Quality standards, then and now

[C. M]

Quality of the photo. You know, exposure, framing, even composition. Clarity. The things that make a photograph, a photograph and enjoyable to view. For instance for this discussion we will use two images.

The "afghan girl" of national geographic fame. As well as an image of Joel Sartore, the bear standing in the stream catching a jumping fish mid air.

Both of those images have composition, proper framing, proper exposure. They work and people love them. They are images the photographers are well and truly proud of.

But as someone who wants to be good at photographer, its easy to look at current fad movements. When it comes to fad movements the only thing that pops up is Lomography and its stupidity.

To them, great images, are what actual photographers dread taking. Just crap, that we all study proper photo taking to AVOID>

But because the Lomo mindset is that ANY bad photo is a GOOD photo,,,, These people are rewarded with internet fame for taking a photo of a teddy bear, that when developed. Could be a photograph of a flour tortilla, or the start ship enterprise in a snow storm.

 

[mjcmt]

25 of the most iconic photographs

 

[zombiesniper]

Lomo is like every other fad. They come, they peak and hipsters will never let it die because it's "Counter culture". F$#@ I hate that term.

25 of the most iconic photographs

What almost all of these images have in common is that they captured a moment that nobody else did that was of significant historical importance. Some of them do have multiple photos taken but the best one usually won out.

It's not all about a prefect image. Almost all of the images listed above would have hit the trash if not for the significance of the moment.
Now this only counts if an image as above are related to something that can tell a story that the viewer understands and evokes emotion. Telling a boring story won't have the same impact.

As with any list of this type though, it mainly focuses on a narrow spectrum of photography. In this case mostly journalism. You can also find other "Best" photo lists that focus on other forms of photography where the majority of the images will be well exposed and have great image quality (for the time the image was taken.).

This brings up another issue when comparing these lists. The viewer cannot compare what WAS capable of being done to was IS capable. Given todays gear I'm quite sure some of the great photographers would still kick most of our buts.

 

[Ysarex]

Quality of the photo. You know, exposure, framing, even composition. Clarity. The things that make a photograph, a photograph and enjoyable to view. For instance for this discussion we will use two images.

The "afghan girl" of national geographic fame. As well as an image of Joel Sartore, the bear standing in the stream catching a jumping fish mid air.

Both of those images have composition, proper framing, proper exposure. They work and people love them. They are images the photographers are well and truly proud of.

But as someone who wants to be good at photographer, its easy to look at current fad movements. When it comes to fad movements the only thing that pops up is Lomography and its stupidity.

To them, great images, are what actual photographers dread taking. Just crap, that we all study proper photo taking to AVOID>

But because the Lomo mindset is that ANY bad photo is a GOOD photo,,,, These people are rewarded with internet fame for taking a photo of a teddy bear, that when developed. Could be a photograph of a flour tortilla, or the start ship enterprise in a snow storm.

What a completely ignorant thing to say.

You're trolling to try and pick a fight with a dumb comment.

And you're facts are entirely wrong. Using low-tech plastic cameras isn't the only fad movement right now. It's not a fad at all. The Diana camera was introduced in the 1960s twenty years before the McCurry photo was taken and those cameras are well established tools of photographic artists.

Your implication that the Lomography "fad" has supplanted photos like McCurry's or Sartore's is nonsense and your attempt to play them against each other... well, Paul Strand had something to say about that kind of rubbish; "Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence."

 

[Designer]

Quality of the photo.

Greetings! Your post is difficult to decipher, but I think I get the general drift of it. We have had this discussion many times, although I doubt if anyone has actually made a break-through by reading any of it.

Take your journey one step at a time. It certainly can be a long journey, with pitfalls and charlatans galore along the way. I suggest that you concentrate your efforts at mainly one type of photography, the one that holds the most interest for you, and basically ignore everything else for now.

If you would like to receive specific advice, post some photographs and ask for a critique. Also, hook up with one of the generous volunteers on here who have offered to mentor a newbie. Good luck!

 

[Ysarex]

the lomo movement isnt about using plastic cameras, they sell a **** load of them but their movement is actually this.

any poorly taken photo is ART as long as you say it is.

Things that ANY of US here would be embarressed to have on film, say the low light shot we took with a 1/500 shutter speed and a f/22,,, for LOMO that becomes instantly avante garde counter culture ART.......

"Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence." -- Paul Strand

There's plenty of room in photography for anyone who wants to participate in whatever way they find engaging and rewarding. They don't need you're sanction to do so. All of us are further enriched by the widest variety of participation. Go poop some other party.

 

[mjcmt]

Lomo is like every other fad. They come, they peak and hipsters will never let it die because it's "Counter culture". F$#@ I hate that term.

25 of the most iconic photographs

It's not all about a prefect image. Almost all of the images listed above would have hit the trash if not for the significance of the moment.
Now this only counts if an image as above are related to something that can tell a story that the viewer understands and evokes emotion. Telling a boring story won't have the same impact.

Not necessarily true. Some of those photos have an artistic presentation which is timeless like one of my favorite photos of all time of the the migrant family by Dorothea Lange.

 

[zombiesniper]

Agreed, like I said "Almost all".

 

[mrca]

Did it replace hdr/oversaturation, tilting, blurring, bokeh, sharpness fixation? Many folks have been making crappy images with crummy cameras for decades. What's so new?

 

[Yury Ilinskiy]

Oh yes.

I don't think you are a big fan of modern paintings.

 

[John Fantastic]

I think photos are getting to be better and better. Digital photography have made it very easy for amateurs to come out with technically excellent photos. Not really a bad thing but it does have an impact on the livelihood of our fellow professional photographers.

Remember during the film days, it takes a few days to be certain that you nailed the shot that you want. And you have to have polaroid backs to ascertain that you have the proper exposure . With the advent of digital the bar of waht an excellent photograph has dramatically risen.

 

[Soocom1]

Another point to consider that many miss.
The presented photograph (especially in film days) was a singular gem in a pile of rough. The number of exposures needed to "nail" the right moment is long and filled with millions of miles of cellophane.

Additionally, one does not know the whole of the actual exposure. Me seems to remember the bear photo was one of about a dozen and the image was off center.
(At least my memory thinks this. )

I do remember that a goodly number of "famous photos" were actually well edited in many instances.

 

[Ysarex]

Perhaps its the honesty factor thats missing in modern photography.

When I can go to a department store, take a photo, and go home and edit the photo so that the stores over head lights have individual pastel colors, change the color of the paint of the walls to a paisley hell circa 1970 car seats, and change the images on each individual advertising sign i want..

Is the final image after editing an actual photograph or a memento of a really bad acid trip? I think that is what the OP here was trying to ask.

No that isn't what he was trying to ask. He never mentioned editing whatsoever. He mentioned Lomography -- photos taken with low-tech plastic cameras. He made an ignorant remark in a deliberate trolling attempt. Is that what you're doing? The following sentence sure sounds like it.

You can get laughed off of instagram if you dont use photo shop, you can get kicked of of some forums if you use the wrong film developer, or if you use a DSLR instead of a bridge camera.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Judging a photo is a matter of opinion. Hence, any photo can be iconic.

Many photos are iconic because simply because of time and place. That is if you did not know the back story, it would just be another photo.

A good photo is in the eye of the viewer, if enough eyes agree, it becomes a photographic icon.

 

[mrca]

Ron, I would narrow that to "beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder." Bambi Cantrell