# Is exposure to and study of good photography a bad thing?



## Overread

A while ago I tried to join into a gaming group, they were a fun friendly group of players of a decent number and a whole spread of ages. However despite their friendly nature I didn't stick it out with the group and there was a reason for that - they were too good and a touch too focused on the competitive side. 

It made me start to think if this isn't perhaps a problem with photography in todays world, especially online. Certainly being around peers who have superior skill can inspire; it can push a person to improve to reach that similar standard. Indeed I would not be one to disagree that exposure to superior works is a beneficial thing and that without it one can end up setting a lower standard than ones full potential. 


However I wonder if many of us have gotten too much of this. That we are bombarded by such a volume of quality, of inspiration and of skill that we end up losing focus and that former motivation starts to dwindle away. I feel that many times we lack that contemporary grouping, those who are of a similar skill and experience set of our own. A grouping within which we can rise to the fore within our own niche, where we can see measured improvement in our own work against others and also see their measured changes as well. 

Instead we are left still struggling to grasp the slippery rope and pull ourselves up to our peers level so that they might become our contemporaries. That we might "rub shoulders" with them and feel a part of that system; socially contributing and being acknowledged.


Now many might say to this that it doesn't matter, that you shoot for you and you alone. But I don't think that is always true, we do shoot for ourselves (unless we are paid or have other motives); but I think that being social creatures we also like to share and feel that we contribute to the group(s) we are within as well. That we have something to offer, something that makes us stand out, even if just a little. 

Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.


----------



## shefjr

Overread said:


> ...
> 
> Now many might say to this that it doesn't matter, that you shoot for you and you alone. But I don't think that is always true, we do shoot for ourselves (unless we are paid or have other motives); but I think that being social creatures we also like to share and feel that we contribute to the group(s) we are within as well. That we have something to offer, something that makes us stand out, even if just a little.
> 
> Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.



I agree that I shoot for more than just me. I enjoy the compliments received by family and friends. The problem for me then becomes something I have read over and over again here on TPF. "Family and friends  are always going to say your photos are beautiful" which means to me that my photo still stink. I just mentioned this the other day to my sister. I told her if there been some sort of critique from her first that I might have considered her opinion to be more valuable.

For me personally I do feel overwhelmed looking at stuff like 500px and even much of the photographs posted up here. The inspiration sort of ran out (overtime) and became a thought that there is so much greatness out there how could I impress or gain any compliments from other photographers.


----------



## Designer

Not so I can notice.


----------



## waday

Sites like 500px and Flickr and others are tools for me, rather than a constant social setting. In other words, I only visit when I want inspiration. For example, if I'm going on vacation to a beach, I'll look up photos of that location or of pictures people took at beaches to get inspiration of what I want to shoot. Not for emulation, but inspiration.

If people are constantly looking at other photos rather than taking their own, I can absolutely see how others' 'superior skills' would dampen my inspiration and make me feel like my work was crap. But, good thing for me, I don't care about others' work as much as I do my own work.

Instagram is different for me. I like to share my photos there, whether taken with a cell phone or my camera. Whether heavily processed or #nofilter (I actually hate that hashtag, by the way). It's a way to keep in touch with friends, mostly.

Social Media Effect. People post only their best to look the best on the net--promote your brand, expand your network. It's one place where one can actually shape their personality to fit their mind's perception, so to speak. Portray something different.. a hyper-idealistic version of ourselves. Ok, I'll stop paraphrasing the article now.


----------



## KenC

I don't know.  First of all, in any endeavor there will be an ample supply of superior work.  Many of us started looking at work by the "masters" in museums, books, etc. soon after we developed an interest in photography, and this served just to inspire us to try harder.  I suppose there may have been people who were discouraged, but it's difficult to see how they could get started on anything.  If you're saying that it's harder now with access to so much on the internet, perhaps there's something to that, but we also see a much larger volume of junk than we used to, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.

Second, there is a pretty large community on here with a wide variety of skill levels and interests, so anyone can find a sort of compatible sub-group.  Often I see the bird photographers commenting on each others' work more than others will comment on it, and ditto for portrait photographers, etc.  This happens in other places as well, like camera clubs and meet-up groups.  I've found that people sometimes move on from those when their work improves, so the range of skill levels doesn't get too broad.

The overly competitive atmosphere you encountered is not helpful in photography, imo.  Camera clubs are pretty bad that way.  Some of them seem to think that competitions improve everyone's work.  They may be a motivation, but critique sessions could do that just as well, because everyone still sees your work and no one wants to look bad.  If the critique is not anonymous then it would be even more motivating.  If done properly, in a positive and constructive way, critique shouldn't intimidate those who are not as skilled.  I'm in a critique group which has everything from professionals doing really high-quality stuff to amateurs who are still learning and no one feels out of place there.


----------



## bribrius

this is competitive?  I pretty much just am content tooling around taking photos. Competitive doesn't sound good. Sounds like a sport where you have to follow all these rules and there is something to win.
I feel like i win just taking photos of my kids.  Lot of it is the internet. People have more exposure now to more work. They should relax, have fun, go take a photo of a bird in their backyard or something. If it stops being fun there isn't any point in doing it.


----------



## bribrius

KenC said:


> I don't know.  First of all, in any endeavor there will be an ample supply of superior work.  Many of us started looking at work by the "masters" in museums, books, etc. soon after we developed an interest in photography, and this served just to inspire us to try harder.  I suppose there may have been people who were discouraged, but it's difficult to see how they could get started on anything.  If you're saying that it's harder now with access to so much on the internet, perhaps there's something to that, but we also see a much larger volume of junk than we used to, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.
> 
> Second, there is a pretty large community on here with a wide variety of skill levels and interests, so anyone can find a sort of compatible sub-group.  Often I see the bird photographers commenting on each others' work more than others will comment on it, and ditto for portrait photographers, etc.  This happens in other places as well, like camera clubs and meet-up groups.  I've found that people sometimes move on from those when their work improves, so the range of skill levels doesn't get too broad.
> 
> The overly competitive atmosphere you encountered is not helpful in photography, imo.  Camera clubs are pretty bad that way.  Some of them seem to think that competitions improve everyone's work.  They may be a motivation, but critique sessions could do that just as well, because everyone still sees your work and no one wants to look bad.  If the critique is not anonymous then it would be even more motivating.  If done properly, in a positive and constructive way, critique shouldn't intimidate those who are not as skilled.  I'm in a critique group which has everything from professionals doing really high-quality stuff to amateurs who are still learning and no one feels out of place there.


meh, i don't understand the competitive atmosphere at all. Unless you are getting paid to do it, who cares.  Learn as you go, do as you want, improve to whatever you can and treasure your photos and just the fact of DOING it.


----------



## soufiej

Overread said:


> A while ago I tried to join into a gaming group, they were a fun friendly group of players of a decent number and a whole spread of ages. However despite their friendly nature I didn't stick it out with the group and there was a reason for that - they were too good and a touch too focused on the competitive side ...
> 
> 
> ... Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.





Quite honestly, that sounds like you're about to put forward a bill to cut arts funding in public schools. 

It's rare that I do not find such hypotheticals to be based on the flawed assumption we are all alike.  What one of us feels is what all of us must feel.  How one of us assimilates, we all must assimilate.  If one of us is overwhelmed, we must all be overwhelmed. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

It could be said, with some degree of absolute truthfulness I think, that Americans exist in a highly competitive society.  Compete or be left behind.  Live the America Dream and you'll get ahead.  Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.  We've all heard these cultural memes.  We inherently reject the idea, "Sit on your worthless butt and we'll do it all for you".  We are, as a whole, an "inspired" society. 

Those well worn phrases also ignore the simple fact we are all individuals with our own individual aspirations and conditions.  Our own "place in life".  It is, of course, the most competitive among us who will, with a straight face, say, "Being an American means being your own self, with the liberty to decide your own future", and then follow that up with, "All Americans want to live the Dream."



The politics of any social group means we must, if we are to function as a group, live with the fact they will attract a variety of individuals.  Join an animal rescue group with only the good intentions of personally doing what is best for the animals and it won't be long before you come to realize that organization is being run by the most political individuals of the group.  Go to a new church for the first time and by the second time you'll be met by some committee leaders urging you to do something for Jesus.  Anyone ever hear a description of being in a fraternity of so called brothers and thinking, "You're f'ing kidding me?!" 

In anything "good" you will find those who prefer to make everything a blood sport and raise the competitive engagement to absurd degrees.  You must decide to join in or go away for your own good.  Which action you choose is - hopefully - your own decision.  I certainly have experienced the enjoyment sucking experience of a group joined in the hopes of shared experience turned into a daily, if not hourly, battle for my own sanity.  And often, such food fights begin with a simple disagreement over some subjective value to which there is no right and wrong.   Or a clear case of someone doing a major CYA and you are the unfortunate, unwitting scapegoat.  However, it's then common that a small group will form on one side to take down anyone who gets in their way.  That is not inspiration, that is desperation. 

We've probably all experienced this in some on line forum where anonymity breeds rudeness which "inspires" and then feeds on a mob mentality. 

And, of course, saying that, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone here. 

But, too much inspiration?  How is that possible?  I can understand too much fake inspiration.  I can comprehend the idea too much of what we are exposed to is crap masquerading as inspired art.  That we are manipulated by the demo(n)graphic group some computer program has assigned to us.  That too much really does diminish the small amount which makes up the very best.  And that when the weedy mulch is piled higher and higher, it all turns into compost.   And, as the saying goes, "Compost happens".  But that too is a problem of the individual being capable or incapable of seeing what is of value and ignoring the rest, not simply of too much of everything.  Even the most noxious of weeds eventually returns to the soil.  What comes from the dirt goes back to the dirt.  

It is not, IMO, a matter of whether you engage in photography only for yourself.  It is a matter of how you live your life for only yourself.  I've worked in a sales staff with one individual who claimed his father once told him second place was just first among all the losers.   He was consumed with winning everything.  You either got sucked down in his wake or you swam off in your own direction.  Competing with him was, IMO, stupid.  To do so you had to operate just as he did.  Better IMO to use what gifts I had to do what I did best.  He was not too much inspiration, he simply was.  We became good friends and to this day joke about our individual ways of working.  For both of us to do so, however, we had to rely on our own inner workings to see the other not as someone to be beaten down but someone to be raised up.  Though we were polar opposites in style, neither had a reason to distrust the other.  We both learned from each other and became individually better for that.  I could though, to this day, never be what he is nor do as he does and vice versa.   

No, there is never "too much" inspiration.  There is only the inability to see the competition for anything more than blind competition.  To see everything as the spec in your eye which will quickly blind you to the real inspirations around you.  We've probably all had an instructor who inspired us at some point.  I know one of my most inspirational teachers failed to play the game and he subsequently lost the game.  His contract was not renewed while a fellow do nothing/no talent, game playing instructor was allowed to stay.  Despite the protestations of the students in his support, that inspirational teacher was let go.  

This is life in the real world.  My inspirational instructor was seen as a threat to those who had fewer and lesser talents.  He did not lower himself to their standards and therefore he was no longer of value to the group.     

All along the way in life you learn lessons.  How you react to the lesson is totally up to you.  No one can make you angry, you alone make yourself angry.  No one can take away from you what you do not willingly give up.  On the other side of the coin, no one can inspire you if you are not open to being inspired.  You observe the lesson and you either accept or reject the lesson.

However, the idea there are too many lessons for any one person to take in is, I think, either the view point of those who would, for their own advancement, limit the exposure of ideas or the result of someone never having been exposed to a truly radical, truly inspiring idea. 

I am a product of my generation and, as a result, I will always opt for inspirational anarchy whenever possible.


----------



## gsgary

I am not bombarded by quality on here only from the photo books on my shelf, most on here are more bothered about low noise and sharpness not about telling a story with their photos, I come on here when im bored or have nothing better to do, at the moment I'm just waiting for the potatoes to boil so I can make mustard mash


----------



## bribrius

soufiej said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> A while ago I tried to join into a gaming group, they were a fun friendly group of players of a decent number and a whole spread of ages. However despite their friendly nature I didn't stick it out with the group and there was a reason for that - they were too good and a touch too focused on the competitive side ...
> 
> 
> ... Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite honestly, that sounds like you're about to put forward a bill to cut arts funding in public schools.
> 
> It's rare that I do not find such hypotheticals to be based on the flawed assumption we are all alike.  What one of us feels is what all of us must feel.  How one of us assimilates, we all must assimilate.  If one of us is overwhelmed, we must all be overwhelmed.
> 
> Nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> It could be said, with some degree of absolute truthfulness I think, that Americans exist in a highly competitive society.  Compete or be left behind.  Live the America Dream and you'll get ahead.  Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.  We've all heard these cultural memes.  We inherently reject the idea, "Sit on your worthless butt and we'll do it all for you".  We are, as a whole, an "inspired" society.
> 
> Those well worn phrases also ignore the simple fact we are all individuals with our own individual aspirations and conditions.  Our own "place in life".  It is, of course, the most competitive among us who will, with a straight face, say, "Being an American means being your own self, with the liberty to decide your own future", and then follow that up with, "All Americans want to live the Dream."
> 
> 
> 
> The politics of any social group means we must, if we are to function as a group, live with the fact they will attract a variety of individuals.  Join an animal rescue group with only the good intentions of personally doing what is best for the animals and it won't be long before you come to realize that organization is being run by the most political individuals of the group.  Go to a new church for the first time and by the second time you'll be met by some committee leaders urging you to do something for Jesus.  Anyone ever hear a description of being in a fraternity of so called brothers and thinking, "You're f'ing kidding me?!"
> 
> In anything "good" you will find those who prefer to make everything a blood sport and raise the competitive engagement to absurd degrees.  You must decide to join in or go away for your own good.  Which action you choose is - hopefully - your own decision.  I certainly have experienced the enjoyment sucking experience of a group joined in the hopes of shared experience turned into a daily, if not hourly, battle for my own sanity.  And often, such food fights begin with a simple disagreement over some subjective value to which there is no right and wrong.   Or a clear case of someone doing a major CYA and you are the unfortunate, unwitting scapegoat.  However, it's then common that a small group will form on one side to take down anyone who gets in their way.  That is not inspiration, that is desperation.
> 
> We've probably all experienced this in some on line forum where anonymity breeds rudeness which "inspires" and then feeds on a mob mentality.
> 
> And, of course, saying that, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone here.
> 
> But, too much inspiration?  How is that possible?  I can understand too much fake inspiration.  I can comprehend the idea too much of what we are exposed to is crap masquerading as inspired art.  That we are manipulated by the demo(n)graphic group some computer program has assigned to us.  That too much really does diminish the small amount which makes up the very best.  And that when the weedy mulch is piled higher and higher, it all turns into compost.   And, as the saying goes, "Compost happens".  But that too is a problem of the individual being capable or incapable of seeing what is of value and ignoring the rest, not simply of too much of everything.  Even the most noxious of weeds eventually returns to the soil.  What comes from the dirt goes back to the dirt.
> 
> It is not, IMO, a matter of whether you engage in photography only for yourself.  It is a matter of how you live your life for only yourself.  I've worked in a sales staff with one individual who claimed his father once told him second place was just first among all the losers.   He was consumed with winning everything.  You either got sucked down in his wake or you swam off in your own direction.  Competing with him was, IMO, stupid.  To do so you had to operate just as he did.  Better IMO to use what gifts I had to do what I did best.  He was not too much inspiration, he simply was.  We became good friends and to this day joke about our individual ways of working.  For both of us to do so, however, we had to rely on our own inner workings to see the other not as someone to be beaten down but someone to be raised up.  Though we were polar opposites in style, neither had a reason to distrust the other.  We both learned from each other and became individually better for that.  I could though, to this day, never be what he is nor do as he does and vice versa.
> 
> No, there is never "too much" inspiration.  There is only the inability to see the competition for anything more than blind competition.  To see everything as the spec in your eye which will quickly blind you to the real inspirations around you.  We've probably all had an instructor who inspired us at some point.  I know one of my most inspirational teachers failed to play the game and he subsequently lost the game.  His contract was not renewed while a fellow do nothing/no talent, game playing instructor was allowed to stay.  Despite the protestations of the students in his support, that inspirational teacher was let go.
> 
> This is life in the real world.  My inspirational instructor was seen as a threat to those who had fewer and lesser talents.  He did not lower himself to their standards and therefore he was no longer of value to the group.
> 
> All along the way in life you learn lessons.  How you react to the lesson is totally up to you.  No one can make you angry, you alone make yourself angry.  No one can take away from you what you do not willingly give up.  On the other side of the coin, no one can inspire you if you are not open to being inspired.  You observe the lesson and you either accept or reject the lesson.
> 
> However, the idea there are too many lessons for any one person to take in is, I think, either the view point of those who would, for their own advancement, limit the exposure of ideas or the result of someone never having been exposed to a truly radical, truly inspiring idea.
> 
> I am a product of my generation and, as a result, I will always opt for inspirational anarchy whenever possible.
Click to expand...

nice post. You know what i am a huge fan of? Peace. As in inner peace. Beautiful thing. Figured out a long time ago to worry less about what others think. Like, in general, not photography specific. In all seriousness too, a vast majority of us have more important things to worry about in life than who likes our photos and what is being posted on 500px or other sites. You know, like i should probably be working on my lawn or something a little more constructive. Pay the electric bill, maybe some house up keep, getting the kids to school is usually a good thing. I think i am almost out of beer. That is a much more serious problem..  Just sayn... 

If i really worried about this i would probably already have those prints done and framed for that little gallery. But, unlike most that probably get into that stuff or online competitions (or mental competitions) my care-o-meter is a little low.


----------



## bribrius

gsgary said:


> I am not bombarded by quality on here only from the photo books on my shelf, most on here are more bothered about low noise and sharpness not about telling a story with their photos, I come on here when im bored or have nothing better to do, at the moment I'm just waiting for the potatoes to boil so I can make mustard mash


hear ya. I come on here while editing, sorting photos. Or when i really want to procrastinate. There is some good work on here. I usually like a photo a photo that means something to me (even a chitty photo of my dog) more than about anything i see online.


----------



## gsgary

bribrius said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not bombarded by quality on here only from the photo books on my shelf, most on here are more bothered about low noise and sharpness not about telling a story with their photos, I come on here when im bored or have nothing better to do, at the moment I'm just waiting for the potatoes to boil so I can make mustard mash
> 
> 
> 
> hear ya. I come on here while editing, sorting photos. Or when i really want to procrastinate. There is some good work on here. I usually like a photo a photo that means something to me (even a chitty photo of my dog) more than about anything i see online.
Click to expand...

I can't come on here when im editing because I'll be in the darkroom [emoji6]


----------



## bribrius

gsgary said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not bombarded by quality on here only from the photo books on my shelf, most on here are more bothered about low noise and sharpness not about telling a story with their photos, I come on here when im bored or have nothing better to do, at the moment I'm just waiting for the potatoes to boil so I can make mustard mash
> 
> 
> 
> hear ya. I come on here while editing, sorting photos. Or when i really want to procrastinate. There is some good work on here. I usually like a photo a photo that means something to me (even a chitty photo of my dog) more than about anything i see online.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't come on here when im editing because I'll be in the darkroom [emoji6]
Click to expand...

meh. i don't have one still. still sending out.  Part of the problem with all this thinking, is we have a lot of people that really don't "love" photography. That is why it is a competition for them. To me it is more a way of life. spent most of the weekend shooting with a crappy old point and shoot. Why? It was fun. shot film, fun. It isn't a "competition".  It is, hey, i feel like taking a photo of a tree just for the hell of it with a 5mp point and shoot, because i can. I am going to shoot on this crappy old film camera with its crappy lens, BECAUSE I CAN. 
Probably won't win any awards, but it is really a personal nature thing than "omg! I need to come up with the BESTEST PHOTO EVER!!!!!" Really, everyone is different. But i consider photography more a hobby/life style than a competition. And whatever you take for photos, well those are yours. lol


----------



## sashbar

Between a slippery rope and a henchman who does not know how to use his tool properly I will chose the former on any day. I do not see the point in torture.


----------



## bribrius

sashbar said:


> Between a slippery rope and a henchman who does not know how to use his tool properly I will chose the former on any day. I do not see the point in torture.


Not even sure what this means.  I equate it to fishing. . There are those around here that spend a lot of money and energy on fishing competitions. They love it when they have a good catch and fair well.  If they don't do well they suddenly don't quite like it as much. Then there are those that just are content fishing. Even if they catch nothing and have to sit on the end of a dock, they do it for the sake of just doing it. One is competition oriented. The other is "hey, i feel like going fishing". Over all, the one that "just feels like going fishing" seems the more content of the two, plus they usually still can catch a few fish..


----------



## Derrel

shefjr said:
			
		

> SNIP>>>>For me personally I do feel overwhelmed looking at stuff like 500px and even much of the photographs posted up here. The inspiration sort of ran out (overtime) and became a thought that there is so much greatness out there how could I impress or gain any compliments from other photographers.



This is a thought that some bloggers and thinkers on photography have brought up recently--the idea that people are abandoning photography as a hobby simply because, as shefjr wrote, "_how could I impress or gain any compliments from other photographers_"? Because today, photos are being created at a fantastical rate. I read an article last week and it stated that 10 percent of all the photos ever taken, were taken in the year 2012. It stated that* half a billion photos* are taken/made/shot every single day!

The upshot being that with so,so many images being created every day, it has become clear that advancing above the crowd is now extremely improbably, even for talented shooters. And for many people, if they are not getting the recognition from their so-called audience, then there is no motivation to continue in photography.

This speaks to the motivation AND the mindset of people. Some people have a gotta' be the best, or it's not worth doing attitude, while others are happy to enjoy an activity without being ruled by an obsessive-compulsive mindset of excellence-or-quitting, of taking their ball and going home the minute they are not automatically promoted to team captain. So, there ARE people who have different motivations, different expectations of being given "recognition".


----------



## fjrabon

I think the bigger issue is that many times such an environment shifts what we strive for from "artistic" abilities, to quantifiable things that allow us to one up or "win."  Like a lot of shots on here are praised for how well it shows off the camera's ability.  Like "stunning sharpness" or "wow, can't believe the shadow detail there" or "man, that 6 light set up is great!" or "man, can't believe you were able to get that bird in such sharp focus!"  Composition is normally limited to "should of used rule of thirds!" and content is basically limited "hot model (insert very blunt sexual innuendo)!"

Now that isn't to say those things aren't important, but I think, and I've said as much here, that what gets commented on and thus what a lot of people here then strive for, becomes things that are obvious and in some sense measurable.  It's like people are afraid to comment on something if it isn't verifiably correct.  People are afraid to say something that somebody could disagree with without being refutable.  We're afraid to actually talk about photography, and instead we talk about technical things, nearly exclusively, with the occasional reference to how hot a model is.


----------



## Overread

Derrel said:


> shefjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This speaks to the motivation AND the mindset of people. Some people have a gotta' be the best, or it's not worth doing attitude, while others are happy to enjoy an activity without being ruled by an obsessive-compulsive mindset of excellence-or-quitting, of taking their ball and going home the minute they are not automatically promoted to team captain. So, there ARE people who have different motivations, different expectations of being given "recognition".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say that it's a clear cut "I want to be the best" or "I don't care" approach but rather more that individual recognition is an element. Not the only element, not the only driving force but that as social creatures part of what we enjoy in things is sharing our skill, understanding and achievements. However in an atmosphere where there is increasing volume it becomes harder to be a contributor because there is so much out there of a presumed superior nature.
> 
> therefore one element of joy and reward for people (note I put one not the only) is lost within the hobby.
Click to expand...


----------



## Derrel

In today's era of social media and widespread,networked image sharing, there are people desperately seeking those almighty *up-votes, likes, and shares*. These people LOVE the feedback from anonymous strangers...I see these folks on Instagram, desperately building bases of "followers", and then bombarding them with endless selfie after selfie...often not very good photos, but pretty girls still. Ego satisfaction through likes. It's part of the new era we live in.

I get that people today want recognition from their photography. That is precisely WHY sites like 500px are flourishing: polished turds that hit all the current cliches get up-voted very quickly. For those seeking those up-votes, the cliche methods and approaches bring them in in volumes. Lemme' see...vibrance +20, saturation +25, clarity +40 to +70, bonus points for a sunset shot, bonus points for a 10-stop ND filter. If the photo has a person, bonus points for a 27 year old or younger, beautiful female face. Bonus points for heavy skin smoothing. Bonus points for outlandishly involved, multi-layer "color toning". Bonus points for light that appears to come from no particular direction.

There are people who are involved with photography for deeply personal reasons, some for shallow reasons, and people everywhere in between on a wiiiiiiide spectrum. The imitators and dilettantes and noobs who want nothing but recognition carefully pick out the highest-scoring tropes and methods, and then slavishly set out to *learn the "workflow"* that will garner that recognition from the masses. In short, the people getting the most "recognition" in today's internet era of photography are the people whose work looks EXACTLY like the work of whoever happens to be getting the most up-votes on 500px.

I really don't care if those people, the vote-seekers, quit the photography game. Or if they stay in it. Whatever. I've been doing my own thing since '75. I don't f***** care what "Like-seekers" do. They can stay, or go, or whatever. They have no effect on us,really.


----------



## bribrius

Overread said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shefjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This speaks to the motivation AND the mindset of people. Some people have a gotta' be the best, or it's not worth doing attitude, while others are happy to enjoy an activity without being ruled by an obsessive-compulsive mindset of excellence-or-quitting, of taking their ball and going home the minute they are not automatically promoted to team captain. So, there ARE people who have different motivations, different expectations of being given "recognition".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say that it's a clear cut "I want to be the best" or "I don't care" approach but rather more that individual recognition is an element. Not the only element, not the only driving force but that as social creatures part of what we enjoy in things is sharing our skill, understanding and achievements. However in an atmosphere where there is increasing volume it becomes harder to be a contributor because there is so much out there of a presumed superior nature.
> 
> therefore one element of joy and reward for people (note I put one not the only) is lost within the hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

They are looking for it too much online, and not enough within themselves or their local circle in my opinion. with the start of all this high tech, online posting of photos local real relationships and communication has been somewhat lost. For those that have been doing this for years (you know since before we even had cellphones) it isn't so much a issue as even if you suck at this a certain element of not worrying comes in just doing it for years. In which they build circles on a more personal level and with that comes some confidence. For those fairly new to it, they might be concentrating all their recognition gathering online. For instance, i have known a few photographers over the years, some quite recently that complimented me on my work. And these are the ones that have been doing this for decades, or made/make a living on it. 

So, my confidence level is boosted again. Not so much by online likes, but real people in real world. And i think that matters more. People can pretend they are anything they want online. You can look at a site, they can claim to be a photographer, they can have some amazing photos. But what you don't know possibly, is they really aren't much of a photographer and to come up with those twenty photos it took them a hundred thousand shutters. I am not saying that is a bad thing. But there is a lot of pretending online.  People locally, i have a photographer who has been doing this for forty years give me a nod of approving. It carries a hell of a lot more weight. And he sees it for what it is, still has that darkroom stuff shoved away he does. So his "over view" of photography in general is much deeper rooted than some online likes or fan clubs. You know, there are people that love it and appreciate it in a deeper sense, and then there are people that just want likes. Chances are, if someone has been doing this for forty years they have a different mentality and aren't in it for the "likes" and actually love photography in general. 

I am a little cocky just because i started as a teen shooting 35mm and polaroids. So my attitude might be kind of "you can blow me".   Now , some of the real old timers before my generation that maybe dabbled in large format at very young ages or medium format are probably more of the mindset "you can shove it up your proverbial azz" and that is about the recognition they might need. LMAO


----------



## bribrius

Derrel said:


> In today's era of social media and widespread,networked image sharing, there are people desperately seeking those almighty *up-votes, likes, and shares*. These people LOVE the feedback from anonymous strangers...I see these folks on Instagram, desperately building bases of "followers", and then bombarding them with endless selfie after selfie...often not very good photos, but pretty girls still. Ego satisfaction through likes. It's part of the new era we live in.
> 
> I get that people today want recognition from their photography. That is precisely WHY sites like 500px are flourishing: polished turds that hit all the current cliches get up-voted very quickly. For those seeking those up-votes, the cliche methods and approaches bring them in in volumes. Lemme' see...vibrance +20, saturation +25, clarity +40 to +70, bonus points for a sunset shot, bonus points for a 10-stop ND filter. If the photo has a person, bonus points for a 27 year old or younger, beautiful female face. Bonus points for heavy skin smoothing. Bonus points for outlandishly involved, multi-layer "color toning". Bonus points for light that appears to come from no particular direction.
> 
> There are people who are involved with photography for deeply personal reasons, some for shallow reasons, and people everywhere in between on a wiiiiiiide spectrum. The imitators and dilettantes and noobs who want nothing but recognition carefully pick out the highest-scoring tropes and methods, and then slavishly set out to *learn the "workflow"* that will garner that recognition from the masses. In short, the people getting the most "recognition" in today's internet era of photography are the people whose work looks EXACTLY like the work of whoever happens to be getting the most up-votes on 500px.
> 
> I really don't care if those people, the vote-seekers, quit the photography game. Or if they stay in it. *Whatever. I've been doing my own thing since '75. I don't f***** care *what "Like-seekers" do. They can stay, or go, or whatever. They have no effect on us,really.


BINGO!!!!!!!!!!   I have yet to meet a photographer that has been doing this for decades, and decades, that concerns themselves much at all with recognition unless it is for their photography business (money). Not that they don't care at all, but something else is deeply rooted in them that makes others opinions a little less significant. You old timers are worse than me (yea, 70's makes you a old timer sorry). One in particular i know if i tell him i like one of his photos he will say thank you. But both he and i know that it really don't mean a entire lot to him.


----------



## Derrel

A good portion of my comments today have been assuming something I have not stated explicitly: that much of what is considered "good photography" today is the stuff which is popular of Flickr and 500px, and other "aggregator" sites. I disagree with the idea that much of what is on 500px is good photography, because honestly, the vast majority of what I have seen on 500px is done by newcomers to photography; people who cannot compose well, have no idea of how awful their horizontal head-lopped portraits are; take flat-light images and process them hard; have no idea of what light direction means; and who are shooting cliche work. MUCH of the work that gets the most up-votes on aggregatror sites is kitschy garbage, or cliche stuff: sunsets, pretty flowers, focus stack juxtapositions of near/far with bad use of wide-angle lenses; in general, the kind of colorful, vibrant, dazzlingly sharp images that noobs like.

There is FAR too much very weak stuff that is being Photoshopped VERY hard, and which people are thinking is "good photography".

"Ohhhhh, pretty! Click! LIKE!" that is the atmosphere that we now have surrounding "good photography". The same people watching Keeping Up With The Kardashians and Real Housewives of Idiotville--those are in the main, the kind of people who are voting on what is "good photography". The thing is, the majority of the images are sh*+ images, with herculean processing efforts thrown at them! That is what "good photography" has come to mean at this time in the history of photography. This is the framework within which Overread's OP is being discussed, at least from my end: the era in which people who are not getting enough "Likes" are simply hanging it up.


----------



## KenC

Derrel said:


> I disagree with the idea that much of what is on 500px is good photography



This makes me feel lucky that I never bothered looking at it.  Somehow I thought it probably wouldn't be worth the time.


----------



## Buckster

I honestly had no idea that so many people are so insecure, so self-centered, so in need of constant reassurance from everyone around them, so in need of "winning" even if it's just winning a pat on the head, but it does explain a few things to me that didn't make sense before.

It's always eluded me why we can't just be honest with one another and say what we really actually think, even if we're limited to dictionary words and not "curse" words.  Nope, can't even use common dictionary words if there's the possibility that someone might take offense by it, plain truth or not.  

As an example, in my world, "ignorant" isn't a bad word, nor a bad thing.  It just means you don't know something, and you probably should, as it would benefit you.  We're all ignorant of something - every one of us, everyone you will ever meet, without exception.  But tell someone on this forum that they're ignorant, and you risk being banned.  There are whole slews of words that work the same way.  Modern "social species" egos are simply too fragile to handle such plain truth.

Now it also makes sense to me where all these "we", "us" pseudo-deep self-reflection type threads and questions are coming from, one after another, popping up and generating tons of discussion, while reminding me of some circle-jerk of naked guys on a mountaintop staring at each others' belly buttons for too long, seeking the answers to the universe.  It appears that it's so that people can talk about themselves and polish their egos and give out excuses for why they're doing X or not doing Y, justifying everything you can think of, comparing themselves to others in every way possible, constantly seeking answers to questions that shouldn't even be a concern, and so on, and so on, and so on.

No wonder I'm mostly anti-social and don't give a hoot what anyone else is doing, nor what they think about what I'm doing.


----------



## fjrabon

I care about what other people think.  Yeah, definitely I do.

But only to the extent that its a feeling that somebody "gets" what I'm doing.  Is there reward to me when somebody says "hey, I really like what you did here!" to an image I feel strongly about?  Yeah, sure.  It's the same way I feel when I'm discussing something very personal and somebody says "I understand where you're coming from."  

