Slow Down

[Nitroplait]

Technology is what it is and new technology allows new behavioural patterns. The challenge I see is that online everyone can be their own editor/publisher, thus making it overwhelmingly hard to seek out quality work.

That's very democratic in theory, but ends up as almost the opposite since only the extreme seems to cut through the information overflow. With 100x more photos passing by my eyes during the same timeframe, each photo gets 100x less attention.

To me it means that I largely ignores any online photographs unless they have an illustrative pourpose ("this photo shows an elephant").

Most of my reflective enjoyment of photography as an art consumer comes from edited photo books and curated exhibitions. Aside from the ability to look up a photographer immediately if I hear about something interesting, I don't feel the photographic information overflow has contributed to my enjoyment of photography at all.

 

[Yokosuka_Mike]

“If enough people say that about enough pictures, chances are some pretty mundane images are being overpraised and perhaps changing what the public thinks is a good picture.”
Well said Bill.

Lately I’ve been thinking (struggling) with the notion that good enough isn't good enough anymore. Before a person posts a picture (before I post a picture) they should ask themselves:

Is this picture compelling? Is it interesting? Is it pleasing to the eye? Does it tell a story?

Or, is one just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks?

And, “F” all this film Vs. digital stuff; either you have a good picture or you don’t. How you get there is your own journey, what’s shared with the public is up to them to decide what’s good or not.

This year I’ve been taking a serious look at my own photography. In particular what I share with the world (e.g. posting on the internet, specifically here at RFF). Also looking at what others are posting.

I used to post (and sometimes I still do) several pictures in one post. This year I have been making an effort to limit myself to one picture per post. I think that is the best way to display, and to honor your image. Let the star shine, unless it isn’t a star in which case why post the image?

Lastly, this forum has been undergoing a massive upgrade. Some people see it as a downgrade. Some people, I sense, are angry. Well, What I know is that this forum is free! No charge to be a member. Doesn't cost a dime to join, and the mods and admin folk are volunteers (unpaid workers) doing it for the love of the community and the love of photography. So, I suggest that before one posts some smart -alecky, snarky complaint about the upgrade, they think about the nice people struggling behind the scenes to make this place what it is.

Sometimes I talk too much. This is probably one of those times.

All the best,

Mike

 

[Michael Markey]

I only shoot burst when doing sports.
Not least because my subjects like to see a series of pictures so they can review the action .
On the more general point ... yes more is more .
I don`t think that it necessarily equates to a diminishment in quality .
I`ve taken many worthless single shots in sixty years .

 

[willie_901]

... While the number of pictures in some venues have decreased, the number of pictures we are exposed to has increased greatly. Sadly, in many, many fields, not just photography, volume up - overall quality down. ...

I suggest the ratio of high-quality work to low-quality work is a constant that depends primarily on human behavior.

“Anyone can take pictures. What’s difficult is thinking about them, organizing them, and trying to use them in some way so that some meaning can be constructed out of them. That’s really where the work of the artist begins” – Lewis Baltz

It is human to avoid difficult work.

The difference is: until the internet, there was no way to display low-quality work to a large audience. In other words, professional editing (image selection, not rendering) once eliminated large volumes of mediocre work. On-line there is no editing. We see everything. To make matters worse, many photographers spend almost no time on image selection and staging. This needlessly dilutes the impact of the small number of interesting images they post.

... Why, in many cases, has it been replaced by shooting a burst of digital frames without thinking - just praying that something interesting will happen while you have the shutter button pressed down. You know who does that? Me. And it scares the hell out of me.
...

Don't do that. This is extremely simple. Nothing stands in your way to work slowly, thoughtfully and deliberately.

Except for action photography, slow, thoughtful photography offers a potential advantage thoughtless over spray and pray techniques. The primary impact is on how interesting the final results happen to be.[1]

A secondary advantage is post-production requires a lot less time spent on image selection. This means more time is available for image rendering and staging. A big, yet unrecognized, disadvantage of working quickly without thoughtfulness is very little time and effort is spent on how to see better. Even if a photographer is blessed with a natural good eye, it takes time and reflection to make full use of that talent.

There is nothing whatsoever about digital photography that requires one to work with less thought, care and intent.


1. What make a photograph interesting is highly subjective. I'm comfortable with Wingorand's definition - "Every photograph is a battle of form versus content. The good ones are on the border of failure." and "It’s got to do with the contention between content and form. Invariably that’s what’s responsible for its energies, its tensions, its being interesting or not."


Here are just a some other quotes that mean something to me.

“If you want to make photographs, all you do is point the camera at whatever you wish; click the shutter whenever you want. If you want to judge a good photograph, ask yourself: Is life like that? The answer must be yes and no, but
mostly yes.”-Charles Hebutt

To me, photography is an art of observation. It’s about finding something interesting in an ordinary place… I’ve found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them. - Elliott Erwitt


Anything that excites me for any reason, I will photograph; not searching for unusual subject matter, but making the commonplace unusual. - Edward Weston

To equate my painting with symbolism, conscious or unconscious, is to ignore its true nature. People are quite willing to use objects without looking for any symbolic intention in them, but when they look at paintings, they can't find any use for them. So they hunt around for a meaning to get themselves out of the quandary, and because they don't understand what they are supposed to think when they confront the painting.They want something to lean on, so they can be comfortable. They want something secure to hang on to, so they can save themselves from the void. People who look for symbolic meanings fail to grasp the inherent poetry and mystery of the image. No doubt they sense this mystery, but they wish to get rid of it. They are afraid. By asking "what does this mean?" they express a wish that everything be understandable. But if one does not reject the mystery, one has quite a different response. One asks other things." —Rene Magritte

The pictures reveal a persistent verdancy that is unexpected. How could anyone explain the bird in the defoliated orchard, the suddenly clear day on a quiet road, or the astonishing silhouette of a eucalyptus in smog - Robert Adams

 

[Dogman]

How you go about it doesn't matter.

One of my favorite quotes, from Prince Philip: "Just take the f---ing picture!"