What IS a great photo any more?
The internet is crammed to the gills with photos. It’s like a gigantic, dusty attic, stuffed with boxes and boxes of malingering prints, negs and trannies (not that kind, you bizarre people) that were looked at and maybe admired once, and now sit there going curly at the corners, the colours fading, the mildew gradually engulfing them, while some unseen hand throws ever more photos in through the hatch, thousands at a time.
Well ok, the internet doesn’t suffer mildew, and digital pictures don’t fade, though perhaps one day they’ll become unreadable by computers, but I’d bet you a Great British Pound that 99.9999% of photos online get looked at a few times, and are now being seen by no one.
Sites like flickr, deviantart, facebook and myspace host millions of photos taken and shared by members of the public. Some of these sites allow comments and ratings, and the words I see again and again within the comments are “great”, “brilliant”, “awesome”. But what do these words mean any more? They’re used so casually to describe the attributes of the photos (and in the case of deviantart, usually the attributes of the nude model in the photo) that these words have lost all currency.
There are great photos that many of us will be familiar with; from the First World War to current conflicts. The Farm Security Administration project, carried out during the Great Depression in America in the 1930s and 40s was a rich source of photos which bear scrutiny and critical acclaim today.
Not all great pictures have been taken in conflict and famine. Helmut Newton, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Larry Benson, Man Ray, were working in studios and peaceful locations, but still managed to produce iconic work. Awesome might be too gushing, and I’ll punch anyone who says “great capture”.
And I’m sorry if my article is a little thin on jokes this week, but I do wonder what we think a great picture is now? Why say a picture is great, when what we actually mean is it’s just nice? Yes, that word which damns with feint praise, but it’s mostly true, because surely for a photo to be truly great, it has to have a resonance beyond a few dozen, hundred or even thousand people looking at it on their computer screens for 15 seconds while they sip a cappuccino before clicking onto the next photo or back to facebook. To be truly great, I say a photo has to distill something of its time. It must transcend all the barriers that prevent an OK photo from becoming an icon.
A nice photo, but not much resonance beyond its fine black border.
Perhaps you’ll think I’m being too hard on current photography and photographers, but I’m actually being quite hard on myself. I don’t believe I have ever taken a truly Great photo in my 20+ year career. There are other photographers, some thankfully still alive and working, who have taken dozens, even hundreds of photos which are truly great because of what they say and their ability to convey a message and emotion to the viewer, and unlike so much flickr fodder, tell us something fundamental about the human condition, and will tell us something substantial about our times in decades to come.
Perhaps I’m being harsh on the digital photography culture, but my fear is that in the tsunami of digital images, we’ll lose sight of what really great photography looks like. In a world where millions of photos are described as great, great becomes average, and we surely need to keep a separation between the great, and the merely good.
Tim
Another ‘great’ blog. I think the difference today is that photography is part of, if not integral to, the social online phenomenon and as such, allows us to be cyberesque with our emotions. When someone posts ‘great, awesome and amazing’ it says more about them and how they want to express, engage and connect with the outside world and sadly less about the actual photograph. It’s just an online language trend that we have adopted to verify that we are part of this culture.
I post images on my facebook page, just to gauge reaction, i’m always surprised by what people comment on – it’s never the image that i think is good. That one always get little or no comment.
Our overly expressive posts are perhaps a bi product of lone computer use. If you stood in front of someone and held the same photograph in front of them and asked their opinion, perhaps the reaction would be more ‘it’s really good, i like it or it’s nice…?’
One of the best comment i have had on an image is “Why can’t i see things like that…?”
Keep up the blogging, it’s awesome! 🙂
S-J
Thanks for your kind words about my blog yet again. As you’ve also said them to my face, I’ll believe the sincerity of your comments here too.
I know what you’re saying, and of course it’s true that the internet has changed the way we engage with imagery. I think to some extent this is all a product of our not wishing to upset the feelings of friends and strangers by telling them their photos are rubbish or boring. And of course, we’re not all uploading amazing photos of conflict and strife, but I think we should perhaps consider carefully before calling a photo of yet another kitten “great”.
And yes, it’s never the photo you like most that gets the best reactions. This might be because it’s tricky being truly objective about your own photos, so you react to your own photos with some of the emotion you felt at the time you took them.
