There are too many images.

funkaoshi said:
And ElectroWNED, would that photo be as interesting if you had all the frames leading up to and all the frames that follow?
Click to expand...

I think so, yes... my point was that photographers (and almost all rangefinder photographers) are simply capturing moments of life.

How can you have too much of that? That's like saying life isn't worth examining...
 
Micky D said:
If that girl was a pro model and everybody and his dog had painted her, YES!

Be that as it may, I won't intervene in any more threads with you.
Try to learn how to discuss Bill, and not argue for arguments sake.
Click to expand...

Funny, I'm not the one turning every thread personal. Is that what you mean by 'discussion'? Or do you simply mean I am not to disagree with your opinions?

Have you ever heard of eclentic (from the root word 'eclenchus') examination? That's my model for discussion. I am sorry if you find it offensive, it is certainly not aimed at you, nor is it personal in any way.
 
There are too many songs and musicians. Go to any musical hotspot in the US. Go to Branson, Texas. There are guitar players waiting tables that 30 years ago would have been top session musicians.
 
"Far too many photographs are taken merely, as it were, to exhibit the qualities of the lens. There is almost a craze for giving the sharpest possible definition to the greatest amount of detail that can be got in. If the detail is so over-accentuated it is made the most important feature of the picture, and anyone looking at the print will miss entirely the general effect and concentrate his attention merely on the definition. He may be able to count almost every stone in a mass of screes, and get no idea at all of the picture really presented in the photograph."
Click to expand...

-- "MOUNTAINEERING," by C. T. Dent, LONDON, LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 1892

"One cannot deny that there is a terrible sameness about the average amateur's productions. One of the reasons is that he makes too many photographs. Each picture should be studied carefully and the best treatment accorded to it. It may take as long to finish one properly as to make a dozen in the usual way, but quality, not quantity, should be aimed at."
Click to expand...

-- "THE AMERICAN AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER," VOLUME VII. JANUARY-DECEMBER, 1895.

"GET AWAY WITH THAT BLACK EYE
BY J. D. MOSHER

In some photographs I see a dark, discolored shadow around and under it, that only is seen in persons who have been in a drunken brawl or fight, or had some mishap; when they would hasten to some painter in oil to give it a flesh-tint before they would make their debut. Too many photographers of the present lay are making just such photographs (or caricatures, the better name) for their patrons, and charging from two to five dollars per dozen for them. Is it any wonder that photography is not appreciated more by persons of art culture and art education? It is because there are so few photographs amongst the many that are made that come up to the standard of art rules, by comparison with high-art painting and drawings of the old masters."
Click to expand...

"Should one contemplate a change in size or quality of outfit, it is well not to dispose of the old lenses or boxes unless they are really worthless, but it is better to get the new thing desired and keep both, as the old may and very likely will prove advantageous some time. It is seldom an enthusiastic worker could be made to feel he owned too many cameras. To some a suggestion of this kind is hardly necessary, as they consider their cameras of the past or present like friends—something it is well to keep and cherish. Further as to the purchase of new material, especially a box or lens, it is well to use quite a little judgment and investigation to make sure the new thing will fill the requirements for which it is intended, as it is so easy to have disappointments come when it is too late to prevent them."
Click to expand...

-- THE PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMES," VOLUME XXIX. NEW YORK, 1897.


Arguments as old as photography. Too many cameras. Too many photos. Too many overly-sharp photos. Too many photos taken for the purpose of showing off how sharp the lens is. Too many photographers don't have an understanding of art (meaning painting). And on and on.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
No. No! Here's the solution . . . There are not enough people. If we were to increase the world's population from a mere 6 or 8 billion to a really significant number, say 30 billion, then there would be many more viewers per image, thereby increasing the perceived value of each image and, by extension, its photographer.

This would have other advantages, too, such as making continual economic growth a reality instead of something a politician talks about but knows is impossible given the constraints of reality. Humans could literally occupy every square inch of habitable land so that all the other species could be dispatched forthwith instead of dying a slow death, one life form after another, which takes quite along time.

This would also quickly use up all the remaining oil (finally) but that would be okay since movement would become impossible as the 30 billion mark was approached, except at a slow rate, swimming through masses of homo sapiens, one difficult step at a time.

You might say that the end result would be starvation, disease, pestilence and a die off of humans from 30 billion to zero in a short while. But sacrifice for art is not unheard of, is it?
 
Last edited:
Photography is not Art.
I'm not a painter either.

Nothing is too much too, too much may be not enough too.
 
Where the heck is Branson, Texas? You must mean Branson, Mo.

Actually, there are just the right amount of musicians, and just the right amount of professional photographers. Those that can make more money waiting tables, stop playing guitars. It's the free market at work.

Pickett Wilson said:
There are too many songs and musicians. Go to any musical hotspot in the US. Go to Branson, Texas. There are guitar players waiting tables that 30 years ago would have been top session musicians.
Click to expand...
 
Pickett Wilson said:
There are so many talented people posting so many fantastic photos to the web that the impact of any one photo or photographer is blunted.
Click to expand...

And that speaks to the real litmus test for a good image. Should we be making those kinds of distinctions about how good the images are, based on viewing them on the web.

What do you think the percentage of usable images would be if all the images we see on the internet were actually printed out to prints from 11X14 to 20X24.

The internet is a poor gauge of quality of the work, and I wonder if the Stock Image industry has really benefitted by moving to the internet, rather than making choices from actual film transparencies and/or print submissions?
 
I think ultimately it's a lament of lost mystique.

