Welcome aboard
Thanks you.
"As of 2024, approximately 5.3 billion photos are taken worldwide each day."
-
- Thread starter Sean
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Vintage 8X10 Agfa Ansco camera, with Turner Reich Lens 8x10
- Started by jimgalli
-
Misc. Minolta C E Rokkor-X 50mm f2.8 enlarger lens
- Started by J Durr
-
For Sale Lot of (78) NOS Pakon 35mm Plastic Slide Mounts
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Pentax Spotmatic SP II 35mm film camera
- Started by J Durr
Forum statistics
Thanks you.
OP
OP
Sean
Admin
What about displayed on color e-ink paper that might one day rival cibachrome? Would it be a photograph while it is physically displayed on the e-paper then not when another photo rotates in? Does the argument then shift to the type of tangible form of display and lifespan of it? I have no answer, but have personally evolved to not care about these things as much as I once did. Maybe I have become more involved with the enjoyment of capturing something, than the process of displaying the capture
Avoiding the question of the breakdown between film and digital, I wonder about photographs taken for serious photographic work versus casual photographs such as snapshots.
Thank You
Some people pontificate that The Sun does not "rise" in the morning, the planet turns.
11 Billion, 2 Billion, 5 Billion........ what possible importance could it have.?
Wait a minute, what if somebody accidentally printed 9 extra pictures.?
Will that number be subtracted from the 3 Billion...!!!??!!!???
Digital technology allows LOTS of people to take, create, make LOTS of photos, pictures, images, photographs.
Gawd, 1.7 Billion selfies posted every day. That means how many more bad selfie shots are taken each day?! The world is sicker than I thought!
They are still photographs. All are photographs, the works of Kertesz, the works of the proud Dad photographing hsi family, the work of photojournalists, wedding photographers, fashion professionals, gallery photography, the Gen Z obsession with mobile phones, even X-rays or microscope photography.
The question is what does photography mean to you and which one you choose to lay your interest upon. Me, I happen to seek the so-called "useless" photographs, the ones that surve no purpose at all and have no meaning. They are created for the sole pleasure and curiosity of their creator. This is a very small percentage of the whole field of photography that i am interested into. If I start to look at all photographs online I will drive myself nuts.
Did the original source distinguish photographs taken by numerous devices for monitoring, medical diagnosis, forensics, …, etc., versus photographs taken by humans with intended to be used as ‘photographs’ within the scope of human experience/consumption? I could easily envision millions of photographs taken by security cameras, etc. in public spaces contributing such a large number.
The topic reminds me of Flusser’s observations on the algorithmic challenges and affordances of photography and his projections of the future of images replacing linear history, etc.[See FlusserStudies.net for a free introduction to his work.]
The topic reminds me of Flusser’s observations on the algorithmic challenges and affordances of photography and his projections of the future of images replacing linear history, etc.[See FlusserStudies.net for a free introduction to his work.]
The 5 billion number must be an estimate. There's no way of knowing the actual number. The estimate seems quite plausible however - considering that the world population is something like 8 billion. If one quarter of the world population owns a smart phone and takes, on average, 3 photos a day... that's roughly 6 million right there.
The Instagram number is more interesting as this is, presumably, well know by the company - not an estimate but the actual number. It is kinda mind boggling that on average, people are making 1.3 billion photos each day that they feel are "good enough" to post on their instagram. Kinda dilutes the value of a photo.
...and I still don't "get" instgram ... although it makes somewhat more sense to me than twitter.
The Instagram number is more interesting as this is, presumably, well know by the company - not an estimate but the actual number. It is kinda mind boggling that on average, people are making 1.3 billion photos each day that they feel are "good enough" to post on their instagram. Kinda dilutes the value of a photo.
...and I still don't "get" instgram ... although it makes somewhat more sense to me than twitter.
The saddest thing is the vast majority are simply glanced at...maybe posted somewhere. Then forgotten. Due to sheer volume I know there's some good stuff out there never seen.
There are good stuff everywhere. And always had been, which we probably never heard of. One of the best Greek photographers of the previous century (Panos Iliopoulos) would have been unknown had not been for his daughter to show his personal archive to people who acknowledged its value. I want to believe that with the exposure you receive today if something is good will find its way to the outer world somehow
It is indeed mind boggling. And if you think the great masters how many photos were the ones that they were remembered of, 10, 50, 100? I doubt if more than that.
My perspective: En masse, things tend to flatten out a bit, it is like inflation... The upside of that is that people really appreciate if they see a really really good photograph. The downside is, that it is getting much harder for people to discover those really really good photographs....
btw., the same question was raised when Kodak introduced their Box ('you press the button, we do the rest') in the late 19th century....
btw., the same question was raised when Kodak introduced their Box ('you press the button, we do the rest') in the late 19th century....
Oh, I didn't know since I was not alive then. You are even older than me.
I have never ever used my cheapo mobile phone camera.. to me a phone is a phone...end of!
Evidently it depends on who you ask.
I am 74. I have owned a camera since I was 9 or 10, and have considered myself a photographer since I took money for shooting weddings as a way to finance my university education. I am not a professional, although I have gotten paid for things along the way post college.
Sean’s question struck a nerve with me. As to the more competitive or more personal part of the original question: it’s personal!
Several years, ago, I looked back at my photographs: all of the landscapes, architectural, events, etc., and decided that I did not “need” to take any of those types of pictures again. I still make them, but do not need to. If I am someplace photogenic and I have a camera, of course I will make a photograph. But, what I need to do is go into my make-shift studio and create photographs that I already envision. I haven’t reached the level I want yet, but working on it. So, my photography, post digital transition, has gotten a lot more personal.
I was a member of the usual camera clubs decades ago, but quit because it was all competition focused, and I didn’t care for that. I still do not care for it, but have rejoined the local club (after more than 20 years) yet do not compete. I’m there for the field trips, the (non-competition) “slide” shows, and the food!
Ironically, the images at the camera club are a lot better; I mean, a lot better than decades ago. Some of these photographers are arguably better than me, but I do not compete with them, either in real life or in my mind. Digital has facilitated these enthusiastic amateurs to more easily cull from their 1000’s of images to come up with the good ones for display. It is easier for them to produce presentable work with software than when they had to rely on their limited darkrooms or simply projecting their naked slides.
There is an Avedon exhibit currently showing at the Amon Carter Museum of “In the American West”. The collection consists of 124 prints by Avedon made over several years, and culled from 17,000 negatives. Honestly, if I had shot monochrome film at this rate, my “keepers” would be much higher!
I don’t worry about the billions of snapshots taken. They’re personal, too, and evaporate quickly. I do my work, and have recently embarked on a project to create a series of portfolios (yes, of prints) as my own retrospective if you will. Very few people will ever see them, but they will exist.
Oh, and I do have a website and am on Instagram …
Sean’s question struck a nerve with me. As to the more competitive or more personal part of the original question: it’s personal!
Several years, ago, I looked back at my photographs: all of the landscapes, architectural, events, etc., and decided that I did not “need” to take any of those types of pictures again. I still make them, but do not need to. If I am someplace photogenic and I have a camera, of course I will make a photograph. But, what I need to do is go into my make-shift studio and create photographs that I already envision. I haven’t reached the level I want yet, but working on it. So, my photography, post digital transition, has gotten a lot more personal.
I was a member of the usual camera clubs decades ago, but quit because it was all competition focused, and I didn’t care for that. I still do not care for it, but have rejoined the local club (after more than 20 years) yet do not compete. I’m there for the field trips, the (non-competition) “slide” shows, and the food!
Ironically, the images at the camera club are a lot better; I mean, a lot better than decades ago. Some of these photographers are arguably better than me, but I do not compete with them, either in real life or in my mind. Digital has facilitated these enthusiastic amateurs to more easily cull from their 1000’s of images to come up with the good ones for display. It is easier for them to produce presentable work with software than when they had to rely on their limited darkrooms or simply projecting their naked slides.
There is an Avedon exhibit currently showing at the Amon Carter Museum of “In the American West”. The collection consists of 124 prints by Avedon made over several years, and culled from 17,000 negatives. Honestly, if I had shot monochrome film at this rate, my “keepers” would be much higher!
I don’t worry about the billions of snapshots taken. They’re personal, too, and evaporate quickly. I do my work, and have recently embarked on a project to create a series of portfolios (yes, of prints) as my own retrospective if you will. Very few people will ever see them, but they will exist.
Oh, and I do have a website and am on Instagram …
Atta boy!
I like this viewpoint, and mostly the excess of pictures does not concern me, well, except that I also indulge and it's storage space.
But they are personal. AI or someone else won't take or replicate those pictures of family, friends, events and associated memories.
I still however do take the usual amateur picture, currently am on a trip North to one of the most photogenic areas of Europe and it's click click, expose rolls and reload.
For the film part I will see... It's mostly landscape and these aren't the sort of "so special history wise" pictures. But fun to take!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |