Social media and the watering down of photography

it's funny how many will believe what they post up. I couldn't agree more how it has changed society tainted the minds of gullible known what is truth & what is fake.
 
"Do it for the gram" is not really a modern mindset. It affects modern digital media more because the bar has been lowered (everyone has access to a decent camera at all times now, the cost and difficulty of travel is much lower than it used to be, etc.), but this phenomenon isn't new.

As an example, look at how many of the "trophy" hunts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries went. I'm not knocking real hunters and the taking of game. I'm talking about whole industries in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia that were basically set up to cater to wealthy westerners around the end of the Victorian era. Rich folks were sold packaged hunts, complete with "authentic" experiences with indigenous locals, etc. The locals often went along with it because it paid better than subsistence hunting, farming, or working for whichever industries imperial powers had brought to their land. Fast forward 100+ years and we're there again. For my money, I'm glad the tourists are taking photographs rather than endangered or threatened game, but the principal is the same.

Now, refocusing (pun intended) on the art of photography, there's a different issue. Faked, constructed, or otherwise artificial photographs may be a nice ego boost for some folks, but it isn't for me. I shoot to help me remember the place, and to share it, but for us its mostly about being *present* in those places. I've shot a lot of beautiful landscapes, some good enough to hang on a wall, but none of them ever captured the essence of really being there. The only photo contest I ever won was with a snap of my daughter on a desert hike, shot on a cellphone. What I remember is the rest of that day, not the ribbon or the gallery reception.

The same holds true for non-adventure photography: We have a school-age kid, which means lots of concerts, spelling bees, plays, etc. Often we find we're the only two parents in a crowded auditorium watching the stage, rather than watching the screen of a phone...
 
Herbie said:
"Do it for the gram" is not really a modern mindset. It affects modern digital media more because the bar has been lowered (everyone has access to a decent camera at all times now, the cost and difficulty of travel is much lower than it used to be, etc.), but this phenomenon isn't new.
Click to expand...

The original show Wild Kingdom (1963-1985) hosted by Marlin Perkins is notorious for staged "natural" shots.
 
I used to really be into photography, even did a little commercial work, but when digital took over I lost a lot of my interest in it. I've still got one F5 body and bag of lenses but it just isn't the same anymore. I take more "tourist" pictures with a Canon P&S that I can drop in my pocket or tank bag these days.

I almost never post pictures on the internet (never of myself) and have no social media outside of this and a couple of other similar forums.
 
Social media may be the most negative thing to happen to humankind. Folks have no need to be real any longer, if they ever were. The amount of total crap consumed by kids and adults alike is astounding. Families go on vacations and never see a thing through their own eyes.
 
bob91yj said:
You just ruined a whole segment of my belief in what is right in the world. I was a regular Sunday evening watcher of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom....50 years ago!
Click to expand...
To be fair and for what it's worth. Commercial nature programming probably wouldn't be where it is today if is wasn't for this show.
 
buckwilk said:
Social media may be the most negative thing to happen to humankind. Folks have no need to be real any longer, if they ever were. The amount of total crap consumed by kids and adults alike is astounding. Families go on vacations and never see a thing through their own eyes.
Click to expand...

While I can't really disagree that social media has many negative effects, I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement that "folks have no need to be real any longer, if they ever were".

I've experienced this first hand in the military and civilian sectors. Posers, frauds, imitators and liars will almost ALWAYS reveal themselves when you meet them in person. When it's go time.

Anyone can look cool with carefully selected filters and post-edits, and perfectly staged photos. Same can be said for what I'm doing now - banging away on a keyboard. I can quickly google just about anything and appear super smart online, but if I can't talk the talk and walk the walk when we meet in person, well there it is.

But at some point, we have to interact in the real world. We have to leave the internet - and social media. If you and your online presence are vastly different, people notice right away.

Just my opinion, but I see the challenge today is to embrace being real. To embrace the authentic people and reject the airbrushed fakes. No filters. No fakes. No weak shit. No narcissistic posers.

I gravitate towards that myself, and I try to stay mindful towards balance and humility. Which is why I don't like selfies and avoid the camera myself. Nobody wants to see my mug, and Photoshop can't fix ugly anyway ;)

.02
 
Herbie said:
I shoot to help me remember the place, and to share it, but for us its mostly about being *present* in those places.... snip...

...snip... Often we find we're the only two parents in a crowded auditorium watching the stage, rather than watching the screen of a phone...
Click to expand...

This. I get annoyed by too much photography. My wife and I have even clashed on this as I see a very fine line where the stress of getting that perfect family photo to "capture the memory" can actually RUIN the moment and the real reason for being there.

I still like to take photos. But my photos, despite good gear and a modicum of skill, have never really captured what I see with the naked eye. The sunset. The moon and stars. The mist. That mirage in the desert.

Or the smell of rain, of the forest. And the other nuances and sounds that you only notice with eyes and ears open and mouths shut. And gadgets put away.

Being present in the moment is my primary goal these days :)
 
Kevin LaCroix said:
there is a big difference when Les Stroud "stages" a scene and Bear Grylls stages everything.
Click to expand...

LOL. That was the other example I had in mind but Wild Kingdom was a better fit. I was flipping through channels and landed on Bear Grylls show. He's crawling through some forested area. Weather begins to turn bad and a downpour starts. Next scene "Luckily I had this rain suit...." :rolleyes:
 
This made me laugh
Captures.JPG
 
Dave said:
While I can't really disagree that social media has many negative effects, I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement that "folks have no need to be real any longer, if they ever were".

I've experienced this first hand in the military and civilian sectors. Posers, frauds, imitators and liars will almost ALWAYS reveal themselves when you meet them in person. When it's go time.

Anyone can look cool with carefully selected filters and post-edits, and perfectly staged photos. Same can be said for what I'm doing now - banging away on a keyboard. I can quickly google just about anything and appear super smart online, but if I can't talk the talk and walk the walk when we meet in person, well there it is.

But at some point, we have to interact in the real world. We have to leave the internet - and social media. If you and your online presence are vastly different, people notice right away.

Just my opinion, bit I see the challenge today is to embrace being real. To embrace the authentic people and reject the airbrushed fakes. No filters. No fakes. No weak shit. No narcissistic posers.

I gravitate towards that myself, and I try to stay mindful towards balance and humility. Which is why I don't like selfies and avoid the camera myself. Nobody wants to see my mug, and Photoshop can't fix ugly anyway ;)

.02
Click to expand...

Nailed it! In my experience, anyone that pulls their own chain regarding their military service is probably living some one else's story. I've never met someone that thought they were a Hero...I've met a few true Hero's over the years. Someone else usually had to tell me who they were or what they did.
 
Dave said:
While I can't really disagree that social media has many negative effects, I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement that "folks have no need to be real any longer, if they ever were".

I've experienced this first hand in the military and civilian sectors. Posers, frauds, imitators and liars will almost ALWAYS reveal themselves when you meet them in person. When it's go time.

Anyone can look cool with carefully selected filters and post-edits, and perfectly staged photos. Same can be said for what I'm doing now - banging away on a keyboard. I can quickly google just about anything and appear super smart online, but if I can't talk the talk and walk the walk when we meet in person, well there it is.

But at some point, we have to interact in the real world. We have to leave the internet - and social media. If you and your online presence are vastly different, people notice right away.

Just my opinion, but I see the challenge today is to embrace being real. To embrace the authentic people and reject the airbrushed fakes. No filters. No fakes. No weak shit. No narcissistic posers.

I gravitate towards that myself, and I try to stay mindful towards balance and humility. Which is why I don't like selfies and avoid the camera myself. Nobody wants to see my mug, and Photoshop can't fix ugly anyway ;)

.02
Click to expand...
My statement stands. Declaring a position, a purpose on social media means nothing. When you go to social media you completely lose any credibility you have. Social media is not a place to seek judgement or credibility.
 
I think the watering down of photography on social media is more in part due to the evolution (or maybe more apt devolution) of "social networking" into "social media" as well as the forced integration of "social marketing" into these platforms. I remember the days of MySpace and the early days of Facebook when those platforms were simply a place to networking with your classmates (facebook) and other friends (MySpace). They were void of corporate influence back then and the only ads you had to tollerate were the typical annoying digital website ads common to almost every website out there (looks at top right of AAV site) <cough> Moving on...

Once facebook opened its doors to non-students things slowly starting changing. There's an old saying, "if you're not paying for the service your the commodity being sold." More users for facebook meant more meat for the marketing grinder. Business started setting up accounts first as "people" then there was the addition of "pages." Shortly there after the algorithm manipulation started to get out of control (from a user perspective) as sponosored posts from pages started taking priority over friends and family posts. Then the timeline starting to default to "top stories" making it even worse. These days when you scroll facebook pretty much every 3rd post is a sponsored ad or a post from a business page. I've seen my feed be as bad as half corporate posts.

For a short while things were looking glum for facebook. Especially having gone public. With even more pressure to not only satisfy corporate advertising clients but not shareholders too facebook got desperate. The new kid on the block was Instagram and people were jumping ship from facebook quick. "When you can't beat them, join them" --- or the coporate american equivalent "if you can't beat them buy them." Facebook bought Instagram.

For a short while Facebook was hands-off with instagram. Not many people knew at first FB bought IG (myself included). Once the cat was out of the bag Facebook began applying the same social marketing and algorithm manipulation tactics to Instagram. Slowly the platform has become unusable as small fist (like myself) have seen their reach drop from 80-90% to a mere 10-20%... unless they pay for promotion. Even then, the rates are the same whether you're a small time entrepreneur or a multi-billion dollar corporation. Even if you do pay to promote posts, you might see a bump in reach but it may not be to your followers. This is when things started escalating like a digital cold war. In order to get attention for marketing people had to get more creative with their photos. The more outlandish the photo (or video) the more attention. Substance and authenticy was sacrificed on the alter of exposure and reach.

Needless to say, the manipulation of what you see and what gets seen on social media these days is heavily controlled, filtered, and even censored by the powers that be on that particular platform. Just look at the anit-gun trends on YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. Hell, even Pinterest said it was going to start censoring posts by companies that host weddings at old plantations "because of slavery."

So yeah, there are some major issues with social media right now and the watering down of photography and the fakeness of some of the pictures isn't even the tip of the iceberg. And don't get me started on "influencers."

--

TL;DR: Yeah, fake photography is a problem on social media, but it's only one of many right now and probably the one to worry about the least.
 
buckwilk said:
My statement stands. Declaring a position, a purpose on social media means nothing. When you go to social media you completely lose any credibility you have. Social media is not a place to seek judgement or credibility.
Click to expand...

So where does one “declare a position or purpose” these days then?

If doing so on social means nothing, then where and how does it have meaning for you?
 
buckwilk said:
Social media may be the most negative thing to happen to humankind. Folks have no need to be real any longer, if they ever were. The amount of total crap consumed by kids and adults alike is astounding. Families go on vacations and never see a thing through their own eyes.
Click to expand...

Social media is just a merging of many different media types. You've always have people who are just BS and people who are real because people haven't really changed. It's just got faster.

For example. And if you don't have a subscription I'll save you the trouble with a synopsis after the link.
The Way We Ate: The Great Scrapple Correspondence of 1872 - The New York Times

This is an internet flame war. In 1872. It's happening in slow motion through the letters to the editor. It starts out innocently and then it turns into people getting nasty with ad hominem attacks over the stupidest of things. Scrapple. Up to and including the editors stopping publishing the letters. In other words the moderators locked the thread.

The last line of the article.

"As no message board veteran can fail to note, the technology has evolved, but our behavior has not."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom