Unmet photographic needs

[:: Mark]

I have never felt a strong need to capture great images. For one I don't really believe that I can capture great images but more importantly even if I did there is no reward as such for great images today.

Surely there is there is the personal satisfaction of making images that you personally really enjoy?

Social media following is not a good barometer. It is easy to see from the stats on the blog that to get a good following I should just post colourful overly dramatic pictures, preferably with cats, children and naked women. As you say, there is no reward for great images, only for pandering to the largest mass of people possible.

If I have an unmet need it is more about ideas and subjects than equipment. I definitely need new ideas, but equipment? Probably not. Now if you want to talk about "wants" and GAS, that is a different subject entirely...

 

[Hsg]

You can't compare a gallery show to social media likes. It's just a whole different experience even if I don't sell something in a gallery it is still a success entering a gallery just before opening seing your pictures hanging on the wall gives you not only a feeling of anticipation but also a feeling of great contentment you made it your work is hanging in a gallery. In the social medias on the other hand every a hole can present his pictures it's also very unlikely that you will never receive a like. Hey some of the best liked pictures are those of cats.

Most Magnum photographers of the past never made any real money either the financially most succesful ones either left magnum or did some fashion work. They also sometimes came from money. 🙂

Also photography is not a thing of the past it is the predominant visual media, the prices for photographs in the art market are on the rise not the other way round. There are just a lot more photographs being made than in the past and it gets harder to be noticed in the noise. But the medium is very far from dead.

As for the unmet photographic needs I would love a portable digital analogue camera that records an image on film and a the same time on a digital sensor and cf card.

For a gallery show you need social media following to bring people over to your exhibition.

If you invite friends and family, of course they're all going to praise your work and maybe even buy prints to make you happy.

 

[Hsg]

(See also DominikDUK post before this one.)

Sorry but that just is not the reality, as I see it (but of course that is just my opinion), but certainly the enormous money involved these days has made for a much more confusing environment. I still cannot quite wrap my head around individual images selling for 6 figures. The Gagosian effect is admittedly confusing, to older artists. Fact is however the galleries are full of photos, and they are selling.

Documentary photographers? You have changed the subject from gallery artists, or as you put it "gallery chasing."

There is probably more money being made by non-fine arts photographers than any time in history, despite the demise of news hard copy. One has to be flexible if one is doing anything creative commercially.

There are admittedly a lot of frankly mediocre photographers chasing fame, it is the nature of everyone making so many images, many began to think they "should" be showing.

All of these photos that are selling for six figures, they're mostly from film era, which is photography's past. If a digital photo has sold for six figures, I'd like to know (Peter Lik does not count).

Photography's moment has passed because video is the dominant visual medium today.

 

[Hsg]

Surely there is there is the personal satisfaction of making images that you personally really enjoy?

Social media following is not a good barometer. It is easy to see from the stats on the blog that to get a good following I should just post colourful overly dramatic pictures, preferably with cats, children and naked women. As you say, there is no reward for great images, only for pandering to the largest mass of people possible.

If I have an unmet need it is more about ideas and subjects than equipment. I definitely need new ideas, but equipment? Probably not. Now if you want to talk about "wants" and GAS, that is a different subject entirely...

Personal satisfaction is a vague term, one needs concrete acknowledgement for one's work.

That 'need' to have one's work acknowledged is virtually impossible today - no matter how good the work is.

 

[photomoof]

All of these photos that are selling for six figures, they're mostly from film era, which is photography's past. If a digital photo has sold for six figures, I'd like to know (Peter Lik does not count).

Photography's moment has passed because video is the dominant visual medium today.

You are kidding right? Is Google broken where you live?

Cindy Sherman -- Untitled #153 (1985) – $2.7 million
Andreas Gursky -- Los Angeles (1998) – $2.9 million
Richard Prince -- Untitled (Cowboy)(1989) – $3.4 million
Jeff Wall -- Dead Troops Talk (1992) – $3.7 million
Gilbert & George -- For Her Majesty (1973) – $3.7 million
Cindy Sherman -- Untitled #96 (1981) – $3.9 million
Andreas Gursky - Rhein II (1999) – $4.3 million

Which is not to say there are not bargains out there:

Thomas DEMAND (EUR 131,688)
Thomas STRUTH (EUR 307,272)
Rineke DIJKSTRA (EUR 395,064)

Film vs. digital is an RFF discussion, collectors are not interested. In the real world there is no such thing as the "film era." Film is still widely available, and fully supported by professional labs like Dugal.

Peter Lik? Seriously?

 

[David Hughes]

That would be cool.

Hi,

It nearly existed; Kodak did an APS camera (film) that had a 1.8" screen like a digital camera and so let you preview the shot you'd
just taken. It had a sensor linked to the screen, obviously, but no built in memory. So you lost the shot when the next one was taken but the film still, obviously, had them all.

It was called the Kodak Advantix Preview.

Regards, David

 

[Hsg]

You are kidding right? Is Google broken where you live?