The more difficult photography was, the fewer photographs existed, the more mystique they had just by existing at all. There was also the unreliable, but real point that given the difficulties involved in producing photographs, the photographers were more likely given to more dedicated individuals and each photo has somewhat greater odds to not suck.

Nowadays, anybody with two nickels to rub together can get themselves a camera and shoot until they can't stay awake anymore. These same people can call themselves photographers, and they are really, in the sense that they're people who are taking photographs. Whether or not the photos are any good is beside the point.

So we're glutted with images, most of them crap. This doesn't make the really fine images any worse, but it does obscure them and make taste more of an issue.

I don't think there is anything to do about it. That's just how things are now and personally, I don't think that things were better when photography was an elite activity and photographers were sorcerers among the unwashed masses. If I'd lived back then, I don't think I've have taken any pictures at all.
 
Leighgion said:
I think ultimately it's a lament of lost mystique.

The more difficult photography was, the fewer photographs existed, the more mystique they had just by existing at all. There was also the unreliable, but real point that given the difficulties involved in producing photographs, the photographers were more likely given to more dedicated individuals and each photo has somewhat greater odds to not suck.

Nowadays, anybody with two nickels to rub together can get themselves a camera and shoot until they can't stay awake anymore. These same people can call themselves photographers, and they are really, in the sense that they're people who are taking photographs. Whether or not the photos are any good is beside the point.

So we're glutted with images, most of them crap. This doesn't make the really fine images any worse, but it does obscure them and make taste more of an issue.

I don't think there is anything to do about it. That's just how things are now and personally, I don't think that things were better when photography was an elite activity and photographers were sorcerers among the unwashed masses. If I'd lived back then, I don't think I've have taken any pictures at all.
Click to expand...

I think those are very valid points, thank you.

I would agree that there is a 'loss of mystique' as you say. To steal a term from my own discipline; the 'signal-to-noise' ratio goes up. However, what to do about it?

It appears to me that these things happen, part of the overall raising of the bar in terms of accessibility. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

One might consider the written word.

First, writing was something only the educated - meaning only the rich and powerful, possessed. Even teaching reading and writing was forbidden in some more repressive societies.

Gutenberg's press changed all that, and incidentally (or not) power shifted from the Church and the State to a more egalitarian society, and a merchant could now be a printer; a poor man could buy a broadsheet or a bible, be taught to read, and so educate himself, take part in the dialogue of civilization.

From there, the Samizdat could at least be partially seen as a cause of the various cracks that formed in the former eastern bloc nations.

Then we had the Bulletin Boards, and from there, the Internet. With that, web pages, discussion forums, and blogs. Now any fool with a computer and an internet account could say pretty much whatever they wanted - both good and bad. Totalitarian nations attempt to block access in and out, because it is, after all, that communication that is leveler of worlds.

Good or bad? We've got racist skinhead discussion forums and photography discussion forums. Pr0n and galleries of exquisite beauty. Merchants and low-buck swappers. Stolen goods and real steals that are legit.

One thing for sure - you can't turn off the tap now. That particular genii is probably not going to go back into the box.

And so, photographs. Now any fool can do it. Perhaps any fool should not - but the same could be said of their words. Are great novels any less great for all the screed-filled hate blogs out there?

I think in some ways, you have to take the bad with the good. I've always been in favor of maximum freedom - power to the people, baby. Let a billion flashbulbs bloom.
 
funkaoshi said:
“There are too many images,” he said. “Too many cameras now. We’re all being watched. It gets sillier and sillier. As if all action is meaningful. Nothing is really all that special. It’s just life. If all moments are recorded, then nothing is beautiful and maybe photography isn’t an art anymore. Maybe it never was.” -- Robert Frank.
Click to expand...

Cartier Bresson always said it: it's not art.
Robert Frank's images are outstanding and important but he couldn't work anymore. He went on to hate photography.
It's a cool thing to do: to take pics. That's all.
 
Micky D said:
There are certainly too many "bad" images, but this is mostly an internet phenomenon.

If we exclude the internet, then there are no more images than before, in fact probably less since Frank's time with all the "picture" magazines and their photo essays.
Click to expand...

cell phones w/ camera included!

at the same time there is a boom for large format photography... go figure.
 
Back in 1984 I left Photography as a professional PJ. Not enough money to live. Went telecoms and comms jobs after that. In 1987 was building IP networks for Universities and I remember saying if we could just send Photos and films over these netwoks anyone could use and see them... and Governments may fall because of it.
I have been bless to see it... to be part of it, I keep building bigger networks and seeing more photos.
Everyone is a photographer. That can't be bad!
Power to the People!
 
funkaoshi said:
“There are too many images,” he said. “Too many cameras now. We’re all being watched. It gets sillier and sillier. As if all action is meaningful. Nothing is really all that special. It’s just life. If all moments are recorded, then nothing is beautiful and maybe photography isn’t an art anymore. Maybe it never was.” -- Robert Frank.
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]R Frank is a senile old man. :D[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We have immediate access to disparate images of everything and anything. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And any subjective interpretation of any given image as art is irrelevant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What’s so special about a B&W picture of a car donned in a car cover? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Content and context matters. [/FONT]
 
Thanks to the OP for this great quote and the link to the article. I'm also reminded of the old song "Too Much of Nothing" and think I understand that song in a different light now. Just as printing more and more money never help get any country out of an economic tailspin, millions and millions of images, as many as the stars in the heavens, lessens the value of each to each. Everyone who gets his nose out of joint just needs to understand what the man is saying. Hmmm.... and I need to cull my photos of the bad and the mediocre. Otherwise, we're dealing with the needle/haystack effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom