'Your beautiful pictures are stupid' and other iPhone photography writings

scottwallick

ambition ≥ skill
Local time
11:42 AM
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
574
Location
Queens, N.Y., USA
I'm sharing two interesting articles examining iPhone photography and—dare I use this phrase here—digital photography and/or common post-processing techniques in photography.

First, Eric Spiegelman writes in Notes in iPhone Photography that applying various effects via software in these photographs,

". . . is a farce. It’s like saying I’m a cook because I mix and match TV dinners. It’s retarded to think I have a photographic style in iPhone photography. I hope the ghost of Walker Evans punches me in the face."

We should all be so lucky to have the ghost of Walker Evans punch us in our faces.

Second up is the provocatively titled Your Beautiful Pictures Are Stupid: Against Trendy Digital Photography. Here, Choire makes an astute observation that, in my opinion, describes 99% of photography everywhere by everyone since photography was available:

"But we have learned to 'think' in images this way. These are romantic and really somewhat infantile image techniques. They're childish and nostalgic. They're about sunny days and buzzing bees and reading books on a porch, and about road trips and romanticizing urban grime and being oh so gently alienated."

She's closely describes at least in part what I dislike about my own photography.

So discuss!
 
Facebook images all look alike with different faces: Over exposed faces on a black background. How about all those people who have enough money to buy a dslr (nothing against digital) but then tell you that they want to take pictures like Ansel Adams. Ansel has been dead for 26 years and took most of his important work before that on a large format. It is like the whole world of "art" photography stopped in 1984.
 
Okay, so I'm a romanticist. Big deal. 😀

I do like the 'oh so gently alienated' bit though. One day I hope to be able to create loads of 'romantic' shots that contain a bit of 'oh so gentle alienation'. Or maybe a more brutal approach from time to time, just to keep things fresh 😉

Digital = fast food, it's been said before. I agree on the mixing TV-dinners bit too. Not saying digital is like fast food, period, but lotsa people use it that way and that will not change for the better anymore.

Oh, and ofcourse this means film will survive and be once again the medium of choice for the true photographer. There, I just wanted to say that before anybody else brought it up.

I took a head start last year and abandoned digital. Now, how cool is that today!?!?! 😛
 
Facebook images all look alike with different faces: Over exposed faces on a black background. How about all those people who have enough money to buy a dslr (nothing against digital) but then tell you that they want to take pictures like Ansel Adams. Ansel has been dead for 26 years and took most of his important work before that on a large format. It is like the whole world of "art" photography stopped in 1984.
Dear Steve,

Actually, he did all of his work (important or not) before he died.

Cynicism apart - sorry, could't resist the cheap shot based on an over-hasty reading of your post -- you are quite right. Lots of people want to be AA with a camera phone. Or 35mm.

Cheers,

R.
 
Okay, so I'm a romanticist. Big deal. 😀

I do like the 'oh so gently alienated' bit though. One day I hope to be able to create loads of 'romantic' shots that contain a bit of 'oh so gentle alienation'. Or maybe a more brutal approach from time to time, just to keep things fresh 😉

Digital = fast food, it's been said before. I agree on the mixing TV-dinners bit too. Not saying digital is like fast food, period, but lotsa people use it that way and that will not change for the better anymore.

Oh, and ofcourse this means film will survive and be once again the medium of choice for the true photographer. There, I just wanted to say that before anybody else brought it up.

I took a head start last year and abandoned digital. Now, how cool is that today!?!?! 😛


Like I posted once before about you guys... I learned to be cool from you! (With all due respects to Jimmy Buffet)🙂
 
Rollocks, with a B.

If someone takes a photo and they like it, and, perhaps, someone else likes it - great!

It might not be Choir's thing or it might not be my thing, but it is someone's thing.

I don't like these sort of articles because they assume 'now' and 'past' is better, I'm sure there were articles in the early 20th century much to the same effect as these wrt. those odd people with their tiny little cameras taking snaps of random stuff on the street.
 
I love the iPhone. It's another tool. I had learnt what i could to with it. The 5MP camera on the iPhone 4 is a better camera than on the 3GS and the new HDR function is useful, but the 3GS gave me more of that Gursky nostalgia than is possible with the 'better' camera. I have taken all these toys much more seriously since my daughter in early teenage got her first phone, a Sony Ericsson. She paints and draws and makes things and years ago took a photograph of the old boathouse from the bridge down the hill that is so full of atmosphere. I have tried all sorts of thing to take as good a photograph from the same spot, similar light etc and failed miserably. Now they've pulled the boathouse down. I wish I hadn't lost my 3GS.
 
Lots of people want to be AA with a camera phone. Or 35mm.

I love taking a trip up the Columbia River Gorge here in Oregon and photographing the natural wonders, but half the fun comes from watching the other photographers. Last year it was the woman with a nice DSLR around her neck, and yet she only took photo's with her camera phone. This year it was someone doing a drive-by on Multnomah Falls with a P&S held in one hand and stuck out the car window as they drove past.

I can't help but believe that the average person would get better results from a $200 35mm P&S and decent film & processing than they would from any digital camera.
 
Back
Top Bottom