I was sampling photography podcasts recently when one of them (can’t remember which one, sorry) made a very good point: if the inventors of square format cameras like the Diana or the Holga could see the technology we have today, like DSLRs, digital photography, and cameras attached to telephones that fit in our pockets, they would be spinning in their graves to know the biggest fad right now is Instagram. The point of all advances in photographic history, they argued, was that inventors were desperately trying to recreate the image they saw before them, in essence, provide the most accurate copy of a real-life scene possible. It’s the very meaning of the word capture - they were trying to take the scene before them, photograph it, and preserve it on film forever. Everything hipsters like about Instagram - the square format, the retro processing effects, those were features of camera from the 1960s and 1970s because that was the technology. That was the best that photographers could do with what they had. The podcast argued it would blow minds to know that we have so much technology now, the ability to faithfully recreate in a photograph a scene before us, and yet we choose to recreate the effect of cameras from 40-50 years ago.
Does that make your head spin? It’s something I like thinking about. It’s like a trend to write chiseling on stone tablets instead of using a computer, as I am now. Maybe not that extreme, but you get my drift.
It’s not something I personally focus on, but I wonder sometimes what makes a Flickr image get more views than others. This is how my thoughts on Instagram started. In skimming through my photostream, photos taken with my DSLR usually average somewhere in 40-50 views, and there are some anomalies, like my dunk tank picture that’s currently at 336 views. Can’t understand that one. But the Instagram photos I’ve posted are in the single digits. I’m no Flickr expert by far. I love posting my photos in a place online that actually makes them look good, and I love making contacts and stalking their work once in awhile, making comments, seeing what they’re working on, getting ideas. I love the community aspect of the site, especially being able to follow Madison photographers. I am by no means dedicated to getting more hits or comments or even making an effort to get more eyes on my photographs, but I do wonder - what makes a person look at that little thumbnail, click for a bigger view, and be counted?
The people I follow on Flickr are far more talented than I am, and for the most part they follow me back and leave nice comments once in awhile. Do they automatically dismiss the Instagram photos? It’s not like getting those effects takes any kind of skill; anyone can spend $100 on a Diana kit at your local Urban Outfitters. Anyone can download Instagram or Hipstamatic or any of the dozens of photo editing and sharing apps out there. I suppose it takes some intuition to decide which filter to use, and of course, composition should always be taken into consideration. But in the vast majority of cases, it’s not like those effects were achieve in post-processing, whether in a dark room or even Photoshop. It could easily be assumed that it does not take a whole lot of skill to produce a neat looking photograph in Instagram. What I’m asking is, is this a good or a bad thing?
I’m interested in becoming better at this art, but my progress is sort of floating along, taking a picture here and there, looking at other people’s work and learning more about my camera. I’m not very serious, and I’m not very social, so as a result, I don’t talk to a whole lot of other photographers. I think it would be easy to assume that a highly skilled person who has spent a lot of time learning their craft might turn down their nose at a new fad like Instagram. But who knows?
Not one of us is born with a camera in our hand. Not all of us take classes or study or learn anything more about our cameras other than the PSD button (Push Here Dummy). I probably would never have picked up a DSLR if it wasn’t for my job, and I probably would never have learned more about my DSLR if I wasn’t interested in being better at my job. My point - we all come into this hobby, art, profession, wherever you’re at - we all come into photography in different ways.
And that’s how I see Instagram. I assume that the vast majority of Instagrammers will take photos, share on Facebook, and move on to the next big thing as it comes along. But maybe there are a small few who will start with Instagram and want to learn more.
But even if they don’t - is that a bad thing either? If a photographer or any other kind of artist isn’t learning or progressing, is that a bad thing? If the ultimate goal of all photographers, of all artists, is to produce great work, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is the image we come up with. Right? Or is it something more?
I had no idea when I started this that a few simple thoughts on Instagram would turn into a soul-searching, philosophical rumination on my own work and my own progression, so I digress. But it’s something I wonder about - is it enough to pick up a camera once in awhile, take a few photos I’m happy with, post them to my website and blog and be done with it? Is it enough to interact with other photographers through a few digital comments once every couple of weeks? I am constantly thinking about that question - is it enough? I have been told more than once that I worry too much. But I feel that without knowing yourself, there can be no self-reflection, and without self-reflection, there can be no progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment