judges of quality
There’s a new photo sharing site on the block.
There’s a difference, though. This one screens your submissions.
In theory, this is an idea that solves the problem of having to wade through millions of snapshots to get to stuff of higher quality, like you might say is the case with somewhere like flickr. It can also encourage beginners to be more critical of their own work, and push them to improve so they can survive the rigorous selection process.
But surely, when there are human beings applying selection criteria to hundreds and possibly thousands of pictures, there are going to be issues of taste. Not only that, but rules about what constitutes quality. Oooh, I get an uneasy feeling when I think about that. Is it just me, or does it smack of camera club competitions? You just know what the judges are looking for, pander to that and you”’re in, do something original and break their rules and you’ve no chance – shamed, even.
It’s almost like a pop-idol for photography. I suppose any public mass submission enterprise is going to be – and even though there is no screening on flickr there’s still popularity competitions, and we all know the type of work that wins those.
Of course I’m not saying it shouldn’t be allowed – and I could quite simply ignore the site and continue on my merry way, but it just brought up some interesting ideas that I thought were worth pondering.
So, what am I really saying here? I suppose the main thing is that I think it’s a shame when people who are new to photography end up aspiring to these kinds of ideals because that’s what is being held up as the best quality in the amateur photography arena, rather than developing their own ideas. Aiming to be published on a site like this is going to encourage new photographers down a sort of funnel, into a particular style and I’m not sure that’s entirely healthy.
I’m probably being a bit ranty and could do with an alternative viewpoint… anyone?
Flickr… meh! I’ve sat there for ten minutes at a time hitting the refresh button on the Everyone page and found nothing worth looking at. The photographic signal-to-noise ratio there is appalling. There are great photographers there, but finding them in the deluge of snaps… well, you have to use a bit of lateral thinking. The average quality when Flickr started was much higher than it is now, so what went wrong? I think that Flickr has changed over time from a photo site to a social networking one. The you-stroke-my-ego-and-I’ll-stroke-yours thing is a real bane, but intelligent searching through the groups can lead you to whole enclaves of ‘your’ type of photographer.
One of the other photo sites that I have some experience with is http://www.Zooomr.com. This is a very raw site run by just two guys. It’s very much a work in progress, but already they have some v.cool ideas. The ‘Everyone’ standard is surprisingly high at the moment and it would be nice to see it grow in the future to offer some competition to Flickr.
The standard of images at http://www.polanoid.net is absolutely awesome. Shame it’s polariods-only.
Re: refereed sites…
I guess it’s all down to how the judging takes place. Is image-by-image assessment by a panel of the elite? Or is it X votes from anyone and the image is in? Maybe it’s more like the Magnum agency where once you’re invited in then you can do what you like?
The first option above would steer input towards the judges tastes. The second would allow for personal taste variations once enough variation in the membership had built up. The last option… that would give the members real kudos, but an awful lot of people would be put off applying through lack of confidence.
I guess I’m saying that it’s all down to the mechanics of the judging process.
Flickr… meh! I’ve sat there for ten minutes at a time hitting the refresh button on the Everyone page and found nothing worth looking at. The photographic signal-to-noise ratio there is appalling. There are great photographers there, but finding them in the deluge of snaps… well, you have to use a bit of lateral thinking. The average quality when Flickr started was much higher than it is now, so what went wrong? I think that Flickr has changed over time from a photo site to a social networking one. The you-stroke-my-ego-and-I’ll-stroke-yours thing is a real bane, but intelligent searching through the groups can lead you to whole enclaves of ‘your’ type of photographer.
One of the other photo sites that I have some experience with is http://www.Zooomr.com. This is a very raw site run by just two guys. It’s very much a work in progress, but already they have some v.cool ideas. The ‘Everyone’ standard is surprisingly high at the moment and it would be nice to see it grow in the future to offer some competition to Flickr.
The standard of images at http://www.polanoid.net is absolutely awesome. Shame it’s polariods-only.
Re: refereed sites…
I guess it’s all down to how the judging takes place. Is image-by-image assessment by a panel of the elite? Or is it X votes from anyone and the image is in? Maybe it’s more like the Magnum agency where once you’re invited in then you can do what you like?
The first option above would steer input towards the judges tastes. The second would allow for personal taste variations once enough variation in the membership had built up. The last option… that would give the members real kudos, but an awful lot of people would be put off applying through lack of confidence.
I guess I’m saying that it’s all down to the mechanics of the judging process.
Unfortunately this issue of criteria is really present wherever photographs are judged in one way or another. Camera clubs, online forums, photo contests – all inject some type of bias on what is considered ‘good.’ I guess some just have to subject themselves to this or not get involved in them all together. But perhaps subjecting oneself to it is part of the process of finding your own way?
Unfortunately this issue of criteria is really present wherever photographs are judged in one way or another. Camera clubs, online forums, photo contests – all inject some type of bias on what is considered ‘good.’ I guess some just have to subject themselves to this or not get involved in them all together. But perhaps subjecting oneself to it is part of the process of finding your own way?
I think that I’ll skip these types of sites. Heck, I don’t even participate in contests because I don’t like the whole judgment aspect. I prefer to just enjoy. These sites will, in essence, the site that the judge likes representing on his/her particular tastes. Nothing more.
There are no absolutes as to good or bad: one gives birth to the other. You cannot have good, unless you have bad, and likewise, cannot have bad without good to measure against. Why are these sites so important anyway? External validation.
I think that I’ll skip these types of sites. Heck, I don’t even participate in contests because I don’t like the whole judgment aspect. I prefer to just enjoy. These sites will, in essence, the site that the judge likes representing on his/her particular tastes. Nothing more.
There are no absolutes as to good or bad: one gives birth to the other. You cannot have good, unless you have bad, and likewise, cannot have bad without good to measure against. Why are these sites so important anyway? External validation.
Your thoughts explain one of a number of reasons why I am not a ‘joiner’ of any kind of organization that compares/judges, and especially re my photo-work. My first-hand experience of such places has taught me that they are decidedly unhealthy for me, creatively, and not in my best interests. I don’t have a ‘style’ and just produce what takes my fancy/feeling at the time. I do not have big ideas about my work or its importance (LOL!).
Since photoblogging, which started with a now-deleted blogspot blog, commencing some eight months ago, the joining I have done has been with photoblog communities such as photoblog-community.com, etc, to purely attract visitors to view my work as the blogosphere is so huge and I don’t have a network of people who want to see my work. I have never had many blog visitors, but am always interested in what others find interesting. This does not influence the type of work I show. However, I also like to see what others are creating/seeing. Trends in creatively seeing can be seen/predicted if one sees enough new work (not just happy-snaps) and, as a sensitive, I am a sponge; this does have an indirect influence, but not overtly (it is something that develops over time, rather than tomorrow/next week). After all, my eyes are open during the day and, in fact, everything I see gets absorbed. At night, my ‘eye’ works on images as well. Having said that, I can still recognize myself in what I produce to feel comfortable that it is my work, no-one else’s; the core foundation was there a long time ago and has been continually refined ever since (I do recognize that). And, No, I’m not a professional, just a keen amateur, so I’m not out to sell anything. So, no Flickr for me, et al, but I do have some public albums with Picasa! No-one has commented as yet, if anyone ever will!