To me the worst thing I could think of would be changing what I do, for the purpose of getting likes/compliments or whatever.  

To me, part of photography is about connection.  It's putting a bit of myself out there and seeing how it connects with other people.  It's fine if it just bounces around, not attaching itself to anybody, but that one time it does connect to somebody else, that's a pretty cool thing, to me.  If I changed what I was doing for the sake of approval, then I'm not really connecting with anybody, I'm just reflecting them.  If you do that, you've sort of become Andy from the office in his early episodes where he just mirrors everybody's expressions and emotions in hope that he's liked.  

Photography is hard for me because first, I sort of have to figure out what I want to communicate.  I have to figure myself out first.  And that's not easy.  Then once I've figured out what I want to say, I have to express that eloquently.  And that's not easy.  Then finally, you sort of hope somebody understands what you're saying and appreciates it and really gets it.  And the vast majority of the time they won't.  You have to sort of be okay with that not happening most of the time.  But that makes the payoff all the more worthwhile when they do.  Would I rather have a few real connections about images I care about, or a lot of connections over things I don't even really deeply care about.  I personally want the former, but I also understand the lure of the latter.

It's sort of like the following scenario:

Imagine the person you are most attracted to, would you rather have a 10% chance of being with them, and being able to be yourself, or a 90% chance of dating them, having to act like somebody you aren't all the time.


----------



## bribrius

KenC said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the idea that much of what is on 500px is good photography
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This makes me feel lucky that I never bothered looking at it.  Somehow I thought it probably wouldn't be worth the time.
Click to expand...

you might actually be shocked. Among the group on 500 px there is a very small sub culture (like .5 percent) that seek out old school photos and film photos. I have had hits on mine, just two last night who i am assuming of are the sort because they didn't pick out a single digital image to like just the film ones. Unfortunate for them, there isn't many old school shooters that post on 500px so i imagine they are looking long and hard for what they seek amongst the rest of the stuff.  So Derrel is pretty much correct. But there is that little sub group, kind of a needle in a haystack that go on there searching.  I hate to say it, but part of the reason it might be so small is that much of the older time shooters really just don't know technology, know about the site, or just don't want to get involved.  A lot of it is over processed, well whatever, lot of it still looks good to (i am not the hard azz Derrel is lol) . But there is some real nice work on there. Stuff for pretty much everyone but you might have  to go looking for it in your case as i know you seem more into the older film work.. Much of what you probably would like, won't have a lot of likes and might be buried pretty deep..

A for instance, i typed in the search "film". The vast majority that came up wasn't film. Then upon finding what was i had to separate out (try to find) what hadn't been photoshopped digitally after the fact even if it was film shot. Then after doing that you are only guessing what camera might have shot it. It helps if they tell you as i was looking for some of the older film cameras, but you have to read (if they are nice enough to write it) in the descriptions to sort out what might have shot it. Lot of the film shots appeared to me also to be after the fact post processed, as i mentioned. Shooting film just to say you shoot film then running it through photoshop after seems to be the new "in" thing. Ya just really have to LOOK.. Because even much of that wasn't straight film. You really have to LOOK and it can take some time.


----------



## bribrius

fjrabon said:


> I care about what other people think.  Yeah, definitely I do.
> 
> But only to the extent that its a feeling that somebody "gets" what I'm doing.  Is there reward to me when somebody says "hey, I really like what you did here!" to an image I feel strongly about?  Yeah, sure.  It's the same way I feel when I'm discussing something very personal and somebody says "I understand where you're coming from."
> 
> To me the worst thing I could think of would be changing what I do, for the purpose of getting likes/compliments or whatever.
> 
> To me, part of photography is about connection.  It's putting a bit of myself out there and seeing how it connects with other people.  It's fine if it just bounces around, not attaching itself to anybody, but that one time it does connect to somebody else, that's a pretty cool thing, to me.  If I changed what I was doing for the sake of approval, then I'm not really connecting with anybody, I'm just reflecting them.  If you do that, you've sort of become Andy from the office in his early episodes where he just mirrors everybody's expressions and emotions in hope that he's liked.
> 
> Photography is hard for me because first, I sort of have to figure out what I want to communicate.  I have to figure myself out first.  And that's not easy.  Then once I've figured out what I want to say, I have to express that eloquently.  And that's not easy.  Then finally, you sort of hope somebody understands what you're saying and appreciates it and really gets it.  And the vast majority of the time they won't.  You have to sort of be okay with that not happening most of the time.  But that makes the payoff all the more worthwhile when they do.  Would I rather have a few real connections about images I care about, or a lot of connections over things I don't even really deeply care about.  I personally want the former, but I also understand the lure of the latter.
> 
> It's sort of like the following scenario:
> 
> Imagine the person you are most attracted to, would you rather have a 10% chance of being with them, and being able to be yourself, or a 90% chance of dating them, having to act like somebody you aren't all the time.


 you know what annoys me? It isn't when someone hates one of my photos. It is when i hate a photo i took and others like it. And if i hear something like "hey, i really understand where you are coming from man".  When i don't even know why i took the shot. so much for communication.


----------



## The_Traveler

Overread said:


> Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.



If we are being bombarded by quality, it sure isn't here.
What we are bombarded with is tons of words about technical stuff that in the end really doesn't matter - and a good amount of it by the people on this thread.
 Instead of pictures that are meaningful, people talk about technical stuff because that's convenient and relatively easy. 
Or they talk about folksy crap about themselves that has nothing of interest or relevance to what is going on.

Too many people are here because they want personal validation for what they did or what they knew.
Of course there are those who talk forever and never show anything or those who talk forever without saying anything.
Those who can't wait to mention that they shoot film or they're too busy to put in any effort here.

There are two or three people here whose work I look forward to seeing, the rest is total meaningless crap.


----------



## Overread

I would say that its not just TPF (although I find it interesting how many have used my post as an excuse to complain about the site....). My point was wider reaching and refereed to the internet, to TV, to magazines - to media and photography in general.


----------



## Derrel

Overread said:
			
		

> I would say that its not just TPF (although I find it interesting how many have used my post as an excuse to complain about the site....). My point was wider reaching and refereed to the internet, to TV, to magazines - to media and photography in general.



Given the sort of rambling OP you started with, it's not surprising...it was very difficult to see what,exactly, it was that you were trying to say. Your OP was almost guaranteed to lead to a mess. You put a title on it, but the post itself was a sort of virtual open-ended free-for-all.

 Copy your original post and then run it through this Hacker Factor Gender Guesser


----------



## The_Traveler

Overread said:


> I would say that its not just TPF (although I find it interesting how many have used my post as an excuse to complain about the site....). My point was wider reaching and refereed to the internet, to TV, to magazines - to media and photography in general.



You're right.
I'm certain it isn't only TPF; in fact I know it isn't.
I've visited several other sites and they had approximately the same collection of defectives who have a keyboard and a camera that TPF does.
I've stayed here because I have carefully cultivated my list of those that I know are useless consumers of space and I hate to start over.


----------



## Designer

Derrel said:


> That is precisely WHY sites like 500px are flourishing: polished turds that hit all the current cliches get up-voted very quickly. For those seeking those up-votes, the cliche methods and approaches bring them in in volumes.


Well, I'll be!  

That phenomenon occurs in building design as well where everybody seems to be doing the same exact thing at the same time. 

I've often pointed it out to anyone who will listen that the current fad will be replaced eventually by the next fad.


----------



## table1349

Overread said:


> A while ago I tried to join into a gaming group, they were a fun friendly group of players of a decent number and a whole spread of ages. However despite their friendly nature I didn't stick it out with the group and there was a reason for that - they were too good and a touch too focused on the competitive side.
> 
> It made me start to think if this isn't perhaps a problem with photography in todays world, especially online. Certainly being around peers who have superior skill can inspire; it can push a person to improve to reach that similar standard. Indeed I would not be one to disagree that exposure to superior works is a beneficial thing and that without it one can end up setting a lower standard than ones full potential.
> 
> 
> However I wonder if many of us have gotten too much of this. That we are bombarded by such a volume of quality, of inspiration and of skill that we end up losing focus and that former motivation starts to dwindle away. I feel that many times we lack that contemporary grouping, those who are of a similar skill and experience set of our own. A grouping within which we can rise to the fore within our own niche, where we can see measured improvement in our own work against others and also see their measured changes as well.
> 
> Instead we are left still struggling to grasp the slippery rope and pull ourselves up to our peers level so that they might become our contemporaries. That we might "rub shoulders" with them and feel a part of that system; socially contributing and being acknowledged.
> 
> 
> Now many might say to this that it doesn't matter, that you shoot for you and you alone. But I don't think that is always true, we do shoot for ourselves (unless we are paid or have other motives); but I think that being social creatures we also like to share and feel that we contribute to the group(s) we are within as well. That we have something to offer, something that makes us stand out, even if just a little.
> 
> Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.


I guess to my way of thinking, I don't see it.  As to the gaming group why did you truly quit? For your stated motive of them beeing too good and competitive or was your true motive because you just were not passionate and or competitive enough to get better and compete.  

We, at least I, can't  have total passion about everything I find interesting.  Photography and wood working yes, but for all those other interests/hobbies, no.  I understand and accpet that.  

As a photograher or a woodworker I don't seek companinship while I am seriously doing either.  When I am having fun yes, but not when I am seriously devoting time to either.  I tend to agree to a point that no one can really shoot for themselves alone.  I however  have those whos opinions matter and they are who I listen to a dn shoot for.  

For the whole rest of the world, I could care less.  That is why my photo site is secured with only those I care about having acess.

Now I know that I don't speak for anyone but myself, but that is my outlook on the subject.


----------



## imagemaker46

I understand what you're saying Overread and I do believe that many people may feel the same way.  I can only respond for myself and how I feel about photography and  a few other things.  Many of you know that I grew up in photography having a father who is regarded as the best photojournalist in Canada, an icon.  I never felt any pressure to compete against him, even though on many assignments we worked together we had a friendly "who could out shoot who" He only beat me once, but it was a good beating, we were shooting sports.  I think competition is good, looking at images that are better than we "think" we could shoot drives us to try harder.  This applies to everything if life.  

I'm a very competitive person, in everything but photography, which may sound strange as it's the only thing I've ever done. I've never felt that I had to be better than anyone else, I just shoot to my abilities and keep looking at being better with each shoot, or at least come away with something different.  I see what other photographers shoot and for the most part know how they ended up with the image, could I produce a similar image, maybe, if I spent enough time trying, but I don't try. I appreciate the quality and time spent producing the image, I don't feel intimidated by it, or the photographer that produced it.  We have to set our own standards and not worry about others.

Right now, I couldn't shoot outstanding wedding images, or landscapes, fashion, or creative product images, these aren't the fields I work in, if I dropped shooting sports and concentrated on any of these, I know in time, I could. 

I don't enter contests, I don't care much for titles, photographer of the year, best portrait, best picture of a dog, just never have. I shoot for myself and my clients.  I'm regarded as one of the best model car builders in North America, I have dominated contests for decades. My hobby isn't photography, it's model cars and I push myself in that area, it's what I love doing, it's how I relax, I try and build what others don't, not that they can't, they just think it's too difficult because they never tried.  I've always played sports, and am just as competitive, always trying be better than the next guy.

There is a drive that everyone has, it's just a matter of how you want to control it.  I always strive to be the best, I don't always succeed, but that just makes me want to be better, for myself.  Many will never see the top rung, and it's not a matter of saying "I'm a loser" It's not even a matter of just accepting, everyone has a different skill set, be happy with the skills you have, but don't ever stop trying to be better.


----------



## Fred Berg

Overread said:


> I feel that many times we lack that contemporary grouping, those who are of a similar skill and experience set of our own. A grouping within which we can rise to the fore within our own niche, where we can see measured improvement in our own work against others and also see their measured changes as well.



Oddly enough, this is precisely what TPF is for me: a kind of peer group, if you will.


----------



## AlanKlein

Designer said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely WHY sites like 500px are flourishing: polished turds that hit all the current cliches get up-voted very quickly. For those seeking those up-votes, the cliche methods and approaches bring them in in volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'll be!
> 
> That phenomenon occurs in building design as well where everybody seems to be doing the same exact thing at the same time.
> 
> I've often pointed it out to anyone who will listen that the current fad will be replaced eventually by the next fad.
Click to expand...


I've noticed similar things at my photo club and when they have competition.  The judges and even in non-juried critiques, the discussions go to the latest fad.  "Oh, your shadows could be lightened up (in keeping with the new ability of sensors".  Frankly, who cares in most cases.  Most people look to the lighter parts of a picture.  Dark shadows make pictures pop and add interest.  "Oh, you clipped that spot."  Another who cares in many cases.  It has no effect on the final photo. 

We all seem to get caught up in what's fashionable.  That's one problem with critique groups especially on-line forums and photo clubs.  You then to start shooting to meeting their passing criteria rather than putting your own imprint on your photography.


----------



## sashbar

The cold truth is there are billions of good images online and millions of good photographers in the world, but the number of true creative talents per square mile has always been very, very small and almost nothing has changed in this respect in decades.

I always remember how one great photographer with a big name said that in spite of all that digital revolution he did not see more truly great photographs compared to 10, 20 or 30 years ago.  The number of talented people, trail blazers and creative giants has always remained the same.

I guess it is not entirely true, since cheaper and better digital cameras and software have indeed pushed some people with talent who otherwise would not pick up this hobby or profession. But this is a relatively small number, simply because apart from a true talent one needs a true passion and determination to excel. And having this passion, most will be there anyway, be it the new digital technology of an old film camera. So the number of "additional talent" promoted by the new "easy" digital world is relatively small.

So 99.999 % of what I see online are technically bad, decent or great photographs that have an entirely utilitarian function. If Yellow Socks beat Blue Pants 1:0, you want to see the goal. Or the celebration. Once you have seen it, the image may be discarded and forgotten however technically good it is.  Some people are making shoes, others are shooting sport or portraits or nature.

I have never heard anyone complaining about too many shoes in the world.  There are many billions of shoes in this world. Do you care? "I am making shoes, it is just a hobby, but you know what, there are so many shoes around, I do not know what to doooo"...

No? Why then do you care about billions of images? I would seriously care about it if any single image, or at least if one in a million would be another Steve McCurry or Alex Webb. Then I would have started worrying that something is wrong with me. But they are not. They are at best the guys who have learned the flash, the composition and the exposure triangle. Good for them.  Some of them even earn good money.

So, back to the idea of a cozy community of mediocrity where you can "grow together" liking each other.  Nice idea. Great way to kill your time, get some attention and scratch each other back. Or, for a change put a little toy knife through it. That is what most of us are doing here on TPF.


----------



## bribrius

Fred Berg said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel that many times we lack that contemporary grouping, those who are of a similar skill and experience set of our own. A grouping within which we can rise to the fore within our own niche, where we can see measured improvement in our own work against others and also see their measured changes as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, this is precisely what TPF is for me: a kind of peer group, if you will.
Click to expand...

cool. we are peers?  So , when do we have a beer?


----------



## Buckster

sashbar said:


> Some people are making shoes, others are shooting sport or portraits or nature.
> 
> I have never heard anyone complaining about too many shoes in the world.  There are many billions of shoes in this world. Do you care? "I am making shoes, it is just a hobby, but you know what, there are so many shoes around, I do not know what to doooo"...
> 
> No? Why then do you care about billions of images?


Well said.


----------



## Forkie

If you're shooting just as a hobby and for your own enjoyment, there is no need to stand out from anyone else.  A good photo will always be a good photo and you will always enjoy what you do.  If you are still intimidated by other people's standards of work on say, 500px, then it's simply a case of practice.  You_ will_ get there if you want to. 

If, however, you intend to earn all your money from photography, you must make yourself noticeable.  Whether that's through sheer technical ability or artistic ability (they don't always come in tandem) is up to you, but mixing with photographers who you feel are "better" than you is a good thing.  At least I think so.  That way you are on top of what the experienced photographers are doing and can at least start thinking about how you can differentiate yourself from them and then get one step ahead of them.

If you allow yourself to be intimidated by them, you'll never be there to even see what you need to achieve in order to be noticed.


----------



## bribrius

a. copy others, try to make money, join the commercial club. Learn. You don't turn out what others like, fad or not, you wont sell much. Make it a point to get published and start doing weddings or some freakn thing. Sell landscape photos. Join the 500 crowd. 

b. Do your own thing, concentrate on developing your own style. Work hard at it. You will probably die broke but might be recognized some how long after you are dead.

c.  Just take photos as a hobby, and ignore it all.


----------



## bribrius

Forkie said:


> If you're shooting just as a hobby and for your own enjoyment, there is no need to stand out from anyone else.  A good photo will always be a good photo and you will always enjoy what you do.  If you are still intimidated by other people's standards of work on say, 500px, then it's simply a case of practice.  You_ will_ get there if you want to.
> 
> If, however, you intend to earn all your money from photography, you must make yourself noticeable.  Whether that's through sheer technical ability or artistic ability (they don't always come in tandem) is up to you, but mixing with photographers who you feel are "better" than you is a good thing.  At least I think so.  That way you are on top of what the experienced photographers are doing and can at least start thinking about how you can differentiate yourself from them and then get one step ahead of them.
> 
> If you allow yourself to be intimidated by them, you'll never be there to even see what you need to achieve in order to be noticed.


agree to a large extent. But being noticed don't matter unless they are cutting you a check. How many noticed people on these sites are actually making much money off this work? You might be better off shooting baby portraits to the higher end neighborhoods if you want money.


----------



## DanOstergren

When I see photos that impress and inspire me, it motivates me to do better in my own work.

As for saying we don't have learning buddies, I think this is untrue (however I could be misunderstanding what you mean by this). I took on an intern both to pass on my knowledge and to learn as well. Not having "learning buddies" or going to classes or watching tutorials is all based on the individuals who choose not to do so.


----------



## rexbobcat

I don't understand the point of a creative endeavor if not to get some recognition for it, whether that be in the form of having your photos displayed by family members or getting comments on forums like this.

I've said it before, but the human ego can't exist in a vacuum. I can't imagine someone spending thousands of dollars in equipment and learning and not expect/want some return on their investment. In creative hobbies/professions, it's almost taboo to admit that you want someone to notice and appreciate your work.

I think it's sometimes more difficult to be a part of a photographic peer group especially in larger markets, because the attitude is less about building community and more along the lines of "Yeah, it would be great to get together, but I want something in return ($$$)."

In LA, for example, there is literally no way to network without already having money.


----------



## bribrius

rexbobcat said:


> I don't understand the point of a creative endeavor if not to get some recognition for it, whether that be in the form of having your photos displayed by family members or getting comments on forums like this.
> 
> I've said it before, but the human ego can't exist in a vacuum. I can't imagine someone spending thousands of dollars in equipment and learning and not expect/want some return on their investment. In creative hobbies/professions, it's almost taboo to admit that you want someone to notice and appreciate your work.
> 
> I think it's sometimes more difficult to be a part of a photographic peer group especially in larger markets, because the attitude is less about building community and more along the lines of "Sure, I'll help...for $200."
> 
> In LA, for example, there is literally no way to network without already having money.


my ego  exists in a vacuum. Like i made my picnic table, i sat at it. I was content. Really not a entire lot to it.


----------



## rexbobcat

bribrius said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the point of a creative endeavor if not to get some recognition for it, whether that be in the form of having your photos displayed by family members or getting comments on forums like this.
> 
> I've said it before, but the human ego can't exist in a vacuum. I can't imagine someone spending thousands of dollars in equipment and learning and not expect/want some return on their investment. In creative hobbies/professions, it's almost taboo to admit that you want someone to notice and appreciate your work.
> 
> I think it's sometimes more difficult to be a part of a photographic peer group especially in larger markets, because the attitude is less about building community and more along the lines of "Sure, I'll help...for $200."
> 
> In LA, for example, there is literally no way to network without already having money.
> 
> 
> 
> my ego  exists in a vacuum. Like i made my picnic table, i sat at it. I was content. Really not a entire lot to it.
Click to expand...


Photography along with every other creative hobby isn't building picnic tables.


----------



## bribrius

rexbobcat said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the point of a creative endeavor if not to get some recognition for it, whether that be in the form of having your photos displayed by family members or getting comments on forums like this.
> 
> I've said it before, but the human ego can't exist in a vacuum. I can't imagine someone spending thousands of dollars in equipment and learning and not expect/want some return on their investment. In creative hobbies/professions, it's almost taboo to admit that you want someone to notice and appreciate your work.
> 
> I think it's sometimes more difficult to be a part of a photographic peer group especially in larger markets, because the attitude is less about building community and more along the lines of "Sure, I'll help...for $200."
> 
> In LA, for example, there is literally no way to network without already having money.
> 
> 
> 
> my ego  exists in a vacuum. Like i made my picnic table, i sat at it. I was content. Really not a entire lot to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Photography along with every other creative hobby isn't building picnic tables.
Click to expand...

same thing. Take photo, print photo, hang photo on wall, content with it.
all the same...............
except making chairs and picnic tables i find preferable to shooting abstracts and landscapes. Probably because it is a actual physical structure with a purpose, i can eat off it or sit on it.


----------



## rexbobcat

bribrius said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the point of a creative endeavor if not to get some recognition for it, whether that be in the form of having your photos displayed by family members or getting comments on forums like this.
> 
> I've said it before, but the human ego can't exist in a vacuum. I can't imagine someone spending thousands of dollars in equipment and learning and not expect/want some return on their investment. In creative hobbies/professions, it's almost taboo to admit that you want someone to notice and appreciate your work.
> 
> I think it's sometimes more difficult to be a part of a photographic peer group especially in larger markets, because the attitude is less about building community and more along the lines of "Sure, I'll help...for $200."
> 
> In LA, for example, there is literally no way to network without already having money.
> 
> 
> 
> my ego  exists in a vacuum. Like i made my picnic table, i sat at it. I was content. Really not a entire lot to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Photography along with every other creative hobby isn't building picnic tables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> same thing. Take photo, print photo, hang photo on wall, content with it.
> all the same...............
> except making chairs and picnic tables i find preferable to shooting abstracts and landscapes.
Click to expand...


Well, since you aren't really that invested in it, I don't see how my post relates to you in the first place.


----------



## bribrius

in all honesty, most of my photos i dont give a rats azz about, few and far between. Well, except the photos of my kids.
hard drive filler.  If they are film i tend to like them a little more.


----------



## bribrius

rexbobcat said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the point of a creative endeavor if not to get some recognition for it, whether that be in the form of having your photos displayed by family members or getting comments on forums like this.
> 
> I've said it before, but the human ego can't exist in a vacuum. I can't imagine someone spending thousands of dollars in equipment and learning and not expect/want some return on their investment. In creative hobbies/professions, it's almost taboo to admit that you want someone to notice and appreciate your work.
> 
> I think it's sometimes more difficult to be a part of a photographic peer group especially in larger markets, because the attitude is less about building community and more along the lines of "Sure, I'll help...for $200."
> 
> In LA, for example, there is literally no way to network without already having money.
> 
> 
> 
> my ego  exists in a vacuum. Like i made my picnic table, i sat at it. I was content. Really not a entire lot to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Photography along with every other creative hobby isn't building picnic tables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> same thing. Take photo, print photo, hang photo on wall, content with it.
> all the same...............
> except making chairs and picnic tables i find preferable to shooting abstracts and landscapes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since you aren't really that invested in it, I don't see how my post relates to you in the first place.
Click to expand...

just a realist. I love photography. But what is more of value to me. The picnic table or a photo of the picnic table? In that case, fruck the photo.


----------



## rexbobcat

bribrius said:


> in all honesty, most of my photos i dont give a rats azz about, few and far between. Well, except the photos of my kids.
> hard drive filler.  If they are film i tend to like them a little more.



If you don't care that much, then it makes sense that you don't care what people think. However, if one cares enough to get better at any endeavor, then they have to put their work on the line. Progress is made by being corrected and being given positive reinforcement for things done right, unless you're prodigal enough to be outside of this system.

And even then, in terms of photography, how would you know you've made progress unless it is made apparent?

If progress as a measure of success does not interest you, then whatever task you're working on most likely isn't connected to your self-image anyways.

Building a picnic table has an end-point. Either you can sit and set stuff on it or you can't. Photography is more ambiguous.


----------



## bribrius

rexbobcat said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> in all honesty, most of my photos i dont give a rats azz about, few and far between. Well, except the photos of my kids.
> hard drive filler.  If they are film i tend to like them a little more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't care that much, then it makes sense that you don't care what people think. However, if one cares enough to get better at any endeavor, then they have to put their work on the line. Progress is made by being corrected and being given positive reinforcement for things done right, unless you're prodigal enough to be outside of this system.
> 
> And even then, in terms of photography, how would you know you've made progress unless it is made apparent?
> 
> If progress as a measure of success does not interest you, then whatever task you're working on most likely isn't connected to your self-image anyways.
> 
> Building a picnic table has an end-point. Either you can sit and set stuff on it or you can't. Photography is more ambiguous.
Click to expand...

So not true, you can make different shaped picnic tables, square, rectangle, hexagon, octagon, separate benches, built in benches, different woods, different heights for little people, different lengths. Give them cup holders.. Give picnic tables roofs for shade and rain. Different stains.

And you worry too much. Not sure i even have a "self image".  Sounds deep. Too deep for me. If i want to know something, i just ask or i look it up. If i want to do something. I try to figure out how. It totally revolves around what i want or need to do. I define progress by how much i like it, or if it meets what i wanted to do. Who are you trying to impress?  Lets say i post something and get five hundred likes. Are they going to come over and mow my lawn for me? At least? Maybe paint my shed? Probably not. So what did i get out of it? some likes? That isn't real. Just lip service. Sure, it is appreciated to a extent. Of course someone liking something you did is appreciated. It isn't really the "point" of anything i do. Likes are not exactly tangible.

Not to say none of it matters, if someone came over and said "hey, you know , if you built the chair this way it might save you some time and be better". I'll heed the advice. Only a fool wont heed wise advice.
Now, if you are talking about money, then that is a entire different ballgame. Whoever cuts the check, their opinion matters. If you are in this for money, sure, go get your check by all means. Pay me to build a picnic table i'll build it however the hell you want. It's your money. LMAO.


----------



## Gary A.

Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.


----------



## bribrius

Gary A. said:


> Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.


Agree to a extent.

I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance.  Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills".  I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.

I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image.  Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little.  There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is.  Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no.  And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.

Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone.  I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images.  I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.

This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.

And if we are to claim that all this is good,  then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.


----------



## sashbar

bribrius said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to a extent.
> 
> I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
> I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance.  Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills".  I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.
> 
> I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image.  Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little.  There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is.  Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no.  And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.
> 
> Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone.  I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images.  I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.
> 
> This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.
> 
> And if we are to claim that all this is good,  then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.
Click to expand...



You talk about the photography that I call "shoes", or utilitarian images, or documentary. Call it as you wish, but these are images that are helpless without date, time and event. This is in essense photo journalism. 99.999% of photography goes along these lines whether you are documenting falling Twin Towers, some lanscape or your cat eating breakfast. (And I leave alone all those idiotic "artsy" photoshop attempts).

That is exactly what Henry Cartier Bresson was talking about when he said that he had no interest at all in documentary, in documenting facts, because it was boring dull. HCB saod he would be an awful photo journalist because he did not care about the content and facts at all. He just used it to create images that will  live forever, or at least long after those subjects are gone.

There are lots and lots of images documenting extraordinary events like Syrian war, people dying from ebola in Liberia or devastations in Nepal caused by the earthquake. People look at these emotional images when they are published, but never come back to them again. I have great respect for these reporters risking their lives and demonstrating great skills. Yet these powerful images have a very short life.

And yet we come back to HCB photographs again and again. Photographs that depict basically... nothing. I look at his image - the door, the man in the window, some reflection - and think "How on Earth could  he see this????".
Then I look at the image of a Nepalese village in ruins and thik,  yeah, strong earthquake. But we all know that our own toothache is more important to us than an earthquake in Nepal.

The difference between HCB images and AFC/Getty/Reuters  images is the difference between poetry and news. Noone learns news by heart.  Noone will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall.

Most of us here are just learning how to write. Once/if we learn, 99,99999 % of us will be writing news. I will be happy if one or two will start creating some poetry. Sadly most have not got evem a slightest idea of how to even approach it.


----------



## The_Traveler

sashbar said:


> You talk about the photography that I call "shoes", or utilitarian images, or documentary. Call it as you wish, but these are images that are helpless without date, time and event. This is in essense photo journalism. 99.999% of photography goes along these lines whether you are documenting falling Twin Towers, some lanscape or your cat eating breakfast. (And I leave alone all those idiotic "artsy" photoshop attempts).
> .......................
> 
> The difference between HCB images and AFC/Getty/Reuters  images is the difference between poetry and news. Noone learns news by heart.  Noone will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall.
> ................................





sashbar said:


> Most of us here are just learning how to write. Once/if we learn, 99,99999 % of us will be writing news. I will be happy if one or two will start creating some poetry. Sadly most have not got even a slightest idea of how to even approach it.




What a remarkably good explanation of the difference between the two objectives.
I take exception to only one part and that is: "No one will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall."
There are some wonderfully done 'shoes' that do become wall art either because of their subjective beauty or the content.

I also think that the 99.999% figure above is a bit misleading for this reason.  There are people who are content to only produce 'shoes'; they are in abundance here on TPF, perhaps the majority.
There are people who aspire to produce work that is more than 'shoes' but, because of some failure of skill or talent or effort, fail. 
And then there is that tiny, very-lucky fraction of people who actually succeed at producing art.

Interestingly, when people who are ostensibly only producing 'shoes (I love that term) are so good and creative and skillful at what they do, they are called 'artists' because their work rises far above the documentary level. It evokes ideas and response much beyond the subject matter. And other 'shoe-makers' try to emulate them, not realizing that in doing that, they are trying in some way to be 'artists'.


----------



## sashbar

The_Traveler said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about the photography that I call "shoes", or utilitarian images, or documentary. Call it as you wish, but these are images that are helpless without date, time and event. This is in essense photo journalism. 99.999% of photography goes along these lines whether you are documenting falling Twin Towers, some lanscape or your cat eating breakfast. (And I leave alone all those idiotic "artsy" photoshop attempts).
> .......................
> 
> The difference between HCB images and AFC/Getty/Reuters  images is the difference between poetry and news. Noone learns news by heart.  Noone will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall.
> ................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us here are just learning how to write. Once/if we learn, 99,99999 % of us will be writing news. I will be happy if one or two will start creating some poetry. Sadly most have not got even a slightest idea of how to even approach it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a remarkably good explanation of the difference between the two objectives.
> I take exception to only one part and that is: "No one will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall."
> There are some wonderfully done 'shoes' that do become wall art either because of their subjective beauty or the content.
> 
> I also think that the 99.999% figure above is a bit misleading for this reason.  There are people who are content to only produce 'shoes'; they are in abundance here on TPF, perhaps the majority.
> There are people who aspire to produce work that is more than 'shoes' but, because of some failure of skill or talent or effort, fail.
> And then there is that tiny, very-lucky fraction of people who actually succeed at producing art.
> 
> Interestingly, when people who are ostensibly only producing 'shoes (I love that term) are so good and creative and skillful at what they do, they are called 'artists' because their work rises far above the documentary level. It evokes ideas and response much beyond the subject matter. And other 'shoe-makers' try to emulate them, not realizing that in doing that, they are trying in some way to be 'artists'.
Click to expand...


I do agree with all that you said. I have to succumb to a hyperbole sometimes to get across the message due to my limited English. 
Of course it is not as black and white as I wrote, but I am glad you got what I wanted to say.


----------



## bribrius

Overread said:


> A while ago I tried to join into a gaming group, they were a fun friendly group of players of a decent number and a whole spread of ages. However despite their friendly nature I didn't stick it out with the group and there was a reason for that - they were too good and a touch too focused on the competitive side.
> 
> It made me start to think if this isn't perhaps a problem with photography in todays world, especially online. Certainly being around peers who have superior skill can inspire; it can push a person to improve to reach that similar standard. Indeed I would not be one to disagree that exposure to superior works is a beneficial thing and that without it one can end up setting a lower standard than ones full potential.
> 
> 
> However I wonder if many of us have gotten too much of this. That we are bombarded by such a volume of quality, of inspiration and of skill that we end up losing focus and that former motivation starts to dwindle away. I feel that many times we lack that contemporary grouping, those who are of a similar skill and experience set of our own. A grouping within which we can rise to the fore within our own niche, where we can see measured improvement in our own work against others and also see their measured changes as well.
> 
> Instead we are left still struggling to grasp the slippery rope and pull ourselves up to our peers level so that they might become our contemporaries. That we might "rub shoulders" with them and feel a part of that system; socially contributing and being acknowledged.
> 
> 
> Now many might say to this that it doesn't matter, that you shoot for you and you alone. But I don't think that is always true, we do shoot for ourselves (unless we are paid or have other motives); but I think that being social creatures we also like to share and feel that we contribute to the group(s) we are within as well. That we have something to offer, something that makes us stand out, even if just a little.
> 
> Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.





sashbar said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to a extent.
> 
> I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
> I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance.  Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills".  I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.
> 
> I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image.  Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little.  There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is.  Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no.  And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.
> 
> Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone.  I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images.  I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.
> 
> This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.
> 
> And if we are to claim that all this is good,  then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about the photography that I call "shoes", or utilitarian images, or documentary. Call it as you wish, but these are images that are helpless without date, time and event. This is in essense photo journalism. 99.999% of photography goes along these lines whether you are documenting falling Twin Towers, some lanscape or your cat eating breakfast. (And I leave alone all those idiotic "artsy" photoshop attempts).
> 
> That is exactly what Henry Cartier Bresson was talking about when he said that he had no interest at all in documentary, in documenting facts, because it was boring dull. HCB saod he would be an awful photo journalist because he did not care about the content and facts at all. He just used it to create images that will  live forever, or at least long after those subjects are gone.
> 
> There are lots and lots of images documenting extraordinary events like Syrian war, people dying from ebola in Liberia or devastations in Nepal caused by the earthquake. People look at these emotional images when they are published, but never come back to them again. I have great respect for these reporters risking their lives and demonstrating great skills. Yet these powerful images have a very short life.
> 
> And yet we come back to HCB photographs again and again. Photographs that depict basically... nothing. I look at his image - the door, the man in the window, some reflection - and think "How on Earth could  he see this????".
> Then I look at the image of a Nepalese village in ruins and thik,  yeah, strong earthquake. But we all know that our own toothache is more important to us than an earthquake in Nepal.
> 
> The difference between HCB images and AFC/Getty/Reuters  images is the difference between poetry and news. Noone learns news by heart.  Noone will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall.
> 
> Most of us here are just learning how to write. Once/if we learn, 99,99999 % of us will be writing news. I will be happy if one or two will start creating some poetry. Sadly most have not got evem a slightest idea of how to even approach it.
Click to expand...

Hcb shot everything, and probably didn't worry this much. Much of his work is outstanding. Some of it if he showed up today and posted it on here people would ask him what the subject is and tell him it sucks. He shot quite a few shoes images.


----------



## sashbar

bribrius said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> A while ago I tried to join into a gaming group, they were a fun friendly group of players of a decent number and a whole spread of ages. However despite their friendly nature I didn't stick it out with the group and there was a reason for that - they were too good and a touch too focused on the competitive side.
> 
> It made me start to think if this isn't perhaps a problem with photography in todays world, especially online. Certainly being around peers who have superior skill can inspire; it can push a person to improve to reach that similar standard. Indeed I would not be one to disagree that exposure to superior works is a beneficial thing and that without it one can end up setting a lower standard than ones full potential.
> 
> 
> However I wonder if many of us have gotten too much of this. That we are bombarded by such a volume of quality, of inspiration and of skill that we end up losing focus and that former motivation starts to dwindle away. I feel that many times we lack that contemporary grouping, those who are of a similar skill and experience set of our own. A grouping within which we can rise to the fore within our own niche, where we can see measured improvement in our own work against others and also see their measured changes as well.
> 
> Instead we are left still struggling to grasp the slippery rope and pull ourselves up to our peers level so that they might become our contemporaries. That we might "rub shoulders" with them and feel a part of that system; socially contributing and being acknowledged.
> 
> 
> Now many might say to this that it doesn't matter, that you shoot for you and you alone. But I don't think that is always true, we do shoot for ourselves (unless we are paid or have other motives); but I think that being social creatures we also like to share and feel that we contribute to the group(s) we are within as well. That we have something to offer, something that makes us stand out, even if just a little.
> 
> Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree to a extent.
> 
> I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
> I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance.  Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills".  I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.
> 
> I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image.  Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little.  There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is.  Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no.  And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.
> 
> Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone.  I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images.  I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.
> 
> This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.
> 
> And if we are to claim that all this is good,  then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about the photography that I call "shoes", or utilitarian images, or documentary. Call it as you wish, but these are images that are helpless without date, time and event. This is in essense photo journalism. 99.999% of photography goes along these lines whether you are documenting falling Twin Towers, some lanscape or your cat eating breakfast. (And I leave alone all those idiotic "artsy" photoshop attempts).
> 
> That is exactly what Henry Cartier Bresson was talking about when he said that he had no interest at all in documentary, in documenting facts, because it was boring dull. HCB saod he would be an awful photo journalist because he did not care about the content and facts at all. He just used it to create images that will  live forever, or at least long after those subjects are gone.
> 
> There are lots and lots of images documenting extraordinary events like Syrian war, people dying from ebola in Liberia or devastations in Nepal caused by the earthquake. People look at these emotional images when they are published, but never come back to them again. I have great respect for these reporters risking their lives and demonstrating great skills. Yet these powerful images have a very short life.
> 
> And yet we come back to HCB photographs again and again. Photographs that depict basically... nothing. I look at his image - the door, the man in the window, some reflection - and think "How on Earth could  he see this????".
> Then I look at the image of a Nepalese village in ruins and thik,  yeah, strong earthquake. But we all know that our own toothache is more important to us than an earthquake in Nepal.
> 
> The difference between HCB images and AFC/Getty/Reuters  images is the difference between poetry and news. Noone learns news by heart.  Noone will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall.
> 
> Most of us here are just learning how to write. Once/if we learn, 99,99999 % of us will be writing news. I will be happy if one or two will start creating some poetry. Sadly most have not got evem a slightest idea of how to even approach it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hcb shot everything, and probably didn't worry this much. Much of his work is outstanding. Some of it if he showed up today and posted it on here people would ask him what the subject is and tell him it sucks. He shot quite a few shoes images.
Click to expand...


Mikhael Jordan missed some shots as well.  My post was not about it.


----------



## bribrius

sashbar said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> A while ago I tried to join into a gaming group, they were a fun friendly group of players of a decent number and a whole spread of ages. However despite their friendly nature I didn't stick it out with the group and there was a reason for that - they were too good and a touch too focused on the competitive side.
> 
> It made me start to think if this isn't perhaps a problem with photography in todays world, especially online. Certainly being around peers who have superior skill can inspire; it can push a person to improve to reach that similar standard. Indeed I would not be one to disagree that exposure to superior works is a beneficial thing and that without it one can end up setting a lower standard than ones full potential.
> 
> 
> However I wonder if many of us have gotten too much of this. That we are bombarded by such a volume of quality, of inspiration and of skill that we end up losing focus and that former motivation starts to dwindle away. I feel that many times we lack that contemporary grouping, those who are of a similar skill and experience set of our own. A grouping within which we can rise to the fore within our own niche, where we can see measured improvement in our own work against others and also see their measured changes as well.
> 
> Instead we are left still struggling to grasp the slippery rope and pull ourselves up to our peers level so that they might become our contemporaries. That we might "rub shoulders" with them and feel a part of that system; socially contributing and being acknowledged.
> 
> 
> Now many might say to this that it doesn't matter, that you shoot for you and you alone. But I don't think that is always true, we do shoot for ourselves (unless we are paid or have other motives); but I think that being social creatures we also like to share and feel that we contribute to the group(s) we are within as well. That we have something to offer, something that makes us stand out, even if just a little.
> 
> Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree to a extent.
> 
> I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
> I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance.  Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills".  I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.
> 
> I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image.  Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little.  There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is.  Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no.  And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.
> 
> Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone.  I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images.  I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.
> 
> This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.
> 
> And if we are to claim that all this is good,  then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about the photography that I call "shoes", or utilitarian images, or documentary. Call it as you wish, but these are images that are helpless without date, time and event. This is in essense photo journalism. 99.999% of photography goes along these lines whether you are documenting falling Twin Towers, some lanscape or your cat eating breakfast. (And I leave alone all those idiotic "artsy" photoshop attempts).
> 
> That is exactly what Henry Cartier Bresson was talking about when he said that he had no interest at all in documentary, in documenting facts, because it was boring dull. HCB saod he would be an awful photo journalist because he did not care about the content and facts at all. He just used it to create images that will  live forever, or at least long after those subjects are gone.
> 
> There are lots and lots of images documenting extraordinary events like Syrian war, people dying from ebola in Liberia or devastations in Nepal caused by the earthquake. People look at these emotional images when they are published, but never come back to them again. I have great respect for these reporters risking their lives and demonstrating great skills. Yet these powerful images have a very short life.
> 
> And yet we come back to HCB photographs again and again. Photographs that depict basically... nothing. I look at his image - the door, the man in the window, some reflection - and think "How on Earth could  he see this????".
> Then I look at the image of a Nepalese village in ruins and thik,  yeah, strong earthquake. But we all know that our own toothache is more important to us than an earthquake in Nepal.
> 
> The difference between HCB images and AFC/Getty/Reuters  images is the difference between poetry and news. Noone learns news by heart.  Noone will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall.
> 
> Most of us here are just learning how to write. Once/if we learn, 99,99999 % of us will be writing news. I will be happy if one or two will start creating some poetry. Sadly most have not got evem a slightest idea of how to even approach it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hcb shot everything, and probably didn't worry this much. Much of his work is outstanding. Some of it if he showed up today and posted it on here people would ask him what the subject is and tell him it sucks. He shot quite a few shoes images.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mikhael Jordan missed some shots as well.  My post was not about it.
Click to expand...

All photographers do.  If we could see all those crappy shots they took,  people might start realizing they put their pants on one leg at a time as well.


----------



## pixmedic

what I find interesting about photography forums, is that so very _*very*_ _*VERY*_ often, the people that are barking loudest about the lack of "quality" on the site are often producing mostly "shoes" themselves. 
whats wrong with shoes anyway? just because you are not an artist producing museum quality pieces doesn't mean that you are not working to improve. maybe some of the people that are producing this so-called mediocre work are already doing as good as they are ever going to. should they quit photography then? I don't see how insulting them adds any practicality to the situation, other than making one person feel superior by virtue of pointing out the flaws of another.


----------



## bribrius

pixmedic said:


> what I find interesting about photography forums, is that so very _*very*_ _*VERY*_ often, the people that are barking loudest about the lack of "quality" on the site are often producing mostly "shoes" themselves.
> whats wrong with shoes anyway? just because you are not an artist producing museum quality pieces doesn't mean that you are not working to improve. maybe some of the people that are producing this so-called mediocre work are already doing as good as they are ever going to. should they quit photography then? I don't see how insulting them adds any practicality to the situation, other than making one person feel superior by virtue of pointing out the flaws of another.


still looking for the real slim shady. I may not find him online though. Too bad, i about given up. Maybe some day i will find him and take a photo walk so i can learn what real art and photography is. I know he is out there somewhere, shooting. somewhere....


----------



## Gary A.

I agree with both pixmedic and sashbar. There is much truth in both their perpectives. Which is possibly the overriding truth here in this forum ... perspective. The perspective here is wide, a full spectrum of prespectives and desires and needs and implementation. Not all are looking to be photojournalists or artists or hobbyists or great or bad ... but ... conversely some are here hopping to be the photojournalist, artist, hobbyist ... great. Sashbar's perspecitive reflects a person with some passion about photography and pixmedic speaks to those where photography is more hobby. Both perspectives are accurate and both target an audience of participants on the forum. 

With a a broad spectrum forum, it is hard to provide negative feedback which is relevant and appreciated by all.  

But, what I don't get are those posters who are much more negative than positive, who post just to be contary as oppsed to constructive. Sure, we all have bad days ... but to be consistanctly negative for no reason than to stir up an arguement or put people down, is more a reflection of their needy personality than anything photographic. As pixmedic pointed out, a lot of this negativity come form those who rarely post their own photos.

Gary

PS- Remember sashbar, that the camera is a tool. As a tool, its instrinstic use is documentation. Hence the overwelming documentation images. While news is fleeting and poetry timeless ... there is a greater need for news in our daily lives than poetry. Poetry effects the individual and news affects the collective. Poetry brings tears and smiles ... news can start and end wars. Poetry for the soul ... news is for life.

PPS- As it is easy to use a hammer to hit something ... it is easy to use a camera for documentation purposes. It takes an artist to use a hammer for something more, something beyond pounding.
G


----------



## The_Traveler

pixmedic said:


> what I find interesting about photography forums, is that so very _*very*_ _*VERY*_ often, the people that are barking loudest about the lack of "quality" on the site are often producing mostly "shoes" themselves.
> whats wrong with shoes anyway? just because you are not an artist producing museum quality pieces doesn't mean that you are not working to improve. maybe some of the people that are producing this so-called mediocre work are already doing as good as they are ever going to. should they quit photography then? I don't see how insulting them adds any practicality to the situation, other than making one person feel superior by virtue of pointing out the flaws of another.



I sure don't get your point.

_*what I find interesting about photography forums, is that so very very  VERY often, the people that are barking loudest about the lack of "quality" on the site are often producing mostly "shoes" themselves. *_

First you are insulting people who are posting here about quality saying their work isn't special. Since I was one of those, I assume you are saying this about me too. Insulting my work without saying it to my face and naming me is a kind of passive aggressive behavior, hostile but trying to hide it.

Then you are saying that non special work is OK

_*whats wrong with shoes anyway? just because you are not an artist producing museum quality pieces doesn't mean that you are not working to improve. maybe some of the people that are producing this so-called mediocre work are already doing as good as they are ever going to*_

Then you go ahead and say that critiquing work  is wrong because:

_*I don't see how insulting them adds any practicality to the situation, other than making one person feel superior by virtue of pointing out the flaws of another*_

Well you just insulted me, and others, in a way to make you feel better.
I don't get your point here.


----------



## pixmedic

The_Traveler said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> what I find interesting about photography forums, is that so very _*very*_ _*VERY*_ often, the people that are barking loudest about the lack of "quality" on the site are often producing mostly "shoes" themselves.
> whats wrong with shoes anyway? just because you are not an artist producing museum quality pieces doesn't mean that you are not working to improve. maybe some of the people that are producing this so-called mediocre work are already doing as good as they are ever going to. should they quit photography then? I don't see how insulting them adds any practicality to the situation, other than making one person feel superior by virtue of pointing out the flaws of another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure don't get your point.
> 
> _*what I find interesting about photography forums, is that so very very  VERY often, the people that are barking loudest about the lack of "quality" on the site are often producing mostly "shoes" themselves. *_
> 
> First you are insulting people who are posting here about quality saying their work isn't special. Since I was one of those, I assume you are saying this about me too. Insulting my work without saying it to my face and naming me is a kind of passive aggressive behavior, hostile but trying to hide it.
> 
> Then you are saying that non special work is OK
> 
> _*whats wrong with shoes anyway? just because you are not an artist producing museum quality pieces doesn't mean that you are not working to improve. maybe some of the people that are producing this so-called mediocre work are already doing as good as they are ever going to*_
> 
> Then you go ahead and say that critiquing work  is wrong because:
> 
> _*I don't see how insulting them adds any practicality to the situation, other than making one person feel superior by virtue of pointing out the flaws of another*_
> 
> Well you just insulted me, and others, in a way to make you feel better.
> I don't get your point here.
Click to expand...


you assume too much, and understand too little. 
im not surprised.


----------



## The_Traveler

pixmedic said:


> you assume too much, and understand too little.
> im not surprised.



You know, I've always thought I was a fairly intelligent and perceptive person.
Maybe you are just too subtle for me.
Rather than pass this off with just a sly insinuation, why don't you just explain to me where I was wrong.

So you weren't saying that people who posted about quality actually did mediocre work?
It really did sound like that.

And you didn't say that criticizing people was being done to make the giver feel superior?
Damn, it sounded like that too.

Why don't you walk this cat back and be real clear so that unsophisticated people like me can really understand your position?


----------



## pixmedic

The_Traveler said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> you assume too much, and understand too little.
> im not surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've always thought I was a fairly intelligent and perceptive person.
> Maybe you are just too subtle for me.
> Rather than pass this off with just a sly insinuation, why don't you just explain to me where I was wrong.
> 
> So you weren't saying that people who posted about quality actually did mediocre work?
> It really did sound like that.
> 
> And you didn't say that criticizing people was being done to make the giver feel superior?
> Damn, it sounded like that too.
> 
> Why don't you walk this cat back and be real clear so that unsophisticated people like me can really understand your position?
Click to expand...


firstly, you seem to assume _*everything*_ is about you. contrary to your popular belief, the forum does not revolve around you...usually. 
secondly, you are the _*king*_ of sly insinuations and under-the-table insults.  (for latest example, see my wedding thread posted today) 
I apologize if subtlety is not your forte.


----------



## The_Traveler

pixmedic said:


> firstly, you seem to assume _*everything*_ is about you. contrary to your popular belief, the forum does not revolve around you...usually.
> secondly, you are the _*king*_ of sly insinuations and under-the-table insults.  (for latest example, see my wedding thread posted today)
> I apologize if subtlety is not your forte.



