Showing posts with label Photography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Photography. Show all posts

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Acknowledgements

I finished reading Liz Gilbert's Broken Spears a photo book about Maasai life in the first decade of the twenty first century. It's a beautiful book with amazing black and white photos, the majority taken on Kodak film. I turned to the last page of acknowledgements and on the left page it says, "Elizabeth L. Gilbert's travels across Maasailand were generously sponsored by Corbis and the Eastman Kodak Company."

Not very long ago Kodak's professional film division sponsored many photographers; supporting them in their journalistic and artistic endeavors with money, film, and film processing. I'm proud to have been part of an organization that helped connect people to each other and the world through powerful photographic images. Web sites like KickStarter now provide some financial support (I received Broken Spears by giving money to Gilbert's The Last Safari film project) but they require a lot of work, essentially an artist builds a marketing campaign usually with "gifts" that are made or purchased then shipped to people who pledge specific amounts of money. This new support for the arts is in some ways better (everyone, or at least those with money, can take part) and also worse (risky or unusual projects aren't likely to raise the money they need). Next week when Kodak ceases to exist it will be the end of the "Film Age" and the beginning of another age in photography. The next photographic age starts with amazing creative potential but it's hard to imagine smart phone manufacturers supporting professional photographers in the same ways that Kodak did.

You can still find the Kodak interview with Liz Gilbert on YouTube (and interviews with many other photographers as well).

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Prints can't be hacked

When Mat Honan's GMail, Twitter, and ICloud accounts were hacked he lost all the photos stored on his Mac, IPhone and IPad.

"My MacBook data — including those irreplaceable pictures of my family, of my child’s first year and relatives who have now passed from this life — weren’t the target. Nor were the eight years of messages in my Gmail account. The target was always Twitter. My MacBook data was torched simply to prevent me from getting back in."

Two factor authentication would have helped prevent his accounts from being compromised, but if your photos are important then you should make prints. Mat mentions the loss of these photos four times in his article, even asking the hacker if he feels remorse for causing them to be deleted. Obviously they were very important. Yes prints can be damaged or lost, but it's another preventive step in preserving the photos that are so important to you.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

American success

I wrote this about two weeks ago but didn't publish it then because it didn't feel very personal, today I'm pulling the lever anyway.
Sunset over Kodak III

Sunset over Kodak III

By almost any standard Kodak has been hugely successful even if its present status is painful for current employees, like me, and investors. Kodak (for at least its first 115 years) grew from a small business into one the US's pre-eminent corporations. It is probably fair to say that George Eastman and his company built the modern city of Rochester. For the citizens of that city and the surrounding communities it provided good jobs for tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people. Mr. Eastman believed in research and development and for decades Kodak spent a lot of money on research, some of it commercially motivated, some "pure."

This is not to imply that there weren't problems; probably the largest that lingers is pollution from the first half of the twentieth century. Also for a long time there was discrimination against anyone that was not a white male, the only defense being that it probably was not unique to Kodak.

That said this is about successes. Kodak has been in existence since 1880. Studies analyzing the longevity of major modern corporations indicate that most last for a few decades before failing or being absorbed into another business. For most of Kodak's lifetime its stock was a solid investment paying generous and consistent dividends. It manufactured high-quality products used by discerning professionals in a variety of photographic fields. For much of the twentieth century any famous photograph or motion picture was probably made using Kodak products from film to paper to chemistry. The research labs consistently produced innovations in chemistry that helped Kodak create new products. If you wanted to do research in chemistry a job at Kodak meant access to first-rate labs without the need to deal with academic administration. Lately the story of Steve Sasson inventing the digital camera has gotten a lot of media attention and probably deservedly so, but Kodak's expertise in creating crystals and laying down lots of super-thin layers onto a substrate are probably its most important contributions to industry (and surprisingly relevant to manufacturing all kinds of films and flexible materials).

Philanthropically Kodak and its people have been a huge force in Rochester and around the US: George Eastman was an anonymous donor (until recently revealed) to MIT and other academic institutions. Without Mr. Eastman the University of Rochester, its dental school, The Eastman School of Music, the Rochester Institute of Technology, and the Eastman Theater either wouldn't exist or would be much smaller than they are today. Kodak's employees donated time and money to Rochester's United Way and many other local charities.

