# What can one read from a photograph



## mmaria (Apr 23, 2014)

Last couple of days I was telling my thoughts on a nice number of posted photographs. I was in a mood for that... I don't say much and I don't explain much, mostly because English is my second language and in some point I'm left out of needed words. 
However... giving c&c to someone also means that you'll get a reaction from OP. What kind of reaction will that be, we, people who tell our opinion, don't know. In most of cases I think, OP reacts fine, accept what has been told and learn from it.

I just thought that we could perhaps give some insights to beginners, in terms of What can one read from a photograph? 

A photograph can tell to an experienced viewer much more then someone who just started can imagine.

When it's about people f.e I instantly notice technicalities but also, and more important I can tell lots of about the subject of the photo.
When it's about nature, I think -light and then composition
Product, food- technique...
Lots of times I recognize in what stage the photographer is, meaning that I went trough that same stage, because we really do have some common stages we go trough in the beginning.

I enjoy reading images of photographers who are years and years ahead of me...

How do you read a photograph? What do you read first?


----------



## runnah (Apr 23, 2014)

I go through a process.

How is it composed?
What does the composure say about the intended subject?
What does the subject say about the artistic intent?
How do things like lighting sell the intent?
How do other technical aspect affect my feelings?

A few more things but mostly that. Then I decide if I it's "good" or "bad".


----------



## Designer (Apr 23, 2014)

Subject material - Yes, I'm biased, so what?  (Insects don't do much for me.)
Composition (in general)
Exposure
Pose (if portrait for instance)
Composition (details)
Perceived intent vs. outcome


----------



## mmaria (Apr 23, 2014)

runnah said:


> How is it composed?
> What does the composure say about the intended subject?
> What does the subject say about the artistic intent?
> How do things like lighting sell the intent?
> How do other technical aspect affect my feelings?


 Those are some really good questions a beginner could also ask themselves when thinking about what and how to capture the scene or the subject they want.



Designer said:


> Subject material - Yes, I'm biased, so what?  (Insects don't do much for me.)
> Composition (in general)
> Exposure
> Pose (if portrait for instance)
> ...


I wanted to say that sometimes I intentionally analize the picture I have no interest at because that will teach me something also.. but yeah, I'm with you when it comes to insects.

Perceived intent vs. outcome- yes!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 23, 2014)

I think I usually comment on whatever strikes me or stands out first, then anything else that I notice and seems significant. I think I tend to see things that I keep an eye out for in my own (any potentially distracting elements in the frame, how it's framed, whatever I notice about pattern or lines or shapes, etc.). If the image projects any particular mood or feeling, etc.

Different people probably bring their own experiences into what they see in a photograph.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 23, 2014)

1000 words

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## JerryVenz (Apr 23, 2014)

If a person is the subject--I look at EXPRESSION FIRST 
                                  --then the POSE
                                  --then the lighting on subject
                                  --next the background and its lighting

All this takes about 2 or 3 seconds....

If the subject is a natural landscape or a man made landscape (architectural) with NO people in it:

                                  --overall visual IMPACT--how does it affect me?
                                  --then I break it down--Composition (foreground, midground, background)
                                  --center of interest (Is there one?)
                                  --lighting (center of interest vs. background)

If there are PEOPLE in the landscape then I COMBINE ALL THESE CRITERIA---this takes a couple extra seconds!

All this comes from MANY years of judging amateur and professional print competitiions....


----------



## table1349 (Apr 23, 2014)

Guess I do things a bit backwards.  No matter the subject of the photo I look at the forest first, then I may or may not concentrate on the trees. Do I or do I not like the Forest.  Frankly I think people try to read too much into things like this, and most things in life.


----------



## limr (Apr 23, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Guess I do things a bit backwards.  No matter the subject of the photo I look at the forest first, then I may or may not concentrate on the trees. Do I or do I not like the Forest.  Frankly I think people try to read too much into things like this, and most things in life.



I was going to say the same thing. Well, not with the forest metaphor, but same concept.

First, I pay attention to my gut reaction: do I react positively or negatively? Then I measure the strength of my reaction: do I just shrug and think, "meh" or do I recoil in horror? Or, if it's a good reaction, do I shrug and think, " 'Sokay" or do I lean in to get a closer look as I am ooooh-ing and aaaah-ing?

Once I gauge my reaction, I try to figure out _why_ I had that reaction. I'll scan the picture and see what sticks out in a good or bad way. Sometimes it's pretty obvious but other times I really have to think about what I am looking at. I don't always look for the same things first - at least not that I'm aware of. 

I don't do this with every picture, especially the ones that are just 'meh' but sometimes I'll analyze as a way to sort of check myself. I like to understand my reactions, true, but I also want to challenge myself and try to be more open-minded and give something a chance that I might not like at first. It doesn't always work. Lots of times I will try to like something and try to give it credit for all the things it may have done right...and then still end up hating it.

And yes, sometimes the subject sways me one way or another. I like macro but dear lord, enough with the bugs! And I'm really not that into portraits, so I usually don't check those threads out unless it's by someone that I know will deliver an interesting photograph (I'm looking at you, Dan Ostergren!  )


----------



## wh0c4rez (Apr 23, 2014)

As a beginner, I find this post (and the current replies) fascinating and insightful.  Thank you to OP and everyone for your input.  I think that from what I am hearing, I can find ways to produce better photos.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 23, 2014)

limr said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Guess I do things a bit backwards.  No matter the subject of the photo I look at the forest first, then I may or may not concentrate on the trees. Do I or do I not like the Forest.  Frankly I think people try to read too much into things like this, and most things in life.
> ...



Generally the why doesn't matter to me.  I like it, I don't like it or I don't care.  Trying to analyze the reasons is a waste of time for me.


----------



## limr (Apr 23, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Generally the why doesn't matter to me.  I like it, I don't like it or I don't care.  Trying to analyze the reasons is a waste of time for me.



That's fine - I know not everyone likes to analyze. I can't really help it. My brain doesn't usually just let things go


----------



## pgriz (Apr 23, 2014)

I used to analyse - but now, I just let the image hit me.  However, with most images, it's a gentle tap at best.  Mildly interesting, but if this was a wine-tasting, I'd pass on the second sip.  Some, on the other hand - require a second and third look, and each time something else is revealed.  Those are the images that reward an inquisitive viewer with waves of "aha" pleasure.  There are some on this forum who always merit a look.


----------



## mmaria (Apr 24, 2014)

wh0c4rez said:


> As a beginner, I find this post (and the current replies) fascinating and insightful.  Thank you to OP and everyone for your input.  I think that from what I am hearing, I can find ways to produce better photos.



That's I was hoping for when I posted this because I know how it was for me in the beginning of the journey.


----------



## binga63 (Apr 24, 2014)

I don't analyze..I find that it stifles me creatively .....the more I think while I shoot the less it becomes about the image that first attracted me human/plant/landscape/whatever and more about the rules... I am not really about the rules


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 24, 2014)

If the first thing I notice about an image is some technical issue, then the image has already failed.   A good image speaks in layers, drawing you in with the image itself and opening up through composition, subject matter, geometry, visual metaphors, story, design, etc.  The visual language.   If the first thing that pops into my mind is to do with the lighting, exposure, compostion, or anything else, rather than the story or subject of the image, then at that point the image simply doesn't work for me.


----------



## acparsons (Apr 24, 2014)

I am a beginner as well. I usually look for technical stuff, composition, and visual elements. My eye is not that sharp.


----------



## runnah (Apr 24, 2014)

I would say composition is not a technical issue rather it's a fundamental part of the photograph if not THE MOST important part of an artistic piece.


----------



## Designer (Apr 24, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> A good image speaks in layers,..



Here we go!

Worth repeating.


----------



## mmaria (Apr 24, 2014)

What I also find interesting to analyze in photographs of people is the relationship between the photographer and the model. Is she/he comfortable? Did the photographer succeed to make his model relaxed and comfortable? Did he succeed to show who the model really is, not just the nice representation of his/her looks?

I like to see how a photographer improves over the short of period of time.

and, just to mention, I find binga's photography great for analyzing, reading.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> Different people probably bring their own experiences into what they see in a photograph.





limr said:


> First, I pay attention to my gut reaction: do I react positively or negatively?





pgriz said:


> I used to analyse - but now, I just let the image hit me.





binga63 said:


> I don't analyze..I find that it stifles me creatively





Scatterbrained said:


> If the first thing I notice about an image is some technical issue, then the image has already failed.   A good image speaks in layers, drawing you in with the image itself and opening up through composition, subject matter, geometry, visual metaphors, story, design, etc.  *The visual language.   If the first thing that pops into my mind is to do with the lighting, exposure, composition, or anything else, rather than the story or subject of the image, then at that point the image simply doesn't work for me*.



A good picture communicates with the viewer and, if the picture doesn't communicate and all we see is technical stuff, then it fails. It is difficult to parse the specifics of why a good pictures succeeds but a poor picture can be picked apart technically.


----------



## bc_steve (Apr 24, 2014)

pgriz said:


> I used to analyse - but now, I just let the image hit me.  However, with most images, it's a gentle tap at best.  Mildly interesting, but if this was a wine-tasting, I'd pass on the second sip.  Some, on the other hand - require a second and third look, and each time something else is revealed.  Those are the images that reward an inquisitive viewer with waves of "aha" pleasure.  There are some on this forum who always merit a look.



I wanted to say something like that but you put it much more elegantly than I would have!


----------



## pgriz (Apr 24, 2014)

Part of the challenge of "seeing" things, is that we all tend to see what we expect to see, and once we've recognized something, we tend to skim over it, because we already "know" what this is.  It's the way our brain works - the vast majority of what we perceive is routine, and those elements trigger the barest of moments of awareness before they recede back away from our attention.  So it is possible to drive from office to home without having the trip even register in our minds as having happened.  Part of the way our brains work, is that we live in two worlds - the physical one, and the mental model of that world, with the brain continually confirming that the elements we see conform to our mental map - and if they do, then our attention skips on to something else.  The same phenomenon occurs when we read - we don't usually build up the individual words from the letters, but we recognize in whole words and even phrases, and we often "read ahead" in that we anticipate the words/phrases that will follow.  It's almost as if the brain doesn't want to wait for the sensory input to arrive - it compares its projection with what's coming in, and if it kinda matches, then it keeps on going ahead.  In visual terms, if we see a picture or scene that we "recognize" then we tend to skip over the actual details.  Sometimes, it takes a truly ambiguous or jarring juxtaposition to force us to slow down and actually start examining in detail what we are looking at.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 24, 2014)

runnah said:


> I would say composition is not a technical issue rather it's a fundamental part of the photograph.......


 When an image is poorly composed it_ is_ a technical issue.      That's my point.    I'm not going to call anyone out directly here, but a while back a thread popped up with a series of images.   The images were sharp, level, and well exposed/processed.   The issue was in all but one of them there was no clear subject.  Not even a subject at all actually.   The one image that had a clear subject in the frame was again poorly composed making the subject look cramped and uninviting (the opposite of the intent) while making the image itself just annoying; annoying because there was so much potential to have a good image that was lost to thoughtless composition.    In a well thought out image, the composition really helps to tell the story or add movement/dimension to an image.  So yes it's an artistic aspect.   Lighting sets the mood of an image, so it too is an artistic aspect of photography, yet we refer to it as a technical aspect as well.  Good lighting doesn't stand out, it presents.  Bad lighting stands out, hiding the intent of the image through it's own failure.  

Technically every aspect of a photograph is as much artistic as it is technical.  What shutter speed do I use?  Maybe a slowish one to show movement; maybe a long one to simplify the scene by blurring out everything that's moving, or maybe a very fast one to freeze a very fast scene otherwise too fast for people to appreciate.       What aperture do I use?  Maybe something very fast to kill a distracting background, or maybe something very slow to give context to the subject through the inclusion of location.   How do  I light the scene?  Do I go with something traditional and timeless,; something hard and aggressive, something soft, bright and inviting, or something dark,  and moody?   What focal length do I use?  Do I use something really long to isolate the subject and reduce the surroundings to a mottled tapestry of color; or do I use something medium to longish to present a correct, distortion free representation and a modest look at the surrounding?  Maybe something wide to give the subject more presence, or something ultrawide to really include the vastness of the scene while showing the subjects place in it?    You see, all these technical aspects are also creative issues to deal with.  It's when they are dealt with poorly that they stand out, and it's then that they become a "technical issue" and cease to be an artistic aspect.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 24, 2014)

Photographs are the windows into the soul of the camera. Except when they're just smart-phone snaps.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 24, 2014)

Photographs are the windows into the soul of the photographer. Except when they're just smart-phone snaps. Then they are just snaps.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 24, 2014)

Really well said, pgriz.

Can you elaborate a bit more on what the specific consequences are or might be for looking at and understanding photographs? I think this set of ideas is pretty interesting.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 24, 2014)

you guys are deep


----------



## bribrius (Apr 24, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I would say composition is not a technical issue rather it's a fundamental part of the photograph.......
> ...


Generally agree. But...
a photo does not need a clear subject.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 24, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Really well said, pgriz.
> 
> Can you elaborate a bit more on what the specific consequences are or might be for looking at and understanding photographs? I think this set of ideas is pretty interesting.



Objects/subjects that we recognize come with their own set of associations which we have built up in our minds.  If we see an image of a cup - we tend to associate with it what we know of cups - that they are usually made from clay or glass, that they hold liquid like tea or coffee, that they have a certain weight and size, that they can be brittle and break if dropped, and so on.  None of those things we "know" about the cup in the image will come from the image, but comes from our association of the image of the cup with the mental object that we call a "cup".  The "cup" in the image may be in fact a paper cutout positioned so that it looks like a cup, but unless there are obvious clues that suggest that, we'll just see a "cup" that conforms more or less with our expectation of what a cup "should" be. 

At a certain point, this ability of our minds to project onto what we see, the properties and attributes that we have learned about from our living experience, is a normal way we deal with the world.  However, being a mental creation, how can we be sure that we truly "see" the object for what it is, rather than what we imagine it to be?  It's hard work to examine something without allowing the mass of prior experience, expectation, and preconception, to colour our view of that object.  The famous effect known about new lovers as the "rose-colored glasses" perception, when they "see" their new lover in (usually) a very unrealistic way, often to the total bewilderment of their close friends and family members.  Once the effect wears off, they begin to see their new partner in more realistic terms.  This effect shows the power of the mind to change your perception of the reality.

