Bubble.......

[Southdowns]

..........are we, as "serious" photographers on a forum like this, living in one? Does this forum, nowadays, only represent a small sub-section of photography with a specific range of styles?

I've noticed that outside of this forum, photography is very different to what the majority of us, me included, do:

1) Whether we want to admit it or not, Instagram, Snapwire and similar sites/services DO contain a lot of extremely good photographs, many in styles never seen on here. I look at those sites, and can't avoid wishing I could take shots like many of them. I'm very aware that these sites are not limited to phone cameras (a lot of the shots on Snapwire are technically impossible with a phone camera as far as I can see), and that they tend to be heavily processed, but how many shots on here genuinely are SOOC, and aren't we always saying it's not the camera but the photographer that counts? Maybe those photographers are less constrained by rules than we are?

2) Similarly I look on Facebook at some photographer's pages, and hate the shots (I'm talking about shots that are composed OK, but are HDR'd to within an inch of their lives, have selective colour, or are composited in a cliched way), BUT they appear to be genuinely loved by Joe Public. Is our dislike of these things snobbery, or more generously, is it only us that's seen too much of it? After all, photography is not a big part of every person's world, so maybe these cliches are genuinely new, fresh, clever and amazing to them?

3) The same in art stores and on market stalls; they tend to be full of cliches. Is the real art the art that Joe Public likes?

4) On the other hand, I see the work of some photographers falling outside of ANY niche; it's neither what we do here, nor what you tend to see on Snapwire. How do I get to achieve that kind of vision, which in my opinion is TRUE art?

I think perhaps this post has two points;

A) How do you escape the mould?

and

B) Is there a whole world of photography out there that we look down on, thus actually limiting ourselves?

I should say that I'm not so much interested in the effects of Snapwire/"everyone's a photographer"/crowdsourcing/too many free images, on traditional professional photography. I'm sure many pro's hate Snapwire with a vengeance, but the question is more "is photography no longer what's represented by this forum, paid or not?", more than "how does all this affect pros?". The answer to the second question can only be reached after answering the first I think?

 

[Nikon_Nick]

I think its true that there certainly is an element of snobbery when it comes to the social media side of photography.

Ive lost count of the amount of times on here and other forums that ive seen instagram bad mouthed, and the users of it made to feel like they are just idiots for following such an obvious 'Fad'. Some people just find it difficult I guess to come to terms with the fact that photography has evolved. I still believe however, that there is a real demand for the more traditional, as ultimately, the end product is generally of a higher quality. The number of successful/working photographers on this forum alone is testament to that. I quite like Instagram, but I still made sure I hired a professional photographer for my Wedding shots.

Unfortunately, photographers (in the traditinal sense) are far outnumbered these days by the non-photographer, HDR, Instagram filter loving public.

 

[Quicksnapper]

I think part of the issue here, is that quite literally anyone can capture an image these days. Whether they're using a phone or any type of photographic equipment, the potential to capture an image is with us all. Whether that image capture process is considered "photography" by the many excellent pro and amateur photographers who use this forum is another question. Perhaps we have come to a time where photography needs to be re-defined somehow.

Maybe .... Images captured with a camera (film or digital) by some-one (pro or amateur) who has thought about what they want to capture and how, thought through the technicalities and applied them appropriately, and then made decisions about what they're going to do with it subsequently in terms of pp or other post capture activity ... is a photograph. Images caught casually on a device such as a phone and then posted on FB, Instagram or other sites for the general amusement of the originator and their friends ... is a ..... what?

... I don't have an answer to that .... still a photograph, I suppose but not in the sense we like to think of it ...

The point is, that the folks here on TP are here because they are interested in the technical process of taking good quality images, want to learn more about that and try to improve. They post images because they seek the feedback of like minded others (good or bad) on their efforts, and use those comments to better their efforts going forward. If we were more casual and less concerned about our efforts from a technical or artistic standpoint, I doubt we'd be here.

As for how does this affect pros ... as an avid amateur, I have no idea. I'm sure someone will tell you, but I'm certain that there will still be a market for good quality images, paid for by people who recognise that they need "good/proper" photographs sometimes. I don't know anyone whose wedding album comprises 100% images taken on guests phones .....

 

[Pookeyhead]

..........are we, as "serious" photographers on a forum like this, living in one? Does this forum, nowadays, only represent a small sub-section of photography with a specific range of styles?

Yes.

I've noticed that outside of this forum, photography is very different to what the majority of us, me included, do:

Where are you looking? Seems to me, INstagram and Facebook, Snapwire? You're still in a bubble if that's all you're looking at.

3) The same in art stores and on market stalls; they tend to be full of cliches. Is the real art the art that Joe Public likes?

Art shops and market stalls? Oh come on.... what else do expect there except utter pap?