For those of us that work at Kodak and for prior employees the last ten to fifteen years have been very difficult. A lot of time has been spent inside and out of Kodak discussing who to blame for the decisions that have led to today's low stock price. But I have come to the conclusion that to a large degree Kodak's problems are photography's problems. In the early 1990s you would have needed amazing prescience to foresee how rapidly film would decline. The only popular digital media at the time was CD and those were for distribution of a heavily produced musical product, not a capture medium. Even as digital camera sales grew, changing to be a camera manufacturer would have been extremely difficult. Kodak only made cameras to sell film, and companies that made cameras often produced superior products. Kodak had imaging knowledge, but its R&D and manufacturing was oriented towards chemistry, not electronics (though it had some very smart people working on electronic imaging and amassed valuable intellectual property, e.g. the Bayer Pattern).

As of today the business and art of photography has undergone a very rapid and dramatic change. Photographers have a harder time attracting business and make less money from what they do get, often selling all the rights to the images, which would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. Some photographic manufacturers like Minolta have disappeared, put out of business by low-cost manufacturers in China and other parts of Asia. Even those manufacturers that still exist are under extereme pressure. Canon and Nikon make most of their moneu on low-end consumer cameras and those sales have been reduced because of mobile phone cameras. Probably the only businesses seeing growth in production are the manufacturers of phone camera assemblies, and I expect their profits per assembly are small.

So amidst all the bad news about Kodak it's worth remembering that Kodak did very well for a lot of people for a long time. I suppose that eventually businesses like human beings slow down and die, but we don't think of people as failures because they weren't immortal. We remember their vitality, and maybe even try to emulate their better traits. So I'd propose that despite the last ten years or so we remember that Kodak has been a phenomenal success.

P.S. This is not a eulogy for Kodak. I don't expect the company to disappear, but I do expect that the next Kodak will be very different from the one I grew up with and work for today.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Christmas Statistics

Statistics for photo Christmas cards and enclosed photos that I received this year.

Prints per paper manufacturer:

  • Fuji: 5
  • Kodak: 2
  • HP: 1

Square inches of paper per manufacturer:

  • Fuji: 108.5
  • Kodak: 26.25
  • HP: 24

Retailer:

  • studio: 4
  • Walmart: 2
  • Walgreens: 2

The smallest prints were made by photo studios and these accounted for all the Kodak prints. The largest prints were greeting cards made at Walmart and were on Fuji and HP paper.

This is consistent with my anecdotal observations of the past several years. Most of them appear to have been made in a store rather than ordered online. Draw your own conclusions.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Shooting the Moon

"I'm in the wrong place!" I thought angrily. How could it be that after hours of preparation my photo of the "super moon" was probably not going to happen as planned? The modern technology I had employed to try to capture the best shot had failed me.

I started the day with a list of locations in Rochester that I thought might be good for shooting the moon. Each one was previewed and mapped out with Google Earth. The KML file with the locations was transferred to my phone and Dan O. and I went to each site in turn assessing it for a suitable foreground with the proper orientation. The first sign of trouble happened early when the phone's compass and sky map applications failed to calibrate properly. In the morning I had determined that the moon would rise at about ten degrees south of east but since the compass wasn't working it was difficult to visualize exactly where that was.

After visiting all the locations only one seemed to hold any promise, and we weren't really happy with it. In the end we decided to scrap the urban concept and photograph in Mendon Ponds Park. That afternoon I spent another two hours with Google Earth trying to find the most likely locations that fit our criteria: some sort of vegetation or other detail in the immediate foreground, water in the middle ground (but not a vast expanse) and hillside trees in the distance. Several places along the south west edge of Hundred Acre Pond seemed our best bet.

Scouting Super Moon Locations
Dan and Sarah at the edge of Hundred Acre Pond in Mendon Ponds Park.
Dan, Sarah and I got to the park about an hour before moonrise and geared up to scout out locations. Along the way we were distracted by four deer running just uphill of us across the West Esker and a beaver swimming along the edge of the pond. After surveying the area I decided to set up my tripod at the narrow channel that divides Hundred Acre Pond and Deep Pond. Dan decided to try his luck further back along the edge of the pond.

Here I was waiting and wondering when the moon would finally rise above the small hill in the east when I realized that there was a definite glow about 20 degrees to the right from where, based on my jittery phone compass, I had expected the moon to rise. The view in that direction was blocked by dense tree growth. I grabbed up my tripod, Sarah got the pack and we hustled back to where I thought I could get a better shot, but it was too late. The moon was already off the horizon there and I had no foreground detail at all, I might as well have taken pictures of the moon from just outside my front door.

I worked my way over to Dan who had managed to find a location with cattails, water, and distant trees. As I muttered about my poor photographic skills I started to look around (always a good idea for a photographer) and I had a sudden revelation: with the bright light I could make some landscape photographs illuminated by the moonlight and with stars overhead.

Hundred Acre Pond: Orion
Constellation Orion over Mendon Ponds Park lit by "super moon" light.
After a few experimental exposures I began photographing the pond with the Big Dipper hanging directly above. Right away I felt that I had something good here, maybe even better than a photo of the moon itself. After an hour or so of shooting with one final stop for a photo of Orion striding above the pond as though in pursuit of the deer we saw earlier, we piled our gear into the car and headed off to dinner. By the end it turned out to be a very satisfying evening of photography, nature, and friends. Next time though I'm bringing some ancient technology - a compass and a map.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Kodachrome and Analog Obsolescence

Perhaps you remember or have heard of film, specifically the film called Kodachrome? Well tomorrow is the last day to get it developed, and you'll need to get it to Dwayne's Photo Lab in Kansas to have it done. Starting January 1, 2011 any pictures taken on undeveloped Kodachrome film will be lost forever. This got me thinking about the angst over digital storage, when file formats become obsolete and unsupported the information in them will effectively disappear. This is the first time I recall that something similar is happening to photographic analog storage.

Black and white film or other color film has always been fairly easy to develop in a small darkroom at home but the Kodachrome development process is complex and requires very strict process control. There has never been a Kodachrome home development kit, and there never will be. In this way undeveloped Kodachrome film is like digital media: it requires a complex infrastructure to retrieve the image data. However unlike undeveloped film (with its invisible latent image1) developed Kodachrome film is like any other photographic film, all that's needed to "retrieve" the image data is light. Magnifying the image helps too.

Of course there are many photographic capture processes that are no longer available. The difference between all those other processes and Kodachrome is popularity. Kodachrome was the first color process widely adopted by both professionals and consumers. It was also the primary media for capturing color images for decades. Millions, if not billions, of rolls of film were sold and I am fairly certain that thousands of rolls that were exposed but never developed exist around the world.

The well-known "Zapruder Film" of the Kennedy assassination was taken with a movie camera loaded with Kodachrome2. If there is any undiscovered footage taken on that day in that location it was also probably captured on Kodachrome film. If such a film is found in the future it will be difficult, if not impossible, to see those images. And there is no chance of any such film being discovered accidentally simply because a roll of film was found in a drawer and developed.

There were earlier commercially viable color processes, but none were as robust as Kodachrome. For example if you see any color film or photos taken during World War II you are more than likely looking at very early Kodachrome which was only available to the military. Widespread adoption by consumers started after the war giving Kodachrome a lifespan of about 65 years. Any photographs captured on it during that time, but undeveloped will effectively cease to exist in two days. For photographers I think there is one obvious lesson: make prints. Regardless of capture media, film3 or digital, you should print any images you want to be seen in the future. I acknowledge that prints can fail as well, either through physical damage or fading. But if you use good quality ink and paper and store them reasonably the prints have a chance of at least outlasting you. Just keep in mind that viewing prints doesn't require any complicated hardware or software, just light, and that's pretty much guaranteed to be abundantly available for the next five billion years.

1 - Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861693039/latent_image.html)
2 - I just assumed that it was, but here's a citation: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film)
3 - Yes I know there are a few of you still using transparency film and that you don't need prints to see them but almost all exposures these days are digital, and should be printed.

Monday, November 22, 2010

"We were very excited. . ."

". . .to see what you brought in to the show today. Where did you get this?

"I bought it at an estate sale."

"And how much did you pay?"

"Not much, a few dollars."

"Well a hundred years ago back at the beginning of the twenty first century, when disks like this could be had for a few pennies, pennies still existed then, digital photos could be stored on disks like this one. This disk happens to have the very best pictures of this noted photographer. Had you ever heard of him before?"

"No I hadn't."

"Well I'm not surprised most of his work was stored digitally and it was one of those pockets of information that was lost during the 'Great Data Conversion' of 2054. Unfortunately we don't have any of his pictures to show but according to accounts his pictures of evening landscapes have the most beautiful colors, like a Parrish painting. The composition and control of contrast in his photos are stunning though the digital screen images lack the punch of his prints. His photos of people from around the world increased their understanding of each other. He was a true master of the art but he rarely printed anything.

Now until recently we had a player for these disks but unfortunately it didn't survive being beamed here from Earth, a few of its atoms got scattered across space.

If you had brought in one of the few surviving prints made by this artist we'd be talking about some serious money right now. The disk does have a few condition issues -"

"We used to play with it as kids, rolling it down the stairs and such."

"OK, unfortunately with no way to actually view the pictures on it it doesn't have much appeal to collectors. What do you think it's worth?"

"Well I, I have no idea I've never had it appraised - er, no one has looked at it. That's why I brought it in."

"OK. Well after consulting with my colleagues, and we had quite a bit of discussion about this, I would estimate it's value to be about the same as the recycle value."

"And that would be?"

"Worthless."

"I'm sorry did you say priceless?"

No, worthless. The disk is authentic and the pictures are certainly stored on the disk but all the value is in the images, not in unviewable binary representations of them. But thanks so much for bringing this in, it was a real treat to see it. Thanks!"

Friday, August 20, 2010

Rant About Buying a Photo Backpack

I'm convinced there is no perfect photo backpack, only almost-but-not-quite-right packs. This explains my growing collection of photo-gear lugging-gear. Each backpack seems to have at least one flaw that prevents it from achieving backpack nirvana. Also I'm not into the giant packs, I really need about 715 cubic inches of space (W11" x D5" x H13") plus a pocket for a laptop. I'm using the pack to transport my photo equipment by car or plane; on arrival I'll unload chargers, cables, laptop, etc. to use it for an eight-to-ten-hour day of shooting and I'll be carrying it for about a third of that time.

So I'm looking for a new backpack and have decided this is what manufacturers need to show their customers (people doing online video reviews should do the same):

  • The very first photo should be of someone who is 5' 10" in height wearing the backpack so I can get a feel for the size. Printing the exterior dimensions with a photo of the pack sitting on a white seamless background isn't good enough.
  • The next photo should show the same person wearing the pack with the waist straps in use. Far too many packs have useless waist straps because they are too high above my hips (and I'm average height).
  • While you're at it hook up the sternum strap.
  • Are the eyelets of the zippers big enough so that a TSA sanctioned lock will fit through them to secure the pack?
  • Show the pack with a tripod that extends to 60" (without the centerpost being raised) clipped into place. Three or four leg sections, your choice.
Of course show the obligatory pack laden with glittering lenses picture, but everyone can do that, I mean, it is a photo backpack right? And if it isn't obvious the features mentioned in the list above are almost required for me to buy the pack (but I'll probably compromise, see paragraph one above about fatal flaws). Lastly, if you want to delight your customers ship each pack with a pocket for a water bottle, and a bottle, that would be perfect!

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Squelch Kings of Maine

They have been burning rubber in Maine as long as I can remember. My grandfather called them "figure 8s." My Maine cousins called them "squelch marks" (written English does not even come close to conveying the proper pronunciation of "squelch," to say it properly involves copious amounts of air and saliva). Squelch marks should never be confused with skid marks; skid marks are caused by braking so hard that the tires lock up. Squelch marks happen when the tires of a vehicle get spinning so fast that they heat up and melt. As a tire becomes softer from the heat it begins to grip the road enough to drive the vehicle forward, but it still spins faster than the vehicle is moving so it leaves a layer of rubber behind. As the vehicle catches up with the tire there is less slipping so the tire cools, and eventually the squelch fades out. The other thing to note in this squelch tutorial is that with the rear tires slipping they tend to also move sideways as they push the heavy front of the vehicle. As the driver steers to correct his course (if he can) it causes the marks to wander back and forth often forming a gentle sine wave. It is common to find two marks made near each other weaving back and forth, if done with skill the two marks will cross each other, appearing like two twisted threads or a series of 8s strung together. Now you understand the basics of burning rubber.
Route 176 South Mile 14
The longest and darkest squelch marks I can recall. These were not created at the same time.