With images, when we look at an image, we "see" it in terms of the visual vocabulary that we have learned or soaked up from our culture.  From that same source of cultural knowledge, we usually "know" the relation of the elements in the image, their relative importance, and their connections to other aspects of the image outside the frame.  If the relationships in the image seem to reflect what we think we know, then the image effectively becomes part of the familiar background that we skim over.  Only when the elements in the image resist that easy categorization/recognition/sorting does the image force us to slow down and reconcile the discrepancy between what we see and what we perceive.  Our tendency in photography to favour the attribute of sharpness seems to me to be an aspect of our perception where we are looking for an image to be more "real" than is usual, and that "enhancement" then catches our attention as being different from what we expect.  Same for saturation (in either direction).  

Part of "seeing" something is to train yourself to actually look at the details of the subject, and not to have your mind supply the stuff "it knows is there".  This is the same lesson many artists have to learn - you need to draw what you SEE, and not what you KNOW is there.  Picasso turned that on its head by showing parts that could not be seen (at least, not in the same image), and challenged our ideas of what we "should" be seeing.  Good street photography has been described as capturing the relationships of the people in the image with their environment, in a way that is revealing more than what our perception may allow.  It turns out that seeing what's in front of you is much, much harder than we usually acknowledge, as we are usually not even aware that we are using the act of seeing as a way of regurgitating memories and prior experiences.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


It most certainly does.  Even if the subject of the image is simply an emotion.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 24, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...


nope.

edit: it can actually go the opposite. A photo with a intended clear subject, excellently composed, can be worthless unless that subject is of something of great importance or the photographer is famous. A simple street photograph of no clear real subject is often more of importance than the photo of a single lamppost on that street, no matter how it is composed. Just as a photo of some generic crowd can be of more value and importance than a finely done portraiture of a unknown nobody.


----------



## mmaria (Apr 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> you guys are deep


completely unnecessary line


----------



## bribrius (Apr 24, 2014)

mmaria said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > you guys are deep
> ...


don't get me wrong, i don't disagree with most of the thread. it is deep. (deeper than i think of it obviously)


----------



## bribrius (Apr 24, 2014)

To elaborate, so people don't think im just messing with them. While all excellent points. My main experience with this isn't just in my photography but i went through a phase of collecting historic photographs, just as i went through a old map phase, a old book phase. i got a general (perhaps novice dangerous) level of understanding based on what was sought after by people over time and what was deemed important. currently there is a old church photo i seek, horribly composed of a church congregation which has now evoluted into one of the more secondary church denominations and changed its name twice. There are only twenty something people in the photo, horribly composed, in a field. Dated back many years. It has value based on what the perceived cult of the time ended up becoming (a well known denomination). Unfortunately it isn't for sale and if it was i wouldn't even know how much they would ask for it..
To me at least, being the earliest known photo of this end of the world cult later to become denominational church. i find it of importance. and there is a reason generations later they have it displayed still.

i have bought numerous historical photos from earlier photography days that had no clear subject (ones within my price range anyway). They have value because they show a time, a place, a people. just throwing this out here to give you another take on it.
They have value because they DONT have a clear subject. if they had a clear subject they would undoubtedly be worth less unless that subject was some great importance. Ones i have that have clear subjects i have repeated the same taking photos of these same places, same buildings, same rivers, same dams, same streets all these years later . Because they show a broad area with no subject, town overlook, streets, certain area or whatever, general people walking and motor cars, without a clear subject, they have more value as many of the lacking specific subjects i take may end up having some value later in time. It is often the BACKGROUND you are looking for in these photos. NOT the subject. The photos with a clear subject, individual person, individual house, individual whatever, unless that is a famous person or a famous location, has LESS value. Just something to think about. All in how you look at it. But in collecting photos, least what i have, the more inclusion in the photo, more in shows, more it isn't subject oriented the more sought after it is. A generic photo of a street, dated with the houses existing on it, with no real subject. Can be a sought after photo by anyone looking to piece together street dates and old town tax maps. OR building dates, building movings.
just something to think about. i know where a property i own came from for example (moved here was part of a larger property moved on logs). i have tax maps i copied showing the property before the road was even there in the 1800's. what i don't have, is a photo of that road going in and the house already being on location. That, would be a photo without a direct subject but everyone seems to be looking for these from a historical point of view. or mapping with photos, different streets, roads, collecting the photos from earlier days. A single two mile stretch of a road missing from the group is a sought after photo. Doesn't matter the subject, there isn't one. just filling that gap in history for that two mile stretch, the families that lived there in correlation with the public census, the buildings that were moved or built. The people walking (not even knowing who they are but shows the outfits and dress). It is right up there with old newspapers, some of which the biggest start points are the buy and sell areas with the pricing showing the times and mentality. Generic city, town news. If you key in on a subject, you are making a trade off. As that subject may have zero interest as time goes by. OR it could have every interest and importance depends on what the subject is. If its from a artistic point of view. It probably wont be worth a damn thing in fourty years (or even six months) unless you end up famous as a photographer..

course on the other side of the coin, if the composition totally sucks, you find yourself ending up with one of these photos wishing they left you a little more to work with...

just a different take on it...

someone takes a photo of a person on a street, people try to buy that photo, they often don't want it for the person, they don't care about the "subject" it actually hurts the photo. They are buying it for something in the background. something to think about, that's all. im a novice.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...




We're not talking about subjective value here.  That is something totally different.  We're talking about the image from a strictly artistic/photographic standpoint; not whether or not aunt Millies snapshot is worth two million because Elvis is crossing the street in the background.


----------



## mmaria (Apr 24, 2014)

I really don't get it....


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 24, 2014)

limr said:


> I was going to say the same thing. Well, not with the forest metaphor, but same concept.



Pshaw.  Yes, that's right, Pshaw I say.  If there is one thing this situation absolutely demands it's a forest metaphor.  Yes, a skinny guy with a huge fro adding a happy tree down there in the corner.  Just a happy little tree.. lol

Ok, sorry, what were we talking about again?


----------



## bribrius (Apr 24, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...


wouldn't subjective value be the current beliefs on a photograph? And the impartial one be how it is weighed and on what significance or importance standing the test of time? What holds more weight, now or how it ends up really being?
Aunt millies snapshot would probably be worth more with no aunt millie for a subject in that case.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Subjective value is determined by the market.  We're talking about perceived quality, not subjective value.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 24, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to say the same thing. Well, not with the forest metaphor, but same concept.
> ...



O.M.G. you totally like forgot the happy little clouds.  How in the name of all that is holy could you forget the happy little clouds?   Oh the humanity of it all..........



The funniest part of threads like this, not only are there some that don't see the forest, but they don't even see the trees.  All they see is one tiny knot hole on one tiny tree and that becomes the whole focus of their attention.


----------



## limr (Apr 24, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



And still others only see bacon.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 24, 2014)

mmaria said:


> I really don't get it....


one thing i weigh a photo on.  Beyond the eye candy or composition often.  is its significance.  

simple question really. "does this photo matter?"
And if it does, or it might, then why.

i have asked myself that question many times buying photos.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 24, 2014)

limr said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



Not me.... I see the tree.......the BACON TREE!  Oh to have an entire forest of these.


----------



## acparsons (Apr 24, 2014)

As a newbie, it might be interesting to start a read my photo thread where people post their photos and I can interpret it. Then they can comment on my interepretation. Is there a similar already?


----------



## AlanKlein (Apr 24, 2014)

It's like looking at a person of the opposite sex for the first time.  You know immediately in the first three seconds whether you're attracted to them or not.  Little can change that afterwards.  (Well at least for men.)

Ok getting back to the subject.  Yes, it's the same with a photo.  First you wow or _meh _or whatever.  Upon inspection, lighting, color, contrast and shapes jump out.  Content last.  Any ordinary subject can look great if these other attributes are good.  But if the photographers tries to explain why certain things you dislike you should like, you shrug your shoulders.  They don't get it.


----------



## Designer (Apr 24, 2014)

acparsons said:


> As a newbie, it might be interesting to start a read my photo thread where people post their photos and I can interpret it. Then they can comment on my interepretation. Is there a similar already?



It seems to work just fine the way it is now.  Somebody posts a photo, others critique it, then the OP comments on their interpretation.  You're welcome to do the critiquing.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 24, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...


okay. part of how i perceive the quality of a photo is what i consider its significance and subjective long term value and importance. :lmao:


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 25, 2014)

Thanks, pgriz. Belatedly.

I think the same ideas can be extended a little further and in another direction: we tend to evaluate photos, to an extent, based on some surround context like "who shot it". Certainly a famous photographer can pass off inferior stuff to an extent. People tend to see  the good parts and downplay or even literally not see the bad parts. This turns up in a lesser way on internet fora, where the "good, popular" people tend to get kudos pretty much no matter what they post.

More importantly and commonly, people who have for whatever reason been saddled with the reputation of being bad have to improve a great deal, and stay improved for quite some time, before the majority opinion comes around to "Oh, hey, he's actually pretty good now".

This has, um, some implications.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 25, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Thanks, pgriz. Belatedly.
> 
> I think the same ideas can be extended a little further and in another direction: we tend to evaluate photos, to an extent, based on some surround context like "who shot it". Certainly a famous photographer can pass off inferior stuff to an extent. People tend to see the good parts and downplay or even literally not see the bad parts. This turns up in a lesser way on internet fora, where the "good, popular" people tend to get kudos pretty much no matter what they post.
> 
> ...



what implications?


----------



## pgriz (Apr 25, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Thanks, pgriz. Belatedly.
> 
> I think the same ideas can be extended a little further and in another direction: we tend to evaluate photos, to an extent, based on some surround context like "who shot it". Certainly a famous photographer can pass off inferior stuff to an extent. People tend to see  the good parts and downplay or even literally not see the bad parts. This turns up in a lesser way on internet fora, where the "good, popular" people tend to get kudos pretty much no matter what they post.
> 
> ...



This is also known as the "emperor has no clothes" problem, which is a different issue compared to the perceptual biases that we were discussing earlier.  There is much deference to (supposed) authority, and when the authority pronounces, many, perhaps even most, feel it's more prudent (and easier) to align themselves with the authority, rather than challenge that authority.  Challenging authority usually means that the challenger is put on the spot, and has to vigorously defend his or her position/opinion.  If one has not had a robust reason for their differing opinion, it can be difficult to mount a convincing defense of that differing opinion.   

