It’s often said that there has never been a better time to be a photographer. In one way, I think this is true – more than ever before, we’ve got the most amazing tools to produce beautiful images. But parallel to the development of these amazing tools, something disturbing has happened: the transformation of photography into a commodity. Such a transformation maximizes photography’s utility for advancing consumerism and minimizes its value in expressing the human soul.
A Shift From Art to Commodity
What does it mean to say photography has become a commodity? Simply that the emphasis and purpose of sharing photos has shifted. It is now less about sharing memories and artistically meaningful imagery with others through personal connection. Instead, the vast majority of photo sharing is used to grab the attention of others with little opportunity for developing deeper connections.
With this transformation, photography has become a fuel to power massive online platforms, enticing people to scroll. It gives them very brief but pleasant visual sensations so that they can be exposed to advertisements. How many times have you scrolled past dozens of amazing shots without much more thought than “amazing shot, next”?
When looked at this way, it is clear that tech companies want and design their systems to make people scroll as much as possible, so that they can view as many advertisements as possible. Moreover, it is in their best interest to discourage people from making genuine and significant connections, because if you do, you’ll spend less time scrolling. Just go to any large online platform. Interaction is through likes and often anonymous comments without much room for real discussion. Like. Next. Like. Next.
But surely this can’t impede our enjoyment of photography as a hobby, right? Unfortunately it can, and easily. It’s not just that we train ourselves to take and edit images in such a way that they gain likes and anonymous validation. It’s also that massive online platforms, in their hypercapitalist emphasis on maximizing profits, have outcompeted local, face-to-face communities where we could share our photos, learn from each other, and make genuine connections. Even if you never post an image on Instagram or Facebook, this shift still affects you.
In the next couple sections, I will look at two phenomena that illustrate the commoditization of photography.
Why I Don’t Use AI Noise Reduction
Many people ask me why I don’t use AI noise reduction. The answer is rather simple, and it’s not because I think AI noise reduction itself makes any creative decisions for me. Rather, one reason I oppose AI noise reduction because it is another step for technology companies to herd us into creating more standardized imagery that looks good on their trendy social media platforms.
When I look back at all my best shots, they work fine with regular noise reduction. And yes, I have tried AI noise reduction with PureRaw 3, one of the best programs out there. It’s true, it works better than standard noise reduction, especially on very high ISO images. But often, those images aren’t that good anyway, at least not compared to ones taken in better light.
The only answer to why AI noise reduction is so popular is because it allows us to churn out more good-looking images, more quickly. But I’d rather just produce a few very good shots rather than post a dozen images daily to Instagram to help its upper management buy more yachts.
This entire phenomenon isn’t just restricted to photography. It’s the same thing with ChatGPT and other LLM programs that can write articles and books. It’s all about volume, which serves its ultimate objective of turning us into mindless automatons consuming content – all herded into the same three or four platforms where more wealth can most efficiently be concentrated with the already wealthy.
Of course, I recognize that similar things could be said of other technological developments, even of standard noise reduction or sharpening. Many technological developments in photography are meant to help us produce more competent photographs more quickly. While such a thing is not inherently bad, I recommend examining each such development relative to your own personal philosophy to determine whether they really make sense for the expression of your own self, or whether they are a hindrance in disguise.
The Loss of Truth
And what about truth? Some people might know that the winner of the CEWE Photo Award 2023 won using a staged photo. Is this merely another example of the age-old human tendency to deceive, which has occurred in photography since its inception? Maybe in part, but I think it’s actually another symptom of commoditization.
Commoditization of photography means nothing else than the eradication of any function of photography outside its ability to do well on large tech platforms. And one such function of photography is its ability to transmit truth.
What do I mean by truth? It is just this: when I take a photograph, I want to transmit some genuine aspect of my experience and my vision. Of course, photography is subjective due to different artistic visions, but it should at least be guided by the ideal of transmitting some portion of reality following the ideal of honest dialogue between the photographer and the viewer. Even abstract photos, which may not transmit a literal reality, are grounded in a sense of honesty that the light from a scene was captured in such a way.
It is this ideal of honest dialogue that is the true heart of photography, and it is a crucial foundation of genuine photography.
The commoditization of photography, on the other hand, encourages us to reject honest dialogue completely, and to discard the ideal of transmitting authenticity, since the only metric for success that exists is its ability to increase consumerism on big tech platforms. Therefore, when cheating and deception are more lucrative, you are incentivized to try to get away with it.
A Way Back?
Is it futile to attempt a restoration of genuine human connection in photography? I do not believe so. I already noted in Enjoying Photography in a High-Tech World that there are still places to express photography where commoditization is minimized. Two examples are sharing with a friend and printing your photos to display in your home or a local gallery.
But is participating in this minority the only solution for us photographers, or can we also attempt to improve the sharing of photography in a wider context outside our shrinking spheres of decency? Is the only solution to “get lost in […] self-examination instead of raising much more pertinent global questions about our entire industrial civilization” as Slavoj Žižek said in his book Heaven and Disorder?
At this point, I believe the only thing we can do beyond personal solutions is to ask deep questions about the changing nature of photography and to put forward, whenever we have the opportunity, our own feelings about the friction between modern technology and our human ideals and desires for genuine connection.
We should not be deceived that we can easily change anything on a global scale. However, neither should we be discouraged that the consumerist march is pre-determined and inevitable. We don’t have to abandon modern technology, but we should constantly ask what we can do to improve it without losing our own ways. Ideas can often propagate faster than technology, and what better way to help push a heartfelt idea than through a photograph?
Outstanding Birds photos ….. creamy bokeh
I appreciate your comment very much :)
“How many times have you scrolled past dozens of amazing shots without much more thought than “amazing shot, next”?“
In my case, I scroll past them because they’re too often clichéd and over-processed – in an effort to cater to the standardization you refer to. If I see one more shot of a black church in Iceland, I’m going to go there and burn it down. 😉
“ it is another step for technology companies to herd us into creating more standardized imagery that looks good on their trendy social media platforms”
So, since I am only on antisocial media, is it OK, that I use Topaz? I use it just like any other tool in the toolbox.
I take pictures solely for my own gratification. I would like a place where I could post photos and get feedback – even negative feedback – but every single place I’ve posted you get either fire emojis or crickets; probably because people are too afraid of offending someone.
So I stick to taking pictures I like (or trying to, anyway) and use them as desktops at work, and I make calendars for Christmas gifts for a few people. That’s it.
And I’m ok with that.
Of course, I don’t pronounce any judgments on whether using Topaz is fine or not. But I do believe there is an underlying “freneticism” in the world of photography that pushes people in a way. So, I am not criticizing the application of AI noise reduction in itself; rather, I am criticizing the underlying social effects surrounding the obsession with noise.
Interesting points. For another perspective, my background is rooted in sports and journalism photography. While I understand your comments about how social media bombards us with lots of great photos and encourages us to scroll as quickly as possible, I can’t say I fully agree with your concerns about AI Denoise and losing truth, at least when it comes to sports and journalism photography.
Regarding AI denoise, in sports photography we don’t get to choose the conditions in which the events happen. They often happen at night and in difficult lighting conditions. The choice is either to shoot at ISO 12800+ sometimes or don’t shoot at all, which really isn’t a choice when you’re being paid to document the event. AI denoise has been amazing at making those difficult conditions significantly better that would otherwise make documenting those moments difficult. Just as lens manufacturers creating f/2.8 lenses and camera makers creating sensors that create less noise has made shooting in darker conditions easier, so has AI denoise.
Regarding losing truth in photography, if you’re looking for truth, then I highly recommend following more photojournalists on social media or elsewhere. Photojournalists are trained and held to a high standard of ethics in being truthful in what they document and share. Many of them are also outstanding photographers by any measure. My social media feeds are curated to follow lots of sports photographers and photojournalists who work for newspapers and news magazines, which hasn’t led me to the same concerns about social media photo sharing that you’ve experienced. I suspect such concerns become more readily apparent when following more accounts that are focused on mass appeal.
My advice would be simply if you’re not finding what you want where you’re looking, then look elsewhere. It’s a big world out there and you’ll likely find what you want if you figure out where to look.
Thanks, Ben. I appreciate your comment. But two points:
(1) Regarding AI noise reduction, I didn’t say I didn’t agree with it categorically. But, I do believe the obsession with noise reduction interacts with the phenomena of frenetic photo production. It is why I clarified my statement with my following paragraph saying that one must evaluate the technology against your own personal philosophy.
(2) Regarding truth: My statements were not merely about truth as in accurate photos, or photos which represent the scene. In other words, I tried to stress that I was not talking about individual photos, although that can be included in the discussion.
Instead, I was talking about the overall push to transmit photos that specifically capture likes. While the individual photos themselves might be accurate, in a large number of cases, when they are taken en masse, they were created from an influence that pushes a specific style or total image that goes beyond honesty.
And I absolutely believe that the same problems occur in photojournalism. Yes, the (ethical) photojournalist adheres to a high standard with individual shots, but then again, I don’t find modern media up to a particular high standard when it comes to being socially responsible. Just open the BBC or other news website and it’s again all about clicks. Most news websites do the same, use advertising, and other techniques which results in an emphasis on sensationalism rather than socially responsible reporting.
Perhaps you have found a microcosm where you can go beyond the most basal of social media and that is fine. I’m glad you can enjoy photography in that way. I’ve also found a microcosm as well as I don’t even use most social media platforms.
Nonetheless, my article was about the general and rising phenomena that are caused and mainly benefit our consumerist, global capitalist system that is not terribly healthy. This system includes mass media and photojournalists as well, because it even uses individually-honest people to create a mass cloud of dishonesty.
>> It’s all about volume, which serves its ultimate objective of turning us into mindless automatons consuming content – <<
Very well put. I totally agree. I hope, it is just a phase that will pass, or people are not that dumb, one would hope.
Regarding the’staged’ photo chosen as a winner. In principle, as long as that is not prohibited in the rule of the contest, I do not see staged photos as any lower in its artistic value. There is a slew of great photographs that are staged very meticulously and precisely to achieve the artist’s vision. Problem I saw in the particular case is that there is no rigor. The said photographer just participated and shot in a camera promotional event where the entire setting was created by the event creator. In such case, there is zero creativity in the photographer, and+the award should be given to the event organizer.
Luka
Great article, I completely agree.
Thanks for the encouragement, John!
I feel strongly that Jason would make a superb, much-needed, curator of photography.
Haha, well, probably not. But in any case, I don’t think it is the sheer mass of photographic sharing that is the problem. I wasn’t arguing that photography needs to be more curated, but rather that the mass of photography is being used in a very specific way by big tech in order to change the very nature of photography itself.
So, while photos on social media could still be very good, the way we interact with them is shepherded by the very design of the platform to take away the “human interaction component”, which results in a net social loss, and also a psychological manipulation of what we share in the first place, thus obscuring the true inner nature of the photographers on such platforms.
Let me put it another way…
I’m fortunate to live in an area that has some museums and galleries that put on excellent displays. This excellence is due primarily to the curators, not the individual items on display. These museums and galleries are a sheer delight to visit.
From reading your articles posted on PL, especially this one, I think the future of good photography exhibits would be best served (and preserved) if you were the curator.
That is very kind of you Pete!
A photographer’s reality is what he or she wants to show.
Fred Picker
I believe a more accurate aphorisim would be, “A photographer’s reality is what he or she wants to show, but one must be careful about what one wants, because ‘wants’ can deviate from natural self expression through large-scale psychological manipulation.”
Thank you Jason for expressing your thoughts, which I also agree with.
It’s the same reason why, after years of public projections of my small photographic notes in the film age, I had to start a tiny website, outside the main channels. There you’ll find no info on the equipment used – too much distracting, instead minimal descriptions of the scenes that achieved my attention to collect my photographic note. Then I share specific pages with dear people to get interaction, while the general public can have a look, without advertisements or other money mils behind. It has been my own way to continue on photography.
But your piece, Jason, had also the energy to invite me to share in PL, not elsewhere, my point of view. Thank you again.
I like your approach. Individual sharing like you describe is definitely much more rewarding and gives you more opportunities for meaningful connection for sure. Nice move!
Jason, this is a thoughtful and thought-provoking gem of an article. Thank you for publishing it.
We should not confuse meaningful photos with photos that are successful on social media – where success is not determined by meaningfulness in the first place, but by how well the photo can be commoditized for the benefit of the social media platform’s overlords.
Thanks, Spencer. I appreciate it! Also, I definitely wasn’t trying to imply that photos on social media are always bad or just commercial — there are plenty of good photos there. The only problem is the indiscriminate and aggregate use of them brings about the sort of phenomenon that runs counter to genuine human connections.
Jason, I completely agree.
It’s one of the reasons I enjoy being a wedding photographer so much – that the photos I take will (hopefully) be printed in some format and enjoyed for years to come.
Finding ways to have photos printed can be difficult, but I believe is one solution to the issues you raised. Plus, it’s “completing” the photographic process :)
Great article as always!
That is great. Enjoying printed photos is a good countermeasure. And luckily there still seems to be quite a few decent services for printing.