are likely to have photos you will find useful as well.

willie
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
furcafe said:
If there is any flickr "style," I think it's just a reflection of the prevailing aesthetics of current mass/popular photography, which happens to be overwhelmingly digital & oriented towards web & cellphone display, not prints.
Click to expand...

I think you are right - but only for those who, having found Flickr, now attempt to 'get seen' or 'get comments' or even 'make it into Explorer' on Flickr. To that end, they will manipulate their photographs - or modify their style, manner, or subjects - in order to be more what the 'madding crowd' is looking for today.

This is, of course, not my preference, and not what I use Flickr for - so I can safely say that I do not have, nor adhere to, a 'Flickr Style', if such there be.

Nonetheless, I find Flickr to be brilliant, and I view it as one of the most intelligent applications of technology as applied to photography in some time. It is outstanding, and for many reasons.

Not the least of which is its value to the future. If we have one.
 
I find Flickr incredibly diverse, but it's also pretty easy to find styles that I like. I often find Flickr-hosted photos to be far more creative and interesting than a lot of other more "professional" photographers. You may not think so, but I think there's a huge potential in the Flickr universe.

There's a lot of film-shot pix there, once you start looking around for it. If that's what you want, try searching by camera name or film type; that tends to bring up the film shooters.

I read most of my news via an RSS reader (NetNewsWire on the Mac), which also can follow Flickr photostreams and pools; I have subscribed to 20-25 feeds that way, and enjoy my daily photo fix.
 
Flickr is great, even the self-portrait queens in a small doses. The doll people are okay I guess, but what is it with the yarn people???
 
True enough. Though it hasn't affected my personal shooting style AFAIK, 1 totally unexpected (to me) use for flickr's "interestingness" ratings is as a kind of "focus group" or market research tool for determining which of my photos has more sales potential in shows, etc. Shots having higher interestingness ratings do seem to sell better than many of my personal choices w/lower ratings.

bmattock said:
I think you are right - but only for those who, having found Flickr, now attempt to 'get seen' or 'get comments' or even 'make it into Explorer' on Flickr. To that end, they will manipulate their photographs - or modify their style, manner, or subjects - in order to be more what the 'madding crowd' is looking for today.

This is, of course, not my preference, and not what I use Flickr for - so I can safely say that I do not have, nor adhere to, a 'Flickr Style', if such there be.

Nonetheless, I find Flickr to be brilliant, and I view it as one of the most intelligent applications of technology as applied to photography in some time. It is outstanding, and for many reasons.

Not the least of which is its value to the future. If we have one.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I feel about that girl from Iceland the way I feel about Georgia O'Keefe, I don't particularly like their work. But I still use Flickr and go into art galleries. There are plenty of good Photographers on Flickr: look and Bub Greene or Rich815.
 
Being from Vancouver (where flickr started) and knowing people who started flickr, I've been using the site since 2004. It actually really helped me rediscover photography and find a community of like-minded people. I've made some great friends through flickr, and actually indirectly met my long-term girlfriend as a result of being on flickr (when a friend who knew I was posting on flickr told me she also had a friend who posted images there too. This friend and I got to chatting, met shortly thereafter, and now own a house together).

Flickr is fascinating. The large majority of images posted are dreck without question. Much of what gets popular, to my eyes, seems to be people replicating popular images or styles: ultra-saturated, manipulated, looking a great deal like anything off the pages of a stock catalogue. Very little interests or challenges me, but these images are hugely popular and create a great deal of excitement among like-minded people.

Mike Johnston, far more eloquent than I could ever be, sums up this phenomenon very well in this article:

"[P]eople strive to make cookie-cutter pictures ("again and again") that embody "how pictures look and should look." Most pictures aren't pictures, they're imitations of pictures. Collectively we're rushing toward what we should be rushing away from. Individually, of course, there's nothing wrong with any of this—as I've said, any individual can do anything he or she pleases, as long as there are no casualties. But as an active and expectant member of the audience of photography as a whole, it makes me wonder, and, I have to say, worry."

I do love that flickr ignited a passion for photography among countless people, in part I think due to peoples love of expressing themselves and receiving feedback and attention on what they've produced. Although most of what is popular ("interesting") on flickr is derivative and generic (this is the 'flickr style'), there are nuggets of brilliance to be seen and some real community building going on.
 
I need to focus more on my photography so that I can improve and get that 'Pro' label next to my flickr name. That would be cool!
 
Did anyone notice this in the NY Times article?:

Commenters loved the way Guoleifsdottir looked — she’s a weight-trained, protean-looking woman with movie-star eyes — but Flickr members often deem analog photos unfocused. (“A mixture of melancholy and curiosity,” wrote a commenter on one image. “It’s a shame about the focus.”)
Click to expand...
Unless I'm misreading this, the writer seems totally unaware that the comment refers to focus as a technical quality, and has nothing do with intent or subject matter. In case you aren't convinced, the comment is on this page, and yes, the photo is out of focus.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/14668228/

I do think there is some truth in the article. As others have observed there is a recognisable 'type' of image that is almost guaranteed to attract attention on Flickr, typically playing on over-saturated colours, extreme perspective or HDR (now officially the most overused technique in existence) or all of the above.

I still think Flickr is great though because beyond the cookie-cutter stuff there really is infinite variety. Not to mention the fact that it's a very convenient and user friendly way to share photos.

Matthew
 
I just use it as a storage site for whatever I shoot good or bad, never thought about it as a career platform or something to work. Some of the the Icelandic woman's stuff is pretty good, don't see how her dialogue with her admirers is any different than artists smoozing and cruising for patrons in the real art world.
 
Now when I click on the link a N Y Times registration form comes up telling me I have to register before I can read it.:(
 
But wait....true, most of pictures aren't recognized as brilliant or even good enough to show, but remember how different could be history if Hitler would get appreciation as painter - world could avoid WWII ! So in many ways it's better that seeking minds build their chart climbing skills instead of smashing stones into driving buses, getting into dealing drugs and killing their schoolmates.
 
I recently found out about this portal and had a look.
It appears to me that lots and lots of images there are reincarnations of imagery I have seen before, in galleries and different magazines over the years.
Could it be that the many photo amateurs there are copying each others ideas recursively, adding up to a huge stack of conceptually-identical pictures?
That is what is seems to be like at first glance.
If I were willing to upload an interesting photo or more likely a series of photos, it certainly wouldn't be there.
My feeling is that publication on that portal would probably reduce the long-term value of that work.
I think I will remain content at viewing the many great images here at rff because each one of those that I admire is quite deep in some way - and not simply the product of what appears to be an endless recursion of copycat implementations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom