The Flickr photo; it's a "style" ???

[imajypsee]

here's a NYTimes magazine article with the full explanation
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27wwln-medium-t.html?hp

hmmm..... just posting for edification. Talk amongst yourselves ;)

Mary in Florida

[bmattock]

Cultural swill.

The article, or Flickr?

[mabelsound]

Flickr's great. It isn't required that you post crappy photos on it.

[jan normandale]

hey Flickr is what it is. The article is an oversimplification but like all this stuff it has a grain of truth to it. It's pop photography, scrapbooks, family sharing of pix, it's self promotion, sales point and a tonne of other stuff all at the same time.

What's interesting is that flickr is primarily about images not discussion, unlike RFF which is discussion and equipment. For this reason many RFF members are also Flickr members.

[Matt White]

I love Flickr, but chasing the "interestingness" ratings can be dangerously addictive and does push towards a paticular style of shot which will stand out of a page full of thumbnails. Alongside the inevitable popularity of pretty females and portraits of cute animals and children, clean strong shapes and saturated colours get noticed. Complex, detailed images and naturalistic colours don't pull in the punters nearly so well. Personally, I find some of the "Flickr style" images really worthwhile, as long as I suspend my twenty years'-worth of conditioning about what a 'good' photograph should look like.

Nobody has to play the Flickr popularity game if they don't want to. And there's so much photography there it's hard not to find other really good stuff without trying too hard.

[BillP]

Flickr is just a conduit. The message is important, not the medium.

Regards,

Bill

[Ducky]

A little self promotion and the skills to exploit it and she's (the person the article is about) getting work from it. Sounds like good capatalism to me. More strength to her.

[Pitxu]

quote: "...he proposes digital processing as the antidote to film’s inhumanity."

Maybe I've been wasting my time?

[bmattock]

quote: "...he proposes digital processing as the antidote to film’s inhumanity."

Maybe I've been wasting my time?

Doubtful.

I suspect he does not speak for all Flickr users. Certainly not for me.

[benlees]

A little self promotion and the skills to exploit it

Sounds like an artist to me!

Granted, Toyota is desperate for any insight into anything youthful...trolling Flickr would be a no-brainer for them. Are the various directors of galleries/museums not looking at Flickr? You bet they are!

[infrequent]

don't blame the tool for the folly of users. guns don't kill, people do.

[willie_901]

I am in full agreement with Jan and Matt. Flickr is about sharing photographs (and now short videos). There is a social networking aspect as well.

I use RFF for information sharing (it's strong point) and Flickr for photo sharing (it's strong point). Each sites strengths and weaknesses are complimentary.

There's a lot of garbage as well as a lot of wonderful work on Flickr.

The generic Interestingness in Flickr's Explore[TM] is useless to me.

Here's a tip. Search for a subject you are interested in (bokeh, Noctilux, minimal, abstract, etc.). The default view is "most relevant". Then change the view to "interestingness". Chances are, the result will be photos you find useful. With this method I find Flickrs' rankings have a more specifc meaning.

If a particular photographer's photos appeal to you, go to their page and look at the Groups where they place their photos. Also, people who comment on their work are likely to have photos you will find useful as well.

willie

[bmattock]

I also find Flickr to be extremely useful in evaluating digital cameras that I may have an interest in. By searching for a particular camera, you can compare the results of many photographers and get a good idea for how good (or not) a camera might be. You could get a bad photographer, but if you have a large sample, that should not skew the data too much.

[wontonny]

It's not a style. It just is a style that came along as a result of the giant network of people, and I guess in this day and age that is the style people want. Super sharp, colors that pop, and no shadows. hahaha

[benlees]

The really interesting thing about the article is the girl in question used Flickr as part of her 'toolbox'. I wonder to what extent Flickr is creating creativity rather than just being an outlet for it.

[anoldsock]

I dunno...to me the article sounded more like it was bashding Rebekka Guoleifsdottir (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/)rather than critiquing the medium. This article begs the question, what's the difference between going to galleries and openings to network and gain exposure as opposed to doing it online through a social-networking site?

Anyway, maybe I'm not as savvy as the rest of you guys, but I don't know what the big deal is. In this digital-consumer-youth-driven-youtube-snapshot-short-attention-span-advertising age most people are not as versed and don't understand the fine arts of photography. Most people don't get the contrast of light and shadow and shapes and lines and all that, so it's understandable how the "flickr style" evolved. As a whole, people only knows what looks good and what doesn't. And I'm not too sure this is the result of flickr, but rather the evolution of culture and counter-culture as a whole. As an example of the culture and counter-culture dichotomy, I feel like there's almost a resurgence of interest in film.

Anyway, I think you have to also consider that the times have change, you have to evolve. That's not to say that I'm discounting the classical art teachings or putting a premium on this new "flickr style", but the state of photography has simply evolved. The dark room is gone and digital manipulation is becoming more and more prevalent in bodies work.

