Flickr Fatigue

This photo is pleasant enough but not so good that I would bother to upload it to a photo sharing site. I'm using it here just as an example of the types of photos I'm referring to. You can find more examples (a lot more) on Flickr itself.

I occasionally visit Flickr with the idea of seeing what photos taken with a particular camera, lens or film look like. I enter what I’m looking for in the Search box, specify “Tags Only,” then start browsing through the results. More often than not, my browsing is cut short by an intense feeling of boredom that the French call “ennui.” I call it Flickr Fatigue. It’s the feeling you get when you see hundreds of thumbnail-sized images that should have been deleted from the camera’s memory card but were instead uploaded for the world to see— undifferentiated photographs of sidewalks, trees, flowers, girlfriends, landscapes, buildings… My eyelids are getting heavy just describing all this.

I understand that Flickr bills itself only as a photo-sharing site and makes no promises about the general quality of the photos being shared. It is totally egalitarian, available to anyone who takes the trouble to create and an account and upload whatever dreck they have on their hard drives. I also don’t begrudge others the right to do so. They are under no obligation to entertain or impress me. It’s also possible that the failure to find much of interest in the millions of photos uploaded to Flickr is mine alone—though I doubt it.

That said, I’ve noticed that the more exotic the equipment I search for, the better the photos tend to be. You’ll find a higher percentage of great photos on Flickr shot with a Zeiss-Ikon ZM rangefinder and the 35mm f/2 Biogon, for example, than you will if you search for “EOS 50D,” even if the absolute number of excellent photos produced by Canon EOS 50Ds is higher. Even if you search within the same lens mount, you’ll find a higher percentage of great photos shot with a 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor than the much less pricey 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6. Lest you think that this phenomenon is simply the result of better equipment producing better photos, I’ve also noticed that photos shot on film (which definitely qualifies as exotic these days) have a higher quality-to-crap ratio than those shot with digital cameras.

I have a theory about why this is so: The easier it is to produce and upload an acceptable photograph, the less effort that most people will put into it. I believe the reverse is also true: The more effort it takes, the more thought will be put into said effort. Let’s face it, if you shoot film you not only have to get it processed or do it yourself, you have to go through the extra time and expense of getting it scanned before you can upload it to a share site. That tends to make you a lot more selective than if all it takes is to grab a group of files in a folder and click the upload button. Similarly, if you've invested more than a thousand dollars on a single lens you're less likely to be a casual photographer who simply likes posting photos--any photos--to the web.

But don’t just take my word for it, test it out for yourself. If you can come up with a better reason to explain the overwhelming number of dull photos on Flickr I’d love to hear it. I warn you though, if you plan to browse for more than a minute or two you had best have a strong cup of coffee at hand; either that, or a nice soft pillow.

Comments

[Wyllys]

Great post, I followed up with my own post (http://aperturepriorityphoto.com/blog/?p=156) about criteria for sharing and trying to avoid "Flickr Fatigue" syndrome.

[Martin Yeates]

Gordon I would have to say that whilst it is possible to see the quality you allude to in the way you do, in my experience sometimes the opposite is true. I have ventured onto a number of sites where the vast majority are shooting with what I would call high-end kit, only to be disappointed at the mundane, record type image on show. One particular site which promotes Leica M9 et al leaves me cold more often than not.

There are posters who have kit to die for and yet still manage to produce images lacking in any creativity or having what I would argue is vital, "narrative" within them. They are always lauded in the comments and I stare open mouthed at what I've seen trying to figure what on earth they have seen that I quite clearly haven't.

A previous post of yours highlights a salient point with regard to past experience. When I started taking pictures I shot entirely B&W only. This was principally due to cost and the fact I could control everything from exposure through to print. My learning curve was steep but I eventually got to a point were I produced consistently good quality images. I learned to see in B&W, noting shape form and most importantly how the image made me feel. It was then for me to translate that into the final picture. This would be obviously aided during development and then printing of the final image.

Like you I love to observe and consequently will anticipate what folk will do more often than not, which invariably leads to me getting the shot I wanted. I was a very late convert to digital, my friends looked on me as a Luddite however I did dip a toe in and since doing so have shot less and less film.

I have often said the requirement for the latest and biggest sensor is in most cases a waste of time as more often than not the images will never be printed and will end up on web hosting sites, so why waste money. Of course camera companies love this as it feeds the never ending desire to have the latest and the best.

That's enough pontificating from me...had a look at your site and have enjoyed every minute, will definitely be popping back, happy snapping to you!

[Tim]

There are those who care, and put in the effort to learn and to make, and there are those who don't give a guacamole about photography for its art's sake but want to show off pictures - pik'chuhs - "of" something. And always has it been thus. I'd reserve the derogatory `dreck' for photos in the latter category taken by eejits with failed aspirations of grandeur, I think.

Notably, sorting flickr by `interesting' does seem to improve the general stock, however.

[Paul Van]

At times like that I remember Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crud.

I agree that better equipment doesn't make you a better photographer. However, I would like to suggest that those who have upgraded did so in order to better realize their vision. Perhaps that is the dividing line, vision. Or people need to learn how to edit... ;)

[John]

I rarely ever look at Flickr anymore. It has a lot to do with the fact that digital has pushed photography beyond mainstream to something in the everyday life of just about everyone. When your phone packs a camera that is as good as a compact camera and you can capture (note I didn't say "create") an image simply with the mindless push of a button, the general quality of images captured is going to head south pretty fast. Couple that with the "I can upload it so I will" mentality of the Internet and you end up with a visit to site like Flickr being the photographic equivalent of "dumpster diving". Yes, you may luck out and find that Tiffany piece that someone threw out as junk, but you'll have to wade through a mountain of trash to find it.

So, have you visited your city dump lately?

[emptyspaces]

I know how you feel. But I also know that what makes a good picture is largely subjective. The wading pool at Flickr is deep, indeed, and it's probably safe to say that most uploaders there don't spend as much time vetting their photos as we all do. That's probably why I've never really browsed around Flickr much.

I read a review of one of the high-end Nikons recently, and the reviewer made a simple but very true statement: upgrading your gear will make you a better photographer... but only if you're already a good photographer. As a photographer and a musician, I can second that motion.

I also agree with your film analogy - as I shoot more film, I tend to make more of the hard choices when I get around to scanning. If a photo isn't worth it, it won't get scanned, 'cause it's truly a waste of time. And more choices are being made as I shoot also, because of the finite number of shots available and the time it'll take later to process them. Not saying it's the cure, but my mindset definitely changes when shooting/scanning film.

[Ryan Lavering]

I think you're pretty much right on the money: difficulty of capture and upload (whether that means having more exotic equipment or just a generally more time-consuming workflow) does tend to increase average image quality. I think it's an innate cost-benefit analysis that we do. If it costs me a lot to put something up, then it had better be worth it.

Sure, there are people out there with M9's that have terrible pictures. Similarly, there are "artists" that spend hours stitching together HDR shots that even their mothers refuse to put on the fridge. But in general, people that invest in their photos will product a better product. You get what you pay for, so to speak.

For my part, I started a Flickr account with the express goal of only putting up images that I considered high quality. To keep me honest, I diligently title, describe, and tag each photo (the upload "cost" if you will). If a photo isn't worth the effort of adding meta-data, then it isn't worth showing to the world. I think that effort has paid off. When I look back at my stream I am proud of my images, and I think they reflect positively on my skill.

That isn't to say that I don't have other sites that I use for a more "dump everything online" approach. But to me Flickr's community aspect is about presenting yourself as a high-quality photographer, so I keep that profile tidy.

[Rob]

OK, here's my alternative explanation: Flickr is so poorly designed, it attracts poorly made photos. I find that I can't spend much time there because the design is so busy I have a hard time seeing the images.

[Janne]

I think you're misinterpreting most of those flickr images, and I strongly suspect you know this. A lot of flickr pictures are crap when viewed as exhibited photographs of course, but that's because most of them aren't there to be exhibited. Most of them are there to be seen by friends and family; people for whom the context and the content of the image carries a lot of meaning. Whether they are good as images is completely irrelevant to the intended audience. And they are public simply because most friends and most family members don't have an account so they'd be unable to see it if set to private.

I have a lot of crap in my own stream. It's there just to show my parents or friends or used as images for my blog; illustrations, where the content is what matters. If it happened to become a decent image then great, but if not - well, I still need that illustration so up on flickr it goes.

Here's a bland image of a couple of plastic test tubes. Static layout, blown-out lid tops. Boring. But I needed a shot for this blog post. I don't have so much free time that I can go back and try a few more interesting shots of them just for one post. Anybody is free to look at it and decide it's crap. It doesn't bother me since it was never posted to be judged as an image in the first place.

I do wish flickr would add some kind of optional "premium stream" for their paid accounts though. If activated, only the images that you mark for that would be visible in your image stream, or (perhaps) visible in normal searches. Only if somebody explicitly adds the "non-premium" content in their searches, or look at the complete image stream of an account would they get all the other stuff.

[Gordon Lewis]

>>I think you're misinterpreting most of those flickr images, and I strongly suspect you know this.<<

Was it my second paragraph that gave it away? ;-)
Still, I'm not sure I know what you mean by "misinterpreting." Regardless of whether there are valid reasons, most photographs on Flickr are boring, especially to those who have no personal interest in them. Even the desire to share photos with family and friends doesn't explain people who upload dozens of nearly identical images of the same dull subject. Isn't one enough?

I agree with your idea about Flickr offering a premium stream though. The closest thing to that they have at the moment are the various "groups" that are open by invitation only. At least there someone is showing some discrimination--in the positive sense of the word, of course.

[John Robison]

Back in the film days we said you could tell a good photographer be the size of his waste basket, at least for those who used 35mm cameras.(Thirty six exposures seemed like a lot back then, how times have changed.) All I'm saying is, edit edit edit.

[Steve Dunleavy]

I have just the opposite opinion - I'm stunned by how many good photographers there are out there, posting consistently top of the line images, both amateurs and pros.

[Gianni Galassi]

I have been using Flickr for about three years now, firstly as a complement to my old website (my current blog only came one year ago). I admire Flickr's unbelievable features as well as its smoothness (I admire it so much that I even forgive its ugly graphic interface). In Flickr one can share his work with virtually the whole planet, and get many (I mean many) more visitors than any exhibition held in the “real” world. And there is no hierarchy, it’s a peer-to-peer playground.
But Flickr has its heavy downside. Being a peer-to-peer space, visits are generally returned. It’s not compulsory, of course. Let’s say it’s a custom rule. And visitors leave comments. And comments are always (I mean always) enthusiastic. When returning visits, after a while I realized I was running out of superlatives.
Truth is that many people use Flickr as a social network. For them, photography is a mere pretext. And superlatives are the token of a supposed (and often sought-after) friendship. Which makes no sense at all. If somebody comes in a gallery to see my photographs and tells me he likes them, I’m happy. If he buys them, I’m happier. But I don’t expect him to become my friend, or the other way around. I think the same should apply on-line.
As for my Flickr stream, at present I post a photograph every now and then only in order to lead traffic towards my blog. And I gave up browsing through Flickr photographs. Too much coffee would be dangerous to my health.

[ChromaticDramatic]

Unfortunately you see what you WANT to see. You are looking for drudgery and you find it.

The reality is people use Flickr for a variety of purposes.

Personally I use flickr to share my photos with my friends and family only, as such only a very limited number of photos are available for the general world to see. My friends and family can only see the photos that I let them, and it is often only the photos that would be of interest to them.

I also use flickr as a very cheap backup source. For $30 per year, it is unbelievable cheap. As such every photo I don't delete from my camera gets uploaded.

Some aren't great. But each photo has something in it that makes it worthwhile keeping.

As these are all personal photos it makes sense.

As I'm in the process of launching my own photo blog (more a journal), the flickr stream that I associate with it, will probably not get every single photo I take uploaded to it.

[Rory Challands]

OK, now try going even more esoteric. Do a search for a particular type of developer (e.g. Rodinal) or an unusual brand of film (eg Adox) and you will find the quality threshold rising even further.

I love Flickr, but I agree with you that there's plenty of dross. That's fine though, because it's a place for photographs, not art. It just so happens you can find some wonderful art there if you look hard enough.

[JMR]

Gordon, you are probably right. But as others have already pointed out, Flicker and many other sites are used mainly for social exchange, and making money or exhibiting great photography is a small offshoot.

As far as I can tell, the onslaught of poor to overwhelmingly medicore photography began appearing with the convergence of digital and the internet itself. Not just Flicker, it's everywhere. Not against that, but I have no interest in sharing my personal life and don't feel like wading through thousands of small images, and I can't take all that sappiness, even if it happens to be my photographs. And I think this facet has and will continue to have a detrimental effect on all our social activities- it's all too much!

Dare I say, I hardly look at the web anymore for fine or interesting photography. Instead, I rely on the links of places and people I know. I have come full circle.

P.S. Don't get me started on how the Internet and Photoshop has turned everyone into hypercritics. That's for another thread, I am sure.

[Sven W]

1. There have always be lousy photos -- the Internet just makes it more obvious.

2. Pre-digital, most people who used a camera had an interest in photography. Now people with no interest in photography can easily take photos and publish them. The objective is to "be seen" rather than "be seen as a photographer".

3. Following on from point 2, the idea of creating an image with intent would be as foreign to some of these people as good writing.

4. Not everyone is interested in learning how to use a computer or a camera. Some people are shown how to transfer images to Flickr and without knowing any better simply use Flickr as a dump.

One solution would be to limit the number of images you can upload - say 100. And the 'delete' button is extra large. ;-)

[Rob]

Sven,

I disagree with your point #2. As only one example, remember one use cameras? Shoot a roll of film and throw the camera away; those weren't being used by people with an interest in photography. The difference is that those images would have ended up as prints moldering away in a drawer, now they end up moldering away on Flickr or Facebook. :)

[B]

Perhaps you aren't the intended audience.

The photos are not being shoved in your face; you're searching for them. Cruel twist to blame the photographer.

[Edd Fuller]

I don't spend much time on Flickr, mostly because navigating the site itself drives me batty. The one thing I found baffling about the photos published on Flickr were all of the comments of the "Awesome picture, dude!!" variety attached to the most ordinary snapshots. Was I missing something?

It turns out I was, and Gianni's comment above explains it perfectly. Flickr is a social site, and superlatives are the currency of friendship in that context. Doesn't have much to do with photography. Makes perfect sense to me now. Thanks Gianni.

[Jim Woodard]

On the whole you are right, it is mind-boggling just what gets posted (and the accolades they receive). On the other hand I have to totally agree with this statement you made....
"It’s also possible that the failure to find much of interest in the millions of photos uploaded to Flickr is mine alone—"
If you care to, and take the time to look for them, there are an unbelievable number of original, creative, and extremely well done images posted to Flickr. From years of attending gallery openings for photographers I would say that the percentage, relative to total numbers, is pretty close to same for both. Send me an e-mail and I will be happy to provide some of them for your opinion.

[Steve Willard]

At the risk of falling for the trap you've set, let me offer an observation: Flickr is the photo equivalent of listening to a conversation at table with my relatives, mostly dull and uninteresting with an ocassional laugh if you know the context. It (Flickr, not our table) is a social site with no restrictions except porn.

What we(I) would all like is to sit at the Algonquin Round Table and listen to the likes of Dorothy Parker toss off clever comments with casual ease. We forget that those people worked hard to make it look easy. Good photographs, like entertaining conversation, take preparation, practice, taste and hard work. Most aren't up for it.

[Ed Kuipers]

What puzzles me more then the limited quality of the pictures on flickr is the response these pictures seem to get from the fellow users.....it's seems to be a race to the bottom (to use prof. Dr. Stiglitz's words).

Let me give you an example....not to mistreat the photographer but more to make a point, what are the commenters using as a reference when they comment.

[Example deleted]

And I can ad countless examples if you like.......

[Gordon Lewis]

>>And I can ad countless examples if you like.<<

I can too, but I don't think it's fair to single anyone out for criticism. That's why I posted one of my own photos rather than someone else's. Suffice it to say that it doesn't take much effort to find countless examples of banal photographs getting rave reviews on Flickr. There's a lot of genuinely good work too--it's just harder to find.

[Tom]

I search with the word "nice" or "fine" or "good" or "beautiful." Never with the word "dull." It helps. ;-)