Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: stamper on November 16, 2010, 07:45:39 am

Title: Flickr standards
Post by: stamper on November 16, 2010, 07:45:39 am
A very interesting blog on the merits of Flickr. November 13 entry; titled Flickr Fatigue.

http://shutterfinger.typepad.com/shutterfinger/
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: pegelli on November 16, 2010, 09:30:25 am
Allthough I don't disagree with his observation I think the "boredom" factor of this blog entry exceeds that of most Flickr photo's.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: RFPhotography on November 16, 2010, 07:35:39 pm
Allthough I don't disagree with his observation I think the "boredom" factor of this blog entry exceeds that of most Flickr photo's.

Now that's funny.  ;D

Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: EduPerez on November 18, 2010, 02:16:17 am
Why this snobbish attitude about photography?

First, not everybody wants to make interesting photographs;
and secondly, whatever the author finds interesting may feel boring to other (¿better?) photographers behind him.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: pegelli on November 18, 2010, 05:40:05 am
Why this snobbish attitude about photography?

Agree with you, and in addition to your arguments you can still learn from photographs you find boring or uninteresting to open your mind to what you might have done or seen differently in the same circumstances. That's an attribute that this blog entry cannot claim.

Last but not least, Flickr (and other photo sites) are not always an end in itself, it's also a place to share snaps with friends and family or as host for uploading pictures to other fora where more context is added.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: michswiss on November 18, 2010, 09:26:16 am
First, not everybody wants to make interesting photographs;.

I disagree.  I think people absolutely want to make interesting photographs.  The point of difference is the intended audience.  I want to take pictures that are interesting to people who wouldn't know me from shit to shinola, others will want to capture a moment at a birthday party or a casual gathering or event that carry memories to those there.  Flickr is mainly made up of the latter.  That's cool.  But it's also full of people that feel they are the former.  That's where the banal comes in and where we (snobs?) lose interest.

I know I need to get better at social networking if I intend to become a real photographer, so I've decided to experiment by joining a 52 week street photography project on Flickr.  We're in week seven and the backbiting in the group by those "offended" by the rules of the project is amazing. 
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: EduPerez on November 18, 2010, 10:15:45 am
I disagree.  I think people absolutely want to make interesting photographs.  The point of difference is the intended audience.  I want to take pictures that are interesting to people who wouldn't know me from shit to shinola, others will want to capture a moment at a birthday party or a casual gathering or event that carry memories to those there.  Flickr is mainly made up of the latter.  That's cool.  But it's also full of people that feel they are the former.  That's where the banal comes in and where we (snobs?) lose interest.
[...]

No, I think we agree: I used the term "interesting" in the same sense that the blog's author was using, who disregards all photos from your second group just because they are not interesting to him; and that is what I call a "snobbish attitude".
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: tokengirl on November 18, 2010, 06:54:22 pm
This bit caught my eye:

"It’s also possible that the failure to find much of interest in the millions of photos uploaded to Flickr is mine alone—though I doubt it."

I don't doubt it at all.  By making a small effort, one can discover all kinds of wonderful, interesting and even inspirational photos on Flickr.

Yes, there are tons of boring photos on Flickr.  What of it?

Geez, what a crybaby.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 19, 2010, 04:09:29 am
I know I need to get better at social networking if I intend to become a real photographer, so I've decided to experiment by joining a 52 week street photography project on Flickr.  We're in week seven and the backbiting in the group by those "offended" by the rules of the project is amazing. 


Jenn, that's not the networking you need. Those guys are going to give you as little work as anyone here in LuLa!

It's the 'client' class that you have to learn to love.

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: michswiss on November 19, 2010, 05:56:09 am

Jenn, that's not the networking you need. Those guys are going to give you as little work as anyone here in LuLa!

It's the 'client' class that you have to learn to love.

Rob C

I figured that you or Russ would pick up on this.  You already know that I lack confidence in my abilities. But I've received enough feedback from people I respect to trust that there's something there and I truly enjoy the  process of what I've done so far.  I have a lot of questions at this point that I'll put together in a separate post.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: RSL on November 19, 2010, 10:33:25 am
Jennifer, What do you mean when you say you want to become a "real photographer?" Do you mean a professional? You already are a real photographer. Unlike an awful lot of people who claim to be photographers, you look and you can see. You're right; there's something there, and that's what it is. I've used this quote from HCB a lot and I'll do it again because I think it's the most concise statement of the case I've ever read: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything."

On some web sites and in some photo magazines what you read in photographers' biographies is a list of their academic achievements and credentials. Aperture has become the prime offender in this respect. But you can take a lifetime of photography "courses," have advanced art degrees, and not learn what you've learned, as far as I know on your own. Regarding credentials, Elliott Erwitt said it best when he was asked to teach a course in photography: "What is there to teach?" As HCB also said, you can learn all the mechanics of photography from the manual that comes along with your camera and its nice leather case. (You don't get the case nowadays.) What you emphatically can't learn from other people is how to see. I think the ability to see photographically is, like musical ability, something you're born with. Rob seems to agree. You, obviously were born with it.

Since we've been through this before I know we'll have a half dozen people on here telling me that inborn ability is nothing. Long, hard work is what produces a good photographer. And they're partly right. Even if you're born with the ability you have to work at it to learn what's possible.

I always seem to come back to music when I get into this argument, so here goes: I love Mendelssohn's "Songs Without Words." I have two complete versions of the music on two CD sets. One set is played by a pianist who's hardly known (yet) in the music world. The other is played by a woman who has all sorts of credentials. The no-credentials guy interprets the music in a way that can bring tears to your eyes. The credentialed woman never misses a note, but she's a mechanic. The result is very precise but absolutely lifeless. She should record for player pianos.

So, bring on your questions. I'm not sure we can answer them, but I'll at least try.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 19, 2010, 11:27:40 am
Jennifer, What do you mean when you say you want to become a "real photographer?" Do you mean a professional? You already are a real photographer. Unlike an awful lot of people who claim to be photographers, you look and you can see. You're right; there's something there, and that's what it is. I've used this quote from HCB a lot and I'll do it again because I think it's the most concise statement of the case I've ever read: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything."

On some web sites and in some photo magazines what you read in photographers' biographies is a list of their academic achievements and credentials. Aperture has become the prime offender in this respect. But you can take a lifetime of photography "courses," have advanced art degrees, and not learn what you've learned, as far as I know on your own. Regarding credentials, Elliott Erwitt said it best when he was asked to teach a course in photography: "What is there to teach?" As HCB also said, you can learn all the mechanics of photography from the manual that comes along with your camera and its nice leather case. (You don't get the case nowadays.) What you emphatically can't learn from other people is how to see. I think the ability to see photographically is, like musical ability, something you're born with. Rob seems to agree. You, obviously were born with it.

Since we've been through this before I know we'll have a half dozen people on here telling me that inborn ability is nothing. Long, hard work is what produces a good photographer. And they're partly right. Even if you're born with the ability you have to work at it to learn what's possible.

I always seem to come back to music when I get into this argument, so here goes: I love Mendelssohn's "Songs Without Words." I have two complete versions of the music on two CD sets. One set is played by a pianist who's hardly known (yet) in the music world. The other is played by a woman who has all sorts of credentials. The no-credentials guy interprets the music in a way that can bring tears to your eyes. The credentialed woman never misses a note, but she's a mechanic. The result is very precise but absolutely lifeless. She should record for player pianos.

So, bring on your questions. I'm not sure we can answer them, but I'll at least try.

Yup, Russ - its a common disease people not trusting in themselves ... and many people don't make that better with their advice ... Some Egos need a "Hit on the head lesson" - some Egos need a lot of support ... education so often fails .....
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: David Hufford on November 20, 2010, 03:08:05 am
This bit caught my eye:

"It’s also possible that the failure to find much of interest in the millions of photos uploaded to Flickr is mine alone—though I doubt it."

I don't doubt it at all.  By making a small effort, one can discover all kinds of wonderful, interesting and even inspirational photos on Flickr.

Yes, there are tons of boring photos on Flickr.  What of it?

Geez, what a crybaby.

The cool thing is that you could comment on his post and call him a crybaby there so that he could respond. You will note that many people do agree with him. (I don't.)
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 20, 2010, 05:33:11 am
"On some web sites and in some photo magazines what you read in photographers' biographies is a list of their academic achievements and credentials. Aperture has become the prime offender in this respect. But you can take a lifetime of photography "courses," have advanced art degrees, and not learn what you've learned, as far as I know on your own. Regarding credentials, Elliott Erwitt said it best when he was asked to teach a course in photography: "What is there to teach?" As HCB also said, you can learn all the mechanics of photography from the manual that comes along with your camera and its nice leather case. (You don't get the case nowadays.) What you emphatically can't learn from other people is how to see. I think the ability to see photographically is, like musical ability, something you're born with. Rob seems to agree. You, obviously were born with it."


Russ, I agree 100%. Further, I'd add a curious point, an observation I made over the years, particularly during my early ones in the business.

When you think you are pretty damn hot (modesty note: one thought at the time) and can spot the work of different current photographers that you admire, principally because of their style, there is the belief that you can ape that work at the drop of a hat. But, many times I've dropped hats and come up with something mine, rather than the 'something other than' which was intended. It just doesn't work: you always come through as yourself, regardless of the mannerism or technique or whatever you employed to be that other person at some given moment. So, it is more, even, than the ability to see; it's the ability to just do what you do as yourself. Even if it means splitting infinitives.

Yes, I do believe you are born with an ability, just as you are born without. I love music but can neither sing nor whistle a tune. But, I don't feel offended when somebody tells me my humming sucks, I already know it does, which is unlike the reactions of many photographers to criticism. Why the difference?

Rob C

Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: stamper on November 20, 2010, 06:45:56 am
Yes, I do believe you are born with an ability, just as you are born without. I love music but can neither sing nor whistle a tune. But, I don't feel offended when somebody tells me my humming sucks, I already know it does, which is unlike the reactions of many photographers to criticism. Why the difference?

Rob C

Because they have spent a lot of money on equipment and invested time on it. They haven't spent time on humming, unless they haven't washed in a while. ;) ;D
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 21, 2010, 04:33:34 am
Yes, I do believe you are born with an ability, just as you are born without. I love music but can neither sing nor whistle a tune. But, I don't feel offended when somebody tells me my humming sucks, I already know it does, which is unlike the reactions of many photographers to criticism. Why the difference?

Rob C

Because they have spent a lot of money on equipment and invested time on it. They haven't spent time on humming, unless they haven't washed in a while. ;) ;D


Hmmmm... I hadn't thought of it that way!

Though the hum does travel well, perhaps it isn't understood in all countries, even if it is experienced.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 22, 2010, 04:04:03 am

Can't help thinking of Cesar: Bread and circus. He was clever.





That's because he was neither Christian, gladiator nor slave!

I have no part in any of the venues you mentioned, and feel no desire to enter. What I wish I could find, really, is somewhere - a sort of library, perhaps - where there would be a supply of great monographs devoted to all my favourite shooters.

I made mention a few days ago of another economic disaster in my little neck of the woods: the bookshop has gone kaput. It was run by a French chap who was vey interested in photography and music (mostly modern jazz) and he always kept a large display of coffee table books, exactly the sort of high production (and content) values I appreciate in photo books. I hate those tiny but bulky cheapo productions that are supposed to give one a low-cost entry into the genre: they do nothing but devalue the whole idea of photo art. About as useful and satisfying as a framed 35mm contact sheet. For pixel peepers.

Time never returns. Perhaps only the young are ignorant of the fact; maybe those who are old enough to know better don't go to those sites you mentioned or, if they do, are using them to sell something? Of course, that's not to deny that modern life can isolate you in the heart of a city - so what to do with yourself when the work is over? TV? Hey soos!

At the very least, all those millions of telephone cameras are breeding a new class of super snapper: accidents always happen.

I suppose that there's an underlying positive point to be made: the wish to produce pics must surely be indicative of a finer streak somewhere in the nature of the snapper? Of course, that also depends on the subject he chooses...

Café calls!

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Riaan van Wyk on November 22, 2010, 01:00:20 pm
The only purpose is "sharing". Sharing...what? Common middle class western life.

I tend to echo your thoughts/ words here Fred. What I fail to grasp about the idea of baring your daily and hourly existence with photos/ words ( or those status updates on Facebook) is why. Who would really care enough to wonder as to why ( as an example) I might be "feeling sad" between 9:30 and 10:30 on a particular day. What has it got to do with anyone anyway. And yes, before anyone mentions, I share my thoughts here, but it is like talking to friends , around a campfire, in these little limiting boxes. It is different. My recently upgraded cellphone has so many applications for "staying in touch with friends" on the net that it is scary. What happened to the old fashioned phone call?

But then again, my take on things should be noted with perspective. I live alone ( mostly) sharing my company and house with four toads and two dogs who couldn't care what I'm on about. But for others not having cellphone signal is the end of the world. To each his own I guess. 
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 22, 2010, 01:50:55 pm
But then again, my take on things should be noted with perspective. I live alone ( mostly) sharing my company and house with four toads and two dogs who couldn't care what I'm on about. But for others not having cellphone signal is the end of the world. To each his own I guess. 



With all that wildlife, there must be a premium on silence! No wonder you don't want more noisy connections!

I have thought about another dog, but I realise it wouldn't be fair to the dog. How would it cope with me?

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: stamper on November 23, 2010, 03:48:59 am
As a member of Flickr it would be two faced to knock it BUT I feel there are too many images on it which means finding the "good" ones are harder. How else does somebody show their images to the world? Show them to friends? A good way to lose them. Join a camera club. A reasonable idea. Post them on here and get ridiculed when the horizon is is squint. ;) Create a website that nobody can find because there are possibly millions of them? Just look at them yourself and tell oneself how good they are. I once had a friend who thought that was the best way. At the end of the day we all want our egos massaged and hopefully pointers to how to improve. One thing I dislike about Flickr is that a poster of images can delete comments that they don't like which means that only "glowing" ones are displayed. I once praised an image on Flickr but said the horizon could be straightened. The poster deleted the comment but didn't straighten the horizon. At the end of the day nobody is forced to look? :)
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: stamper on November 23, 2010, 05:20:25 am
We don't need feedback all of the time but as humans we like a pat on the back from time to time. I once knew someone who thought he was a good photographer with 40 years experience behind him. In other photographer's opinion he wasn't good. He however refused to listen to what others thought because he had 40 years experience. He thought he knew it all. If only he could have opened up his mind and listened he would have been better and possibly reached a reasonable level. Ironically he now does weddings and has a card advertising the fact. Woe betide anyone who risks using him. This is an example of someone who thinks other people's opinions don't matter. They do matter but the difficulty is listening to the RIGHT person. :)
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: fredjeang on November 23, 2010, 05:51:07 am
We don't need feedback all of the time but as humans we like a pat on the back from time to time. I once knew someone who thought he was a good photographer with 40 years experience behind him. In other photographer's opinion he wasn't good. He however refused to listen to what others thought because he had 40 years experience. He thought he knew it all. If only he could have opened up his mind and listened he would have been better and possibly reached a reasonable level. Ironically he now does weddings and has a card advertising the fact. Woe betide anyone who risks using him. This is an example of someone who thinks other people's opinions don't matter. They do matter but the difficulty is listening to the RIGHT person. :)
Stamper, I certainly don't complain about sharing. Sharing is powerfull and great.

My idea has more something to do with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM&feature=related

Much better explained than my english can do.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: stamper on November 23, 2010, 07:09:20 am
Very good Fred. The first thirty seconds or so I thought the dialogue was BS but I listened to the whole of it and I can heartily concur. Yesterday I bought a jacket. I looked in only two stores - deliberately - and bought one. Afterwards I kept thinking what if I had checked some more. Would I have got a better one for the money? I still don't know but I will wear the one I bought. Choice is only good if you know all about what is on offer. There are two big supermarkets near me. Some people swear that one is better and cheaper than the other one. How do they know unless they check the prices in each on a daily basis? It would be worse if there was more. :)
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Riaan van Wyk on November 23, 2010, 12:34:51 pm
Thanks for the link Fred. Took me an hour to watch due to my internet connection speed but worth it nonetheless. Interesting observations noted here by the speaker and rather good, I think, food for thought. Talking about food: I do wonder though why a supermarket would actually want to stock 176 ( unless it is different brands but even still) varieties of salad dressing.   
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: shutterpup on November 23, 2010, 12:35:26 pm
We don't need feedback all of the time but as humans we like a pat on the back from time to time. I once knew someone who thought he was a good photographer with 40 years experience behind him. In other photographer's opinion he wasn't good. He however refused to listen to what others thought because he had 40 years experience. He thought he knew it all. If only he could have opened up his mind and listened he would have been better and possibly reached a reasonable level. Ironically he now does weddings and has a card advertising the fact. Woe betide anyone who risks using him. This is an example of someone who thinks other people's opinions don't matter. They do matter but the difficulty is listening to the RIGHT person. :)

I don't think I know it all, but I am ever mindful of the fact that my view of life is very different from the mainstream. So if I put my "quirky side" photos on a place like Flickr or even here, I'm not going to get much in the way of useful feedback because most of those viewing them will be from the mainstream frame of mind. So... I'm careful how I share them, or my expectation level changes. I have a very annoying friend that I shared a couple of "cute" snapshots with of wildlife at my bird feeders; her comment of "absolutely brilliant" to a so-so photo was an insult, so much so that I no longer share any of my photos with her.

The only reason I have a Flickr account is that I used to not be able to directly download photos to any site to share using Aperture directly. Now that I can do that easily, I'm not sure why I still have the Flickr account.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Justinr on November 26, 2010, 02:27:07 pm
The web and mobile phone  have together brought about the most tremendous change in communication between individuals that the world perhaps as ever known. Greater than the telephone certainly for that was just an extension of the distance over which people could talk to one another and its relatively slow speed and inconvenience put limits on its use (you had to be at a certain point to connect and dialling and waiting for someone to arrive at the certain point the other end took so much time). But now it's all instant, we carry the instrument of broadcast in our pockets and speak via voice or text to whom we wish immediately we feel the urge. It is the same with images, these to can be displayed to all or a chosen few within a very short time of taking and the cost of doing so is minimal. Given such circumstances we are mistaken to believe that the motivation for taking pictures is anything like the same as it was merely 7 or 8 years ago.

If we go all the way back to the turn of the century photography generally had a purpose with say 90% of shots being taken for a reason that could be articulated, but what is it's purpose now? That 90% is now probably 10% with the billions of today's exposures being little more than an exercise in gadget operation for the sake of it rather than an expression of any artistic thought or desire. Judging Flickr, Facebook et al  by the old standards is meaningless because the old standards do not apply. The craft of photography has been invaded by the disinterested who have no knowledge or respect for the values that have evolved over past 150 years and longer still if we assume that they in turn are based on the centuries of artistic endeavour that has gone before.

I have mentioned elsewhere that photography as a craft needs to re-establish its credentials and rise out of the swamp, the formation of which it gladly participated in during the embryonic days of the web. Oh how we were all told that digital and the web was the way forward for every professional photographer and how rich we would all become by enthusiastically participating in the glorious IT revolution. The exact opposite came to pass of course and those who who sang the hymn of digitalisation most loudly are now strangely silent as we view the havoc brought about the the insidious silicon.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Lost on November 27, 2010, 02:27:29 am
I disagree with this. Maybe all those uploaded photographs do not conform to any 'purpose' that you personally would deem valid, but for sure most of the photographs uploaded are purposeful. I suggest that the dominant purpose of most current picture taking is to capture emotions personal to the photographer, such as their pets and groups of friends. Ignoring the commercial photographer, is this really any different from the goals of photographers in the past?

100 years ago, 99% of people never had the option to do this. Now they can, why is it a problem? It reveals something fundamental about the human condition today and nothing stops people taking pictures for other styles or purposes, both old and new.

If the volume of material is an issue, then filter what you look at. Choose carefully the websites you read. Use Flickr's 'contact' mechanism to track images from other Flickr photographers whose work you like, and so on.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 27, 2010, 03:47:30 am
Well, I don't see or look at any other site than LuLa in the sense of mainstream - a couple of small, more or less private ones are the exception - and I do look at all the professional photographic ones I can find.

Why?

For the same reason I became a photographer: I love photographs, particularly those that strike me as better than any I might have taken, and that allows plenty of scope.

I think Justin has hit the nail firmly on the head.

I also remember vividly the start of the digi revolution, where the magazines were pointing to it as the great professional step forward. Yeah, right. That step, in my view, has been to bankrupt many who had modest but stable businesses, to put many good and reliable camera and film companies either out of business or into dire straits. Those photograhers who survived have found themselves chained to a computer when otherwise they might have had free time to spend with their family; stress levels have increased and the capital expenditure needed (and consequent debt in many cases) to stay valid has not only made life very tough but also put ever more difficulty in the face of new people starting up a real, legitimate business. Those it has helped, however, are the amteurs whose need for ego massage has allowed them the opportunity of cutting the throats of those who paid their dues, both in the learning and in the tax system associated with earning a living with the camera.