We drove to Maine earlier this summer and arrived in Blue Hill very early in the morning, still it was light enough to see that there were some very recently laid down and impressive squelch marks. It occurred to me that they might make an interesting series of photographs. I remember thinking two things about how the photos should be made: they should be black and white, and the light should be thin overcast, not direct sunlight. By the time I was able to schedule the shoot I had limited time and the light was alternating between direct noon sunlight and shadow caused by a passing cloud. I made a loop of routes 176 and 172 looking for the best marks and I photographed four different ones that day, but only two resulted in pictures worth displaying. I've learned that the best pictures have the road converging on the horizon with two marks. Of the two rejects one has very good light and the road converges with just a slight curve but there is only a single mark and it is to the side of the right lane. When I took the photo I stood far off the center of the road and the picture looks unbalanced. The other photograph was made on a curve and the road arcs from one side of the scene to the other. The resulting picture looks like a rather pedestrian photo of a road.

Route 176 South Mile 9
These marks were created at the same time, both rear tires are spinning which is unusual with modern vehicles.

All of my "fine art" pictures are heavily manipulated, though they don't often look like it (I'm ambivalent about this result, I spend a lot of time trying to get a print that matches how I previsualized the scene, and in the end it's difficult for a viewer to see the work that went into the image). These images have had local and global contrast changes. Some regions have been lightened or darkened, but the marks themselves have not been specifically altered. I've had the prints on display for two days at work and often the first question is, "what did you do to the skid marks?" After I explain that they are not skid marks (see paragraph one) my answer is, "nothing." They really were this dark.

Now I think that each year I will have to do a squelch mark survey of routes 176 and 172 to keep adding to my collection. Maybe someday there will be a squelch retrospective in the Surry Community Hall. I like to think that a fabled Squelch King will recognize his handiwork and proudly claim it as his own, and on that day I can ask the question that has been on my mind many years now, "How can you afford to wreck tires like that?"

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Gorham Mountain Under the Stars

It is difficult to understate the beauty of Maine's Atlantic coast. This thin strip of land at the continent's frontier winds along for thousands of miles. Where the tide rises and falls much of this ever-changing line is defined by a meeting of water and rock. Not far east of where the Penobscot River nearly divides the state's coast in half is Mount Desert Island, here the waves unfurl against pink granite. The island rises steeply out of the water and is divided into a series of glacially sculpted north to south running mountains separated by valleys. Gorham Mountain is on the east shore of the island, its pine-forested ocean-side flank runs down to Frenchman Bay where many of Acadia National Park's most well-known natural features are found.

Of Mount Desert Island's eminences Gorham is unlikely to be listed among the most well-known peaks. It is far from the tallest mountain, Cadillac towers above it by more than a thousand feet. It does not have any trails with challenges like Champlain's Precipice Trail or The Beehive's south face trail. However, while it is difficult to quantify its panoramic beauty, there is no doubt that the vista of forest and ocean that can be seen from just south of the summit is among the best places to experience what makes Mount Desert so unique. From where the summit begins to drop away in a series of jointed steps the eastern and southern sides of the island where the mountain disappears into the sea can be seen including Sand Beach, Otter Point, and Seal Cove.

But the view is only part of what makes Gorham Mountain an ideal place for nighttime photography; on summer evenings the Milky Way is in the south over the ocean. The peak, behind and to the north, casts a long dark shadow where the lights of Bar Harbor and Ellsworth are blotted out. The distance from the nearest parking to the summit is not far and takes only minutes to hike.

Gorham Mountain Trail starts at the Park Loop Road and proceeds up the south ridge of the mountain. This same ridge with a trail riding it continues on from Gorham's summit where it joins with The Beehive. From this point the ridge pushes north to the height of Champlain Mountain. If Cadillac Mountain is the king of Mount Desert then Champlain is its powerful queen. Champlain commands the north and east sides of the island with its challenging trails to the summit and an all-encompassing view of Frenchman Bay.

The sun is just setting as we begin to head up the trail. From the parking lot the trail ascends over ledges and eroded dips, at the bronze Bates marker it splits into parallel trails that merge back together near the summit; we take the upper trail. As we get near the summit the trees become more scattered and shorter, we are entering the typical approach to the bare peak of a Mount Desert Island mountain. The granite here is scoured and undulating, low spots accumulate sand, pine needles, and water. In other places a thin layer of sandy soil, home to wild Blue Berries and small Pitch Pines, perches atop the stone.