Why can't digital images, manipulation and CG graphics be considered as art? I'm sure there was a time when painters would decry photographs as an art form.

Anyway, I'm not trying to draw up a debate or pretend that I'm an expert in anything, and I'm not sure if what I'm saying makes sense to all you guys, but it's something to consider.

[Sofa King]

Flickr is just a conduit. The message is important, not the medium.

Regards,

Bill

Marshall McLuhan said the medium IS the message.

[jan normandale]

Marshall McLuhan said the medium IS the message.

So I check the 'sofaking''s flickr and .. hey this guy is good. That's what I like about flickr.. it's there for you to see.

BTW McLuhan and Flickr are Canadians , just disregard them.

[Arvay]

flickr IS a style. It became a style of web-living of a great number of people. It's eclectic, fusion of views and tastes, mixture of styles that are forming a general style.

It became a style as iPod (Walkman in previous life), DJ's square bags 10 years ago and all that things each of us can remember from this or that perod of his life.

It's a fashion trend in an ocean of visual information in the web that brought some order to the way the info is kept and used.
Its a visual Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park. Anybody can express himself in any way he counts to be right.

Is it good or bad I don't know. I just think that if it exists there was a need in it.

[Bnack]

The digital age has made "photography" popular to a huge segment of the population that would of never taken the time to learn photography the analog way. A friend of mine who had just bought a new dSLR and found that they always had to take 5 or 6 shots before they got the exposure right when checking the LCD, they commented, I don't understand how people did photography before LCDs. My comment was of course, that they actually had to learn the fundamentals behind the physics of light, and meters, and reciprocity etc... I'm not trying to be a photography snob because I develop my film while standing in a bath tub, but the reason I still love flickr is that every now and again a friend or family member will browse my flickr site site and say to me... "Wow Steve, you actually seem to have a bit of an eye for that... I had no idea." If not for flickr they may of been none the wiser.

[BillP]

Marshall McLuhan said the medium IS the message.

Never 'eard of 'im...:rolleyes:

Regards,

Bill

[anoldsock]

Marshall McLuhan said the medium IS the message.

If the medium is the message, and the medium is part of a corporation who's revenue depends on visitors and site traffic, and by way of viral advertising to gain market share they create a social networking site of amateur and professional photographers then by virtue of transitive property....wait, I dunno what I'm saying, I just lost my train of thought. I'm going to go watch commercials on TV now and shotgun a beer in my living room.

[Leighgion]

I find Flickr is in many ways parallel to the current world of movies.

Technology has democratized moviemaking like it has photography. While glossy digital eye candy and (as always) naked people sell big, there's space for everybody. There's plenty of active groups on Flickr devoted to film photography as well as neo-technicolor HDR.

The most popular of my Flickr photos barely breaks a few hundred views, but I've found it a great way to share and get a little feedback from people who aren't my personal friends. It's really been a great motivator.

[btgc]

flickr is great, I think, in aspect that many people post there what they want not what is cultivated by local photo group. In this context globalization is great. As RFF is.

[HuubL]

I liked ...dottir's work...

[furcafe]

Count me in, too. I've been on flickr for about 4 years now. I originally used it mainly as a place to store photos for my photoblog, which is just a virtual contact sheet. I still use it for that purpose, but have also found it to be extremely useful for networking w/other photographers, many of whom have become real world friends . . and use film (& RFs). It's also nice to see what other shooters are doing.

If there is any flickr "style," I think it's just a reflection of the prevailing aesthetics of current mass/popular photography, which happens to be overwhelmingly digital & oriented towards web & cellphone display, not prints.

I am in full agreement with Jan and Matt. Flickr is about sharing photographs (and now short videos). There is a social networking aspect as well.

I use RFF for information sharing (it's strong point) and Flickr for photo sharing (it's strong point). Each sites strengths and weaknesses are complimentary.

There's a lot of garbage as well as a lot of wonderful work on Flickr.

The generic Interestingness in Flickr's Explore[TM] is useless to me.

Here's a tip. Search for a subject you are interested in (bokeh, Noctilux, minimal, abstract, etc.). The default view is "most relevant". Then change the view to "interestingness". Chances are, the result will be photos you find useful. With this method I find Flickrs' rankings have a more specifc meaning.

If a particular photographer's photos appeal to you, go to their page and look at the Groups where they place their photos. Also, people who comment on their work are likely to have photos you will find useful as well.

willie

[bmattock]

If there is any flickr "style," I think it's just a reflection of the prevailing aesthetics of current mass/popular photography, which happens to be overwhelmingly digital & oriented towards web & cellphone display, not prints.

