Macro: The Ham of Photography (not the meat)

[HarmDogg]

Disclaimer: Long time reader, first time poster.

First of all, I*would like*to say that I absolutely love this site. It's great for any caliber of photographer, and the writers who do the bulk of the articles are, for the most part, fantastic. A few of their tips have helped me tremendously to be a better picture snapper.
*
Normally I would have nothing to share, but this macro photography fad*is really starting to bother me. These schmohawks who buy a digital camera, zoom in on an egg beater or salt shaker, and post it on the internet are 12 for 10 cents. I understand that there is a time and place for this type of photography, but 364 out of a 365 album is not that place. On Facebook currently, I am*bombarded by these "artistic" amateurs who think that their TV remote is not just photo worthy but more so at close range.
*
I'm sure there are plenty of talented photographers who enjoy taking pictures of things close up, and if they're reading this, relax; I'm not talking about you! I'm talking about the people who aren't reading this.
*
Macro photography just isn't the least bit creative*or artistic*because anyone can do it. If anyone can do it, it's not creative. Nobody wants to see a tight shot of an old baseball mitt by a window at dawn. Just because you took a picture of it doesn't mean it*symbolizes something. It's not art, and it's not interesting.
*
The beauty and allure*of photography has been killed by the falling price of SLRs and these new dads who shove a camera lens in their baby's face every time they get the chance.
*
Also, I'm not on here JUST to complain; I'm here to relate. Is there anyone else that feels this way and could do without all the macro geniuses? I'd love to hear your input.
*
I'll say one positive thing about it: you can usually tell how clean the photographer keeps their house :-)

[OsmosisStudios]

I think you're misplacing your aim, but the gist is a common reaction.

WIth the free-falling cost of dSLR cameras, the internet is being flooded by people who "are great at photography". More aptly, they're great at picture-taking.

This is a common discussion and a common argument. Its lamented especially by the professionals that are upset by the weekend warrior.

[Sonya Natasha]

I just posted a picture on flickr, came to DPS and saw this post. Now I am torn between laughing and crawling under my couch!



The drop in price of dSLR's has been wonderful for us souls, who love photography, but are just not that good at it yet. That is why I come here and try and learn how to use my camera and post my work on flickr for sharing and feedback. No one is going on my flickr site and confusing me with a pro (nor do I plan on ever being one) But I love it.

I think the big problem is when you get people with next to no experience who peddle themselves as pro photogs.

(Hey, look at the dust bunnies under my couch!!)

[vandergus]

The falling price of DSLR's being a detriment to photography is really a very naive point of view. Historically, one of the things that has distiguished photography from other art forms was its accessibility. The affordability of the tools has always been something that invites true amateurs to the medium and added to its richness. The affordability of DSLR's is just one more chapter in the history books.

But I still love that Stewie Griffin quote.

[tybo78]

Disclaimer: Long time reader, first time poster.

I'm sorry your very first post on this site is bagging on an entire style of photography. Like it's been said so many times before, art is subjective.

Macro photography just isn't the least bit creative*or artistic*because anyone can do it.

I don't like geometric abstraction but I'm not going to go to forum and say that it's not art. It is art. To the artist. To the viewer. In fact I like macro. Anything that invokes a question and holds your attention for longer than a second is worth looking at. IMO. And anyone can also perform heart surgery but in order to be successful at it you need to do it right.
Macro displays, very well (if done right), shape, line, form, color, texture, space, and value.

The beauty and allure*of photography has been killed by the falling price of SLRs and these new dads who shove a camera lens in their baby's face every time they get the chance.

When you open up artistic opportunity to more people there is a better chance that you will find a naturally gifted artist. What if Rembrandt couldn't afford paint? Or someone told Salvatore Rosa to not even try?
If you don't like the scenery then keep on truckin because the world is full of beauty and there is already enough negativity.

[wulf]

You don't have to look. If you hang round somewhere like Flickr (2,881 uploads in the last minute) there is an overwhelming flood of new photos (although also lots of tools to pick out ones that appeal to you - for example sign up to moderated groups). A lot of those won't be great art but they are other people's memories and other people's attempts at learning the ropes.

Meanwhile, everyone benefits from the reduced prices and improved technology that comes with consumer interest.

Wulf

[junglebear]

Maybe you shouldn't have lurked for so long, seems like you've been bottling things up! Have you been watching Curb Your Enthusiasm recently, by any chance?

I can understand some of your points, but really there are worse things than macro photography - kittens/puppies/babies anyone? But as people have said, there are always going to be others out there who appreciate that particular niche.

Furthermore, macro photography is a great new tool for photographers. It allows us to go further/closer than the human eye can focus, thus giving a new perspective.

Tell me this isn't awesome!

[junglebear]

Oh and this too!

p.s. I don't get the title, why ham?

[hibou]

This post hits all the classic "wah wah wah bitter photographer" talking points. Kudos good sir!

12 for 10 cents

This made me laugh though, for real.

[Jim Bryant]

FlickR, every once in a blue moon I go to someone's gallery to see what they have posted. It truly amazes me too to see such type of photography and images posted for the world to see. With the advances in digital photography it's gotten so easy that a caveman or cavewoman can now capture a picture of something. I truly think some out are so excited that the picture actually came out that they will post anything. Then again, every so often I see a picture that will knock my socks off. While dSLR's have certainly made picture taking easier, I know it's most certainly made my job easier than in the film days of having to stop shooting at the end of the first quarter, third inning or 2nd period, to go process, print and send images and hoping that while in the darkroom you wouldn't miss the game telling image.

Now everything is done on the field or in photo work rooms set right off the field. Life is much easier to everyone these days.

But still........what dSLR have not been able to teach folks is editing and selecting the very best images to post on the www. I was taught by editors that hammered, "you're only as good as your last shot!", so it was a driving force for us to better ourselves. You don't see that much good editing these days. Even while I might take anywhere from 1,000 to 3,0000 images at a sporting event, I'll only post online those 200 - 400 that are the every best. Hopefully people will learn this editing process through experiences gained from practice, practice and practice. The more one shoots the better they will become in time. Now go out and shoot pretty pictures. And post no more TV remotes and such.