[toni-a]

An interesting read


http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/...-Zoyy7fqEc

[stoppingdown]

Well, it's right, we've passed the sufficiency level at affordable price since a long time.

 

On a derived topic, there's a point that makes me think:

 

Do you think all of those war images would have anywhere near the same level of impact if there were no grain?

 

 

 

It's undoubtedly true, but I think that the story is more complex. Actually, first we had the great impact of those war images; they had grain; so grain has been associated to great impact. It's not that grain per se has an impact. BTW, given that we still have wars, I don't think that grain would be necessary today to deliver a great impact.

 

If we don't have great war images as in the past it's because the scenario has changed. At the time, war images were pushed. Today the perception of war is different.

[Rover]

I think there are still some bad lenses. Mostly those that are made to be bad intentionally. For example, bad as in the Trioplan bad. Bad as in you pay top dollar for the privilege of using a bad lens and make yourself different.

 

Otherwise, all valid points.

[davidmanze]

Many of the best cameras were the early 10 X 8" glass plate types which produced superb images, for many years things got worse, 4 x 5" then 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 (120) then 127 and 35mm, after came  half frame and finally when it hit an all time low, came the abominable 110 cassette. I spent my youth thinking that things were going down hill all the way. Now things are going the other way again.

 

 The one thing that has never changed is the photographer!

[southerncross]

 The one thing that has never changed is the photographer!

 

I think the average quality of photographers is in constant decline for at least a century. Lots of masters and hundreds of milllions of wanabees. 

[stoppingdown]

I think the average quality of photographers is in constant decline for at least a century. Lots of masters and hundreds of milllions of wanabees. 

 

It's the problem of democratisation of art. It also happened in other fields.

[toni-a]

I think the average quality of photographers is in constant decline for at least a century. Lots of masters and hundreds of milllions of wanabees.

Well allow me to disagree.

This the typical talk I hear from professionals earning money from photography that consider amateurs as competitors.

Photography is for everyone not for professionals only, it's up to the viewer to decide if he likes what he sees or not.

It's like saying only professional and highly competitive players should be playing football.

[stoppingdown]

toni-a, I don't know southerncross, but I'm not a pro. I welcome discussions and some occasional critique, but I don't mind it too much. I shot for my pleasure, I don't care what others say. I don't sell them, I don't publish them on Instagram, Photo.Net, 500px, Flickr, whatever. I pretty know I'm nothing more than a modest photographer. I just enjoy learning more stuff, improving and having a hobby that I hope will stay with me when I get older (I'm not talking of retirement because it's something that might never happen in my country).

 

I don't think that the problem of quality is about pro vs amateur, even though being a pro - that is, having studied, or having followed a master, etc... is not totally irrelevant of course. The problem is about masses. Whenever you reach a given threshold of people doing the same thing, you trigger devastating behaviours such as flattery, fashion, "viral" phenomena and such.

[toni-a]

Even if many are doing it, that's not bad, what's the problem with everyone playing football as an example??

Etymologically an amateur is someone who does something because he loves doing it, I am like you, i don't post but I enjoy shooting I also enjoy post processing and mostly enjoy printing and hanging or distributing pictures. It's a great feeling when you see people exposing your pictures in their house, or even proudly posting them on social media

[stoppingdown]

Even if many are doing it, that's not bad, what's the problem with everyone playing football as an example??

 

The problem is not per se that everybody is doing it... Is that most people won't be satisfied by privately enjoy the thing, as you and me are saying. Most of them will be engaged in the competition to get those 20 minute on the internet, and more. To be part of the game, they will lower the bar of selection - and they are making the position of the bar, because they are the consumers at the same time.