Faking Reality

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

have withstood the test of time for photographic quality as well

I think you missed this part. In other words, I fail to see why  a social media photograph would be a "bad" one by definition.

 

3 hours ago, pgk said:

An image which works well on social media may not be viable elsewhere. It may be good within its context I suppose but its context is ephemeral. Its value is time dependent only

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pgk]

30 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I think you missed this part. In other words, I fail to see why  a social media photograph would be a "bad" one by definition.

How many photographs taken for social media will survive at all, let alone the test of time - I'm not sure that they can even be judged as being photographs because they are more about being a visual part of a conversation, and like a conversation which cannot be judged by its literary value, social media images are not so much photographs as visual comments. So their 'value' is as ephemeral as they are. And as I have said, historically interesting photographs are of interest for reasons besides aesthetics. Few (some though, most certainly) are inherently aesthetically pleasing. Time tends to filter out bad photographs to some extent though ..... the D-Day photograph is now iconic because of what it shows - I wonder if the images taken would be more or less appreciated if they had been clearer? Will will never know.

Edited October 16, 2020 by pgk

[01maciel]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb pgk:

social media images are not so much photographs as visual comments

I haven't thought about it that way. I like the idea- although the sheer amount of 'comments' out there make people insensible to the more or less skilled manual work of photography.

[pgk]

14 minutes ago, 01maciel said:

I haven't thought about it that way. I like the idea- although the sheer amount of 'comments' out there make people insensible to the more or less skilled manual work of photography.

Indeed. I no longer see much posted on social media as 'photography' (although there is some). Most seem to me to be an inherent part of the communication and the thought processes behind such imagery are more about how they sit within the context in which they are being posted as opposed to their validity as anything more. Lumping such material in with 'considered' photography seems like thinking that Chopsticks has a place alongside Chopin. Not to say that Chopsticks doesn't have its place, but .....

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

How many photographs taken for social media will survive at all, let alone the test of time - I'm not sure that they can even be judged as being photographs because they are more about being a visual part of a conversation, and like a conversation which cannot be judged by its literary value, social media images are not so much photographs as visual comments. So their 'value' is as ephemeral as they are. And as I have said, historically interesting photographs are of interest for reasons besides aesthetics. Few (some though, most certainly) are inherently aesthetically pleasing. Time tends to filter out bad photographs to some extent though ..... the D-Day photograph is now iconic because of what it shows - I wonder if the images taken would be more or less appreciated if they had been clearer? Will will never know.

How many family snapshots survived before social media? The means of distribution is irrelevant. 
It is relevant, however, that photography has been democratized by the digital revolution. It is likely that the percentage of good photographs (whatever they may be) has been lowered significantly. The number of good photographs may well be much higher nowadays, given the tsunami we are seeing, not to mention the increased technical capabilities of our cameras, including the Kodak Brownie of the 21st century, AKA the smart phone.

[pgk]

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

How many family snapshots survived before social media? The means of distribution is irrelevant. 
It is relevant, however, that photography has been democratized by the digital revolution. It is likely that the percentage of good photographs (whatever they may be) has been lowered significantly. The number of good photographs may well be much higher nowadays, given the tsunami we are seeing, not to mention the increased technical capabilities of our cameras, including the Kodak Brownie of the 21st century, AKA the smart phone.

But these are not 'considered' photographs and the VAST majority will not survive and even if they do, will be effectively impossible to find due to the sheer vastness of them. The technical aspects of photographs have nothing to do with what makes them good or bad. If you take the argument to its logical conclusion there is little sense in owning anything other than a smartphone these days and Leica's are a pure anachronism. So why do we buy them? In order to take photographs or for some other difficult to define reason? 

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, pgk said:

But these are not 'considered' photographs and the VAST majority will not survive and even if they do, will be effectively impossible to find due to the sheer vastness of them. The technical aspects of photographs have nothing to do with what makes them good or bad. If you take the argument to its logical conclusion there is little sense in owning anything other than a smartphone these days and Leica's are a pure anachronism. So why do we buy them? In order to take photographs or for some other difficult to define reason? 