4) On the other hand, I see the work of some photographers falling outside of ANY niche; it's neither what we do here, nor what you tend to see on Snapwire. How do I get to achieve that kind of vision, which in my opinion is TRUE art?

I think perhaps this post has two points;

A) How do you escape the mould?

Broaden your horizons.. that's how.

B) Is there a whole world of photography out there that we look down on, thus actually limiting ourselves?

Not much.. most on here is already near the bottom. There's a whole world of photography above you though.

I should say that I'm not so much interested in the effects of Snapwire/"everyone's a photographer"/crowdsourcing/too many free images, on traditional professional photography. I'm sure many pro's hate Snapwire with a vengeance, but the question is more "is photography no longer what's represented by this forum, paid or not?", more than "how does all this affect pros?". The answer to the second question can only be reached after answering the first I think?

There's a great deal of it that's NEVER been represented by this forum Professional photography is very limited in here... Plenty of sport, weddings, social portraiture... pretty much it really.

 

[Ed Sutton]

..........are we, as "serious" photographers on a forum like this, living in one? Does this forum, nowadays, only represent a small sub-section of photography with a specific range of styles?

I've noticed that outside of this forum, photography is very different to what the majority of us, me included, do:

You're making an assumption that there is an 'us' and a 'we' using this forum.

 

[Southdowns]

Maybe .... Images captured with a camera (film or digital) by some-one (pro or amateur) who has thought about what they want to capture and how, thought through the technicalities and applied them appropriately, and then made decisions about what they're going to do with it subsequently in terms of pp or other post capture activity ... is a photograph. Images caught casually on a device such as a phone and then posted on FB, Instagram or other sites for the general amusement of the originator and their friends ... is a ..... what?

A snap? But I'm not really talking about this shots, I'm talking about truly wonderful imagery, captured on a phone. Much of it, as far as I can see, is simply superb. Maybe it's so because the shooters are NOT interested in the technical side, only ion the image?

The point is, that the folks here on TP are here because they are interested in the technical process of taking good quality images, want to learn more about that and try to improve. They post images because they seek the feedback of like minded others (good or bad) on their efforts, and use those comments to better their efforts going forward. If we were more casual and less concerned about our efforts from a technical or artistic standpoint, I doubt we'd be here.

I agree, but just wonder whether in the long run, the artistic side is all that really counts? Quality, apart from artistic quality, only matters in so far as it helps achieve the desired result, doesn't it?

As for how does this affect pros ... as an avid amateur, I have no idea. I'm sure someone will tell you, but I'm certain that there will still be a market for good quality images, paid for by people who recognise that they need "good/proper" photographs sometimes. I don't know anyone whose wedding album comprises 100% images taken on guests phones .....

Agreed again, BUT, if you take a look on Snapwire at the quality and artistic ability of some phone photographers, I'm not so convinced that they couldn't shoot a wedding to the couple's great satisfaction. These are talented people!

I do value what we do on here, it's just that I wonder whether we limit ourselves. There appears to be a whole world of photography out there (excluding the snaps already mentioned), that we don't touch.

I think its true that there certainly is an element of snobbery when it comes to the social media side of photography.

Ive lost count of the amount of times on here and other forums that ive seen instagram bad mouthed, and the users of it made to feel like they are just idiots for following such an obvious 'Fad'. Some people just find it difficult I guess to come to terms with the fact that photography has evolved. I still believe however, that there is a real demand for the more traditional, as ultimately, the end product is generally of a higher quality. The number of successful/working photographers on this forum alone is testament to that. I quite like Instagram, but I still made sure I hired a professional photographer for my Wedding shots.

Unfortunately, photographers (in the traditinal sense) are far outnumbered these days by the non-photographer, HDR, Instagram filter loving public.

I agree with all of that. But I wonder just how much, beyond technical image quality and flexibility, a DSLR adds to your creativity over a phone? Maybe the technology's limitations ENHANCE creativity, and that's why I see so many shots on Snapwire that I'd never in a month of Sundays see on here?

 

[Southdowns]

Yes.



Where are you looking? Seems to me, INstagram and Facebook, Snapwire? You're still in a bubble if that's all you're looking at.

Art shops and market stalls? Oh come on.... what else do expect there except utter pap?

Broaden your horizons.. that's how.

Not much.. most on here is already near the bottom. There's a whole world of photography above you though.

There's a great deal of it that's NEVER been represented by this forum Professional photography is very limited in here... Plenty of sport, weddings, social portraiture... pretty much it really.

Wow, way to go with getting the wrong end of the stick! Not one of those points addresses anything I said!

 

[Pookeyhead]

Then once you've gathered your rage, explain where I went wrong.

 

[Southdowns]

You're making an assumption that there is an 'us' and a 'we' using this forum.

Only in the sense that there's a RANGE of styles represented on here, that in general keep repeating (obviously there are exceptions), and that I see a much bigger range of quality images elsewhere. That's what I'm discussing.