I have no intention of getting into the circular argument about pro/am reality and the open sesame of the ball-breaking shit stock market of the corrupted version of picture libraries of this post digi world. I can tell you only that I remember the days of the rights managed world, of getting the odd cheque for well over a thousand pounds for a single use of a single picture in an agency where I was but a relative minnow. Today? I thank all those clones of the micro world for putting me on the photographic hungry list and a relatively bloody tight retirement. You destroyed my pension.

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: RSL on November 27, 2010, 08:35:09 am
You guys sound as if you think the digital revolution has changed the business of photography in a way that's unique in history. But how about the poor sods who used to sit at adding machines in the back room at the bank before mainframes and COBOL came along? Those green-eyeshade guys had to learn something new to survive so they went to work for H&R Block. How about the guys who made those beautiful buggies and buggy whips before the automobile arrived on the scene? They all became hotel doormen.

Some call it progress, but I call it just plain old change. A whole lot of it has taken place in my eighty years on earth. I like some of it and I hate some of it. But it's always there and there are only two things you can do about it: adapt, or drink a nice glass of Hemlock. Of course you also can sit around and bitch, but you have to realize that the reach and the impact of your bitching is greatly enhanced by computers and the web. So, you see, there's an upside to nearly everything.

But with respect to photography, nothing has changed: photographing still is nothing -- in fact, with digital, less than nothing -- and looking still is everything.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Justinr on November 27, 2010, 11:38:20 am
I think the comparison is not between car makers and coach builders but more accurately between motorists and coachmen and even then I'm not sure that it is particularly pertinent. I'd also point out that photographers were never afraid of change or improvement, fashions in photography came and went and the practitioners  had to keep up with the latest trends or go out of business and even in mundane 'industrial photography' new techniques for inspecting such things as the inside of nuclear reactors had to be developed so the craft was never stagnant.

What I think that many find objectionable is the assumption that the advent of digital technology and rapid dissemination of images has rendered everyone a competent photographer whose work is worthy of uncritical viewing. Many, if not all, of the old school would have suffered their work being torn to shreds by their peers, where does that happen today? If I were to go on to the critique section of this forum and let loose about what I really think of much of what is presented I'd be hounded out altogether. And if poor work goes unchecked and therefore condoned what becomes of our critical faculties overall? We very quickly reach the stage of any old rubbish will do because there are few people left to discern or care about standards.

On a personal note I should like to point out that I have in fact moved with the times and taught myself the rudiments of website building and even here I find that aesthetic standards often come second to the "poetry of code". One thing I do try and insist on is the use of is clear and meaningful photography in the sites. I see so many websites that are so tickety boo when it comes to functionality but contain awful images or are immeasurably tedious because they look just like all the other tickety boo websites built to the prescriptive orders of W3C. A little bit of tough love wouldn't go amiss at times but the egos of the guys and gals that put these things together.......!
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 27, 2010, 12:45:29 pm

But with respect to photography, nothing has changed: photographing still is nothing -- in fact, with digital, less than nothing -- and looking still is everything.



On the contrary, Russ: everything has changed.

You are right regarding the sentiment of what constitutes good or bad photography, but my personal scream is about the business of photography. As Justin points out, change was always present as were the changes in who was or was not 'making it' at the time - ten to fifteen good years as an artist was thought p.d.g. but that has vanished in the main, because the price structure that allowed a vast array of people to run a business at whatever level has gone with the advent of digi, exactly as and for the reasons Fred outlined. It's pointless for people to say oh, good stock will still sell to good clients; at one time, all clients were good clients, and the many millions of hundred dollar sales and the fewer big bangs over the grand provided not only money but, importantly, incentive, much as drives the Lottery market to this day. I see the world of stock very similar to that of gambling, but now the big wins have vanished from sight because clients have been spoiled for both choice and sellers: how many stock agencies counted internationally a few years ago? Maybe ten, fifteen?

Let's be clear: I have no beef with anybody running a website and selling prints of his hobby; that's not competition for the professional loaf of bread. The pro's breakfast came from big business or local people with a wedding in mind or a passport or something of that ilk. Take travel photography for example: I did several entire brochures for various companies; atmospherics, hotels, apartments, the lot. And I got quite well paid. Where did it go? Students, resort travel guides, brothers with camera. Quality suddenly lost its meaning because somebody made an offer that greed couldn't resist. And did any of those shamateurs pay a cent of tax on any of that? Today, it's not even students: it's the twenty cents a pop micro world. As I said, thanks for killing my pension! (Not you, of course, but those new micro whores.)

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: RSL on November 27, 2010, 04:02:15 pm
Rob,

Believe me, I understand where you’re coming from. Before I moved out of my long-term Colorado Springs office and into my new studio this past spring I had – still have – two very good pro photographer friends in the building. One used to do large weddings at the Broadmoor hotel, our local, internationally-known, 5 star establishment. He also had contacts with several large companies in the area that would throw annual vacation-style conferences for their top employees in places like Cancun. Mark always went along, with all expenses paid, and made the shots for the newspaper releases and for the companies’ walls. Just one of those trips could mean big bucks for him. I was downtown talking to him a few days before we left for Florida and he was considering what business he might go into now that the photography business has collapsed. He’s giving up and getting out. The other pro in the building is a very pleasant, very sharp woman who does weddings and high school graduations and anything else she can lay hands on. She advertises intensively, but she’s barely hanging on. Their problem isn’t just the price structure. It’s the absence of work at any price in the current economy.

But photography isn’t the only business that’s been hit by changes in the way things are done. I used to have the same problem in my computer software business. Once the price of microcomputers plummeted and their availability soared everybody became a programmer. In another thread I think I described the gal with the shop who sold a wide variety of things, some on consignment and some with outright purchase, to whom I gave a very reasonable quote on a system tailored to her business. But a friend of hers had just learned to write software and he was going to do the job for free. About a year later she’d lost complete track of what was going on in the business and she went under. I can think of at least three other experiences like that one. Barnum badly underestimated human gullibility.

When an amateur does a friend’s wedding or a family member’s wedding, if the friend or family member gets pictures at all, he gets pictures that are worth exactly what he paid for them. But that’s not much consolation when you’ve lost your pension.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 27, 2010, 04:57:13 pm
Russ

Too true!

There's a sort of irony at the moment regarding Britain and Ireland (southern): Britain isn't in the Euro currency zone but has decided to help out the folks across the water, who are, with a multi-billion loan. The recipients don't want it, nor that from the Eurozone itself which amounts to many more billions. So, there we have folks that are tottering on the edge of bankruptcy spitting in the face of the rescue team, and staging demos in the streets in protest at savage domestic cuts. So, what do they suggest in place of cutting your spending of what you don't have? God knows. And the lenders in Britain are also demonstrating against, and facing, huge cuts of their own. I do believe the world has lost its marbles. Along with my pension plans.

And some of us worry about megapixels.

But look at it this way, Russ: with events in Korea you may well have another job, a real blaster from the past!

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Justinr on November 27, 2010, 06:10:21 pm
Ah Rob, you have touched upon a raw nerve there and I suspect with something of a glint of mischief in your eye as well (I shall refrain from putting a smiling smiley here being aware of your disdain for such things). As an expat Brit now living in the Emerald isle for several years I feel that I may hold some qualification to answer your note which has something of the tincture of imperialism about it if you will forgive me for saying so.