Near the peak at the edge of a small ledge I begin scouting the terrain looking for the best location to make a long exposure photograph of the Milky Way; it needs the right balance between foreground granite, middle ground forest and water, and distant sky. I try to envision the trailing glow of the Milky Way arching overhead in the dark however I am distracted by the inauspicious fog that is pushing north up the bay and beginning to climb into the sky. The fog, rising like a breaking wave, smashes the original plan; the Milky Way will be hidden tonight behind clouds.

Turning from the southeast to the west the sky is clear and dark blue now that the sun is well down. Only thin wisps of cloud float like streamers. Saturn blazes near the horizon and the brightest stars are making their appearances. I decide to try to photograph in this direction; I compose the image of coniferous trees and azure sky then begin making test exposures. After half an hour the lingering twilight has evaporated into the black of night and I start the camera operating on its own. Now there is only waiting.

Gorham Mountain Evening Sky
Stars Over Gorham Mountain

Sarah and I lie on the rock by the edge and look straight up into the starry sky. The bell buoy marking The Thrumcap rings out a muted warning as it is rocked gently by an unusually placid ocean. A separate beat is played out by the legato rasp and then staccato thump of waves breaking on the sloping granite below. The crash of each wave can be felt, as much as heard, through the ground beneath us. I press a hand flat against the rough surface. The granite is comfortably warm, emitting the heat it absorbed all day under the sun. Overhead the stars circle imperceptibly and I consider how it is that of all the light that has left their surfaces these tiny amounts have travelled from distant space and deep time to form the beautiful night sky I see above me. My perception of Gorham Mountain, of its enormous size and solidity changes, and the mountain shrinks becoming infinitesimal. My view of the universe has become boundless and I feel as if I will float off of the mountain into space if I don't hold on tightly.

Finally all the pictures that can be made tonight are finished. Reluctantly we get out our lights and I pack the equipment, putting away the camera and collapsing the tripod; I slip my arms into the straps of the camera pack and we start descending. With headlamps we can only see a dozen or so feet in front of us. On heavily trafficed rocky ground it can be difficult to be certain where the trail is, so we stop fairly often to locate a cairn or blaze to be certain we have not wandered off course. Below the treeline it doesn't feel as if the warm air is moving at all, and the forest is absolutely quiet, the only sound is from our boots scuffing the ground. At last the sign marking the trail head comes into view; we haven't encountered another person the entire time, and our time spent with ocean, mountain, and stars is ended.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

flickr Gratification

As a photographer there are a lot of good reasons for using flickr. The most important being that your work can be seen by a lot of people. The social networking aspects of flickr mean that your friends and family can be notified about your new pictures automatically. More importantly however, by joining a "group" and then submitting an image to that group it will be seen by a large number of group members beyond your personal contacts.

untitled
"untitled" - latest, or so, picture posted to flickr. Honestly, what do you think?

It's possible for viewers of images to leave feedback in comments and to also use a box on the image itself to make notes. This is a powerful combination for getting critical feedback about what a photographer is doing well, and what might need improvement. Unfortunately this most powerful capability is almost never used effectively. Why? Because there are almost no critical comments of posted photographs.

Selecting one of the most interesting pictures (determined by flickr) will probably reveal a lengthy list of adjective-based comments: "Great!", "Nice!", "Awesome!" Along with a large number of invitations to add the picture to some group or other, probably a group that uses emoticons and multiple "!" in the name. (Incidentally, I have observed that even pictures with a banal subject, uninspiring light and a poor choice of framing will get fawning praise if they have over the top image processing and a black border applied) There will be very few comments that focus on specific aspects such as, "The catch-light in the eye really makes it pop." that help the photographer know what they are doing right. There will be no critical comments pointing out failures in the picture. Of course criticism is more helpful, because it helps the photographer identify areas that need improvement, or avenues of artistic exploration that are dead-ends. I know many people are initially hurt by critical comments, especially if they have spent considerable time working on a picture, but I think that eventually an artist desires critical feedback, because it's the only way to decide if what they are doing effectively conveys their message to an audience.

I myself have been guilty of leaving simplistic comments, though I usually attempt to articulate what I like about a picture. But isn't it time for considerate honesty? If flickr members aren't critical in their feedback of one another, then a large part of flickr's promise (to become a better photographer) goes unfulfilled. Personally, if you're going to leave a comment for one of my photographs explain what you do or don't like about it, just don't use "Awesome!"