 

[Southdowns]

Then once you've gathered your rage, explain where I went wrong.

There's really no point. I've put up a range of discussion points/questions, to get people thinking, and you've misread all of them. I'm not angry about that, more disappointed, but don't intend to spend time explaining them all again just for your benefit.

 

[Pookeyhead]

(shrug)

Well.. You want to break the mould, which you seem to want to do after reading it again... stop looking at the stuff you've been looking at. I'm essentially agreeing with you that the range of stuff in these forums is very limited, but the other sources you mention are equally as limited if you ask me.

As for your other question, yes, people on here DO look down on anything that doesn't fit the mould. They do it all the time. The irony is, they don't realise that the vast majority of what is in here is cliché and tired: One big perpetual circle jerk.

Your thread title is absolutely apt. These forums are a creative bubble. A few of us try to sprinkle some variety in here once in a while, but it doesn't go down well.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Only in the sense that there's a RANGE of styles represented on here, that in general keep repeating (obviously there are exceptions), and that I see a much bigger range of quality images elsewhere. That's what I'm discussing.

Of course there is a much bigger range of photography than represented here, but it's bigger than all the internet sharing platforms too. TBH I've pretty much given up looking at the photos on here, and never trawl Flickr or anywhere else to look at photos.

If you only look consider the interweb and market stalls then you're not really talking about Art at all. But discussions about Art on this forum only go one way.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Of course there is a much bigger range of photography than represented here, but it's bigger than all the internet sharing platforms too. TBH I've pretty much given up looking at the photos on here, and never trawl Flickr or anywhere else to look at photos.

If you only look consider the interweb and market stalls then you're not really talking about Art at all. But discussions about Art on this forum only go one way.

That's pretty much what I said wasn't it? LOL

 

[posiview]

There's really no point. I've put up a range of discussion points/questions, to get people thinking, and you've misread all of them. I'm not angry about that, more disappointed, but don't intend to spend time explaining them all again just for your benefit.

(shrug)

Well.. You want to break the mould, which you seem to want to do after reading it again... stop looking at the stuff you've been looking at. I'm essentially agreeing with you that the range of stuff in these forums is very limited, but the other sources you mention are equally as limited if you ask me.

As for your other question, yes, people on here DO look down on anything that doesn't fit the mould. They do it all the time.

Your thread title is absolutely apt. These forums are a creative bubble. A few of us try to sprinkle some variety in here once in a while, but it doesn't go down well.

Manhug

I'll read this again tonight, when I've had a few.

On the face of it Mark, some good points.

I love photography that doesn't fit the mould; photography that people say, "A kid could have done that!"

Cheers.

 

[Southdowns]

(shrug)

Well.. You want to break the mould, which you seem to want to do after reading it again... stop looking at the stuff you've been looking at. I'm essentially agreeing with you that the range of stuff in these forums is very limited, but the other sources you mention are equally as limited if you ask me.

As for your other question, yes, people on here DO look down on anything that doesn't fit the mould. They do it all the time.

Your thread title is absolutely apt. These forums are a creative bubble. A few of us try to sprinkle some variety in here once in a while, but it doesn't go down well.

OK, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but I didn't say I was looking on those sites for inspiration, more that I've stopped ONLY looking on here. Surely that's a broadening of my horizons, and what I'm asking is, shouldn't we all be doing that?

If you're saying stop looking at ANYONE else's work, then I'm getting to the point where I think that may be good advice.

Finally for now, to @Ed Sutton too, I didn't say market stalls etc were inspiration, I asked whether our idea of art is different to Joe Public's, as evidenced by those places. I agree they're pap, but am I in a minority along with a lot of people on here?

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'll read this again tonight, when I've had a few.

..because that always ends well LOL

 

[posiview]

That's pretty much what I said wasn't it? LOL

Surely that doesn't mean he can't say it as well...also he may be a slow typer

 

[posiview]

..because that always ends well LOL

It does for me. Really, when I've had a drink or two my creative juices really flow.

 

[Pookeyhead]

OK, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you

No probs. Misunderstanding is rife on the interwebz I'm led to believe

, but I didn't say I was looking on those sites for inspiration, more that I've stopped ONLY looking on here. Surely that's a broadening of my horizons, and what I'm asking is, shouldn't we all be doing that?

Absolutely. Why limit yourself? I think the majority opt to limit themselves however. It's safer. If enough of you congratulate yourselves for making the same phtography over and over again in a kind of ground hog day, then eventually you become part of a society where you can get affirmation and status as a result, and once you have that, you raise the moat and shoe away anyone who may raise awkward questions.

If you're saying stop looking at ANYONE else's work, then I'm getting to the point where I think that may be good advice.

No.. I'm saying look at as much as possible... just not the same old stuff in the same old places.

Surely that doesn't mean he can't say it as well...also he may be a slow typer

I wasn't really aiming that at Dave.... it was aimed at the OP to make a point.... one that has since been cleared up as a misunderstanding...

Move along.... nothing to see....

 

[Southdowns]

That's pretty much what I said wasn't it? LOL

It could have been, but it doesn't read like that to me. Sorry again if that's my fault, but you appeared to be saying I took inspiration from Facebook and Instagram (even though I mentioned other sites far more often, as you've recognised with your edit), that I liked what's in art shops, and that I had narrow horizons, even though I didn't identify my horizons.

If not, my bad

 

[Pookeyhead]

See above

 

[Southdowns]

OK, so now I see that you DO agree with me! Glad we got there in the end!

 

[Ed Sutton]

Surely that doesn't mean he can't say it as well...also he may be a slow typer

Or just plain slow.

In my defence I was answering a question directed at me.

Finally for now, to @Ed Sutton too, I didn't say market stalls etc were inspiration, I asked whether our idea of art is different to Joe Public's, as evidenced by those places.

My fault for the confusion.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Or just plain slow.

In my defence I was answering a question directed at me.

I was using you shamelessly as a vehicle for sarcasm. Forgive me

 

[Ed Sutton]

I kinda got that.

 

[droj]

Is the real art the art that Joe Public likes?

Of course not, Joe Public is indiscriminate and untutored. Not a reliable arbiter.

How do I get to achieve that kind of vision, which in my opinion is TRUE art?

You look at others' work (1) that you like and / or (2) that is held to be good by educated repute, and ask why. What does such work do and how does it do it, not so much technically but more in terms of its imagery? You might immerse yourself in looking - look widely, and always ask questions. You won't always achieve answers but keep at it. Think of photography as a cultural language that must be learnt before you can express yourself in it. You might find yourself drawn to certain modes of expression that tally with your nature, which can be good, but keep aware of all forms whether you like them or not. You may find a new expression of your own, but this won't be a single event - the whole thing is a process of exploration.

How do you escape the mould?

I suggest that the groundwork is as described above. You may also play around with looking and making images and reviewing the results. The more you do and think about, the more immersed you may become. It can never be a smooth process - there will be blind alleys, reversals, and false temptresses along the way ... but if you are lucky, you may find a way of working that expresses your take on things, at least for a while ...

Is there a whole world of photography out there that we look down on, thus actually limiting ourselves?

I wouldn't say so, but it may depend on your temperament. Try to be analytical, but don't be afraid to mesh gut feeling into that. Tutor yourself and learn to trust your perceptions (without becoming egocentric / defensive) - always remain open. Challenge everything. Never be satisfied.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

All photographic circles (for lack of a better collective noun) are bubbles. Camera club photography is a bubble in its own right for example, flickr groups are their own bubbles, etc.

Personally I don't look at the photographs posted on Talk Photography, well not for the past year or so anyway. I tend to look more at books and magazines, and if I get chance (rare these days), real world galleries.

 

[Phil V]

Like Andy I try to be selective about the photography a look at (which has effectively created a Phil shaped bubble)

It's perfectly normal human behaviour, but it leads to some strange outcomes.

Like all the people who must have taken their lead from the horrible 'portrait professional' ads and produce photos of people who look like dolls. And all the unnecessary overdone HDR.

Personally I'm bemused by the side effects of this kind of thing, there are still customers who think that spot colour is cool 5 years after it was buried by all 'serious' photographers.

 

[Southdowns]

Cheers Rog

Andy, I'm seriously thinking of doing the same. Andy (@posiview) and I had a look around a shop in Leeds at the weekend. I'm not even sure what their "brief" is, but basically they sold a lot of art and photography books and magazines (but NOT Practical Photography kind of mags!). We were absolutely stunned by the photography on display; millions of miles away from this particular bubble, though still technically spot on. It was quite refreshing to see in fact

Phil, I agree, which is why I'm interested in whether the real judges are Joe Public, and we're in some kind of snobby clique. We think selective colour is done to death, but if it still has an appeal to Mr and Mrs Average, has it really run it's course yet? I guess probably it has for any serious amateur with no commercial aspirations, or for a pro who considers himself a working artist, but as a product the pro's should be offering? Isn't not doing it a bit like a fish and chip shop refusing to do Cod just because it's popular?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Cheers Rog

Andy, I'm seriously thinking of doing the same. Andy (@posiview) and I had a look around a shop in Leeds at the weekend.

Village books?

 

[Southdowns]

It could have been. I've got their card somewhere so will check, but it was in the Corn Exchange?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Some good book stores in Leeds... and galleries for that matter.

 

[posiview]

There seemed to be a mixture of vintage and contemporary books. Not many customers, though. Might pop in on Saturday to have another look.

Cheers.