I think it necessary to consider how this country arrived at this point before passing disparaging judgement upon the motives of its people. The Celtic Tiger was a property based bubble that relied upon the magic of ever increasing values to sustain its jungle roar, alas, as we all know, such edifices are unsustainable and so with the first cough of the US banking system it all started to collapse and unravel. But why did it reach such preposterous proportions in the first place? From where did the fuel of plentiful credit come? Who allowed, nay, encouraged, this to happen despite the plethora of warnings received and wilfully ignored? It was the present Government led by Fianna Fail, a party comfortably corrupt enough to hold its place amongst any gathering of sub Saharan generals and Asian presidents which was the catalyst of empty growth but it was the European banks that fed the furnace and now we, the Irish taxpayers, are expected to pick up the tab for their folly.

Unsurprisingly greed is fingered by just about everyone for motivating the whole process. Not just the greed of the property developers but also of the politicians and most of all the banks. They threw money at the Irish in a most irresponsible fashion. When applying for a mortgage over here the nice lady got quite upset when I refused to take out a little extra to buy a shiny new car as well as the house, an incident which I shall not forget for it places in a nutshell the very cause of our woes. The Irish banks had other banks from the US, Germany, France, UK, Spain and just about everywhere else insisting that they take the money in a grossly irresponsible orgy of free market capitalism and now that it has landed them in the manure they turn to the EU to bail them out via the Irish people. For make no mistake, this is not about the EU helping Ireland it is about the EU keeping the European banking system solvent and the Euro intact and we poor sods in the middle are meant to be grateful!! We are told by our new lords in Brussels through the windows of their ministerial Mercs that we must sacrifice and suffer to rebuild our country, well I'm afraid the miserable peasants are revolting and it is not only today's march in Dublin that must be noted but also the election of a Sinn Fein TD in Donegal on Thursday. This former Fianna Fail stronghold would appear to be returning to republicanism in protest at the present plans for 'Irelands' bailout which estimates put at between 90 and 200bn Euros. You cannot extract that amount of money from an econmy the size of Ireland without totally trashing it. It is not a rescue package, it is a millstone hung from our neck and I really don't see it happening. Angela Merkel herself has indicated her belief that the Banks must take some of the hit and I would suggest a 50/50 split is reasonably fair. Wouldn't you?
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Lost on November 28, 2010, 02:56:16 am
There is a very good summary of the banking crises on Paul Masons' BBC blog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2010/11/ireland_corpse_bank_vs_zombie.html). Of course Ireland should receive help - its problems are in part the result of the interconnected nature of banking and economics, and the consequences likewise.

The sad thing is that the banking and property booms were obvious to anyone. I knew people in investment fincance who were warning about this four of five years before the actual bust hit. As with the 2000 dot com collapse, what seems to drive the bubble is the aggregate effect of individual greed, and no politician is courageous enough to stand against this (the best example here in Spain was the way that local planning laws were relaxed by both national and local politicians because that meant more money tomorrow for voters - now there are something like 1 million new build flats unsold here on the coast!).

I work in software, and the last ten years have been very depressing. I have seen the commercial value of hard work rendered close to zero by a combination of open-source and off-shoring to India and China. At the same time, I have seen my living costs driven through the roof by an asset and loan driven ponzi scheme. There are several analyses that suggest that much - if not essentially all - the economic growth in the West over the last 30 years has been driven by the increasing contribution of credit rather than any actual productive increase.

People here worry about the commercial impact of the micro stock sites and Flickr. In software, I guess that a good analogy is the Apple 'app store'. If you are extremely lucky, your app may go viral and you may make some money. But more typical is to put in months of work and not get enough back to cover your living costs. This is why the store is dominated by cheaply produced 'fart apps' and commercial tie-ins, which don't need to pay their own way.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Justinr on November 28, 2010, 05:05:15 am
Thank you Lost for that most instructive link although I find the reaction to it in the comments section perhaps more enlightening and relevant to the Irish situation than the article itself. Just how far can you push a population in trying to save the precious euro and maintain a corrupt global financial system is an experiment that should be embarked upon with a little more forethought than has been hitherto employed. 
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 28, 2010, 12:36:27 pm
I think there are many factors getting confused in all of this, not least of all the fact that there is now a huge society that believes in its right to government hand outs whenever it hits bad times or doesn't want to work.

In Spain, you can expect unemployment benefit for around six months after you lose your job as long as the right number of contributions has been made. Or so I understand it, though I could well be wrong in the detail (as applies to the rest of the posters on this topic!) but there is no long-term incentive to the state of mind of being a professional idler. That doesn't bring work if none exists, but it sure pushes the person to try and the family to think in group terms: the best loans come from within that group.

Now, many blame banks for over-easy loans. Maybe they are correct, but I remember clearly my start in business in '66 when I was introduced to a bank manager with a view to opening business accounts separate from my personal stuff. The man said: when it's sunny we lend you an umbrella, Rob; when it rains, we want it back. That stuck with me. Is anyone buying anything large, such as cars, houses etc. really really so honestly naïve as never to think about their ability to pay back the loans?

I think I see here a huge abrogation of personal responsibility mirrored, on the other side, by the agents who sell the mortgages, the hire-purchase deals, all of the shit that lives in never-never land. I grew up in an ethos that said: if you can't go out and pay for it, you can't afford it. I only twice bought a car on installments, both times on the 'advice' of my accountants and I regretted it on each occasion because of the nervous tension it gave me in what was always a precarious occupation. I see that as the basis of so much that's gone, and is still going, wrong. As Suzi Quatro's mum said: there is no free sex; somebody always pays.

So, do I agree with the cries of 'we didn't do it; make the banks pay' for their mistakes, greed, whatever? I'm still looking for the first guy with the right to cast the first stone. It's like complaining to a whore because you caught the crabs.

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Justinr on November 28, 2010, 01:58:16 pm
Just as photography has changed dramatically over the last few decades so has the world of finance. When I went to open a bank account at sixteen I went and met the local bank manager with my father. Today my teenage daughters are actively pursued by the banks for their business. Those of us of forty or more years were likely to have been conditioned in an industrial based economy to save rather than borrow. Nowdays in a service based economy the opposite applies, and must apply for a service based economy is dependent on money being moved around for little reason other than to generate more money without it passing through the hands of industrialists. I can urge my children to save 'til I'm blue in the face (and we do) but what hope do we as responsible parents have when competing against banks and shops actively marketing all sorts loans and credit agreements whilst they are taught the mechanics of money in business studies at school rather than the setting of lathes?

Delaying the paying of social benefits for six months is to condone the exploitation of labour. What sort of primitive working conditions and practices will be tolerated by those who are aware that should they lose their jobs then the family risks going unfed? The black economy, crime and corruption are more likely to flourish under such a regime which is hardly desirable I would have thought.

Yes we must all share the blame to a certain degree ( I suggested 50/50 in an earlier post)  but saving rather than borrowing is a moral judgement in many respects and desire for material goods is very much part of the human condition so I think we can agree that we needed a new morality. What I would ask though is where was that to come from, a church riddled with priests indulging in unsavoury practices and rapidly losing its authority over its flock or a governing system built on deception and corruption? It was a bleak choice and it is little wonder that people turned to a third institution who we believed were honest and trustworthy, the banks themselves, how little did we know.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 28, 2010, 03:27:15 pm
Delaying the paying of social benefits for six months is to condone the exploitation of labour. What sort of primitive working conditions and practices will be tolerated by those who are aware that should they lose their jobs then the family risks going unfed? The black economy, crime and corruption are more likely to flourish under such a regime which is hardly desirable I would have thought.



No, you picked that up in reverse: you get paid the first six months, but after that period you're on your own.

Employment. Well there's the school of thought that says every employer has to keep on his workers regardless, and the other that says every worker is only needed whilst there's work to be done.

Why would anyone want to pay anyone else for doing nothing if there comes the time when there's nothing to be done? I don't subscribe to the job for life concept; that's what a life of self-employment teaches you: life owes you squat. However, very often clients do owe and won't pony up because they smell a loophole or can't pay anyway.

It's always tough. Always was.

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Justinr on November 28, 2010, 04:03:13 pm
My apologies Rob, I did indeed get it the wrong way round. Just as a further note here in Ireland if you are self employed and your business goes belly up then you get no unemployment benefit at all. There is no safety net for entrepreneurs, hardly the greatest incentive if you are looking to new businesses to help the economy along.

One of the great criticisms of the now infamous four year plan is that there is nothing in it to encourage recovery, it's all cuts to the minimum wage, public spending reductions, tax hikes, interest rates, repayment schedules and so on. The purpose is clear,  saving the banks is foremost and naff all about putting the country back on its feet again. The Irish are to be squeezed to save the rest of Europe it feels to us. Will it work? Of course not, this is just the beginning of a European meltdown.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 29, 2010, 04:47:28 am
My apologies Rob, I did indeed get it the wrong way round. Just as a further note here in Ireland if you are self employed and your business goes belly up then you get no unemployment benefit at all. There is no safety net for entrepreneurs, hardly the greatest incentive if you are looking to new businesses to help the economy along.

One of the great criticisms of the now infamous four year plan is that there is nothing in it to encourage recovery, it's all cuts to the minimum wage, public spending reductions, tax hikes, interest rates, repayment schedules and so on. The purpose is clear,  saving the banks is foremost and naff all about putting the country back on its feet again. The Irish are to be squeezed to save the rest of Europe it feels to us. Will it work? Of course not, this is just the beginning of a European meltdown.


Justin, I simply can't follow your logic.

Ireland is bust; Europe + UK are trying to lend them the money to eat. Somehow, you see that as saving Europe at the expense of an already bankrupt Ireland. Or did you expect a gift, rather than a loan? And at the same time, the previous handouts and easy living can continue on - er - what? Long sold as the lowest tax haven around for 'artists' of all colours, probably con included, minimal taxation was thought of as a commercial weapon. Now, with the fruits of nothing much coming to the govt. coffers, suprise stalks the land!

The same applies to this Wikileaks business. If there were the extensive cloak and dagger, behind the scenes machinations that the press and the mouth-open public believes, can anyone expect, in parallel, that the 'dirty business' boys wouldn't have long disappeared the nutter doing this damage? They know his name, and, famously, where he lives. He's also being chased on rape charges... the thought that we are dealing with an embittered madman comes to mind.

This morning, Sky News informs me that the Saudies were trying to get the States to vanish Iran; well, for a country that's blamed for acts of agression everywhere, one will note that the States did not comply with that request, which seems to have been backed by the other local Arab states too. So much for the idea that America is run by maniacs with Desert Eagles stuck down their belts.

In reality, thank God for America. It has saved our nuts more than once. Despite everything.

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: stamper on November 29, 2010, 05:06:52 am
Ireland is bust;

Unquote.

I don't think Ireland is bust.....the banks are. A lot of the money that the government has drawn in regarding taxes will be going to the banks instead of being spent on the necessities of life. The government AND THE PEOPLE will be refinancing the banks. Unfortunately there isn't enough in the coffers to do this and they have to borrow more. Rob make no mistake ordinary working people that lived within their means are blameless in this mess. The ones who took out loans to buy bigger than needed houses and bigger than needed cars etc etc have to look at their selves in the mirror. Ireland clobbered the workers on the minimum wage in reductions and left the better off alone. At the end of the day it is everyone - unfortunately - for themselves and there won't be a mass resistance to this because some aren't affected and some will profit out of it? >:(
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Justinr on November 29, 2010, 06:45:53 am
I feel that we may be reaching something of an impasse here Rob so I'll just make a couple of quick points.

1. The UK's motives may not be as altruistic as one supposes. €7bn is a lot cheaper than sending the troops back to a fractious Ireland for it will not have not have escaped the notice of the the British government that peace came with prosperity. Cameron has also rather honestly pointed out that a poor Irish economy means mass emigration as folk go looking for work, mainly to the UK.

2. Brian Lenihan, our finance minister, as quoted by RTE news -

"The Minister also said that subordinated bondholders would be dealt with aggressively but said the European partners had ruled out making senior bondholders pay as it would have a spill over effect on the euro."

Which roughly translated means that only the minor lenders are going to be chased not the big boys in an effort to save the precious euro. The fact that any lenders are going to be dealt with at all suggests that it is not entirely the Irish people at fault.

Justin.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Riaan van Wyk on November 29, 2010, 11:36:02 am
Something that has been bothering me for some time is my country's "dole" system. Specifically the child grant system. To qualify for the grant you need to be female, single and unemployed. Easy enough criteria as that is how things work here, as childhood pregnancy is no more frowned upon, hell, highschool going kids can now even apply for maternity leave. The mind boggles. Being personally involved with paying out these grants ( I manage a retail store by the way) I have noted that the age of the people qeueing for mentioned grants to have dropped quite drastically over the last two years.

The point struck home last month when kids still in school uniform were in line for their grants, most of them for two to three children. I did some research and found to my horror that this has become a sort of easy money scheme, with unemployed parents forcing their schoolgoing daughters to have children  (as soon as they can) as it is an income for the household. And invariably the child drops out of school to look after these children. Fueling the education and unemployment fire. It is creating a dependency on government and furthermore, stiffling the real drive to go out and actively look for employment as there are other options than real work. A noble thought I guess from government ( or maybe they want the rural constituency that makes up a huge part of the voter base in their pockets) but one that is being abused currently. And the real losers are the children born under these circumstances. My thoughts on this are probably garbled, I have just sat down with a glass of good red after a 13 working day and still have the hum of the qeues in my ears.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 29, 2010, 03:21:48 pm
Well, life is never viewed in the same manner by more than one man and his dog at the same time - assuming both man and dog have two eyes each and in perfect alignment; what chance here on LuLa? And in Ireland and Scotland, none whatever even with eyes well aligned. Understand Rangers and Celtic and you have understood Scotland. Understand Ireland and you have understood Iraq.

Reading what you write, Riaan, reminds me of living in India, where some babes were bound at birth to produce cripples with added begging potential. I'm told that in parts of the UK, if Miss Teenage gets pregnant, the council gives her an apartment... no longer living there, I can't vouch for it. Well, not that I'm a teenager nor likely to be able to get myself (not probably anyone else, for that matter) pregnant, but you know what I think I mean.

Yes, it is all a mess; and the vote is supposed to fix things? Who gets to vote? You have to be seventeen and tested to drive a friggin' car but any illiterate idiot of sixteen or so can, or soon will be able to, vote and change governments. Cool; I like that, smacks of progressive thinking. I can see is attractions. Must make canvassing simple, too.

Here in Mallorca it's freezing cold but not yet snowing; maybe up in the mountains, but not at sea level.

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Justinr on November 30, 2010, 03:41:07 am
The key to understanding Ireland is to appreciate that English society developed in a completely different way to that of this country, certainly here in the western half outside of the pale, and the mistake that many make (including myself it must be said) is to assume that just because the English are generally Caucasians who use the same primary language then we are just both part of the same western tip of Europe really. Not so, not at all and the cultural differences pre date and are separate from the Church. It's a big and fascinating subject and I doubt that I'll ever get to the bottom of it.

No idea about Iraq though.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on November 30, 2010, 04:03:58 am
The key to understanding Ireland is to appreciate that English society developed in a completely different way to that of this country, certainly here in the western half outside of the pale, and the mistake that many make (including myself it must be said) is to assume that just because the English are generally Caucasians who use the same primary language then we are just both part of the same western tip of Europe really. Not so, not at all and the cultural differences pre date and are separate from the Church. It's a big and fascinating subject and I doubt that I'll ever get to the bottom of it.

No idea about Iraq though.



In simplistic terms: whereas in the one it's 'christian' hating 'christian', in the other it's 'muslim' hating 'muslim' and in the case of the latter, had we left the iron man to get along with it, they would have remained calm as under all dictatorships. It's a mistake to assume that all peoples can use democracy.

In a dictatorship you go the way of the leader; in a democracy you go the way of the lowest common denominator. Pick your poison - six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.

As for the basic alternatives of structure - there is capitalism and there was communism. The latter imploded and it seems the former may follow in the same direction. Nobody 'won' the Cold War; internal events simply overtook one of the warriors, but it's always nice for the ratings to scrape some credit where it isn't due...

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 30, 2010, 05:20:46 pm
Yet, Flickr has reached such a mass that most issues related to it are about navigation more than about quality.

It has become a world vast enough to sweep aside any possible doubt in terms of statistical relevance. The best photographic work in the world must be on Flickr just as certainly as the worst one.

The key is to be able to find it.

Now, the truth of the matter is that many Flickr users aren't really looking for anything but an immediate outlet at the end of their own photographic editing process. Click upload and the work is somehow done.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on December 01, 2010, 04:07:41 am
Yet, Flickr has reached such a mass that most issues related to it are about navigation more than about quality.

It has become a world vast enough to sweep aside any possible doubt in terms of statistical relevance. The best photographic work in the world must be on Flickr just as certainly as the worst one.

The key is to be able to find it.

Now, the truth of the matter is that many Flickr users aren't really looking for anything but an immediate outlet at the end of their own photographic editing process. Click upload and the work is somehow done.Cheers,
Bernard





Good observation: it serves much the same function as some threads here, then; an extension to, or substitute for a website. In the end, one might question the value of either.

Rob C

Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 01, 2010, 06:50:22 am
Good observation: it serves much the same function as some threads here, then; an extension to, or substitute for a website. In the end, one might question the value of either.

Isn't it all about expression? Expressing something is often less important that expressing oneself.

Don't know whether that makes sense in English though.  ???

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on December 01, 2010, 10:58:16 am

Isn't it all about expression? Expressing something is often less important that expressing oneself.

Don't know whether that makes sense in English though.  ???

Cheers,
Bernard




No, it makes perfect sense, but the trouble, then, is that what one may be expressing turns out to be an empty thought. Wish I had a euro for each of those that I've had. Alternatively, a million for each of the other type... and I'd still be nervous.

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Justinr on December 03, 2010, 01:40:50 pm
Postscript on the Irish situation-

Sorry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD2Vr7lb-D4&feature=player_embedded#!)

Humorous enough although it let's the err.... whole wretched crew (struggling to remain polite here) off far too lightly.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: William Birmingham on February 15, 2011, 04:07:03 pm
Dear Gentleman,

You all have been very vocal on the subject at hand.. and others.
I can acknowledge the emotions that are connected with all those views.
Know that I have sympathy and empathy.

To echo what was said..
I have had a Flickr account which I closed for reasons I won't detail.
A year later I started up a new Flickr account with new material.
Within the period of my absence I could clearly see how the standard has dropped.
Not only in photo quality vs the quantity but also the subject material of discussions.

It would seem as though most of the works are built around having your ego boosted.
Each day it gets harder for me to find photos that speaks to me.
And more and more the Flickr groups need to be defended from corporations looking for free photos.

To get to the core of why I chat to you..
I am a hobby photographer with a busy day time job.
Photography for me is an escape, a search for inner peace and expression.
Expression however looses its influence if it is not shared; becomes powerless if it does not grow from feedback.
Growth is only possible when you learn from other's opinions.

My Flickr experience brings me many (10's & 20's) visitors but there is no feedback.
The creative expression is seen but is not understood -- the feedback left empty.

So Flickr is not the way and standards have made a nosedive.
How do those who practice this art as a hobby break our bounds to become better artists?
We do not wish to compete, photography is but our escape.
Yet some of us do wish to be the best we can be.

If not Flickr, what is our alternatives?
In LuLa it seems (at my 1st glance) it is more talk than task.
I have also read that one is also not assured 100% honest opinion if you post a photo for critique.
If not Flickr, how do I become a better (practical) photographer?

I thank you for your opinion.
Greetings from the new guy.
-- Will
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: stamper on February 16, 2011, 05:50:56 am
Quote

have also read that one is also not assured 100% honest opinion if you post a photo for critique.
If not Flickr, how do I become a better (practical) photographer?

Unquote

I think the 100% opinion isn't available anywhere. Do you always give one? ???
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on February 16, 2011, 09:24:26 am
Quote

have also read that one is also not assured 100% honest opinion if you post a photo for critique.
If not Flickr, how do I become a better (practical) photographer?

Unquote

I think the 100% opinion isn't available anywhere. Do you always give one? ???



Only a Scot could be so accurately direct!

Luvvit.

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: William Birmingham on February 16, 2011, 10:33:40 am
Quote
I think the 100% opinion isn't available anywhere. Do you always give one? Huh
[smile]
Okay I'll give you that one. It has been overstated.. I'll lower the percentage.
But it is good policy to be honest.. balanced with diplomacy.
I hope however you all see the spirit of the idea I wish to get across.

Holding back all your punches is not too good when trying to learn from critique.
Just see how that forum punch of the above quote hit me on the nose to put me on my place.
Sometimes that is needed to grow -- or am I wrong?

Thanks for some response.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 16, 2011, 10:50:14 am
... In LuLa it seems (at my 1st glance) it is more talk than task.
I have also read that one is also not assured 100% honest opinion if you post a photo for critique...

So far it seems you are true to your own expectation: more talk than task  ;)

Two posts, one poem, 457 words and zero photos for critique!?

"Truth!? You want truth? You can't handle the truth!" :)
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: wolfnowl on February 16, 2011, 11:39:05 am
Quote
As HCB also said, you can learn all the mechanics of photography from the manual that comes along with your camera and its nice leather case. (You don't get the case nowadays.)

And if you purchase an Alpa they don't even supply a manual!   ;D

Mike.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: William Birmingham on February 16, 2011, 11:49:47 am
So far it seems you are true to your own expectation: more talk than task  ;)

Two posts, one poem, 457 words and zero photos for critique!?

"Truth!? You want truth? You can't handle the truth!" :)

ouch! I have heard of this..it is death by forum stone throwing.
My apologies to everyone -- I have offended and that was not my intention.

I was aiming with my long-winded monogram to ask:
"What steps are there for people who wish to better themselves and they wish to kick off the Flickr habit?"

It was aimed generally and I as new LuLa member was feeling the temperature of water.
Let me see what I can find to put up for critique by the weekend.
I'll add my Flickr account on my profile just to be a fair amateur.

Please look beyond my apparent self interest.

-- Will
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 16, 2011, 12:09:54 pm

Isn't it all about expression? Expressing something is often less important that expressing oneself...

Hmmm... reminds me of the quote attributed to Plato: "A wise man talks because he has something to say; a fool talks
because he has to say something."

Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 16, 2011, 12:32:36 pm
ouch! I have heard of this..it is death by forum stone throwing.
My apologies to everyone -- I have offended and that was not my intention...

Nah, man... that was just some friendly teasing.. no need for apologies.
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 16, 2011, 01:07:29 pm
... I have also read that one is also not assured 100% honest opinion if you post a photo for critique.
If not Flickr, how do I become a better (practical) photographer?...

Will, to see if this forum is capable of a "100% honest opinion" (and I assume you mean "brutally honest"), you might want to check this thread as an example:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=47500.0

As for "how to become a better photographer" (if not by relying on Flickr feedback): in that thread, on page 3, I posted the following:

"...a lot of members on the forum lived and worked in a pre-digital and pre-Internet era (myself included). It occurred to me that in that era, images like that most likely would have never been displayed publicly (other than to friends and family).

There were only two ways for public access: publishing in a magazine or book, and displaying it at an exhibition (be it of international standing or a local club one). Both ways include some kind of jurying, some kind of triage, filtering before an image reaches public. Images that were poorly composed, out of focus, and overexposed (for no good reason), had very little, if any chance, to be selected. So, when something did reach the public, it already had a certain "seal of approval". Furthermore, it took considerable effort and resources to prepare images for publication and submit them. Unless you wanted to risk your original transparency, you needed to make a decent copy (a problem in itself), pack it well, go to the post office, etc.

So, the effort and resources needed, plus knowing you will be judged seriously, meant for us that we would need to think twice before attempting to go public with our work. The only way to deal with that was to learn beforehand what tools those who would judge our work would use to evaluate it. So we hit the library, attended courses, joined a camera club, and learned about composition, technique, art, perception, etc. For years, sometimes. Consequently, we had to exercise a fair amount of self-restraint, and when we finally submitted something, we did not have to ask the world "what's wrong with my image"... we knew it already (at least the elementary stuff).

Enter the digital/Internet era: after a (shutter) click, with all those wi-fi memory cards, Kodak's Share buttons, various other cameras with direct access to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc., it might take literally seconds and costs absolutely nothing, before an image is displayed to millions. Anyone can post anything to everyone. No triage, filtering, self-restraint... nada. Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before. And no, I am not an Internet Luddite... just pointing out certain unintended consequences..."



Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: William Birmingham on February 16, 2011, 03:41:36 pm
... "...So we hit the library, attended courses,..."

This is the type of response I can respect. Thank you Sir.

(The following is my opinion and I hope it is heard as being sincere.)
In a way I envy the guys from the pre-digital period. If I had the means to it I would want to tour the world and sit at these artists feet or carry the gear to coming close to understanding their knowledge. To my mind the pre-digital photographers are a resource of unmeasurable value.

Don't get me wrong.. I love my digital gear and would not trade it for film. For me it puts me closer to the imagery.

I despise over processed works and find it difficult to shoot 100's of shots of a subject when one or two fits your "vision".

For me it becomes harder to distinguish between the garbage of masses to filter out the true spirit of photography (which includes its techniques).  The few books I have invested in leaves me more with an after-taste of a money making scam than actually being helpful. This brings me closer to the thought that the pre-digital artists are the only ones that stays true to that spirit.

It is however hard to crack through the judgement that post-digital photographers disrespects the pre-digital photographers. There are a few of us that wish to learn and carry over the original spirit to another generation.

But how does someone like me knowing so preciously little know where to put his feet down and earn enough respect to be helped onto the path which sets artists and fame seekers apart? Even this forum is huge and intimidating -- where do we start. 

PS: Thank you "wolfnowl"; a good first step is surely is to know your gear.. even if you have to print it out yourself.

-- Will
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 16, 2011, 04:29:41 pm
... The few books I have invested in leaves me more with an after-taste of a money making scam than actually being helpful...

In that case, I have a book to recommend: "Perception and Imaging" by Prof. Richard Zakia, from the Rochester Institute of Technology (for those not familiar, Rochester is the home town of Eastman Kodak).

This is not a book about photographic technique, equipment and pixel peeping. It is however, about psychology and art and science of human perception, applied to imaging. It might be a heavy read, but well worth the effort.

This book also comes with my personal "SB Seal of Approval" :)
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: William Birmingham on February 17, 2011, 11:43:38 am
--- "Perception and Imaging" by Prof. Richard Zakia ---

Thank you, thank you very much. This can surely be of value.
A good friend has told me (in my own words) that if you cannot "see", then you cannot expect good photos.

-- Will
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: Rob C on February 17, 2011, 01:47:21 pm
Thank you, thank you very much. This can surely be of value.
A good friend has told me (in my own words) that if you cannot "see", then you cannot expect good photos.

-- Will



Your good friend was right.

The difficulty may not be your own - it could be that you just need to see more photography from pre-digital days in order to get a feeling for what it was about.

But where to look? I imagine that there are few if any magazines today that feature the art of film; this in itself (the art using film) is a difficult idea to grasp, because you can't really separate the mind and eye behind the picture from the image - because the same person once used a film camera and then took to the digital ones, all that's changed is his mechancal workshop. In practice, unless he's very careful, all he will do differently with digital is shoot much more, more nor better. The temptation to shoot on the off-chance that something might work is hard to resist.

Anyway, if you want to see great film work, look at this site:

http://www.ernst-haas.com

However, as with most of my own much more modest stuff which was on film, the transition to the electronic page changes the nature of what you are looking at, and even looking at digital printing is not the same as was wet chemistry printing.

Maybe the best thing is to see if you can visit exhibitions of real wet chemical prints - bromides, chloro-bromides, that kind of thing. For what it's worth, forget about the exotic stuff like platinum etc.  because there is a huge amount to be learned from more basic (and far more attractive in my view) 'normal' photographic prints - good ones, of course.

Rob C
Title: Re: Flickr standards
Post by: William Birmingham on February 19, 2011, 04:11:30 am
..you just need to see more photography from pre-digital days in order to get a feeling for what it was about...

Thank you for your valued reply.