You also point out the phenomenon of popularity skewing the perception.  It's been known for a long time that the attractiveness of students can influence the marking by the teachers, and that people who speak with confidence in a business setting are usually listened to with less skepticism than someone who is more hesitant in presenting their views.  The corollary also applies.  That is why, when images are submitted for judging at our club competitions, the images are received by one member of the club who strips the images of any identifying data before adding them to the pool of images to be judged.  That way, unless the image was previously seen, it is unlikely that the judging panel will know which images were produced by which photographer.  This approach has resulting in some big surprises in actual competition, with some highly advanced and equipped enthusiasts sometimes losing out to more modestly skilled club members.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 25, 2014)

Coming back to Mmaria's question of how we "read" a photo, we can draw equivalences between a photo and a sales pitch.  A good sales pitch has maybe 5-10 seconds to catch the interest of a prospect and makes that person want to hear more.  A poor sales pitch usually loses the prospect in that little fragment of time, and causes the prospect to actively dislike the pitch giver - because the salesperson has lost their interest and is encroaching on their time.  A good image seduces me into wanting to see more, encouraging me to explore.  You can also think of many pieces of music where you recognize what's coming just after hearing the first bar or two.  Or perhaps a good short story, where the first sentence or two is enough to pull you in and makes you want to read more.  

Stepping back from that, we can see that often, the power to engage comes from the simplicity of the concept - there is a clean main idea, uncluttered by too much competing detail.  In photography, that usually means to make the subject obvious and emphasized in some way (sharpness, brightness, positioning in the frame, etc.) so that our eye catches the idea very quickly and buys into whatever the photographer wants us to see.  Once our interest and appetite are piqued, we can then take the time to explore the other aspects of the image.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 26, 2014)

While I admire people who are able to give an incisive detailed analysis regarding technical aspects of a photograph, it is not what bothers me first. 
To me, first of all, there are two kinds of images: Dead and Alive.  You do not need to analyse it to decide whether it is alive or dead,  you just see it instantly. 
Then, if it is dead, I just do not bother, regardless of its technical quality. Sorry to say, most images are seriously dead, sometimes I check some guy's Flickr and all his images dead even though the effort and dedication are obvious, but that is a matter of a different discussion. 
If it is alive then I am interested.  I am interested in the photographers' intent first, and it's implementation second. And when I say "intent" I do not always mean a conscious effort from start to finish, planned, prepared and executed. The " intent" can be born after an image had been taken, it can be born in post production when the photographer sees something in the image. 
In other words the cook needs to know what he is cooking, even if he has changed his recipe in the process, and if we know what dish is it going to be , then we can talk about the ingredients, aka technical details.  If we do not understand what he was cooking, and he himself is not quite sure about it either, then there is  sense really in talking about the ingredients.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 26, 2014)

sashbar said:


> While I admire people who are able to give an incisive detailed analysis regarding technical aspects of a photograph, it is not what bothers me first.
> To me, first of all, there are two kinds of images: Dead and Alive.  You do not need to analyse it to decide whether it is alive or dead,  you just see it instantly.
> Then, if it is dead, I just do not bother, regardless of its technical quality. Sorry to say, most images are seriously dead, sometimes I check some guy's Flickr and all his images dead even though the effort and dedication are obvious, but that is a matter of a different discussion.
> If it is alive then I am interested.  I am interested in the photographers' intent first, and it's implementation second. And when I say "intent" I do not always mean a conscious effort from start to finish, planned, prepared and executed. The " intent" can be born after an image had been taken, it can be born in post production when the photographer sees something in the image.
> In other words the cook needs to know what he is cooking, even if he has changed his recipe in the process, and if we know what dish is it going to be , then we can talk about the ingredients, aka technical details.  If we do not understand what he was cooking, and he himself is not quite sure about it either, then there is  sense really in talking about the ingredients.



well said.

IMO (and perhaps Sashbar's as well) a photo is a window into a small reality that the photographer has captured. If the realness, the life isn't there, the picture fails for me for the most part.


----------



## jenko (Apr 26, 2014)

There have been many, many, many times I have NOT liked a painting or photograph or sculpture on first glance but I came to love the piece after spending some quality time with it. Really taking the time to look, analyze, figure it out. A few seconds is really not enough time to form any kind of informed judgement about a piece of art. It may be a subjective judgement, but not an informed one. I will take an informed opinion over a subjective one any day. And for anyone confused about the difference, a subjective opinion is one formed within seconds. An informed opinion takes much longer. It involves _studying_ the image. Through this process, one may find they actually quite like an image they did not at first glance, or one may still not care for the image after studying it, but at least now they know why.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 26, 2014)

Photographs are like the Bible, you can make anything out of it you like and people always do.   Subjective opinion or informed opinion doesn't matter.  Still just an opinion.  You like it, you don't like it or you don't care either way.  Why you do or don't like something doesn't really matter to me and vice-versa.  The only opinion that matters to anyone is their own.  The pomposity of the whole thing shows itself when one person tries to subject their opinions on others.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 26, 2014)

post 53 and 55 seem to refer too two different types of photos.