I use my camera phone for ‘documentation’, not ‘fine art’ photography primarily because I dislike the phone’s viewing/handling/ergonomics and because my goal is a fine print rather than a screen shot, and that (currently) requires a different tool.  But there are many who use a phone to produce ‘art worthy’ photographs.  There is no singular approach, or definition, that suits all. 
 

Jeff

[rob_w]

Amazing how comments are interpreted on forums.  I used 'creative' in the literal sense of 'make something that did not exist before'.  But it was interpreted as 'innovative and interesting' and lead to a whole other discussion about creativity.   And I said 'sharpness is everything' ironically, but it was taken literally.  Cue further responses.  All okay of course.  But how much can one can have a valuable discussion when so many interpretations are possible for every sentence?

[Now, how will the last question will be interpreted 🤔]

Edited October 16, 2020 by rob_w

[Gerbs]

3 minutes ago, rob_w said:

Amazing how comments are interpreted on forums.  I used 'creative' in the literal sense of 'make something that did not exist before'.  But it was interpreted as 'innovative and interesting' and lead to a whole other discussion about creativity.   And I said 'sharpness is everything' ironically, but it was taken literally.  Cue further responses.  All okay of course.  But how much can one can have a valuable discussion when so many interpretations are possible for every sentence?

[Now, how will the last question will be interpreted 🤔]

Good one! It reminds me of something that my mother used to say that always bothered me, even made me a little angry... "I said it, you interpreted it!"  No kidding, Mom, but that doesn't mean spraying words around like a sneeze helps anything, LOL.

[pgk]

49 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I use my camera phone for ‘documentation’, not ‘fine art’ photography primarily because I dislike the phone’s viewing/handling/ergonomics and because my goal is a fine print rather than a screen shot, and that (currently) requires a different tool.  But there are many who use a phone to produce ‘art worthy’ photographs.  There is no singular approach, or definition, that suits all. 
 

Jeff

I have a friend who shoots on an iPhone, his Leica and Nikons. All can take interesting images. But most users are not like him or those who shoot 'art worthy' images. As I have analogised before, pushing a piano key down does not make the pusher a pianist.

[Jeff S]

3 minutes ago, pgk said:

But most users are not like him or those who shoot 'art worthy' images. 

But many are.  The pool of phone camera users is huge, and bigger than ever... especially compared to piano users.

 Jeff
 

 

[Guest BlackBarn]

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

Sounds like a modern school sports day where taking part is more important than winning

Not quite.

Consider how top performing teams....athletes .....musicians.....got the where they did. Formula one for example where opportunities to improve and learn is measured in .001 of a second.  Something tells me these characters are trying to win. Incremental  improvement doesn’t have the word ‘bad’ in its vocabulary.

4 hours ago, pgk said:

Fine. That's a lovely concept. But the real world is a rather tougher place than this 'learning environment'. In my world a poor photograph means no pay and its consequences.

Not just a concept......it’s been the smart thing to do for quite some time in the real world. Wrong forum to start name those successful companies, individuals and the science behind it all. 

No idea on the specifics of your world but fairly certain on other worlds good photography also produces no pay.....sometimes it’s not down to the quality of the product or the technical competence of the photographer.

 

[pgk]

20 minutes ago, BlackBarn said:

Not quite.

Consider how top performing teams....athletes .....musicians.....got the where they did. Formula one for example where opportunities to improve and learn is measured in .001 of a second.  Something tells me these characters are trying to win. Incremental  improvement doesn’t have the word ‘bad’ in its vocabulary.

Not just a concept......it’s been the smart thing to do for quite some time in the real world. Wrong forum to start name those successful companies, individuals and the science behind it all. 

No idea on the specifics of your world but fairly certain on other worlds good photography also produces no pay.....sometimes it’s not down to the quality of the product or the technical competence of the photographer.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

But many are.  The pool of phone camera users is huge, and bigger than ever... especially compared to piano users.

And like piano users only a few seem to be much good at it - bigger pool but ......

20 minutes ago, BlackBarn said:

Not quite.