In regards to the sly insinuations in your casual wedding thread.
You may not have noticed but that was posted in the people forum where c/c is allowed and, even if you are a moderator, you really should not take offense at someone's critiquing your posting.
I said they all looked tilted to me.
And you decided that they were OK with you.

Now your response, you deny that you were insulting me and in the process, take the occasion to insult me directly.
Well, you were referring to someone, weren't you?
Who was it?
Shouldn't the person you were insulting indirectly know it?


----------



## pixmedic

The_Traveler said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> firstly, you seem to assume _*everything*_ is about you. contrary to your popular belief, the forum does not revolve around you...usually.
> secondly, you are the _*king*_ of sly insinuations and under-the-table insults.  (for latest example, see my wedding thread posted today)
> I apologize if subtlety is not your forte.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to the sly insinuations in your casual wedding thread.
> You may not have noticed but that was posted in the people forum where c/c is allowed and, even if you are a moderator, you really should not take offense at someone's critiquing your posting.
> I said they all looked tilted to me.
> And you decided that they were OK with you.
> 
> Now your response, you deny that you were insulting me and in the process, take the occasion to insult me directly.
> Well, you were referring to someone, weren't you?
> Who was it?
> Shouldn't the person you were insulting indirectly know it?
Click to expand...



oh,_* they know*_. 


in answer to your first part...
yes you said they all look tilted. 
yes i posted in a critique area. 
and yes i am OK with editing, and appreciative, of your feedback. 
but...
the  comment about a "dutch tilt party", when you can obviously see that i was not going for any sort of dutch tilt, is insulting, and completely unnecessary to prove your point. which I acknowledged as accurate btw. 

plus...
"_*even if I am a moderator*_"
do you see what you did there? 
I mean, I said you were right about the tilt. how is that offended by your critique?
i was offended by the insult you felt was necessary to throw in there at the end.


----------



## pixmedic

I suppose I should say something about the OP since im in here. 

honestly, I don't think exposure to and/or study of anything that will increase your knowledge or awareness is a bad thing. I cant imagine that studying art or its history would _*hurt*_ your craft, so i would think it would only help it. Even if all it does is give someone a little better appreciation of art in general, i would say its a positive gain.


----------



## Derrel

I clicked on the "Reveal Ignored Content" message in this thread. Big mistake.


----------



## bribrius

Men at Lunch A Documentary About One of the Most Iconic Photos Taken in NYC

pretty much where i stand. This, among other images that stand the test of time. About it.


----------



## Forkie

bribrius said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to a extent.
> 
> I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
> I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance.  Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills".  I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.
> 
> *I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image.  Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little.  There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is.  Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no.  And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.*
> 
> Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone.  I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images.  I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.
> 
> This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.
> 
> And if we are to claim that all this is good,  then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.
Click to expand...


Here is where the difference is.  You are placing importance in the_ subject _of your photo, whereas the photographers place their importance in their_ depiction_ of the subject.  It's composition of the photo that _makes_ a photo, not the subject itself.

A good subject does not a good photo make.


----------



## bribrius

Forkie said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to a extent.
> 
> I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
> I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance.  Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills".  I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.
> 
> *I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image.  Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little.  There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is.  Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no.  And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.*
> 
> Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone.  I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images.  I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.
> 
> This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.
> 
> And if we are to claim that all this is good,  then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is where the difference is.  You are placing importance in the_ subject _of your photo, whereas the photographers place their importance in their_ depiction_ of the subject.  It's composition of the photo that _makes_ a photo, not the subject itself.
> 
> A good subject does not a good photo make.
Click to expand...

wrong imo.
it takes both.
you can do a great job capturing a worthless subject and end up with a worthless photo. This is where phototgraphers get a little to "stuck up" on their skills. They think because the perfectly captured a park bench in means the photo has some merit when it really is worthless.


----------



## bribrius

i actually STOPPED doing that, and cut back on abstracts and such. Just because it occurred to me a simple photo of the entire park had more value than taking a "really neat" photo of a park bench.


----------



## bribrius

like this. I basically was screwing off, about the only time i shoot this sort of thing anymore.  What good is this photo? NONE. I have piles of such photos. All worthless.


----------



## bribrius

just my opinion though. To each their own. I know i did more good shooting the track team as some of the photos went to the parents. Who of  course love having photos of their kids. Much more valuable than shooting still lifes or something to me... None are ever going to be iconic images. That is mostly chance.


----------



## Designer

bribrius said:


> What good is this photo? NONE. I have piles of such photos. All worthless.


Not so! 

 The fence and shadow could be a very nice composition if composed with having a good composition in mind.


----------



## bribrius

Designer said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> What good is this photo? NONE. I have piles of such photos. All worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so!
> 
> The fence and shadow could be a very nice composition if composed with having a good composition in mind.
Click to expand...

still just another fence and shadow....... hence my mentality. Who cares. I have piles of such photos. No value. Not trying to be negative. But my mindset has pretty much gone the other way. Finding things worthy of shooting. I rack up tons of shutter counts on worthless subjects already.


----------



## Designer

I understand you think such shots are "worthless", but sometimes they can be wonderful (depending on the composition, etc.).


----------



## Forkie

bribrius said:


> wrong imo.
> it takes both.
> you can do a great job capturing a worthless subject and end up with a worthless photo. This is where phototgraphers get a little to "stuck up" on their skills. They think because the perfectly captured a park bench in means the photo has some merit when it really is worthless.



I disagree.  With some skill, some care, and some context, a park bench can be quite evocative.  Just because a subject appears to be inane, it doesn't mean it's worthless.



bribrius said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> What good is this photo? NONE. I have piles of such photos. All worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so!
> 
> The fence and shadow could be a very nice composition if composed with having a good composition in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still just another fence and shadow....... hence my mentality. Who cares. I have piles of such photos. No value. Not trying to be negative. But my mindset has pretty much gone the other way. Finding things worthy of shooting. I rack up tons of shutter counts on worthless subjects already.
Click to expand...


That begs the question, why on _earth_ do you continue to shoot worthless subjects, then, if you're simply adding to an already huge pile of worthlessness?

Do you seek out worthless objects?  Have you considered that if you pay attention to how you shoot a worthless object, you can actually _make_ it worth something?


----------



## bribrius

Forkie said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong imo.
> it takes both.
> you can do a great job capturing a worthless subject and end up with a worthless photo. This is where phototgraphers get a little to "stuck up" on their skills. They think because the perfectly captured a park bench in means the photo has some merit when it really is worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  With some skill, some care, and some context, a park bench can be quite evocative.  Just because a subject appears to be inane, it doesn't mean it's worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> What good is this photo? NONE. I have piles of such photos. All worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so!
> 
> The fence and shadow could be a very nice composition if composed with having a good composition in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still just another fence and shadow....... hence my mentality. Who cares. I have piles of such photos. No value. Not trying to be negative. But my mindset has pretty much gone the other way. Finding things worthy of shooting. I rack up tons of shutter counts on worthless subjects already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That begs the question, why on _earth_ do you continue to shoot worthless subjects, then, if you're simply adding to an already huge pile of worthlessness?
> 
> Do you seek out worthless objects?  Have you considered that if you pay attention to how you shoot a worthless object you can _make_ it worth something?
Click to expand...

i like to shoot. And purely to keep up on camera skills. And it gives me something to do.


----------



## Forkie

bribrius said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong imo.
> it takes both.
> you can do a great job capturing a worthless subject and end up with a worthless photo. This is where phototgraphers get a little to "stuck up" on their skills. They think because the perfectly captured a park bench in means the photo has some merit when it really is worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  With some skill, some care, and some context, a park bench can be quite evocative.  Just because a subject appears to be inane, it doesn't mean it's worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> What good is this photo? NONE. I have piles of such photos. All worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so!
> 
> The fence and shadow could be a very nice composition if composed with having a good composition in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still just another fence and shadow....... hence my mentality. Who cares. I have piles of such photos. No value. Not trying to be negative. But my mindset has pretty much gone the other way. Finding things worthy of shooting. I rack up tons of shutter counts on worthless subjects already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That begs the question, why on _earth_ do you continue to shoot worthless subjects, then, if you're simply adding to an already huge pile of worthlessness?
> 
> Do you seek out worthless objects?  Have you considered that if you pay attention to how you shoot a worthless object you can _make_ it worth something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i like to shoot. And purely to keep up on camera skills. And it gives me something to do.
Click to expand...


Shooting worthless objects without composition, thereby retaining their worthlessness will do nothing but maintain the status quo in your camera skills. 

How about: you've got the camera skills down.  Try combining those camera skills with artistic vision and make that fence and shadow worth something?  _That_ is where the skill is.  _That_ is what we are all striving to do; to make the worthless _worthy_.


----------



## bribrius

Forkie said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong imo.
> it takes both.
> you can do a great job capturing a worthless subject and end up with a worthless photo. This is where phototgraphers get a little to "stuck up" on their skills. They think because the perfectly captured a park bench in means the photo has some merit when it really is worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  With some skill, some care, and some context, a park bench can be quite evocative.  Just because a subject appears to be inane, it doesn't mean it's worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> What good is this photo? NONE. I have piles of such photos. All worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so!
> 
> The fence and shadow could be a very nice composition if composed with having a good composition in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still just another fence and shadow....... hence my mentality. Who cares. I have piles of such photos. No value. Not trying to be negative. But my mindset has pretty much gone the other way. Finding things worthy of shooting. I rack up tons of shutter counts on worthless subjects already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That begs the question, why on _earth_ do you continue to shoot worthless subjects, then, if you're simply adding to an already huge pile of worthlessness?
> 
> Do you seek out worthless objects?  Have you considered that if you pay attention to how you shoot a worthless object you can _make_ it worth something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i like to shoot. And purely to keep up on camera skills. And it gives me something to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting worthless objects without composition, thereby retaining their worthlessness will do nothing but maintain the status quo in your camera skills.
> 
> How about: you've got the camera skills down.  Try combining those camera skills with artistic vision and make that fence and shadow worth something?  _That_ is where the skill is.  _That_ is what we are all striving to do; to make the worthless _worthy_.
Click to expand...

That is what i have been trying to STOP doing.  Put lipstick on a pig it was still a pig. I went through a mass deletion spree a while back.. "what is the point of this image? None." delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. 
Didn't matter how well it was executed. Looked at it. ahh... no value.
delete.......
Just did it again last week. wiped out 3 thousand photos.


----------



## bribrius

i took some more over the last few days, i'll crop, edit maybe (maybe not) and delete.


----------



## Designer

Trying to keep the topic in harmony with the OP:



Overread said:


> .. but I think that being social creatures we also like to share and feel that we contribute to the group(s) we are within as well. That we have something to offer, something that makes us stand out, even if just a little.



There are exceptions.


----------



## Designer

bribrius; I am curious as to why you show anybody anything.  I mean if, as you say, the main reason you make photographs is to be more familiar with your camera, why show your photographs?

In your Thread of Many Photographs (my title, you can't have it) there are scads of photographs of the mundane.  (Way too many for me to comment on other than to reiterate that there are lots of them.)

See them here:  untitled Photography Forum


----------



## Forkie

bribrius said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong imo.
> it takes both.
> you can do a great job capturing a worthless subject and end up with a worthless photo. This is where phototgraphers get a little to "stuck up" on their skills. They think because the perfectly captured a park bench in means the photo has some merit when it really is worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  With some skill, some care, and some context, a park bench can be quite evocative.  Just because a subject appears to be inane, it doesn't mean it's worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> What good is this photo? NONE. I have piles of such photos. All worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so!
> 
> The fence and shadow could be a very nice composition if composed with having a good composition in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still just another fence and shadow....... hence my mentality. Who cares. I have piles of such photos. No value. Not trying to be negative. But my mindset has pretty much gone the other way. Finding things worthy of shooting. I rack up tons of shutter counts on worthless subjects already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That begs the question, why on _earth_ do you continue to shoot worthless subjects, then, if you're simply adding to an already huge pile of worthlessness?
> 
> Do you seek out worthless objects?  Have you considered that if you pay attention to how you shoot a worthless object you can _make_ it worth something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i like to shoot. And purely to keep up on camera skills. And it gives me something to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting worthless objects without composition, thereby retaining their worthlessness will do nothing but maintain the status quo in your camera skills.
> 
> How about: you've got the camera skills down.  Try combining those camera skills with artistic vision and make that fence and shadow worth something?  _That_ is where the skill is.  _That_ is what we are all striving to do; to make the worthless _worthy_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what i have been trying to STOP doing.  Put lipstick on a pig it was still a pig. I went through a mass deletion spree a while back.. "what is the point of this image? None." delete. delete. delete. delete. delete.
> Didn't matter how well it was executed. Looked at it. ahh... no value.
> delete.......
> Just did it again last week. wiped out 3 thousand photos.
Click to expand...



Then, I don't see the point in your endeavours.  Shooting a "worthless" object and actively shooting it mundanely makes not only the subject worthless, the photo worthless, but that _act itself_ utterly worthless.  You seem to be wasting an awful lot of your time!

I'm not sure I can understand any of your previous points after that.  It is the very definition of pointless other than as a way to occupy your fingers, because it certainly won't improve your camera skills.


----------



## Buckster

I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life.  He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue.  Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit.  And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while.  The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.

He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be.  He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.  

He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess.  They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.


----------



## bribrius

Designer said:


> bribrius; I am curious as to why you show anybody anything.  I mean if, as you say, the main reason you make photographs is to be more familiar with your camera, why show your photographs?
> 
> In your Thread of Many Photographs (my title, you can't have it) there are scads of photographs of the mundane.  (Way too many for me to comment on other than to reiterate that there are lots of them.)
> 
> See them here:  untitled Photography Forum


Camera(s). suppose i just support photography and the arts in general. It is fun. And i shoot about everything. You can pretty much tell what mood i am in, how much i care at the moment just by seeing my photos. Clearly, most could have been done better. Clearly, most of them i was just having fun. Most of those are deleted at this point.


----------



## bribrius

Buckster said:


> I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life.  He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue.  Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit.  And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while.  The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.
> 
> He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be.  He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.
> 
> He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess.  They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.


That is just flat out insulting. I started this about 30 years ago. Far as af, most of my cameras dont even have af and are all manual.  You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I make no excuses, i really don't care what you think either to be honest. Whatever i do, or don't do, is really not your concern to judge. So go shut the **** up and get a life.


----------



## Forkie

Buckster said:


> I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life.  He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue.  Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit.  And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while.  The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.
> 
> He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be.  He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.
> 
> He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess.  They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.



See, I find that a little bit fascinating.  The fact that that guy looks through them hoping to find "the one" suggests that he does have an idea of what makes a good photo, so why not try to intentionally reach that goal instead of  searching for the needle in the haystack?


----------



## Buckster

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life.  He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue.  Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit.  And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while.  The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.
> 
> He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be.  He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.
> 
> He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess.  They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
> 
> 
> 
> That is just flat out insulting. I started this about 30 years ago. Far as af, most of my cameras dont even have af and are all manual.  You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I make no excuses, i really don't care what you think either to be honest. Whatever i do, or don't do, is really not your concern to judge. So go shut the **** up and get a life.
Click to expand...

Why are you attacking me?  I don't know you from Adam.  I'm talking about a friend of mine.  Great guy, lots of fun, just not a photographer.  He hit for $10k once with a scratch off lottery ticket, and camera gear was one of the things he bought with it.

You feeling guilty about something, or what?

By the way, "30 years ago"?  I had no idea you were so old.  Or did you become an avant-garde artiste at 2 years old?  It must have cost you a LOT of money shooting thousands of snapshots per day that you didn't care about pre-digital, eh?


----------



## bribrius

Forkie said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life.  He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue.  Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit.  And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while.  The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.
> 
> He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be.  He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.
> 
> He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess.  They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, I find that a little bit fascinating. * The fact that that guy looks through them hoping to find "the one" *suggests that he does have an idea of what makes a good photo, so why not try to intentionally reach that goal instead of  searching for the needle in the haystack?
Click to expand...

I actually don't. I usually just shoot for the sake of shooting. I have photos i have shot i haven't even looked at.


----------



## bribrius

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life.  He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue.  Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit.  And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while.  The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.
> 
> He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be.  He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.
> 
> He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess.  They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
> 
> 
> 
> That is just flat out insulting. I started this about 30 years ago. Far as af, most of my cameras dont even have af and are all manual.  You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I make no excuses, i really don't care what you think either to be honest. Whatever i do, or don't do, is really not your concern to judge. So go shut the **** up and get a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you attacking me?  I don't know you from Adam.  I'm talking about a friend of mine.  Great guy, lots of fun, just not a photographer.
> 
> You feeling guilty about something, or what?
> 
> By the way, "30 years ago"?  I had no idea you were so old.  Or did you become an avant-garde artiste at 2 years old?
Click to expand...

 Actually yeah, i started shooting when i was about ten. Why you comparing me to your little friend and insinuating? why you so concerned with what i do? I am kind of anti bullshit case you haven't noticed. Attacking you? seriously? This is my good side. If i was attacking you i would have filled a page.


----------



## Buckster

Forkie said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life.  He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue.  Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit.  And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while.  The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.
> 
> He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be.  He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.
> 
> He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess.  They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, I find that a little bit fascinating.  The fact that that guy looks through them hoping to find "the one" suggests that he does have an idea of what makes a good photo, so why not try to intentionally reach that goal instead of  searching for the needle in the haystack?
Click to expand...

I guess he knew what he liked when he saw a particular picture, but just couldn't seem to figure out how to make it happen intentionally when looking through the viewfinder.

He simply couldn't seem to pre-visualize the shot, the way most of us can before even raising the viewfinder to our eye.  We see or think of something interesting and walk around it, if only in our mind's eye, looking at the light, the shadow, the juxtaposition with other compositional elements, thinking about the effects of DOF and shutter speed, the proper ISO to achieve them, etc., and THEN we raise the viewfinder to our eye.  He just didn't get that part of it.


----------



## terri

Let's keep things friendly, guys...respect each other's choices and approaches to photography.   What  works for some won't work for all...that doesn't make it wrong, or worthless or bad.  If we were all the same it would be a pretty boring old world!


----------



## Buckster

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life.  He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue.  Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit.  And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while.  The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.
> 
> He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be.  He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.
> 
> He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess.  They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
> 
> 
> 
> That is just flat out insulting. I started this about 30 years ago. Far as af, most of my cameras dont even have af and are all manual.  You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I make no excuses, i really don't care what you think either to be honest. Whatever i do, or don't do, is really not your concern to judge. So go shut the **** up and get a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you attacking me?  I don't know you from Adam.  I'm talking about a friend of mine.  Great guy, lots of fun, just not a photographer.
> 
> You feeling guilty about something, or what?
> 
> By the way, "30 years ago"?  I had no idea you were so old.  Or did you become an avant-garde artiste at 2 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually yeah, i started shooting when i was about ten. Why you comparing me to your little friend and insinuating? why you so concerned with what i do? I am kind of anti bullshit case you haven't noticed. Attacking you? seriously? This is my good side. If i was attacking you i would have filled a page.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you think everything revolves around you, but it doesn't.  Sorry to bust your bubble.


----------



## Buckster

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life.  He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue.  Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit.  And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while.  The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.
> 
> He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be.  He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.
> 
> He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess.  They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
> 
> 
> 
> That is just flat out insulting. I started this about 30 years ago. Far as af, most of my cameras dont even have af and are all manual.  You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I make no excuses, i really don't care what you think either to be honest. Whatever i do, or don't do, is really not your concern to judge. So go shut the **** up and get a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you attacking me?  I don't know you from Adam.  I'm talking about a friend of mine.  Great guy, lots of fun, just not a photographer.
> 
> You feeling guilty about something, or what?
> 
> By the way, "30 years ago"?  I had no idea you were so old.  Or did you become an avant-garde artiste at 2 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually yeah, i started shooting when i was about ten. Why you comparing me to your little friend and insinuating? why you so concerned with what i do? I am kind of anti bullshit case you haven't noticed. Attacking you? seriously? This is my good side. If i was attacking you i would have filled a page.
Click to expand...

I consider phrases like, "go shut the **** up and get a life" to be attacks, believe it or not.


----------



## Forkie

terri said:


> Let's keep things friendly, guys...respect each other's choices and approaches to photography.   What  works for some won't work for all...that doesn't make it wrong, or worthless or bad.  If we were all the same it would be a pretty boring old world!



I agree.  I wasn't trying to make a dig at Bribrius or saying he was wrong.  It's just an approach to photography I haven't come across before, so am just trying to understand his approach.  

I'm trying to figure out if the approach is a love for photography without a love for _photographs, _which is what I think I've decided it must be.  Whereas I, and 99% of other photographers I know have a love for _photographs_ and the _photography _part is just the means by which we get those photographs, even though I/we also enjoy and/or love that part too.


----------



## tirediron

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I once knew a guy with a camera (GWAC) who couldn't intentionally recognize, set up, and compose a shot to save his life.  He basically just pointed his camera at anything and everything, willy-nilly, and fired away, shot after shot after shot - thousands per day sometimes, without a clue.  Later, he'd go through them, hoping to find one worth a spit.  And just like the blind squirrel, sure enough, he'd stumble across one by accident every once in a while.  The rest of the junk (and there was tons of it) he'd just delete.
> 
> He just wasn't a "photographer", and never would be.  He was just a GWAC who had a twitchy shutter finger, and knew how to focus (usually let the AF do it for him) and how to get a decent exposure (usually AE and a ton of bracketing), and that was the best he could do.
> 
> He did get pretty good at making excuses for it though too, I guess.  They sounded a lot like Bri's, tbh.
> 
> 
> 
> That is just flat out insulting. I started this about 30 years ago. Far as af, most of my cameras dont even have af and are all manual.  You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I make no excuses, i really don't care what you think either to be honest. Whatever i do, or don't do, is really not your concern to judge. So go shut the **** up and get a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you attacking me?  I don't know you from Adam.  I'm talking about a friend of mine.  Great guy, lots of fun, just not a photographer.
> 
> You feeling guilty about something, or what?
> 
> By the way, "30 years ago"?  I had no idea you were so old.  Or did you become an avant-garde artiste at 2 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually yeah, i started shooting when i was about ten. Why you comparing me to your little friend and insinuating? why you so concerned with what i do? I am kind of anti bullshit case you haven't noticed. Attacking you? seriously? This is my good side. If i was attacking you i would have filled a page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider phrases like, "go shut the **** up and get a life" to be attacks, believe it or not.
Click to expand...

 And some might consider it a response to a rather thinly veiled insult...  quid pro quo!

There's already been one warning for this thread, everyone place nice so it stays open, 'kay?  Thanks!


----------



## Buckster

tirediron said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider phrases like, "go shut the **** up and get a life" to be attacks, believe it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> And some might consider it a response to a rather thinly veiled insult...  quid pro quo!
Click to expand...

So, now you're thinly inferring that I'm a liar because god forbid that I should actually know and be friends with a GWAC in real life, and that I DESERVE an attack for it because for some reason, Bri apparently identifies with my friend Larry.

Amazing.


----------



## bribrius

Forkie said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep things friendly, guys...respect each other's choices and approaches to photography.   What  works for some won't work for all...that doesn't make it wrong, or worthless or bad.  If we were all the same it would be a pretty boring old world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I wasn't trying to make a dig at Bribrius or saying he was wrong.  It's just an approach to photography I haven't come across before, so am just trying to understand his approach.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out if the approach is a love for photography *without a love for *_*photographs*, _which is what I think I've decided it must be.  Whereas I, and 99% of other photographers I know have a love for _photographs_ and the _photography _part is just the means by which we get those photographs, even though I/we also enjoy and/or love that part too.
Click to expand...

oh but i DO. I started collecting 1800's early 1900's photos and post cards a little over a decade ago. Stopped for a while but find my self out looking online for something i like again. Same with my own photos. Just like a certain thing and i am "picky". Much a personal thing/addiction/hobby.


----------



## Designer

bribrius said:


> That is just flat out insulting.


Only if you project yourself into his story.


----------



## Gary A.

Forkie said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to a extent.
> 
> I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
> I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance.  Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills".  I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.
> 
> *I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image.  Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little.  There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is.  Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no.  And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.*
> 
> Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone.  I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images.  I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.
> 
> This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.
> 
> And if we are to claim that all this is good,  then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is where the difference is.  You are placing importance in the_ subject _of your photo, whereas the photographers place their importance in their_ depiction_ of the subject.  It's composition of the photo that _makes_ a photo, not the subject itself.
> 
> A good subject does not a good photo make.
Click to expand...

In my world of photojournalism, it is all about the subject, all about the story. In the world of studio/commercial photography, it is about composition and lighting ... In the studio, it is more important to capture a pretty picture than the telling of a story. (pretty = successful)

I completely disagree with "It's [the] composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.", as an all-encompassing generalization of photography.  When you're shooting ... non-moving subjects in a controlled environment, then composition is vitally important. But when you're documenting a story, shooting a non-stationary subject(s) in a fluid, uncontrolled environment ... then, composition becomes secondary to shooting the story, to capturing the defining moment of the story. But composition is always there and the documentary photographer is always looking for ways to add drama, emphasis and punctuation to the images.

.... okay, I get it and we're both saying the same thing ... the difference between a snapshot and a photograph is the depiction by the photog of the subject as opposed to the minimal to no photographer input of a snapshot.

And you equate that photographer depiction as composition.


----------



## bribrius

Designer said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is just flat out insulting.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you project yourself into his story.
Click to expand...

Just caught the last line, it was enough for me. Apparently enough for the mod too. I could ask you the same thing. How come you are so worried about what i do? I hardly ever see you post any images.


----------



## sashbar

Creating Beauty in the Mundane Great Photos of Park Benches Light Stalking


----------



## bribrius

sashbar said:


> Creating Beauty in the Mundane Great Photos of Park Benches Light Stalking


yeah it gets a little "old" though doesn't it? I do like the bw and the walkway though.  (6,7)


----------



## tirediron

Gary A. said:


> ...I completely disagree with "It's [the] composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.", as an all-encompassing generalization of photography.  When you're shooting ... non-moving subjects in a controlled environment, then composition is vitally important. But when you're documenting a story, shooting a non-stationary subject(s) in a fluid, uncontrolled environment ... then, composition becomes secondary to shooting the story, to capturing the defining moment of the story. But composition is always there and the documentary photographer is always looking for ways to add drama, emphasis and punctuation to the images.
> 
> .... okay, I get it and we're both saying the same thing ... the difference between a snapshot and a photograph is the depiction by the photog of the subject as opposed to the minimal to no photographer input of a snapshot.
> 
> And you equate that photographer depiction as composition.


 I'm going to respectfully disagree with you Gary, at least to a point.  I think composition is critical and is indeed the defining quality of almost every image, BUT... what consitutes good composition for me, in the studio, and what is good composition for you shooting a riot in downtown LA are often two totally different things, but let's face it, if I cut off the subject's head, chances are the client's not buying the image.  If you cut off the head of the guy holding the flaming Molotove cocktail in front of the riot squad, chances are the image isn't running above the fold.


----------



## bribrius

tirediron said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I completely disagree with "It's [the] composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.", as an all-encompassing generalization of photography.  When you're shooting ... non-moving subjects in a controlled environment, then composition is vitally important. But when you're documenting a story, shooting a non-stationary subject(s) in a fluid, uncontrolled environment ... then, composition becomes secondary to shooting the story, to capturing the defining moment of the story. But composition is always there and the documentary photographer is always looking for ways to add drama, emphasis and punctuation to the images.
> 
> .... okay, I get it and we're both saying the same thing ... the difference between a snapshot and a photograph is the depiction by the photog of the subject as opposed to the minimal to no photographer input of a snapshot.
> 
> And you equate that photographer depiction as composition.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to respectfully disagree with you Gary, at least to a point.  I think composition is critical and is indeed the defining quality of almost every image, BUT... what consitutes good composition for me, in the studio, and what is good composition for you shooting a riot in downtown LA are often two totally different things, but let's face it, if I cut off the subject's head, chances are the client's not buying the image.  If you cut off the head of the guy holding the flaming Molotove cocktail in front of the riot squad, chances are the image isn't running above the fold.
Click to expand...

lol. yeah, you start cutting off heads you better be going for some kind of abstract people shot...


----------



## sashbar

I think what Gary says is that a reporter often simply can not afford that luxury to care too much about the composition. He has no time, he is restricted in his movements, he can not choose the a better light etc,  but nevertheless basic composition is so much engraved  in his mind it is practically automatic, he does what he can in the circumstances.  When there is a choice, an editor will always choose a better composed shot, but sometimes just about any shot will do, because he need at least something to illustrate a story.


----------



## Forkie

Gary A. said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to a extent.
> 
> I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
> I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance.  Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills".  I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.
> 
> *I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image.  Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little.  There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is.  Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no.  And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.*
> 
> Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone.  I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images.  I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.
> 
> This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.
> 
> And if we are to claim that all this is good,  then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is where the difference is.  You are placing importance in the_ subject _of your photo, whereas the photographers place their importance in their_ depiction_ of the subject.  It's composition of the photo that _makes_ a photo, not the subject itself.
> 
> A good subject does not a good photo make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my world of photojournalism, it is all about the subject, all about the story. In the world of studio/commercial photography, it is about composition and lighting ... In the studio, it is more important to capture a pretty picture than the telling of a story. (pretty = successful)
> 
> I completely disagree with "It's [the] composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.", as an all-encompassing generalization of photography.  When you're shooting ... non-moving subjects in a controlled environment, then composition is vitally important. But when you're documenting a story, shooting a non-stationary subject(s) in a fluid, uncontrolled environment ... then, composition becomes secondary to shooting the story, to capturing the defining moment of the story. But composition is always there and the documentary photographer is always looking for ways to add drama, emphasis and punctuation to the images.
> 
> .... okay, I get it and we're both saying the same thing ... the difference between a snapshot and a photograph is the depiction by the photog of the subject as opposed to the minimal to no photographer input of a snapshot.
> 
> And you equate that photographer depiction as composition.
Click to expand...



You are right about photojournalism to a point.  The point of that is to capture what's going on, regardless.  The same with TV news.  News Team cameramen are not famous for their artistic flair!  But that's almost not quite the same job.  A photojournalist's job is to record and document, whereas any other genre is to portray something in an artistic/visually pleasing/evocative way.  Although, there are in fact some photojournalists who still go for the artistic, i.e., Steve McCurry with his Afghan Girl.

The bit I'm most referring to is the ability of a photographer to show whatever it is he's photographing in the best way possible.  Not just to point and click at it.  Which is what I expected every photographer to want to do.  But now it seems I was wrong, because there are people around who will just snap at stuff with no intention ever to consider it even worth snapping in the first place.


----------



## bribrius

Forkie said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to a extent.
> 
> I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
> I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance.  Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills".  I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.
> 
> *I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image.  Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little.  There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is.  Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no.  And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.*
> 
> Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone.  I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images.  I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.
> 
> This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.
> 
> And if we are to claim that all this is good,  then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is where the difference is.  You are placing importance in the_ subject _of your photo, whereas the photographers place their importance in their_ depiction_ of the subject.  It's composition of the photo that _makes_ a photo, not the subject itself.
> 
> A good subject does not a good photo make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my world of photojournalism, it is all about the subject, all about the story. In the world of studio/commercial photography, it is about composition and lighting ... In the studio, it is more important to capture a pretty picture than the telling of a story. (pretty = successful)
> 
> I completely disagree with "It's [the] composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.", as an all-encompassing generalization of photography.  When you're shooting ... non-moving subjects in a controlled environment, then composition is vitally important. But when you're documenting a story, shooting a non-stationary subject(s) in a fluid, uncontrolled environment ... then, composition becomes secondary to shooting the story, to capturing the defining moment of the story. But composition is always there and the documentary photographer is always looking for ways to add drama, emphasis and punctuation to the images.
> 
> .... okay, I get it and we're both saying the same thing ... the difference between a snapshot and a photograph is the depiction by the photog of the subject as opposed to the minimal to no photographer input of a snapshot.
> 
> And you equate that photographer depiction as composition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about photojournalism to a point.  The point of that is to capture what's going on, regardless.  The same with TV news.  News Team cameramen are not famous for their artistic flair!  But that's almost not quite the same job.  A photojournalist's job is to record and document, whereas any other genre is to portray something in an artistic/visually pleasing/evocative way.  Although, there are in fact some photojournalists who still go for the artistic, i.e., Steve McCurry with his Afghan Girl.
> 
> The bit I'm most referring to is the ability of a photographer to show whatever it is he's photographing in the best way possible.  Not just to point and click at it.  Which is what I expected every photographer to want to do.  But now it seems I was wrong, because there are people around who will just snap at stuff with no intention ever to consider it even worth snapping in the first place.
Click to expand...