----------



## jenko (Apr 26, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Photographs are like the Bible, you can make anything out of it you like and people always do.   Subjective opinion or informed opinion doesn't matter.  Still just an opinion.  You like it, you don't like it or you don't care either way.  Why you do or don't like something doesn't really matter to me and vice-versa.  The only opinion that matters to anyone is their own.  The pomposity of the whole thing shows itself when one person tries to subject their opinions on others.



That is simply not true. Not all opinions are created equal. 

There are entire academic departments dedicated to art theory and criticism. There are critics whose opinions matter more than yours or mine, in the sense that they help decide what deserves attention, and what does not. A curator's opinion decides what gets into the Whitney and what does not. These decisions impact the culture of the arts. Their opinions help to shape the history of art and influence public perceptions. Their opinions are informed, based on a close study of the art object as well as historical and contemporary understandings of art. Someone who just looks at an image and decides in a few seconds based on limited knowledge is making a subjective opinion, which is fine, but weightless.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 26, 2014)

I will throw out just one of many names that turns that whole premise upside down.  *Han van Meegeren

*All the best of their time, the greatest experts in the field of art and all their vaunted opinions were shown to be false.   

Opinions are at best OPINIONS.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The are a product of the very human fault of ego.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 26, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I will throw out just one of many names that turns that whole premise upside down.  *Han van Meegeren
> 
> *All the best of their time, the greatest experts in the field of art and all their vaunted opinions were shown to be false.
> 
> Opinions are at best OPINIONS.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The are a product of the very human fault of ego.



I am not sure we need to go into this, simply because it was discussed and argued for centuries by great philosophers - people, who were, I dare say, a bit more clever than us in this particular field, and forum format is simply not good enough for this kind of discussion. You can read Kant if you wish to reaffirm your point of view, or Baumgarten who had the opposite opinion. But by the end of the day the power of art is based on, what philosophers say "an antinomy of taste", which in laymans terms means that valid opinions about art are both subjective AND objective and to understand Art, you need to reconcile both. There is no easy answer to such a complex philosophical question.  

But in my own post I did not talk about Art, I was talking about bloody pics we all post here. The idea that somebody needs to spend a lot of "quality time" with my photo to be able to decide if it is good or bad, is of course flattering, but ridiculous.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 26, 2014)

sashbar said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > I will throw out just one of many names that turns that whole premise upside down. *Han van Meegeren
> ...


it took me twenty years to appreciate something my parents had hung on a wall. It never changed, the difference is over the years my outlook changed. And every time i looked at it over those years i looked at it from a different set of eyes. As how i saw it changed.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 26, 2014)

sashbar said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > I will throw out just one of many names that turns that whole premise upside down.  *Han van Meegeren
> ...


You are correct in one sense.  We didn't need to go into any of this.  It has been discussed and argued repeatedly to no avail.  As for Meegeren it is MOST appropriate for a discussion as this as this.  This discussion is on the same plane and as you so aptly pointed out by people that are not a cleaver as those who were fooled.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 26, 2014)

That critics thought van Meegeren's work was by the great masters has nothing to do with Jenko's point. 
Van Megeeren copied what was great, he didn't originate it.
It was the greatness that was originally recognized by the critics.


----------



## jenko (Apr 27, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I will throw out just one of many names that turns that whole premise upside down.  *Han van Meegeren
> 
> *All the best of their time, the greatest experts in the field of art and all their vaunted opinions were shown to be false.
> 
> Opinions are at best OPINIONS.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The are a product of the very human fault of ego.



I do not really see how van Meegeren's work supports your argument, but whatever. 

Some critics were definitely wrong along the way. They might reject the work of one artist but support another who also stood the test of time. Later critics (including other artists who were also critics) occasionally rediscovered some of those who were lost as a result of various circumstances. The photographer, Wee Gee, was thought of as a sensationalist during his life, not an artist. However, one can now view his works at the MOMA. Whether or not you like Wee Gee or think of his works as art matters not. Just being at the MOMA influences cultural perceptions of what art is. Of course, photography has a very short history compared to other arts, so there are not as many examples. Rest assure, there will be more as the generations pass. 

Simply put, I do not subscribe to the idea that a solid judgment can be made about any artwork on &#8220;first glance.&#8221; It is perfectly fine if this is the way you choose to determine what you personally like and don&#8217;t like. However, it is not a method I would consider accurate. So, saying an image is &#8220;dead&#8221; or &#8220;alive&#8221; or that an image fails if it barely moves you after a few seconds is pointless to me as one seeking insight into the merit of an individual work, and it is weightless as criticism. That you didn&#8217;t feel anything upon first glance does not matter to me. Who cares what you felt? What is this, The Kindergarten School of Aesthetics? 

