The Globe and Mail

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Fmrvette, Jun 25, 2013.

  1. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
    The Globe and Mail has posted an article that I found interesting (also it has a mention of The Online Photographer, Mike Johnston :thumbup: ).

    Humanity takes millions of photos every day. Why are most so forgettable? - The Globe and Mail

    One quote from the article struck a chord with me:

    “People aren’t photographing for history any more. It’s for immediate gratification. If you’re photographing to share an image, you’re not photographing to keep it.”

    I suppose the opposite is true about me; I rarely share my work and even more rarely post a photograph that isn't intended to show some technical aspect of a lens, etc. I photograph to make personal prints to hang on the wall (which makes the Princess of the Exchequer happy when the shots are of the grandkids). The prints are rarely technically proficient and the photographs frequently leave a lot to be desired - but they are images that I want to keep.

    I think the article is worth the time required to read it - although it is a bit harsh :wink:.


  2. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Sorry, but I have to make a slight reference to the "keepers" thread here....:tongue::biggrin:
  3. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
  4. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    The stuff I shoot, both family and non-family, I always aim for the exceptional image. Even shooting family events I try to raise the bar and I challenge myself to do better than the last time I shot.




  5. super8man

    super8man Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 17, 2013
    I disagree with the premise of the article. One could suggest most of humanity wastes most of its time doing anything (and everything)...but every so often, humanity does something fantastic. And the same is true in photography. The medium (of photography) is the message. We no longer need to treat photography as something special. It's no longer about "the" image. It's a language unto itself being used by a whole new class of people. Now, if a newspaper lays off it's photographers, that's it's own folly. In time, the truth will out in such endeavours and it won't be pretty. And, getting personal here, we ALL take crap pictures. Nothing new there. But, sometimes we do well and produce a worth photo as judged by others. But on the whole, people are documenting their lives now more than ever. It may just be the author of the article does not like what he sees. But, it's not about him. Not anymore. I do find this to be a bit of "get off of my lawn" or perhaps, more properly, people no longer want to give up their "good" photos to yet another photo contest that in turn makes us give up our own rights to the very image we have captured. That has been an ongoing truth since the 1950s. You won't get Time Life quality images from regular people because they have no incentive to produce it; and if by chance they do, they would not be compensated nor protected like a Time Life photographer so why would they participate.
  6. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    I agree with the first half of the article. I disagree with the second half and conclusion.

    Interestingly, I was just thinking about how this explosion of photography, a craft that at one time was dependent upon film and the dark room which very few have has been turned on its head with digital and the home computer which nearly every household has.

    I was wondering if turning over photography from the custodianship of the few to the playground of everyone with a cell phone was a good thing. I concluded that it was a positive direction.

    What really bugged me was that the author based his universal conclusion upon one photography contest. Perhaps the lack of quality submissions for the contest was due to poor marketing by the contest directors and not his conclusion that quality photography hasn't a place in the viewfinders of those with modern cameras.

  7. caimi

    caimi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 13, 2012
    middle US
    Interesting article which I don't entirely disagree with. But super8man makes a good observation also: "every so often humanity does something fantastic". But not most of the time. Not finding a winner out of 500 entries may, may say more about the judging than it does about the judged. Or it may be, as Gary said, to reach such a definitive conclusion about the medium based on one 500 entry photo contest may be stretching a personal belief just a bit.
  8. swampduck

    swampduck Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 29, 2013
    Taneytown , MD
    “People aren’t photographing for history any more. It’s for immediate gratification. If you’re photographing to share an image, you’re not photographing to keep it.”

    If you are taking a photo, by default you have captured history. I get what he is saying, but there has always been more P&S'ers then "serious" photographers. Remember the Polaroids, snap, flash, shake. As Gary stated, his conclusion was based on one contest, and he was comparing the photos to publications like Life, Nat Geo, and Magnum.

    He should ask himself this question, if it weren't for the Internet and social media, would we have even read his tirade?
  9. psu_13

    psu_13 Mu-43 Rookie

    Jan 24, 2013
    Most pictures are "bad" because most people are not "good" photographers. But they didn't set out to be. So ... who cares?
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.