I double checked my facts on the number of photos on the internet and I was wrong. I got the 10,000,000,000 (10 billion) from a conference lecturer last year. According to the internet trending site Pingdom, in 2009 there were:
- 4 billion – Photos hosted by Flickr (October 2009).
- 2.5 billion – Photos uploaded each month to Facebook. (964 per second)
- 30 billion – At the current rate, the number of photos uploaded to Facebook per year.
I was wrong. My 10 billion number was way too low. The overwhelming part for me is those are the numbers (34 billion) for two sites in 2009. I will assume then Facebook will get at least another 30 billion images this year, totaling 60,000,000,000 in just two years.
I believe this gluttony of images has the same cause as the gluttony of food in developed nations. Technology has made the production, processing, and distribution of both food and photos much more efficient, easier, cheaper and individualized. For under $10, I can easily buy 10,000 calories. A century ago, the cost of a calorie was much more, even after adjusting for inflation. The same ease of use and consumption is true for photography.
We have to accept that photography publishing is no longer a medium/tool of the few deemed good enough and important enough to be publicized. We all could take photos with our little Kodaks a few decades ago, but we had no way to mass publish them. Most of the photos ended up in shoe box and a few ended up in an album or framed. With new technology I can instantly publish any image for the world's online consumption, quality be damned.
I can reminisce about the good old days. They are gone and we are not going back. We (as a culture) eat too much and publish too many photos. I can not turn around that global tide of gluttony. I have to accept that so many will consume too much food and create too many photos.
My power is in what I can do with my own habits. As with food, I can choose my nutritional and photographic diet. I choose to ignore the trivial photos (both mine and yours (plural for rest of humanity)) and only consume the truly nutritious and important ones. As I stated in my old post, I also choose to only publish my good stuff (both writing and photos), in a limited fashion.
After reading a comment from an anonymous reader I am thinking of holding back more photos for future uses that can earn me money or at least form the basis of my life's work.
When you get to the high end photographers such as Carrie Leigh, Kim Weston, Leonard Nimoy, Lucien Clerque etc...you will find that they post very few images.
You know that they are holding back for print, exhibit and collector value.
I've met and learned from Kim Weston. He is a very generous and kind man. He also knows a good bit of making sure his art gets to those who truly want it and can afford it. My art is not at that level yet, but I have to start treating it as such. If I don't I am just adding to the overly populated Pixel Forest.
NOTE - I just deleted over 70 less-than-stellar posts from this blog. I have them backed up elsewhere, but since this is their public outlet, you wont have to read or see them anymore. They live in the pixel forest's burn pile.
Karl, those numbers are oppressive. I am so glad now I am cleaning up the blog. It does come down to a matter of learning how to value your own work. My friend, British photographer Jan Murphy, always holds back some of her work. Her feature in Carrie Leigh's NUDE Spring issue, "Buckingham Nude," was shot as an exclusive and kept offline for value.
ReplyDeleteModels notoriously choose to post different images than their photographers. Our goal is somewhat different, but when a work sells to a collector, both photographer and model benefit, so it is good for all concerned to hang onto the best of a shoot.
All great thoughts, and I thank you so much, Karl, for your inspiration!