Now back to taking some awesome captures…
It also depends on what kind of photographer you are. Whether photojournalism, a strictly commercial photographer or a hobbyist. They all look with different view at a certain photo. Artistic photographers may not like a commerial photo as found in FHM for example, but others might drool over it. But because photography is more accesible now than ever, everybody labels themselves as ‘photographer’, and that’s where this might stem from.
You’re not wrong, Squire (always wanted to say that).
However, even if a photograph is really, really good – like a glossy FHM shot of a lady in bikini, kneeling in water and lit from all sides with perfect makeup and every hair in place, does that make it a great photo? Is it, can it be iconic?
What I didn’t mention in the article, but which springs to mind, is will digital kill the iconic photos of the future, since even the most honest photo will be under suspicion of manipulation so all future brilliant photos will have that suspicion of “well, that must be photoshopped to look like that”. Hmm. Future article?
I think thats subject to taste. I could think it as iconic in my eyes. Perfectly lit, perfect skin, make up etc. while a photojournalist could think it as artificial and fake and a ‘made’ photo.
You do have a point with digital killing iconic (traditional) photos, however, times are changing. In todays age, (and Im not saying cheesy manipulation) editing (and manipulation if you will), is all part of the process. And it isnt neccesary a bad thing as long as its done tastefully. But this is again, depending for what you’re shooting. If its an ad selling anti wrinkle cream, ofcourse you’d want an ad featuring a lovely lady with silky smooth (photoshopped) skin (at least the client).
My point is that a truly iconic photo isn’t subject to taste or preference of style. The great war/famine/disaster photos are not subject to aesthetics in the way a FHM magazine photo would be, and those iconic photos are appreciated by everyone who sees them. They are seared into our collective conscious. I wonder if by saying “great” too much about photography which is either dull (most of flickr/istockphoto), or highly polished but ultimately disposable (FHM, Nuts, Car Nutter Monthly), are we not diluting the power of the words which should be reserved for the Iconic (note the capital letter) photos.
Tim, you are a man who seems to think along the same lines as myself… and spookily I think this has happened before.
I know you are going to like this – it is truely awesome:
http://www.redbubble.com/people/cliff/art/1614125-5-sail-away
and among the sea of ‘great!’ comments, just one stands out:
“it´s like a cup of ice cream with cream on the ice cream with a cherry on top with chocolate over everything with a little pink paper umbrella sticking out of it. and all together served with nice table fireworks.”
If ‘great!’ is all people have to say about a picture, then there is one thing you can be sure of. It ain’t great.
Chris, that truly is an iconic image!!! Actually, it appears to be a bag of washing, stitched together in Photoshop to look like orcas, seagulls, mountains and a tall ship, but it’s still a bag of washing.
And that “cup of ice cream” comment is eerily true, except the cup, ice cream, cherry, chocolate and little pink umbrella were all photographed separately, then stitched together by a three-fingered muppet. Thank you, you have both entertained and depressed me in one fell swoop.
But again then, we’re talking about different things. In that retrospect, only photos in journalism could then ever be iconic. It’s comparing apples and pears. Maybe you should use the words ‘portraying emotion’ rather than ‘iconic’. Photography is still an art form, and I still stand by, is rather subject to taste. Just like I don’t find painting by Picasso very appealing (quite ugly actually), but its considered a master. Even though people sometimes say, ‘there is no such thing as a bad photo’ (which is bull), you and I know the difference between an ugly photo and a beautiful photo.
I think it’s wrong to say that only photojournalism can create iconic photos, though perhaps it has gained more than its fair share. There are also examples by fashion and nude photographers, nature and landscape photographers – there must even be an iconic wedding photo somewhere, I just can’t think of it 😉
@Chris
I see where you’re going with that one. (about the picture) That’s what people who don’t know what they’re talking about would say. (and other people are just lying)
Any realistic person can see that thats an atrocious picture (any who say otherwise is just lying). And it has nothing to do with photography anymore (heck it’s even a bad photoshop-job).
@Squire Starsquid
Re: “Any realistic person can see that thats an atrocious picture”
I would say ‘photographic/artistic professional’ rather than ‘realistic person’.
I think, along with many other areas (food, wine, writing, film) it takes time and experience to learn what is good and what is not. Things which may at first be immediately appealing become stale, boring or awkward as we experience more of the same.
I think HDR photography is a good example. If an image immediately screams ‘HDR!’ then it has failed. It is gimmicky and what it says to me is the photographer recognised that their image was mediocre and their solution was to use HDR to make it look fancy. Silk purses, pigs ears and all that.
I think you make an interesting point about seeing things in the context of what follows or what we’ve already experienced. And HDR is a prime example of covering up mediocrity. Plus the fact that we could find ourselves confronted with a picture and not be sure that it’s an HDR effort or even a composite is what is damaging to the future of “iconic” photography. We no longer trust what we see. Of course there have been examples of fakery through the ages (Cottingley Fairies anyone?) but now everyone appears to be at it, or at least a significant number of cases have arisen recently, it’s enough to knock our faith in much of what we see.
@Chris
Yes, I wasnt sure if I used ‘photographic/artistic professional’ was entirely correct since there are people who dont neccesary do photography but still have an eye for it. But indeed, like you said, just like food, wine etc. it takes time to experience and develop an eye for it. HDR is one of those things, never liked it, never will. Its basically a photoshopped image and while there are a few who do great work with HDR, the majority strikes me as amateur and cant be called photography anymore. (and its so overdone) I see it all the time, using that to cover up a mediocre photo and then you have the hordes of people saying ‘ohhh’ ‘ahhh’ ‘fantastic’ ‘GREAT’ etc. I cringe everytime.
Tim, you make a good point about fakery in photography. It has become a disease as it is so easy to do now. I consider that I am probably quite good at spotting fake images now because I have assessed hundreds of thousands of images over the past few years.
I got an email about a competition winner at the end of last year:
http://www.internationalapertureawards.com/Images/ImageoftheYear2009.jpg
Beautiful picture, no question, but my immediate thought was ‘fake’. A good fake, but a fake. I would estimate that it is a composite of up to 8 separate images.
I confronted the competition organisers about this, but got no response. Maybe composites were not explicitly excluded in the rules. Maybe the judges were embarrassed that it slipped by them, because I can’t see how professional judges would give this image the top award if they realised that it was fake.
What is particularly bad is that before winning the top award in the competition… it won the sports category!
Sports? Composite images? Something smells rotten to me….
here’s the main site:
http://www.internationalapertureawards.com/
would be interested to see what others think.
Hi Chris, I can see what you mean. There’s something “not right” about this image. There have been recent controversies about photos submitted to competitions (I’d find the links, but I’m about to dash out) and others which were put out by newswires, then pulled once the full photoshoppery had been revealed. I don’t know where it’s all going to end. In tears probably, and with a largely discredited industry.
I’ve had people look at my website and ask me if those are all my photos. What do they think I’m doing? Stealing other peoples’ pictures and touting them as my own? Not entirely relevant to your point, but it shows that there is mistrust out there, and perhaps rightly so when there is so much fakery and theft going on all the time. I wish I had the answers, but if I did, I wouldn’t need to write blogs. I’d be too busy sailing my private yacht.
I really dont get those sites. They’re supposed to be professionals judging it and stuff. How can a photoshopped image even be considered? As a photo, that image isnt even ‘correct’. And its quite a slap in the face of other photographers who do indeed deliver good work.
I think what is at issue here is that hyperbole (abbr.=hype) has become the common currency and the much vaunted “self-esteem” of children (and adults) makes the exercise of critical judgment a social crime.
I’m not having a go at commentators here, but the description “awesome” is used these days to describe everything from a new ice-cream flavor to a child’s finger painting.
In a world where it is politically correct to give every creative effort equal value, it is considered bad form to make judgements about the creative worth of a photo. The craft suffers as a result.
Abso-flippin-lutely, Rob, you’ve hit the awesome nail on the amazing head. This is seen very clearly in photo sharing sites, where anything which is vaguely in focus and somewhere in the ballpark of correctly exposed gets heaps of praise, while anything which is dross even to the untrained eye gets no comment whatsoever. People are very reluctant (myself included) to criticise, or should I say offer critical review, of other people’s photos. It does nobody any favours, since one of the best ways of improving your photography is by having others tear it apart. It’s how I learned, and I miss that now that I’m no longer working in a newsroom team.