Posting images of lesser works on the internet . . . .

[rbultman]

I have become more critical of my photography and only post "the best" on flickr. Usually this is the best of a single roll or something that I feel good about technically but is otherwise crappy from a composition standpoint.

Although I am uncomfortable with the self-promotional aspects of the web, I can't help but feel like the excited kindergartner whose mom gushes about the latest finger paint masterpiece when someone faves one of my images on flickr.

I am truly proud of maybe 1% of my images. The rest I post as more a reminder to myself of what not to do.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Peter de Groot]

what terrible snobbery.

Maybe but I did made me realise that stuff will be around on the internet and that is something to take into account when posting something.

 

[DannL.]

If everything I produced was "genial" (the spanish "genial"), I would have no problem with posting more of my works to the web. Photography seems to require an elevated level of artistry to cross the threshold from being just ordinary to being very good. If I know my prints are lacking, and I know I could be doing better, "these days" I'm more inclined to hold off until I feel that I've done my best work. It seems like years can pass between the time I expose the negative, and when an acceptable print emerges. And it seems to take that long to develop the skills that are needed to realize my vision for the print. I think I just created another "y" in the road.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Just out of curiosity, do you post works of little merit (lesser works), or images of photographic works that are obviously not your best work, on the internet? And if so, are you not worried that these "inferior works" might haunt you in the future? Lets' think 20 or 30 years down the road, when we've made a good name for ourselves, we're successful, and then someone digs up our worst from the internet. Would you be concerned?

I do see the value behind getting feedback on works, so that one can grow and learn photographically. But, what I am really addressing here are images of works posted on the internet that you know are lacking. Along similar lines, maybe "there are" concerns with works that, if not lacking on the technical side, might haunt you because of the subject that was photographed, or the subjects that you regularly photograph and post on the internet.

I have enjoyed bouncing my work off others, and will probably continue to do so. But, as I age gracefully, I do wonder what legacy I may leave strewn across the web, especially in places like archive.org and their WayBack Machine. That could be scary. A deep subject indeed.

I'm not worriedbecause,even the icons of photography made and publisized some so-so images.not every shot can be a winnerDid Leica's good name suffer from the Leica II?:confused:

 

[naeroscatu]

I do wonder what legacy I may leave strewn across the web, especially in places like archive.org and their WayBack Machine. That could be scary.

I'm not a professional photographer, my internet passage will only show that I was part of one or more photography forums/ communities with the purpose of improving my skills. . I have good work and some not-so-good; nothing spectacular. I don’t post bad work, instead prefer not to post at all until I get something I like. I made clear that this is a hobby, my defense mechanism against every day stress and hardship. Since I never made a public artistic statement of any kind I would not be worried about “my photographic legacy”. We can perhaps talk about our legacy as human beings which can include our photographic activity however that is a different discussion altogether

 

[Bill Burk]

This reminds me of something my father used to comment on. He got fed up with people showing him prints then adding "of course, I could have improved it if I did xyz....".

He always thought that if you knew how to improve it, you should have done exactly that.


Steve.

Yes, if you can point out a fault and correct it you should.

I suppose I'd be pleased enough with myself if I made "that" improvement on the next print from the next negative... At some point when working with a print, I cut my losses. I figure if the print doesn't want to magically appear, then maybe another one does. I allow the editing process afterwards determine which prints fit the set best.

 

[Bill Burk]

I may have discussed this photographer I discovered in a consignment/estate shop, and how I formed my opinion of his work from the prints I bought. For a few bucks each, I got an astounding value. Large, 16x20 prints and some 11x14's. I gave some to friends because the smaller prints were that good. But the large print disappointed me. It was a sand dune shot from a large format negative, included a smoke tree I think. Beautiful shot but marred by defects. Scratches, black and white spots.

If he hadn't left that print in the mix, I might not have realized he had reached limitations.

So from that experience, I decided to try not to create prints that might disappoint. I'll try to keep up the quality.

I may not care what anyone thinks of my photography where we have differences of opinion. But I care very much for what someone with a like mind might think.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I may have discussed this photographer I discovered in a consignment/estate shop, and how I formed my opinion of his work from the prints I bought. For a few bucks each, I got an astounding value. Large, 16x20 prints and some 11x14's. I gave some to friends because the smaller prints were that good. But the large print disappointed me. It was a sand dune shot from a large format negative, included a smoke tree I think. Beautiful shot but marred by defects. Scratches, black and white spots.

If he hadn't left that print in the mix, I might not have realized he had reached limitations.

So from that experience, I decided to try not to create prints that might disappoint. I'll try to keep up the quality.

I may not care what anyone thinks of my photography where we have differences of opinion. But I care very much for what someone with a like mind might think.

I strongly resonate with what you say, Bill. My motivation for always trying my very best when I print is: it isn't likely that a negative currently in the enlarger will ever see the enlarger light again. So we owe it to ourselves to do the very best we can, and not compromise unless there is no purpose to make fine prints.

At the same time, we must also edit our work ruthlessly, if we want to convey something to those who view our work. This is, to me, the very hardest part, because I don't always have a clear vision of what I want my work to be.

It's a tough balance act, and if you're like me it takes a long time to develop a body of work - years, in fact. Then taste changes with time, from year to year we might print lighter or darker, higher or lower contrast, etc. It's really tough to create a cohesive body of work with a somewhat consistent output.

 

[Alan Klein]

If you post only your best work, you can fool yourself into thinking you're a perfect photographer who doesn't make mistakes. You might convince others of the same thing.

 

[benjiboy]

Photography is a selective medium, you should only show what you consider to be your best work.

 

[pdeeh]

Should?

There aren't any rules about this, only opinions.

 

[TheNewMayor]

I post the works that I find most interesting in hopes that someone else will find it interesting too. It might not be the best that I've shot, but i would only be posting a few pictures ever few months if i was that picky. I'm trying to improve my work, and for that I need/want feedback. Plus it lays out a timeline of sorts of my photographic progression; where I've been, and where I'm going.

 

[benjiboy]

Should?

There aren't any rules about this, only opinions.

It is my opinion, I didn't say it was a rule.

 

[slackercrurster]

OP, you are on the right tract about this question...if you hope to make something out of your name in the world of photography. There are always exceptions to the rule, but for me I've had to fight tooth and nail for anything I've achieved, so Ican't count on being lucky. As such I do the best I can with only showing good work.

Do a Google image search of your name and see what comes up. Are you happy with it?

When someone Google’s your name, only your best images and projects should show up. When a curator looks up your name, you don’t want them to see your non-professional work. Or worse…junk from other photographers mixed in that could be mistaken for your work.

You should be careful where you leave online comments if you’re using your real name online or an account that is connected with your name. While it is nice to encourage upcoming photogs, the other person’s photos will show up on your image and web search.

For me? When I first made the transition from film to digital I didn't know better. After I learned about this I got very strict and fixed a lot of my online profile. Since then I have made entry in many institutions with my work, so I am not as much a stickler for not mixing up my online presence as I used to be when starting out with museum placements. Still, I try not to post junk online.

 

[Nodda Duma]

When famous even the stuff you never published on the internet will be desirable.