Does a great photo have to be great without PP in order to be a great photo?

[Paul Lange]

Been thinking about this a bit lately and came more to the forefront of my mind when when Hamish posted his Instagram pics and Tom said that he got some stick from people on Flickr for not having a camera.

I'm just wondering what peoples thoughts are on what point PP begins to be used gratuitously in order to turn bad photos interesting. It seems that almost any photo could have the Instagram treatment to make it look good. Is this a cop out or just a formula that works fairly universally to make the final image greater than the sum of its modest parts?

Can it be a case that everyone should just like what they like regardless of convention or elitism and snobbery?

Is there a not obvious problem with disregarding elitism, is it actually responsible for establishing new conventions in imagery that stay long term rather than being fad.


Anyone got any thoughts?

 

[Thomas brookes]

hey paul great question,

in my opinion where ever the photograph comes from it has to have the original spark from the start. the spark however, for me is completely relevant to that persons taste. On instagram I still need to love it from the start before I choose the appropriate filter (some times no filter at all) and cast it on its way.

however especially on instagram there is a world wide element that often confuses me. the Japanese
People i follow seem to enjoy taking photographs of the meals in front of them with a filter dropped over the top.
to me its a nothing photo. The food looks vile and its not a nice well composed photograph but it generates a huge amount of "likes" and comments (in Japanese) and i often wonder if i took a photograph of a fry up would it generate the same amount of interest from contacts in this country?

As a cat loving nation they go crazy for photographs of my cat, they will often look through my photo reel scanning through, what I believe and have had lots of praise for my best shots and “like” and comment ( in Japanese ) on a photo of my cat I put on there for a bit of fun,

Is the way we perceive the word of photography different purely because we have contrasting cultures?

I just assumed that that’s what they like because there culture is so different but in a contradiction the Japanese and world wide community all carry similarities in what they take photos of . sunsets, sunrises, trees, flowers, travelling in vehicles , pets and so on. we can all see the beauty in these things but why as soon as we push out of generic boundaries to try something seemingly original and different a culture doesn’t appreciate it?

ultimately the jest is for people to appreciate your work by “liking” it or commenting on it, in that respect I cant see why someone would choose a bad picture ( in my opinion ) drop a filter and post it. To them it must be a good photo?

Sorry I have gone off on a tangent !!

I agree with you completely, movements and conventions cannot exist without some element of elitism and snobbery but the context as to why I was slated was not because I was a radical rebel without a “real” camera. it was because I had written taken with iphone 4 underneath the photograph which I thought was just harsh, I wonder if they would have praised it if I had written nothing ?

instagram a fad ?? for me a big fat Yes I am sure I will get bored and disregard it, but it has fuelled and aided my love for photography pushed and reassured me that a camera is the next step. I don’t think the iphone photography will be as faddish as instagram. with a new iphone on its way and more advancements in applications its just going to get better . At least it will keep the elitists chins wagging!!

 

[Hamish Gill]

Been thinking about this a bit lately and came more to the forefront of my mind when when Hamish posted his Instagram pics and Tom said that he got some stick from people on Flickr for not having a camera.

I'm just wondering what peoples thoughts are on what point PP begins to be used gratuitously in order to turn bad photos interesting. It seems that almost any photo could have the Instagram treatment to make it look good. Is this a cop out or just a formula that works fairly universally to make the final image greater than the sum of its modest parts?

Can it be a case that everyone should just like what they like regardless of convention or elitism and snobbery?

Is there a not obvious problem with disregarding elitism, is it actually responsible for establishing new conventions in imagery that stay long term rather than being fad.


Anyone got any thoughts?

i think it does work for a lot of images, its not universal, oddly it actually works better on subjects that break traditional conventions. the reason for this is actually because of a fairly recently created convention.
"Lomography"
I believe lomography came about in the 90's as an almost anti elitist trend ... these couple of chaps "discovered" and popularised crap cameras... or at least cameras that take poor quality images - the big name being the Lomo LC-A. there are loads of other cameras that provide a similar effect of high contrast loads of saturation and a fairly soft image.
Much marketing later uses of these lomo photographers were encouraged to ignore traditional conventions almost entirely by "shooting from the hip" and being spontaneous ... "good" lomo photos were touted as "happy accidents" ...
the funny thing is the lomo trend in its self imo has become elitist, prices of these camera (no doubt to fund all the hype and marketing) shot up to the point that an lca will now set you back a cool £280
http://uk.shop.lomography.com/cameras/lomo-lc-a-rl-new-package
from thier exclusive distributor lomography.com ... for what is to all intents and purposes a crap camera ...
they have imo become elitist, and dare i say "cool"
so yeah, the images that work when put through the instagram software are the sort of images that break traditional conventions but do in fact fit a convention of their own

to my point, it was actually a break in convention, and a rebellion against elitism that created it ... and in my view, that is usually where the most pivotal movements in art come from ... take Dali, Pollock, Warhole, they certainly cant be accused of conforming to convention, yet are probably the most influential artists of recent time... Warhole specifically - name something in modern western culture that he isnt in some way responsible for ... ... in fact thinking about it, he is actually probably responsible for some of my (and many other) lomo photos ... they are images of the mundane and correct me if im wrong, but isnt that what made warhole famous ...

im not saying these people didnt end up elitist ... but i doubt very much they were to start with!

as "what point PP begins to be used gratuitously" ... the same could be asked ... at what point does art stop becoming art and being a blank canvas ... i think thats a question asked a lot before, my response is always the same, its down to the person viewing it to decide ... isnt that the point of art? the problem is, because elitist people give art its value, they pay a lot of money for it and talk an awful lot of **** about it... that's were the elitism comes from ...
you certainly couldnt accuse a young child creating its first masterpiece of elitism ... the art comes first, elitism follows ....
imho of course

i personally try to ignore elitism and get as much as I can from any form of art as inspiration... as i have said before, i go on and off "lomo" photography ... this is because i like the images but hate what i perceive to be the "trend" ... maybe i feel sometimes i should be rebelling against the trend and using my own imagination to come up with a new "convention" ... sadly i lack the genius ..