Comments on: Martin Parr Interview (mp3)

By: Michael David Murphy

Michael David Murphy — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:02:15 +0000

Discussion about this interview, and more on this topic, including a few comments from Mr. Parr can be found over here:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/martinparr/discuss/72157600172911493/

By: Gustav

Gustav — Sun, 06 May 2007 20:19:27 +0000

We need something akin to DJ:s in the social photoweb that is flickr/photoblogs; for cool street photography off flickr/photoblogs you go to editor A:s blog, for high quality b&w LF portraiture, go to editor X:s blog and so on.

By: morgan

morgan — Sat, 05 May 2007 14:52:07 +0000

I love to shoot and view street photography. But in many respects, it’s kind of played out. For me these days, I’d rather view the work as a cohesive project than one-offs. I just picked up Bruce Gilden’s A Beautiful Catastrophe, which is awesome NYC street stuff. Alone, the images would be cool, but as a package, it’s incredible. That said, I just developed a few rolls from last weekend and it all goes on the slag heap of crap street photos.

Flickr is so of it’s time. It’s the iTunes store of photography, it’s all about singles, not albums (I still buy albums not singles, btw). Sampling different stuff here and there. I love it for what it is, and I appreciate the democratization of technology. But people’s posted comments shouldn’t be the new decider on what’s good or bad. Work still needs context I believe. There are some amazing photographers on there, but also an overwhelming amount of crap. You need your 21st century media filter at maximum effectiveness to find the good stuff.

By: Nils Jorgensen

Nils Jorgensen — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:47:37 +0000

BryanF has it about right…”trying to find the gems in the steady stream of rubbish” has become quite interesting. In fact, isn’t this what street photography is about too?

By: Kevin Bjorke

Kevin Bjorke — Fri, 04 May 2007 00:04:59 +0000

I’ve noticed that in recent months it’s become MORE difficult to track-down some kinds of imagery on flickr w.r.t. the rights-licensing (e.g., “pics of Seattle at night that are free to use with attribution” etc). I expect a charge-able preferred-browsing service soon, perhaps quietly offered to regular customers of competing commercial agencies.

By: Rafal Pruszynski (jinju)

Rafal Pruszynski (jinju) — Thu, 03 May 2007 23:45:36 +0000

Editing is important. Funny thing about flickr is that you can easily fill up your stream with a lot of stuff. And many people dont do this, which is why they have thousands of shots in their stream, but every once in a while you need to take a hatchet to your stream and erase the rubbish. Something that I did lately was edit my stream from nearly 400 shots down to about 170…and boy did it feel good.

By: Gustav

Gustav — Thu, 03 May 2007 20:46:39 +0000

BryanF: you’re so right, the editing process in street (or in most 35 mm or digital) photography is a creative practice as such. Winogrand, of course, comes to mind, but it applies also to us mere mortals that don’t have thousands of rolls to wade through.

By: Fotografiskt » Blog Archive » Intervju med Martin Parr

Fotografiskt » Blog Archive » Intervju med Martin Parr — Thu, 03 May 2007 20:39:08 +0000

[...] [via 2point8.] [...]

By: BryanF

BryanF — Thu, 03 May 2007 20:23:22 +0000

“â€¦the best business model is to have fantastic pictures”

good stuff, and very true. interesting comments about flickr. it makes me wonder what type of opportunities are out there for editors. the one thing i’ve learned at HCSP is that a high number of photographers aren’t think skinned when it comes to editing…but it’s absolutely necessary if you want to make some sort of sense out of what’s out there.

i’d be interested to see a post about the editing process as it relates to street photography. i know for me it’s becoming just as interesting as making the photographs…trying to find the gems in the steady stream of rubbish.

peace.

bryan