More images may not always be a good thing…

@mingthein; I’ve been there for about a year or so. Benefits? None that I can see…

Social media = instant updates = easy consumption of new content = necessarily easy production of aforementioned new content. With the proliferation of cameraphones, this is course the era of the snapshot – more so than in the tourist film compact days, because not only does pretty much everybody in the developed world (and much of the developing world*) carry a smartphone; they’ve also been conditioned to use it. When your parents and parents in law -= people previously uninterested in photography beyond normal family documentary – now take more photos than you do with their phones, you know a switch has flipped. But what does this mean for the image-making business and image appreciation as a whole? I have a theory, and I suspect you’re not going to like it.

*In Malaysia, it’s not uncommon to see people earning $700-800 a month before tax but owning the latest iPhone. The mind boggles, since this is easily a purchase that’s two months’ net pay.

The more images are viewed, one would expect that the appreciation of a good/bad image increases to some degree; this is only true if there is conscious evaluation/ appreciation of an image when it is viewed, if even that’s limited to ‘like/dislike’. It is only with some degree of awareness that we can make choices, and preference is of course a precursor to that. Without, more images are nothing but so much white noise: visual bombardment that has the opposite effect, like ubiquitous advertising: we simply ignore it all. I doubt any given advertisement beyond a spare few attract attention beyond an audience that’s already predisposed to being aware of them – either because they’re in the business of making images, or because the product or service is personally appealing.

There are two consequences here: firstly, we only bother viewing images that might appeal to us because of their origin or subject matter, and secondly – more critically – our brains automatically tune out the rest. I think of this as the ‘local resident’ paradox: if you live there, you probably won’t notice the same things as jump out as a visitor who’s never been before. You will, however, notice the small things that matter to you like a change in bus schedule or parking zones or perhaps a new restaurant that serves your favourite cuisine. Note: this information is a visual input, much like images themselves. The visual cortex handles all of this – whether the image is presented in two or three dimensions.

In attempts to reach wider audiences and Sell More Stuff, advertisers attempt to increase reach or impact: most of the time, this means going the tried and tested route: more campaigns, more images, a bigger bang, fireworks and fewer clothes. We get desensitised to this, too – which is why the campaigns that work the best are inevitably the ones nobody expects: they are different. They break pattern, and therefore get noticed – much like that new one way street in your neighbourhood that now means you have to circle two blocks you didn’t before. Bottom line: there are more images, and more elaborate images. These don’t get noticed, but what does is the simple stuff that deviates from the big budget productions because it obviously looks different and breaks pattern. If we see what we expect, we don’t stop to examine it closer; I’ve noticed this in not only my own behaviour, but that of people I know, and random people observed walking past large print media. Since that iPhone campaign was somewhat successful, what happens next is obvious: others attempt to replicate that success by doing the same thing, not realising that it isn’t the presentation or product that created the desired impact, but the fact that it was different.

I think we’re now in the thick of the dog’s breakfast: huge quantity and variety of images, everywhere. It isn’t easy to differentiate because there’s such a wide spread already out there. It is impossible to give more or increase frequency to increase impact, because we’re already pretty much at saturation point. And it’s not just advertisers that do this, either: observe carefully, and see the same behaviour on Facebook or Instagram. The people who are clamouring for attention tend to post the most frequently, and as a result – mostly get ignored or quickly scrolled through, because what they offer is no longer ‘special’ or ‘different’ and assumed to be more of the same. And nobody wants ordinary: advertising has drummed that into us. The ridiculous images – crises, disasters, huge piles of cash, naked women etc – get most play, once again, because the content is different (and not easily replicable). If everybody posted stacks of cash, the one photo of a tree might actually get more attention by virtue of differentiation.

Let’s take Instagram, for example: other than sponsored product or posts, I don’t see anybody making money from it. Yet to feed the legions of followers, one has to continually create content that’s both interesting enough to make your audience want more, and different enough to stand out. Your competition is doing the same thing, too; and it’s all free. which means that there’s no commitment on either side to any party, but there is a ceiling to what resources may be expended on chasing the next follower. Personally, I’m nowhere near the point where people are throwing free stuff at me to use and be seen using; I arrived late to the party because I didn’t see the point initially. I honestly still don’t, but maintaining the channel is both somewhat expected (because everybody else is doing it) and because of all the social media, it requires about the least attention on my part.

Here’s the crux of it all: more isn’t better. More desensitises us, them and everybody else; it makes the audience go ‘next!’, and not pay attention. Different and unique makes us pay attention, but I think it could be argued that different merely for the sake of different doesn’t constitute better or interesting, either. The upshot of all of this is a little bit depressing for those of us in the image-making business: the proliferation of visual media has paradoxically had a negative effect on the industry. Saturation has meant no greater awareness, and if anything, greater ability to ignore or tune out or quickly gloss over anything visual; this leading to a reduction in ability to differentiate between chocolate and mud. Mud is good enough, because at a quick glance – it’s all the same. On top of that, I’m finding a disturbing trend both personally and related to me by other professional friends here: a lot of calls for pitches and creative meetings, which we attend and support because work might come out of it, but then those ideas being farmed and given to the lowest bidder and poorly executed; a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Many years ago, I was hoping that the increase in visual stimulation amongst as greater section of the population would lead to increased appreciation for photography and – hopefully – a renaissance of the skilled portion of the industry, against the $100/day part time wedding and event shooters – but I fear this is even less likely to be the case than ever. It doesn’t help that there are simply so many things competing for our attention and increasingly limited time – for most, the payoff against effort for increasing erudition in any one area simply isn’t worthwhile; it’s scalpel vs Swiss Army Knife again. Instant gratification is of course unsustainable on an ongoing basis – whether it’s consumer goods or education or intellectual satisfaction. I don’t think long term survival as an image maker is contingent on knowing what to do now: it lies in figuring out where the next evolution in popular trends lie, and where to be positioned for that. Two things are for sure: there’s only so far we can turn the dial past 11 before it breaks, and going to 11.1 requires exponentially more effort than 11. MT

__________________

Visit the Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including workshop and Photoshop Workflow videos and the customized Email School of Photography. You can also support the site by purchasing from B&H and Amazon – thanks!

We are also on Facebook and there is a curated reader Flickr pool.

Images and content copyright Ming Thein | mingthein.com 2012 onwards. All rights reserved