Everyone is different. Something to keep in mind. The stuff i am "dumping" in the untitled thread today i run for chits and giggles (give people something to look at i suppose) i actually snapped all these shots yesterday and others while i was outside playing "tag" with my kids.  From your perspective, i should have paid drastic close attention to each one to try to perfect it.
I was playing tag while i did it and hide and go seek. See the difference?


----------



## bribrius

you all need to lighten up a little. Photography isn't meant to be this stressful, especially if you aren't doing it for money.
just sayn......


----------



## Buckster

I wonder what kind of response I would get if I went to a forum of woodworking furniture craftsmen and started posting pictures of rough, unfinished blocks of wood with bent nails in them and saying stuff like, "After 30 years of woodworking, here's my latest chair/table/cabinet."  Then when the eyebrows raise and the questions start flowing, just respond with stuff like, "well I just really don't care that much about the finished product, I just enjoy banging nails into wood until they're bent, and I don't plan to actually use this stuff, and besides, I was pretty busy watching cartoons at the time, so you all need to stop insulting me and my work and lighten up.  After all, this is supposed to be fun."

Something tells me I'd be laughed right off of their forum or called a troll, or both.

Not that there's anything like that going on here, mind you...  It's just something that came to mind suddenly out of the blue, and I don't even know why...


----------



## tirediron

Buckster said:


> I wonder what kind of response I would get if I went to a forum of woodworking furniture craftsmen and started posting pictures of rough, unfinished blocks of wood with bent nails in them and saying stuff like, "After 30 years of woodworking, here's my latest chair/table/cabinet."  Then when the eyebrows raise and the questions start flowing, just respond with stuff like, "well I just really don't care that much about the finished product, I just enjoy banging nails into wood until they're bent, and I don't plan to actually use this stuff, and besides, I was pretty busy watching cartoons at the time, so you all need to stop insulting me and my work and lighten up.  After all, this is supposed to be fun."
> 
> Something tells me I'd be laughed right off of their forum or called a troll, or both.
> 
> Not that there's anything like that going on here, mind you...  It's just something that came to mind suddenly out of the blue, and I don't even know why...


 One immediate difference that comes to mind is that in your example of cabinetry, you can, at least to some degree, quantify quality based on established standards; that is:  Doors should open and close freely, the top should not fall off, etc.  That said, I'm sure you wouldn't have to look to far to find someone who has produced "art" from blocks of wood with bent, rusty nails hammered into them (and doubtless received a government grant for it) and called it art.  I'm the first to admit that I don't understand the vast majority of what is referred to as "art", but that doesn't diminish it any way.  I'm sure there are many ('most' more likely) who look at images that I've created and immodestly refer to as 'art' and shake their heads in incredulity...


----------



## bribrius

Buckster said:


> I wonder what kind of response I would get if I went to a forum of woodworking furniture craftsmen and started posting pictures of rough, unfinished blocks of wood with bent nails in them and saying stuff like, "After 30 years of woodworking, here's my latest chair/table/cabinet."  Then when the eyebrows raise and the questions start flowing, just respond with stuff like, "well I just really don't care that much about the finished product, I just enjoy banging nails into wood until they're bent, and I don't plan to actually use this stuff, and besides, I was pretty busy watching cartoons at the time, so you all need to stop insulting me and my work and lighten up.  After all, this is supposed to be fun."
> 
> Something tells me I'd be laughed right off of their forum or called a troll, or both.
> 
> Not that there's anything like that going on here, mind you...  It's just something that came to mind suddenly out of the blue, and I don't even know why...


Oh, i am definitely not the greatest photographer. Never claimed to be. I just can't seem to fathom why you worry more about it than i do. Refer yourself again back to my earlier post (in which you believe you were attacked).


----------



## Buckster

tirediron said:


> One immediate difference that comes to mind is that in your example of cabinetry, you can, at least to some degree, quantify quality based on established standards; that is:  Doors should open and close freely, the top should not fall off, etc.


That's only if you care about the quality of the finished result, but we already established that I don't - I just enjoy the "banging nails into blocks of wood until they're bent" part of it, not whether anyone thinks it's any good or conforms to anyone else's standards.  And then I like to share those results with other woodworking craftsmen for them to enjoy.

How could any of that be at all questionable?


----------



## pixmedic

Buckster said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> One immediate difference that comes to mind is that in your example of cabinetry, you can, at least to some degree, quantify quality based on established standards; that is:  Doors should open and close freely, the top should not fall off, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> That's only if you care about the finished result, but we already established that I don't - I just enjoy the "banging nails into blocks of wood until they're bent" part of it, not whether anyone thinks it's any good or conforms to anyone else's standards.  And then I like to share those results with other woodworking craftsmen for them to enjoy.
> 
> How could any of that be at all questionable?
Click to expand...


I think, and i might be totally off here, that in reference to the woodworking forum analogy... if you produce, lets say...less than generally pleasing or functional work (and you are aware of its shortcomings or un-mainstreamism), and you display it in a manner for public consumption, then you probably should not be surprised when said work is not readily accepted by more mainstream craftsmen (or women) and they comment to point out the cosmetic or functional flaws.


----------



## Gary A.

Gentlemen, if you would have read the entire post ... I ultimately got Forkie's point and agreed with him. Forkie and I are saying the same thing and coming to the same conclusion ... just through different paths.


----------



## Designer

bribrius said:


> How come you are so worried about what i do?


I didn't think I was the least bit concerned.  

Participating in a conversation is just that, nothing more.  

Sometimes I just like the typing action, and feeling the keys move under my fingers.  

Whatever occurs as a result of my typing means nothing to me.


----------



## Buckster

pixmedic said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> One immediate difference that comes to mind is that in your example of cabinetry, you can, at least to some degree, quantify quality based on established standards; that is:  Doors should open and close freely, the top should not fall off, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> That's only if you care about the finished result, but we already established that I don't - I just enjoy the "banging nails into blocks of wood until they're bent" part of it, not whether anyone thinks it's any good or conforms to anyone else's standards.  And then I like to share those results with other woodworking craftsmen for them to enjoy.
> 
> How could any of that be at all questionable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, and i might be totally off here, that in reference to the woodworking forum analogy... if you produce, lets say...less than generally pleasing or functional work (and you are aware of its shortcomings or un-mainstreamism), and you display it in a manner for public consumption, then you probably should not be surprised when said work is not readily accepted by more mainstream craftsmen (or women) and they comment to point out the cosmetic or functional flaws.
Click to expand...

Well, I would agree.

Nonetheless, my response is that I continue to sweep that all away with a virtual wave of the hand by saying none of what they're saying matters to me because after 30 long years of my own skilled woodworking practice, research and craftsmanship, I already understand what's expected by "the woodworking craftsmanship mainstream", reject it as boring stuff that's been done a million times, am doing my own thing, and I shouldn't have to keep explaining myself or trying to justify it to any of them.

Besides, again, it's not the end result that matters to me.  I burn most of it in the end, that's how little I care about it.

My question is, should they really be expected to just unquestioningly accept and embrace my chunk of wood with a bent nail and what I'm saying as justification for it, to be valid in the context of what their forum and their world of woodworking craftsmanship is about?  Is there no line at all, anywhere?  Anything goes, no matter what?


----------



## bribrius

Designer said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come you are so worried about what i do?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think I was the least bit concerned.
> 
> Participating in a conversation is just that, nothing more.
> 
> Sometimes I just like the typing action, and feeling the keys move under my fingers.
> 
> Whatever occurs as a result of my typing means nothing to me.
Click to expand...

okay, that was funny.
i have to give you that one.

keep in mind though, what you referred to and seems to be referring to is the "just for fun" section of the forum. Which for some odd reason, seems to bother you. And, if you really insist on being so concerned with what i post in the just for fun section it would be really nice to see more of your own work. Again, you hardly ever post photos. If you posted more it would give us all a better idea of your skill level and would help the community aspect of the site as well.


----------



## Designer

bribrius said:


> If you posted more it would give us all a better idea of your skill level and would help the community aspect of the site as well.


There are some very good reasons for my not posting more, but what has my skill level to do with anything?


----------



## The_Traveler

Buckster said:


> Nonetheless, my response is that I continue to sweep that all away with a virtual wave of the hand by saying none of what they're saying matters to me because after 30 long years of my own skilled woodworking practice, research and craftsmanship, I already understand what's expected by "the woodworking craftsmanship mainstream", reject it as boring stuff that's been done a million times, am doing my own thing, and I shouldn't have to keep explaining myself or trying to justify it to any of them.



How about if  this mysterious wood worker doesn't limit his opinions to what he himself is doing, but continually tells everyone else that what they are doing is worthless?


----------



## JacaRanda

The_Traveler said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, my response is that I continue to sweep that all away with a virtual wave of the hand by saying none of what they're saying matters to me because after 30 long years of my own skilled woodworking practice, research and craftsmanship, I already understand what's expected by "the woodworking craftsmanship mainstream", reject it as boring stuff that's been done a million times, am doing my own thing, and I shouldn't have to keep explaining myself or trying to justify it to any of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if  this mysterious wood worker doesn't limit his opinions to what he himself is doing, but continually tells everyone else that what they are doing is worthless?
Click to expand...

 
Well at least the wood worker has nothing negative to say about generous donators of camera gear.


----------



## bribrius

The_Traveler said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, my response is that I continue to sweep that all away with a virtual wave of the hand by saying none of what they're saying matters to me because after 30 long years of my own skilled woodworking practice, research and craftsmanship, I already understand what's expected by "the woodworking craftsmanship mainstream", reject it as boring stuff that's been done a million times, am doing my own thing, and I shouldn't have to keep explaining myself or trying to justify it to any of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if  this mysterious wood worker doesn't limit his opinions to what he himself is doing, but continually tells everyone else that what they are doing is worthless?
Click to expand...

well that is true. I didn't intend it that way. Just some things no longer interest me, we all have our photography interests. I do apologize for that comment. If others have a different outlook, or interests, i totally respect and understand that.


----------



## ahmadsaleh50.as

Hi


----------



## VictoriaSugg

So agree that all of us have "our photography interests". We really should respect what others think about it. Actually it's my firs time right there but so intrested about that forum.


----------



## robbins.photo

VictoriaSugg said:


> So agree that all of us have "our photography interests". We really should respect what others think about it. Actually it's my firs time right there but so intrested about that forum.


Sure, well except for those folks who take pictures at a zoo.  Those guys should be killed.  Or at the very least shunned.  Lol


----------



## bribrius

robbins.photo said:


> VictoriaSugg said:
> 
> 
> 
> So agree that all of us have "our photography interests". We really should respect what others think about it. Actually it's my firs time right there but so intrested about that forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, well except for those folks who take pictures at a zoo.  Those guys should be killed.  Or at the very least shunned.  Lol
Click to expand...

actually, you been missed. Where ya been? Yes, it was noticed you were gone. I didn't put up any missing persons posters on poles but i was kinda wondering what happend to you.


----------



## Derrel

Designer said:
			
		

> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come you are so worried about what i do?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think I was the least bit concerned.
> 
> Participating in a conversation is just that, nothing more.
> 
> Sometimes I just like the typing action, and feeling the keys move under my fingers.
> 
> Whatever occurs as a result of my typing means nothing to me.
Click to expand...


Oh, I see what you did there! A brilliant bit of smart-assery there, indeed!


----------



## bribrius

Derrel said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come you are so worried about what i do?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think I was the least bit concerned.
> 
> Participating in a conversation is just that, nothing more.
> 
> Sometimes I just like the typing action, and feeling the keys move under my fingers.
> 
> Whatever occurs as a result of my typing means nothing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see what you did there! A brilliant bit of smart-assery there, indeed!
Click to expand...

yes, they seemed rather upset. As they disagreed with my methodology on photography and it bothered them even more that i didn't care if they disagreed. It did turn into a rather amusing thread though.


----------



## Designer

You have missed the point.


----------



## chuasam

Always aim for the best. Better a Jon Snow trough than the Dunning Kruger peak.


----------



## robbins.photo

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VictoriaSugg said:
> 
> 
> 
> So agree that all of us have "our photography interests". We really should respect what others think about it. Actually it's my firs time right there but so intrested about that forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, well except for those folks who take pictures at a zoo.  Those guys should be killed.  Or at the very least shunned.  Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually, you been missed. Where ya been? Yes, it was noticed you were gone. I didn't put up any missing persons posters on poles but i was kinda wondering what happend to you.
Click to expand...


I've been missed?  Well I guess once you get that rifle scope calibrated.. lol.

A while back I was involved in a car accident, laid me up for a while and I wasn't really able to go out and shoot as a result.  Then real life got in the way again, things got pretty crazy at work, and well I just didn't have any free time to speak of until just recently.


----------



## bribrius

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VictoriaSugg said:
> 
> 
> 
> So agree that all of us have "our photography interests". We really should respect what others think about it. Actually it's my firs time right there but so intrested about that forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, well except for those folks who take pictures at a zoo.  Those guys should be killed.  Or at the very least shunned.  Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually, you been missed. Where ya been? Yes, it was noticed you were gone. I didn't put up any missing persons posters on poles but i was kinda wondering what happend to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been missed?  Well I guess once you get that rifle scope calibrated.. lol.
> 
> A while back I was involved in a car accident, laid me up for a while and I wasn't really able to go out and shoot as a result.  Then real life got in the way again, things got pretty crazy at work, and well I just didn't have any free time to speak of until just recently.
Click to expand...

well hopefully things are going better for you now. CHEERS!


----------



## robbins.photo

bribrius said:


> well hopefully things are going better for you now. CHEERS!



Yup, no worries.  You know what they say, "That which doesn't kill you raises your insurance rates".


----------



## bribrius

Designer said:


> You have missed the point.


Good possibility. My wife often tells me i am detached and rather dense. But i miss the point with that too.


----------



## bribrius

At this point (for me at least) the majority of what i shoot all looks alike. Another person, another building, another tree, another flower, another park bench, another bridge, another farm house......
They are all the same i don't even separate them anymore. Like mass production, just another..........Flip through them, all look the same to me now. Just "another"
Not very often i run into something that isn't just "another" that really attracts my attention. Even if the light is good, i see a good shot.  It is just "another".
I am always looking for something different that interests me. In between, i just don't worry about it. I am fairly certain i could take better waterfall or river pics at this point. But i have so many i took already i just don't have the care to bother.  "another" river pic. Amongst the thousand i already shot... so what........  i snap it with a point and shoot or whatever now and and just walk away. No interest. If i have dslr with me i dont even bother to change lenses half the time even if i know i should.
what has kept me interested, is falling back on the old manual lenses and cameras and going back to film more. I like the variety of yanking out a different old lense and old camera just for something different. And point and shoots, i seem to be falling back on 4,8,16 mp point and shoots more lately. Just for something different and mix it up a little. Most of the above doesn't help the final image at all, could actually deteriorate it depending on what i am shooting. But it keeps me interested with some variety and some challenge. Had the dslr out the other day, i shot in jpeg "basic". About the lowest quality you can get. Just like i put my older lenses on it sometimes. It has become more about keeping interest in swapping things around than about image quality in most cases. In fact sometimes i am purposely deteriorating the image quality just to achieve a older or different look to the photo. And well, it is more fun....


----------



## stardust

Overread said:


> A while ago I tried to join into a gaming group, they were a fun friendly group of players of a decent number and a whole spread of ages. However despite their friendly nature I didn't stick it out with the group and there was a reason for that - they were too good and a touch too focused on the competitive side.
> 
> It made me start to think if this isn't perhaps a problem with photography in todays world, especially online. Certainly being around peers who have superior skill can inspire; it can push a person to improve to reach that similar standard. Indeed I would not be one to disagree that exposure to superior works is a beneficial thing and that without it one can end up setting a lower standard than ones full potential.
> 
> 
> However I wonder if many of us have gotten too much of this. That we are bombarded by such a volume of quality, of inspiration and of skill that we end up losing focus and that former motivation starts to dwindle away. I feel that many times we lack that contemporary grouping, those who are of a similar skill and experience set of our own. A grouping within which we can rise to the fore within our own niche, where we can see measured improvement in our own work against others and also see their measured changes as well.
> 
> Instead we are left still struggling to grasp the slippery rope and pull ourselves up to our peers level so that they might become our contemporaries. That we might "rub shoulders" with them and feel a part of that system; socially contributing and being acknowledged.
> 
> 
> Now many might say to this that it doesn't matter, that you shoot for you and you alone. But I don't think that is always true, we do shoot for ourselves (unless we are paid or have other motives); but I think that being social creatures we also like to share and feel that we contribute to the group(s) we are within as well. That we have something to offer, something that makes us stand out, even if just a little.
> 
> Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.


I find that at times the same. One example are articles that overload.
'The 7 (10, 15) best ways to........'.
At times it would be great to just look at 1 item, thing, in depth.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk


----------

