Flickr standards

[stamper]

A very interesting blog on the merits of Flickr. November 13 entry; titled Flickr Fatigue.

http://shutterfinger.typepad.com/shutterfinger/

[pegelli]

Allthough I don't disagree with his observation I think the "boredom" factor of this blog entry exceeds that of most Flickr photo's.

[RFPhotography]

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. 

[EduPerez]

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.

[pegelli]

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.

[michswiss]

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. 

[EduPerez]

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".

[tokengirl]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[michswiss]

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.

[RSL]

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.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

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 .....

[David Hufford]

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.)

[Rob C]

"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

[stamper]

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.

[Rob C]

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.

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

[Rob C]

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

[Riaan van Wyk]

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. 

[Rob C]

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

[stamper]

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?