Consider how top performing teams....athletes .....musicians.....got the where they did. Formula one for example where opportunities to improve and learn is measured in .001 of a second.  Something tells me these characters are trying to win. Incremental  improvement doesn’t have the word ‘bad’ in its vocabulary.

Not just a concept......it’s been the smart thing to do for quite some time in the real world. Wrong forum to start name those successful companies, individuals and the science behind it all. 

No idea on the specifics of your world but fairly certain on other worlds good photography also produces no pay.....sometimes it’s not down to the quality of the product or the technical competence of the photographer.

Which is of course why the world is so well run .......

[Jeff S]

12 minutes ago, pgk said:

And like piano users only a few seem to be much good at it - bigger pool but ......

Only need a tiny percentage of billions of users to yield a lot of material.  There have been many exhibitions and campaigns exclusively  featuring camera phone photography, including major institutions worldwide, including the Met and many others.

Jeff

[willeica]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

As I have analogised before, pushing a piano key down does not make the pusher a pianist.

But it's a good start, Paul.

 

William

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

I have a friend who shoots on an iPhone, his Leica and Nikons. All can take interesting images. But most users are not like him or those who shoot 'art worthy' images. As I have analogised before, pushing a piano key down does not make the pusher a pianist.

Where do you draw the line between who is a pianist and who not? Precisely what combination of musicianship, technical ability, intent, application, experience serve to place them one side of the line or the other? The same applies to photographs and photographers. You're applying a binary classification to something that isn't binary.

Edited October 16, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, pgk said:

But these are not 'considered' photographs and the VAST majority will not survive and even if they do, will be effectively impossible to find due to the sheer vastness of them. The technical aspects of photographs have nothing to do with what makes them good or bad. If you take the argument to its logical conclusion there is little sense in owning anything other than a smartphone these days and Leica's are a pure anachronism. So why do we buy them? In order to take photographs or for some other difficult to define reason? 

I think "considered" photography is a fake criterion. It dismisses the bulk of street photography, what about HCB's puddle-jumper or cyclist, for instance? I agree that Leicas, or even cameras as we know them, may well be a carry-over of times past. As we are as well, I suppose. 

[pgk]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Only need a tiny percentage of billions of users to yield a lot of material.  There have been many exhibitions and campaigns exclusively  featuring camera phone photography, including major institutions worldwide, including the Met and many others.

An extremely small fraction then?

2 hours ago, willeica said:

But it's a good start, Paul.

Indeed, but few of those who push a piano key down become pianists.

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Where do you draw the line between who is a pianist and who not? Precisely what combination of musicianship, technical ability, intent, application, experience serve to place them one side of the line or the other? The same applies to photographs and photographers. You're applying a binary classification to something that isn't binary.

Ask a musician (my parents both taught music). Binary classifications apply to many, many things. They are an effective differentiator. The problem is that because someone can press a button on a phone some consider them to be a photographer. Perhaps the ability to start a car engine should make someone a driver?

44 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I think "considered" photography is a fake criterion. It dismisses the bulk of street photography, what about HCB's puddle-jumper or cyclist, for instance? I agree that Leicas, or even cameras as we know them, may well be a carry-over of times past. As we are as well, I suppose. 

I would say that HCB epitomised considered photography. Not convinced that I'm a carry over though.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[willeica]

8 minutes ago, pgk said:

Indeed, but few of those who push a piano key down become pianists.

Some of them did and they continued to play even after they went blind. The important thing is that they get a start or a chance to start..

 

 

Everyone deserves a chance to learn how to play music. If they cannot do it or lose the interest they will soon find out. 

As for photography, every photograph taken by a human being, no matter how mundane, is an expression of our humanity and, as such, it should be valued. 

William

[Jeff S]

10 minutes ago, pgk said:

An extremely small fraction then?

 

So what? If one is interested in seeing curated exhibitions, there have been many the world over to enjoy.   Billions of people drive cars, and only “an extremely small fraction” do it well enough to have a paying audience.  Does that invalidate the races, the drivers or the cars used?  
 

Jeff