Instagram kills photography

[Brian Legge]

For those arguing that Instagram does not permit individuality because there are a fixed set of filters - how is this different than saying black and white photographers are have a limited pallet of tools? Or that photographers are limited because there is no sound, etc compared to video?

Think of Instagram as the medium itself. It does include constraints but do does every other way of working. The real, differentiating element is the image itself; the composition, lighting, etc. Instagram lets you decorate the fundamental image but won't save an image that doesn't have anything to work with from the start.

[DRabbit]

Originally Posted by goffer

When things become easily accessible they are more likely to be used which in effect will become abused, as shown by the filters or presets found on Instragram.

Not to say I haven't seen great images on Instragram, as I have seen quite a few. In fact, I see just as much junk on Instragram as I do on Flickr (including many of my own junk photos) or any other photo community and it's always been this way, with filters or without them.

In the end these photo communities are for the good, but with the good always comes the bad and the ugly.

Ah, and you could say the same thing about cheap, readily accessible DSLRs, no? Every soccer-mom and -dad now buys them and thinks they are an expert photographer.

I'm sure throughout the ages there's always been this "threat"...

Instagram is fun and people like it because we're all a little self-centered by nature and like the attention. Hence the rise of Facebook. LOL
I don't think it's ruining photography any more than cheap DSLRs are. Or compact cameras. Or Polaroids did back in the day.

[goffer]

Originally Posted by DRabbit

Ah, and you could say the same thing about cheap, readily accessible DSLRs, no?

My point exactly

[Leigh Youdale]

Originally Posted by Arvay

I say nothing abt yours weekend and your girlfriend.
That's quite impolite of you, but this is probably lack of your breeding

I never did quite get to grips with Russian humour.

[clayne]

Originally Posted by Brian Legge

For those arguing that Instagram does not permit individuality because there are a fixed set of filters - how is this different than saying black and white photographers are have a limited pallet of tools? Or that photographers are limited because there is no sound, etc compared to video?

Well that isn't strictly the same though...

Besides even camera or lens, black and white film photographer can still affect things through:

1. Film emulsion.
2. Film exposure level (under/over/push/pull/etc).
3. Film developer choice.
4. Film development time/agitation/dilution.
5. Paper emulsion.
6. Paper exposure level (under/over/push/pull/etc).
7. Paper developer choice.
8. Paper development time/agitation/dilution (print exposure time does change things).
9. Toner choice/time/dilution.

10-12+ steps for a full analog process with 3 distinct major choices (film, paper, toner, etc.). C41/RA4, or E6 offers less choices of course, but still a major one with film choice. Even simplified, still very flexible.

Plenty of choices and ways of imparting individuality with analog materials and this is *after* the film is exposed. Not to mention it's all hands-on and not the endless monkey-see/monkey-do cycle that Instagram pretty much is.

So yeah, fake analog and cookie cutter approach - not much to appreciate in that. But hey, what's not to like about ADHD-driven "look at me!" seas of crap?

[Brian Legge]

I get what you are saying clayne. My point though was that there is a bounded degree of expressiveness (however wide) to black and white photography. Someone who is use to shooting digital video for example may feel utterly crippled by what they don't have. Yet obviously photographers who appreciate the medium produce excellent work.

Someone use to traditional photography may feel equally crippled using Instagram. Yet obviously there are people producing great work.

If anything, Instagram forces people to focus on the picture itself. You differentiate based on what you point the camera at, the composition, lighting, exposure, etc. There is certainly a range of creative decision making here.

To say that Instagram removes creativity misses the point. The way the image is processed/developed is can be a fixed style (perhaps Polaroids is a better traditional example) yet the quality of work varies dramatically because the 'processing' isn't the primary component of the image.

[FalseDigital]

Who cares what the image is taken with? The point is the subject.

A good photographer can take an amazing photo with any piece of "gear"
Be it an iphone, a cardboard box with a hole in it, a disposable camera, or a Leica m3.
It doesn't matter. Preset filters have nothing to do with anything. If the subject is interesting, it will be interesting regardless of what filters were applied to it.

I think sometimes members on this forum put too much value in their gear.
Having good gear sometimes makes it easier to get a better shot, but in itself it doesn't make us a better photographer.

Nothing will "kill" photography.

[FalseDigital]

Also I have some friends taking some pretty amazing photos with their iphone/instagram.

Here's some examples of their work:

[Spencer Wells]

I think you are all forgetting how photography was first received by painters. Ever read about how the "real artists" of the time were up in arms about the "impostors" using a machine to make "fake art"? Remember thinking to yourself, "If only they had known what would happen next"? Well this is no different. It's a shift in technology that has different implications. Considered by the standards of traditional photography, yes it's horrible. Considered by a new set of values, one that places instant, direct distribution over image quality or a unique palette, it fits the bill perfectly.

That being said, I only still only shoot film and don't have any sort of digital camera, definitely not on my phone, at the moment. But when I return to the US I'll be getting an iPhone and be back on instagram, in no way to replace my leica but just for fun to share with my friends.

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by Arvay

Do you think that instagram kills ANY other types of photography?

Nah... Its a trend. Trends come and go.

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by FalseDigital

Who cares what the image is taken with?

Apparently a lot of people do. Nothing wrong with that. Whenever I see a great picture I want to know how the photographer achieved it.

Originally Posted by FalseDigital

The point is the subject.

One possible point, yes.

[bobbyrab]

I think there is something in what Arvay is saying and why are people quite so literal when someone is writing in a language not their own, try and understand the jist of what's being said.
My take, what we are seeing is mass participation in photography encouraged by the slick results you can achieve with the click of a button, years ago an entry level SLR didn't give you great photos straight off, you really had to learn to print and that takes how long before you get a skill set that would give consistently good prints. Now an entry level Nikon and your off, run it through a few filters and your a professional.

I make my living primeraly from weddings and there's been a seismic shift to the entry level of photographers entering the industry, when I started out, there weren't that many photographers comfortable enough in their competence to take on a wedding, you had to know your stuff, now an entry level Dslr, your friends all liked your photos from your trip to Vietnam, hey let's do weddings, polish everything up in some nik filters and your off to the races, and why not, it's good enough and most non photographers love the look of the filters.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bemoaning my lot, I have had to adapt which has been a good thing, but personally I don't want to join the band using what are essentially cheap tricks.
My wife was recently asked to lend an item for a fashion shoot, I can see from the photos that the photographer is not that experienced, the lighting was flat and uninteresting and they weren't a great set of photos, but they'd run them through some filters and they looked ok, I was amazed when a main UK magazine ran them as editorial.

So no, i don't think it's killing photography, ultimately I think if anything they are popularising photography, there's never been greater demand for photography classes at my daughters school, she has a real talent for it and it's what she wants to be, but I find it difficult to give her my full backing as I think in the future publishers will pull photographs from a much larger pool of largely amature or semi professional photographers, their is no barrier to entry anymore, you still need the seeing talent, but the rest can be bought off the shelf.

[FalseDigital]

Speedfreak - I don't mean that we shouldn't be curious as to how an image was created. There's nothing wrong with wanting to know that. However, I do think it's wrong to judge an image based on the gear used rather than it's content.

Also, just because something is made easier doesn't make it cheap.
Sometimes presets are all someone needs.

As far as taking jobs away from actual photographers I don't really feel that way. Someone who hires a kid who isnt skilled at taking photos wouldn't pay a professional price anyway. What I mean is, you get what you pay for and I highly doubt any of you would shoot a wedding for $100.

[Lss]

Instagram is not available for any of my phones, so I have never tried it. And I have no real interest to use it anyway, since I have no desire to quickly post off photos. At least it will not kill my photography.

[DRabbit]

Just saw this tonight... I guess it might make your head explode... LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P75rw...&feature=share