On Photo Sharing (3)

In part 1 of this mini-series, among other things, I wrote about the choices of where to share photos online and concluded that nowadays, "general" social media with an audience as big as possible is what I prefer over sites specialized in photo sharing. In part 2, I mused a little bit about why we share photos online and the difficulties with comments and critique. In the 3rd part, I want to write about what is actually shared online, and it's implications.

In the past couple of weeks and months, while I was reading more books about photography in general, and looked at the photos shown and discussed in books such as "Why Photographs Work" by George Barr (which I highly recommend, just like his weblog "Behind the lens") I noticed an interesting discrepancy between the photography that is commonly shared online, and the "classic" photography from renowned photographers displayed in books, and shown in their online portfolios. That discrepancy is perhaps best described as the difference between popularity and art - one doesn't necessarily have to do much with the other.

The type of photos commonly displayed online on the bigger photo sharing sites, the popular stuff, the images that get "voted up", added to favorites, +1'ed, "liked", etc. etc. is for a good part quite different from what traditional fine art photography is. The success and popularity of photos online is mostly determined and decided by the taste of users that, let's be honest, probably haven't looked at too much photography other than online (they are the children of the digital revolution of photography, just like me - I'm only beginning to understand everything else that is "out there" myself... slowly).

It is both tempting and dangerous to tailor the photography that one shows online to the possible "success rate" in terms of popularity - I mean, who doesn't want to be popular and see his/her work appreciated? But alas, as I've written here before, at a certain point, this could easily become nothing more than practicing a routine.

Now, my views are mostly limited to landscape and nature photography (simply because that's what I do, and like to look at), and the problem with "normal" landscape and nature photography is of course that it is not so easy to create a unique style that can be identified. Yes, that will probably offend some landscape and nature photographers out there, but allow me to illustrate this thought with a simple example (for obvious reasons, I don't include any other work but mine own in my blog so plain text will have to do): put any skilled amateur's work next to some photos from, lets say, David Noton, or Peter Lik, and don't attribute them to anyone - who can tell them apart? (at least online, and not in print.)

It's difficult to really have and practice one's own style in landscape and nature photography. It's a rather safe approach to show popular images not only because of photo sharing sites of course - if you're looking to sell your photos as stock, for example.

But what happens because of that?

First, it manipulates our own style because we see these popular images and strive to reproduce these results. To be popular too, of course. :) I still remember my initial frustration with the sheer fact that I felt like capturing great landscapes, but was living in Germany and not, let's say, Iceland, or the US west coast. But in the end, because I lived in a not-so-very scenic location of the world, I found my very own favorite subject and style: my "intimate landscapes", the "little scenes" that were not captured by traveling far, but by staying close to home, and discovering and getting to know my neighborhood. (and yes, I'm facing quite a challenge now that I moved to Southern California - but I'll be getting there eventually photographically too, in my own way - my gosh, it's almost one year already since I moved!)

And second, it manipulates our perception and appreciation of photography as a whole, because you're most likely only looking at a mere fraction of the entire photographic spectrum that every genre of photography has to offer when you're looking at the popular photography on online photo sharing sites.

In the gazillion color photos of Antelope Canyon (the link does a Google image search for it), where would Bruce Barnbaum's "Slit Canyon" portfolio appear, popularity-wise? Would it get voted up on 500px? Would it get "explored" on Flickr, re-shared and "+1'ed" on Google+ a lot? You can do the same with other places: The Huangshan mountains in China according to Google, crisp, sharp, colorful... and explored by Michael Kenna - quiet, mysterious, otherworldly... and slow. It's visible to me that Michael Kenna took his time to explore this region, and it's a remarkable difference to the "fast-paced" color images that the Google search throws back at me.

Ultimately, and to wrap up this post, the question is: does looking at popular photos on internet photo sharing sites really bring you forward as an artist? Is the popular photography shared on the internet truly inspirational? Of course, we all learn through imitation, but there's a point at which we will hopefully mature. For that however, one has to begin and dig a little deeper. Limiting our "consumption" of photography to the popular stuff on the internet does not exactly speed up that process, and I for one wish I would have realized that sooner. :P

But then again - we're all doing it at our own pace... (and the most important part is probably to always have fun with it, and I honestly can't say that there's been a time yet were I did not enjoy photography.)

An approach to evaluating HDR

HDR (or rather: tone-mapping) is arguably one of the techniques that stirs the most controversy. The simple truth is of course that it is just a technique that doesn't "make" a photo good or bad. But it is often misused, and overused - otherwise we wouldn't have all the discussions about it.

Point Loma Tide Pools, San Diego, CA. October 2010. (5s at ISO100, f/22, 16mm.)

The above photo is not an HDR, but it has been "tone mapped" with the Tonal Contrast filter of Nik's Color Efex suite. For the most part, I wanted to bring out more of the midtones and the fine structures in the rock.

What's so interesting is how HDR seems to "obscure" our perception. Maybe because it's still unusual to see pictures that have been processed that way. Or perhaps we've gotten so used to the limitations and flaws of photography that the "hyper-real" appearance of some HDR photos is still too unusual yet. Sometimes, it takes me a while to appreciate a good HDR photo, by trying to match what I would see with my own eyes with that what I see in the photo.

Either way... my plea is that we stop looking at the technique and effect, but simply apply our usual/normal judgement to those photos (and btw. - this goes for all other "hip" appearances like trashy/aged/retro toy camera/film look etc. too).

How? If you consider a monochrome photo as a reduction to simple tonality that enhances shapes, forms and composition, light and shadow, then HDR is the exact opposite. An enhancement of tonality that reduces/obscures everything else, no?

So whenever I see an HDR photo, I try to create an "abstract" of it in my head and ask myself: what if I was able to take away the HDR effect, it's detail, it's colors? Would it still be a good photo? Unfortunately, quite a lot of them fall apart into more or less harmless snapshots with some painterly effects then.

I don't shoot

For quite a while now, the commonly used terms for using a camera make me feel uneasy: "shoot a photo", "landscape shooter", "get the shot", "second shooter" (at a wedding) or even "shooting people". The word "shoot" has a violent component to it that I try not to use in combination with something as peaceful* and fulfilling as photography.

But that's only one thing. The other is what "shooting" and a "shot" imply: aim, pull the trigger, BAM! Fire and forget, target has been terminated.** Granted, there are some similarities to using a camera, but I can't help it - "shooting" doesn't really sound like an artistic endeavor to me.

I prefer to say that I make a photo. "Make" sounds creative and productive. "Shoot" sounds fast-paced and destructive. Think about it. Do you shoot? I don't shoot. I create.

---

*) as long as it is not an aggressive form of street photography in the style of Bruce Gilden. The results are stunning, but the process and approach are highly questionable.

**) the way some photographers pose with their cameras and models for making-of and profile photos look a little bit like an execution to me