Cindy Sherman -- Untitled #153 (1985) – $2.7 million
Andreas Gursky -- Los Angeles (1998) – $2.9 million
Richard Prince -- Untitled (Cowboy)(1989) – $3.4 million
Jeff Wall -- Dead Troops Talk (1992) – $3.7 million
Gilbert & George -- For Her Majesty (1973) – $3.7 million
Cindy Sherman -- Untitled #96 (1981) – $3.9 million
Andreas Gursky - Rhein II (1999) – $4.3 million

Which is not to say there are not bargains out there:

Thomas DEMAND (EUR 131,688)
Thomas STRUTH (EUR 307,272)
Rineke DIJKSTRA (EUR 395,064)

Film vs. digital is an RFF discussion, collectors are not interested. In the real world there is no such thing as the "film era." Film is still widely available, and fully supported by professional labs like Dugal.

Peter Lik? Seriously?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs

In the above list of most expensive photos ever sold. The only one from digital age (2009) is by the Russian president (I'm not kidding), which means that also does not count, and says a lot about photography auction houses. The rest are all from 2001 and before - what I call the film era.

That list might change and we might see some digital works there as well, but I'm doubtful.

Peter Lik is a good example because his the only digital photographer who seems to be making a lot of money, but his a joke to the art establishment of photography.

But then again, isn't the art establishment of photography also part of photography's past?

 

[Godfrey]

I thought this was a discussion about unmet photographic needs, not some hooey about the future-present of Photography's standing as an art form.

By the way, the merit of an art form has nothing to do with how much money a piece of the art sells for.

Try to make photographs that satisfy you or your client if you happen to be doing it for pay. If you find you want or need something to do with that effort, address that. It's all really that simple.

G

 

[Hsg]

I think some photographers with all their investment in photography might feel that they "need" to sell their work... I'm sure there are photographers who make a living by selling their work so the "need" to sell is relevant to this thread.


As to photography's past and present, that calls for its own thread.

 

[sreed2006]

The fastest way to make money in photography is to sell your gear.

 

[Keith]

If my needs can't be met by the M240 and Nikon D4 I sold my soul to the devil to own .... I'm in serious trouble! 😛

 

[Godfrey]

I think some photographers with all their investment in photography might feel that they "need" to sell their work... I'm sure there are photographers who make a living by selling their work so the "need" to sell is relevant to this thread. ...

Unless you operate a business selling photographs, none of this equipment is an investment. Photographic equipment for anyone not in the business of selling photographs is a luxury expense, period. If you are operating a photo business, and you aren't selling enough, than you have problems greater than anything to do with equipment, and buying more equipment isn't going to solve anything.

Your original question was about equipment needs. If you want to expand the topic to cover business needs, emotional needs, etc ... Well, the sky's the limit. Have fun with that!
;-)

G

 

[Godfrey]

If my needs can't be met by the M240 and Nikon D4 I sold my soul to the devil to own .... I'm in serious trouble! 😛

I feel the same way about the M-P and D750. Although I did go out and buy yet another Polaroid—and it's worked out great! 🙂

G

 

[photomoof]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs

In the above list of most expensive photos ever sold. The only one from digital age (2009) is by the Russian president (I'm not kidding), which means that also does not count, and says a lot about photography auction houses. The rest are all from 2001 and before - what I call the film era.

That list might change and we might see some digital works there as well, but I'm doubtful.

Peter Lik is a good example because his the only digital photographer who seems to be making a lot of money, but his a joke to the art establishment of photography.

But then again, isn't the art establishment of photography also part of photography's past?

The museums are full of digital work, and it will sell, sometime in the future at these prices, and more. Even Sebastião Salgado's new digital work is well over 100k. I look at a lot of work, the galleries are showing a lot of expensive digital imagery. The Venice Biennale (on now through Nov) shows a lot of amount of digital work.

Despite your conviction to the contrary, the world's galleries and museums are showing new work.

Medvedev really is not part of this discussion.

 

[maxmadco]

I have no real needs, pretty happy just finding time to take pictures.
Being a machinist I love the old mechanical cameras like the Barnack's and the M's with preference to the former as they are beautiful in my eyes.
For me just having fun shooting the older cameras is enough.

 

[photomoof]

I thought this was a discussion about unmet photographic needs, not some hooey about the future-present of Photography's standing as an art form.

I can relate only to the need to make work.

Equipment is forever interesting [as machines] but has absolutely no interest to me as an unmet need -- since I cannot imagine how the need would be unmet, unless it has not been invented yet. Almost any modern camera will do.

Time, ideas, revelation, a platform to exhibit [galleries, publication?], maybe income, are unmet needs, always evolving.

 

[back alley]

this is such a strange discussion...

 

[Keith]

this is such a strange discussion...

It reminds me of those movies that have multiple stories happening! 🙂

 

[fireblade]

If a digital photo has sold for six figures, I'd like to know (Peter Lik does not count).

I have a whole external drive with digital images worth millions....but i won't sell them.

 

[lynnb]

If my needs can't be met by the M240 and Nikon D4 I sold my soul to the devil to own .... I'm in serious trouble! 😛

The devil just offered me a really good deal on a pre-owned soul in BGN condition, Keith - was that yours?