I think you are right - but only for those who, having found Flickr, now attempt to 'get seen' or 'get comments' or even 'make it into Explorer' on Flickr. To that end, they will manipulate their photographs - or modify their style, manner, or subjects - in order to be more what the 'madding crowd' is looking for today.

This is, of course, not my preference, and not what I use Flickr for - so I can safely say that I do not have, nor adhere to, a 'Flickr Style', if such there be.

Nonetheless, I find Flickr to be brilliant, and I view it as one of the most intelligent applications of technology as applied to photography in some time. It is outstanding, and for many reasons.

Not the least of which is its value to the future. If we have one.

[jslabovitz]

I find Flickr incredibly diverse, but it's also pretty easy to find styles that I like. I often find Flickr-hosted photos to be far more creative and interesting than a lot of other more "professional" photographers. You may not think so, but I think there's a huge potential in the Flickr universe.

There's a lot of film-shot pix there, once you start looking around for it. If that's what you want, try searching by camera name or film type; that tends to bring up the film shooters.

I read most of my news via an RSS reader (NetNewsWire on the Mac), which also can follow Flickr photostreams and pools; I have subscribed to 20-25 feeds that way, and enjoy my daily photo fix.

[feenej]

Flickr is great, even the self-portrait queens in a small doses. The doll people are okay I guess, but what is it with the yarn people???

[furcafe]

True enough. Though it hasn't affected my personal shooting style AFAIK, 1 totally unexpected (to me) use for flickr's "interestingness" ratings is as a kind of "focus group" or market research tool for determining which of my photos has more sales potential in shows, etc. Shots having higher interestingness ratings do seem to sell better than many of my personal choices w/lower ratings.

I think you are right - but only for those who, having found Flickr, now attempt to 'get seen' or 'get comments' or even 'make it into Explorer' on Flickr. To that end, they will manipulate their photographs - or modify their style, manner, or subjects - in order to be more what the 'madding crowd' is looking for today.

This is, of course, not my preference, and not what I use Flickr for - so I can safely say that I do not have, nor adhere to, a 'Flickr Style', if such there be.

Nonetheless, I find Flickr to be brilliant, and I view it as one of the most intelligent applications of technology as applied to photography in some time. It is outstanding, and for many reasons.

Not the least of which is its value to the future. If we have one.

[charjohncarter]

I feel about that girl from Iceland the way I feel about Georgia O'Keefe, I don't particularly like their work. But I still use Flickr and go into art galleries. There are plenty of good Photographers on Flickr: look and Bub Greene or Rich815.

[sockeyed]

Being from Vancouver (where flickr started) and knowing people who started flickr, I've been using the site since 2004. It actually really helped me rediscover photography and find a community of like-minded people. I've made some great friends through flickr, and actually indirectly met my long-term girlfriend as a result of being on flickr (when a friend who knew I was posting on flickr told me she also had a friend who posted images there too. This friend and I got to chatting, met shortly thereafter, and now own a house together).

Flickr is fascinating. The large majority of images posted are dreck without question. Much of what gets popular, to my eyes, seems to be people replicating popular images or styles: ultra-saturated, manipulated, looking a great deal like anything off the pages of a stock catalogue. Very little interests or challenges me, but these images are hugely popular and create a great deal of excitement among like-minded people.

Mike Johnston, far more eloquent than I could ever be, sums up this phenomenon very well in this article (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/03/commentary-on-t.html):

"[P]eople strive to make cookie-cutter pictures ("again and again") that embody "how pictures look and should look." Most pictures aren't pictures, they're imitations of pictures. Collectively we're rushing toward what we should be rushing away from. Individually, of course, there's nothing wrong with any of this—as I've said, any individual can do anything he or she pleases, as long as there are no casualties. But as an active and expectant member of the audience of photography as a whole, it makes me wonder, and, I have to say, worry."

I do love that flickr ignited a passion for photography among countless people, in part I think due to peoples love of expressing themselves and receiving feedback and attention on what they've produced. Although most of what is popular ("interesting") on flickr is derivative and generic (this is the 'flickr style'), there are nuggets of brilliance to be seen and some real community building going on.

[MikeL]

I need to focus more on my photography so that I can improve and get that 'Pro' label next to my flickr name. That would be cool!

[bhop73]

I need to focus more on my photography so that I can improve and get that 'Pro' label next to my flickr name. That would be cool!

The label just means you've paid for unlimited storage...

[Leighgion]

The label just means you've paid for unlimited storage...

I didn't even pay. A friend of mine bought me a year's worth.

[Matthew Allen]

Did anyone notice this in the NY Times article?:

Commenters loved the way Guoleifsdottir looked — she’s a weight-trained, protean-looking woman with movie-star eyes — but Flickr members often deem analog photos unfocused. (“A mixture of melancholy and curiosity,” wrote a commenter on one image. “It’s a shame about the focus.”)Unless I'm misreading this, the writer seems totally unaware that the comment refers to focus as a technical quality, and has nothing do with intent or subject matter. In case you aren't convinced, the comment is on this page, and yes, the photo is out of focus.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/14668228/

I do think there is some truth in the article. As others have observed there is a recognisable 'type' of image that is almost guaranteed to attract attention on Flickr, typically playing on over-saturated colours, extreme perspective or HDR (now officially the most overused technique in existence) or all of the above.

I still think Flickr is great though because beyond the cookie-cutter stuff there really is infinite variety. Not to mention the fact that it's a very convenient and user friendly way to share photos.

Matthew

[gb hill]

And I thought Luke H was the most popular photog on flickr! ;)

[steamer]

I just use it as a storage site for whatever I shoot good or bad, never thought about it as a career platform or something to work. Some of the the Icelandic woman's stuff is pretty good, don't see how her dialogue with her admirers is any different than artists smoozing and cruising for patrons in the real art world.

[gb hill]

Now when I click on the link a N Y Times registration form comes up telling me I have to register before I can read it.:(

[btgc]

But wait....true, most of pictures aren't recognized as brilliant or even good enough to show, but remember how different could be history if Hitler would get appreciation as painter - world could avoid WWII ! So in many ways it's better that seeking minds build their chart climbing skills instead of smashing stones into driving buses, getting into dealing drugs and killing their schoolmates.

[Kevin]

I recently found out about this portal and had a look.
It appears to me that lots and lots of images there are reincarnations of imagery I have seen before, in galleries and different magazines over the years.
Could it be that the many photo amateurs there are copying each others ideas recursively, adding up to a huge stack of conceptually-identical pictures?
That is what is seems to be like at first glance.
If I were willing to upload an interesting photo or more likely a series of photos, it certainly wouldn't be there.
My feeling is that publication on that portal would probably reduce the long-term value of that work.
I think I will remain content at viewing the many great images here at rff because each one of those that I admire is quite deep in some way - and not simply the product of what appears to be an endless recursion of copycat implementations.

[morgan]

I like flickr, but the NYT article made me a little ill, especially the part about HCB at the end. Without a historical context and zero knowledge, his famous shot fails for the masses? I don't know, it kind of reeks of mob mentality and ignorance (about so many things). I love flickr's explosion of creativity, there's some truly great stuff on there, both digital and film. But tailoring image processing for flickr success just bothers me a bit. It's like fishing for compliments or something. And like most online communities that have wide appeal, you have to take comments with a grain of salt, both positive and negative. What does it really mean? For the woman in the article, it got her work, which is great. But it could be easy to go down the rabbit hole and lose yourself trying to create things that will have mass appeal. I just had a photo up on a flickr used as a photo of the day for a boston-based news/events site and I was psyched, I probably wouldn't have gotten that if it weren't for flickr, but I don't think it would change how I approach my images.

In any case, this is a very interesting discussion.

[amateriat]

The Flickr "style" isn't too far afield of what a lot of Web-bound images have been for a while: shiny, poppy, super-tight-cropped and with the occasional dose of artful (or accidental) camera shake. On the surface, there's nothing wrong with that; some of those photos (including those of Guoleifsdottir's) are in fact pretty good. And more power to her for landing a gig with Toyota.

But, just as with food, a balanced diet is a good thing, and a little cotton candy goes a hell of a long way. A lot of the more subtle work that I like (and also create) doesn't "work" on Flickr, which seems geared more toward bite-sized images that require more punch to get attention. (Imagine being on a beach with a few hundred other people: stripped buck-naked and with a bullhorn in hand, you'll get plenty of attention, but otherwise....)

For me, the most interesting Flickr stuff has come from fellow RFf members, by itself enough reason to love it The bulk of what I see on Flickr isn't all that different from what I suffered through for years in many mainstream photography mags (just a lot more PS noodling). Just as more camcorders doesn't suddenly create more Martin Scorceses (or even more Ben Stillers...I'm trying to be generous here), more still cameras don't necessarily more good pictures. Nothing wrong with trying, though. :)


- Barrett

[georgef]

If the medium is the message, and the medium is part of a corporation who's revenue depends on visitors and site traffic, and by way of viral advertising to gain market share they create a social networking site of amateur and professional photographers then by virtue of transitive property....wait, I dunno what I'm saying, I just lost my train of thought. I'm going to go watch commercials on TV now and shotgun a beer in my living room.

McLuhan's detriment was quite more complex than just a tagline -there is brilliant thought behind his explanations that are worth the read.

[georgef]

colour films changed the way photog was viewed in the BW days. "more colour" is changing the way colour is viewed now...next time around, something else will come to challenge that!
It seems that given the timeframe each one of us got into photography, we have a different take on what the "norm" or the "correct" is.
I wonder if what I think as the "better" art of photography is only so because of the conditioning I have received from my film days!