Does Photonet influence our photos ?

I have a simple question that has been turning in my head for some time: Does photonet influence our

photos to the better or to the worse? I'm not thinking about technical improvements but changes in terms

of "novelty", "aesthetics", choice of scenes, composition, color management etc.

 

I have a clear feeling that since I jointed Photonet, my photos have clearly changed. I have for example

discovered that people appear more frequently in the scenes I see and shoot. I have also noticed that I

seem to get nearer to the subjects than was the case previously. Theses changes I perceive as positive

changes that I think find their origin in advice I have received from friends on Photonet or from benefits I

have drawn from visits in numerous portfolios looking at hundreds of photos.

 

On the other hand I also seem to have lost some of what I see as more subtile elements of my earlier

shootings. One illustration of these changes is my more and more frequent use of relative strong

saturation in colour photos and stronger contrasts in B/W scenes. My photos have become more violent, I

would say.

 

These changes I don't necessarily see as positive, but as a result of trying unconsciously to conform to

what I perceive as appreciated and noticed on Photonet (whether I succeed or not). Given the obvious

American dominance among members of Photonet, does that mean that I am/we are conforming to some

kind of cultural dominance here on Photonet or are these changes just dimensions of what objectively are

to be considered as more or less universal rules of what constitutes a good photo.

 

Let me underline that my photos are surely not the subject of this threat, but the possible influence of

Photonet, that makes us slowly adapt to some kind of common standards, is. Our cultural diversities

might be lost in the process.

Interesting question, Anders. From an evolutionary point of view, we're all pack animals, hardwired to tribal behavior. If photo.net is where you enounter most of the photographs that you really stop to think about, then it makes sense that the collective PN tribal customs would creep into your sensibilities.

 

Certainly my time spent here has had a similar impact on me - a few inhibitions have been eroded, and certain themes/techniques have nagged at me enough to want to try them. To the extent that appealing to what rates higher here tends to get your images seen by a few more people (and thus spurs on more commuication, more critiques, and thus more learning), there is a certain urge to select (for sharing) shots that I suspect will be noticed.

 

As for your sense, Anders, that your images have become "more violent," well - I suppose we have different understandings of that word. Bold, perhaps. Strong? When you know that most of your audience will be looking at a computer display, rather than at a print, it does change your notion of how to handle the image's contrast, saturation, etc. No question that if you refine your presentation sensibilities here, you might be doing your prints-on-the-wall sensibilities some damage! Thanks for a provocative post.

Anders, yes, I am sure PN influences our photos. It does that in two ways _

 

1) the small size of photos and even more the tiny thumbnail size encourages bright colours and simple compositions. Subtley suffers.

 

2) Ratings tend to encourage dramatic and even lurid photos.

 

I don't think the cultural dominance is specifically American though. If anything eastern Europe seems to have an influence out of proportion to the volume of posts.

It may influence your images if you wish to emulate what you see on photo.net. I don't find any influence on my work from photo.net - but, I rarely look at any of the photos posted on this site.

If I were able to use some form of filter to not have to view the computer art versus

photography, I might allow my self to be more influenced by some of the photography on

here. But since that is not possible, I simply don't even go there anymore.

Anders. The influence of PN IMO is great and profound on every creative photographer participating. I do not see any cultural dominance here and I don't think PN directly influence my photography. Mostly because much of it has been done long befor web era.

 

Matt. You may think of your self as a hardwired pack animal if you wish but to those who are not to share such a definition you owe an aology.

Anders. The influence of PN IMO is great and profound on every creative photographer participating. I do not see any cultural dominance here and I don't think PN directly influence my photography. Mostly because much of it has been done long befor web era.

 

Matt. You may think of your self as a hardwired pack animal if you wish but to those who are not to share such a definition you owe an apology.

Anders, I think this might be a hard one because of the subjective definitions of "better" and "worse" and what context you're using them in.

Arent color management and composition technical issues?

Sure it does, but no more than any other photo intensive venue. I'll see new (to me) approaches to something and sort of file it away to consider next time. But I'll do the same in a gallery, museum, reading books, etc.

 

Point is I'm looking for an end result, a print, that I like better...aren't we all?

I agree with Colin C. to a tee! Daniel, you are old school and nothing wrong with that. Photo net has evolved from film only guys who posted straight scans to the digital shooters now, many of whom do a lot of manipulating. I enjoy excellent work however it is done if the subject is interesting. I do very little manipulating because I enjoy more of the "straight" look and am not really interested in learning how to fool around with an image. I enjoy and love the work of guys like Salgado, Haas, DeCarava, Carter and others whose work is pretty much straight out of the box. Even most of Crewdson's work is pretty straight, just extremely well lit and choreographed. My goal and strategy here on PN is to have fun, share and look at images from all over the world and work to improve my image making ability.

Ilia! It's possible (no, it's certain) that you've taken my comment incorrectly. It's not worth debating whether primates are wired for things like facial recognition, fussing about hierarchy, evaluating and (sometimes) fitting into hierarchies, and all of the other things that we share with the rest of them. But just because our brains excel at quickly sizing up what the rest of the tribe is doing doesn't mean we have to tow the line, especially creatively.

<br><br>

It just means that we're unlikely to look through thousands of images and comments and be unable to take them into account as part of the world and culture that we're processing. If I'd actually <i>said</i> that everyone here was just doing what everyone else was doing (logically, rather difficult when you think about it) then perhaps I'd feel apologetic... but I didn't, so I don't!

I think everyone who regularily views photos, whether on PN or elsewhere, is affected by those photos. It is for each of us to decide whether we want that to be good or bad... I often find inspiration in the photos I view on PN, and ideas that I may wish to explore that I might not have thought of before. Others may be purely influenced by the desire for high ratings of course... To each their own.

It does to some extent. Not all of it is positive either. Especially paralyzing is the question of why photograph. Instead of just photographing because I enjoy it, I worry too much about whether or not it really has any value, and sometimes this can be demotivating, as in why even bother. Other times I look at photo after photo and after a while I can see a pattern in photos I really like and photos that do not interest me. This I find helpful. I used to shoot bug macros, because it was fun to shoot bug macros. Now I realize I don't really like to look at bug macros, so why even take them? I see photos that I find too garish, or I find photos that are boring, and I try to avoid certain cliches, or overprocessing photos until they look unrealistic. If I see a monarch butterfly on some milkweed, I will feel compelled to not even bother, as if we need another. I also consciously avoid emulating certain photographers whose work I admire due to the fear of being unoriginal or being branded derivative. Yes pathetic, I know. Curse you photo net.

How have your photos become more "violent,"Anders? That statement interest me if you care to elaborate. Is the pack animal getting to be a little predatory old chap? Or are we more of the herbivore/ cud chewing classificaton? Alright,the analytical class if you please..

 

If we decide by choice to let ourselves get "homogenized" (my term not yours)_ by looking at photographs in PN,or in a book, or those that get raves, I would honestly say 'stand clear matey.' Unless a spirited comment from some thoughtful soulmate encourages,inspires, or steers one in a direction one is willing to embark,Anders. In that event, sure, it is part of growth and is likely a Natural Good. (Like the pines near Barstow. Add another ring each year, Look close with the scope and you can tell what the winter was like in the Sierras. Pine still grows, it can't stop until chopped)

 

If I evolve-juicy and kind to myself term-or change,it must be unmeasurable ( I don't calibrate changes consciously and really do not seek a popular approval badge),It gets to be the environment,social,cultural, the acuity of my vision, biology, the political even and cultural climate around me which influences and conditions what draws my attention anyway. If you got into bugs,you learn about bugs. And vice versa,you buy a microscope and start reading E.O.Wilson. If you get excited by faces,you want to try different ones. If you see so and so do unusul self portraits,maybe you will have a go at it. And discard or continue...PN fits in as one element in an array and why should it do more. I have to then ask the in pursuit of this elusive Q--Why be anxious,as you appear, about what comes in to your senses and contours your imagination. I relax and seriously try to let it happen. And happen without judgment if possible. I continue as a member and participate still because for me it has to be some of the warm and cozy pack animal proximity but not necessarily more. gs

A quick answer to the direct question of Gerry to how my photos have become more "violent".

 

Every photo, if it is good, has some kind of message that explains to the viewer why it has been taken. The same goes for

paintings, novels or poems. Well, some of such messages are delivered on thousand of pages and demand a real intellectual

investment to be received by the "viewer". Others can be received passing by in a couple of seconds. I think that more and

more a "good photo" is perceived here on photonet (and elsewhere) as a photo with a message that is perceived and

understood immediately because of its simplicity and "violence": Death is picture a dead person; Happiness a smiling child;

Wealth a picture of gold etc etc. Photos become fastfood.

 

This development is produced for example by simple compositions, strongly saturated colours and sharpness. This

development has been going on for very long and it is surely not only on Photonet but is it desirable? I would rather opt for a

development where a photo can be a thousand pages with multiple layers. Maybe I'm just very very old fashion....

Well, I know I've experimented a bit outside of my "normal" range as a result of participating in p.net. For example the attached shot was an experiment with digital "grain" that results from various discussions here. I don't think it's a trend to "slowly adapt to some kind of common standards"...<div></div>

it certainly does and has me ... when i look back through photos of times pre-PN and wish that i could re-visit those places now, armed with what i have gleaned ... i am encouraged, though, when i do post one of those pre-PN images and someone notices it and leaves some positive feedback. further self-reflection might also tell me that maybe i hanker after the time that i previously had in some fabulous places ... and not just to take photos.

I don't spend a huge amount of time looking at photographs on Photo.net. I would spend more if the database was searchable by subject and location, so the absence of this means less influence on my photograph than might otherwise be the case. To that end, sites like Flickr have had a greater influence on where I go, in particular, than Photo.net.

 

One thing has certainly had an influence- the high incidence of oversaturated, darkly dramatic landscapes with improbably darkened skies; means that I'm much less interested in this type of photographs than I might otherwise be. Also red rock landscapes from the USA southwest. Of course Photo.net isn't the only place I see such photographs, and the attitudes I have today may have formed anyway; though I suspect they'd have formed more slowly and less decisively. Still maybe thats a good thing, since it encourages me to search/use my imagination more in deciding what sort of photographs to pursue and where to go to find them.

I think that my experience in PN( and not only, also exhibitions museums etc) was understanding better the medium of photography in general, being exposed to a large variety of forms of expressions. My ability to observe and appreciate, when I see a good photograph, or a file or a presentation was well developed , also by trying to comment and not with an WOW, and listen to what was commented on my photography. I don't think it has changed my way of photoraphing, and presenting my work ,it HAS enhanced my technical ability. I will connect much better to photos( everywhere) that has a significance, a message, composition etc.

Inasmuch as my oppportunity to travel to the photographic "hotspots" is very limited, I find it hard to connect with the highly dramatic, oversaturated landscapes that seem to garner so much appreciation. The same applies to nudes and luscious portraits of beautiful people. So, the greatest influence on my work has been what I've gained on PN from the discussions of technique and gear.

 

I feel that, although there's much to be gained from studying the work of others, there's also the danger of at least subconsciously adopting another's style. Maybe that's not all bad, particularly if it's adaptation rather than adoption. A real plus is the possibility of gaining fresh perspective and inspiration: I could use some of that right now.

If someone's in "danger" I hope they will contact me: I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn. If someone is "subconsciously influenced" it means they need to be influenced.

 

Me, I've learned a tremendous amount from P.N.

 

I'm concentrating on projects and ideas, abandoning found shots, emphasizing people and stories, becoming uninterested in objects and graphics.

 

I've realized from the tens of thousands of this type of photo on P.N that I photographed far more than enough sides of buildings, rusty machines, and "nature"...long ago. I'm going to take those images down in a month or two, replace them with current projects.

 

Simply assembling photos that I wanted to see for myself on P.N made me review my own decades, as well as photos I've scanned that go back to the 1800s. That was a big "influence."

 

Fear is the reason people don't post photos here.

John, when I said "there's also the danger of at least subconsciously adopting another's style," you replied, "If someone's in "danger" I hope they will contact me: I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn. If someone is "subconsciously influenced" it means they need to be influenced."

 

Maybe I'm a little more dense today than usual, but your meaning evades me: care to expand a bit?

Dick, I think we are more likely to benefit by influence than be endangered by it. It's the essence of civilization, education, love affairs etc.

 

Admittedly, some of us can be sold anything...the Brooklyn Bridge, for example. Does that matter?

 

A person who has a center or goal or value system is less likely to be influenced without taking full responsibility to be influenced. A person without center or goal or value system is often said to be a threat or burden.

 

I don't know why one would think the subconscious more subject to influence than conscious intentionality.

 

I doubt Freud (identified "subconscious") thought one's subconscious influences actions as much as one's values and goals. He is said to have noticed his concept of subconscious was similar to Talmudic law, so he drew goyem, such as Jung, into his school to make his analysis and talking therapy seem more scientific, less Jewish-moralistic.

Dick...I visited your gallery (again). I can only hope your work does put others in danger.

 

P.N is overflowing with flower photos (for example) but yours are of another, higher order...and I don't mean to limit my praise to that group within your work.

 

As well, your inclusion of historic photos is very much in keeping with my idea of "photography." They are part of your photography.

 

Has influence brought you danger? That would suggest rewards flow from risks.