Conversely, I also do not trust this method because I have instantly &#8220;liked&#8221; an image but upon closer examination found it to be superficial and vapid. It is the Thomas Kinkade phenomena-- it has a nice surface, but there is not much substance to it.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 27, 2014)

This thread started with the simple and perfectly reasonable question, I quote:"I just thought that we could perhaps give some insights to beginners, in terms of What can one read from a photograph?" 

Suddenly this thread has transformed into a somewhat highbrow discussion about art, which to me is a bit misleading, not because we started to bite off more than we can chew really, but simply because vast majority of photographs, even good ones, have very little to do with art, let me put it mildly. And those who worked with any serious printed media, know how little time does it take for a picture editor to decide if a photo is dead or alive (they prefer to think in terms of "interesting or not").  Literally - one second. And most of these images techncally are of high quality. I can only imagine his reaction when he is told: "Wait, wait, what is it, Kindergarten ? You need to spend some quality time with my photo before judging it !" :lmao:


----------



## bribrius (Apr 27, 2014)

the problem I see, is if you are hanging a photo on a wall. if it becomes a permanent piece those few seconds really don't mean much. Because you are stuck looking at it for much more than a few seconds. That few seconds of euphoria wear off. Then what are you left with?


----------



## table1349 (Apr 27, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> That critics thought van Meegeren's work was by the great masters has nothing to do with Jenko's point.
> Van Megeeren copied what was great, he didn't originate it.
> It was the greatness that was originally recognized by the critics.


That is the WHOLE FREAKIN POINT!  Meegeren wasn't a forger in the typical sense of the word.  He did not produce copies of already created works.  He learned to copy the style of great artists to the point that he was able to create new, original works in those various styles, sign the name of the artist who's style he used or in fact had mastered.  He was so adept as to being able to fool the experts not only in a work being by one of the great masters but they also believed that they were ENTIRELY NEW works.  

Hell how many times do we see posts of people, usually beginners, wanting to know how to copy some particular style they have seen, liked and usually improperly posted a copy of that work in their thread?  What is the difference between what Meegeren did in learning the style of various masters and some newb wanting to copy some accomplished photographers style?  *Not One Damn Thing *that's what.    Geeze at least Meegeren had to study painting and truly work to learn those styles before he was able to produce works for which he was able to make money from.  Any MWAC with their camera on full program mode can go out today and make money from the pictures they take.   

All this caca-dodo about reading this or that, learning to like, is just that, human caca-dodo.  You like it, you don't like it.  When I was a kid I didn't like a lot of vegetables that in my older age I do.  Do you think that came from studying asparagus, beets, squash, zucchini every day looking for the merit in it.  No........simply my sense of taste changed.  I can now stand  green peas but broccoli, it still sucks the big wienie.  

As for the original premiss: "I just thought that we could perhaps give some insights to beginners, in terms of What can one read from a photograph?"  How do you think they can get anything from "reading a photograph" when they don't have a freaking clue in the first place.  There is no Auto setting for particular styles of various individuals.  If they want to get anything from a photograph other than they like it or don't like it they have to first LEARN and become PROFICIENT in PHOTOGRAPHY!!!!  They have to understand their gear, not just the buttons but truly understand the various components.  They need to understand physics of their gear as well as things like the relationship of the exposure triangle and have a real solid useable understanding of all the parts or the triangle.  They have to truly learn about light, it's properties and how to use it both in the context of uncontrollable light such as the sun and controllable light such as strobes etc.  They need to have a real understanding of the "Rules" of photography such as the rule of thirds and to understand that they are truly suggestions, and learn when they apply and when they can be ignored.  

Once a beginner has a real handle on all of that, then they have a foundation to "read" a photograph.  Then we will quit getting questions like "How was this lit?" "What lens was used to take this picture?"  "How can I make my pictures look like this?"  and the ever famous "What camera was used to take this picture?"  And by the grace of God we will also quit getting the ever famous questions, "Is it cheating if you post process your photos?"


Frankly this whole thread should be exhibit A for this thread. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...6-just-so-much-intellectual-masturbation.html


----------



## table1349 (Apr 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> the problem I see, is if you are hanging a photo on a wall. if it becomes a permanent piece those few seconds really don't mean much. Because you are stuck looking at it for much more than a few seconds. That few seconds of euphoria wear off. Then what are you left with?


ADDHD?


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 27, 2014)

The idea that you need some sort of expertise to get anything more than the simplest gruntlike 'Thag like'/'Thag not like' result out of looking at a photograph is:

* pervasive
* slightly noxious
* wrong

Photography is surely the most accessible of the visual arts, since it's really just seeing. This is precisely why photography always seems to suffer from a lingering 'but is it art?' worry - it's just seeing. Most people see. If you can see, you can appreciate a photograph, if it's any good, and you can appreciate it with more than primitive grunts.

Photographers, especially relative beginners, are among the most handicapped, since they're much more likely to get lost in technical trivia about a photograph, and miss the photo itself. I offer as evidence here, TPF's gallery fora.

Give me a non-photographer over some DSLR-toting, um, person, any day for feedback


----------



## bribrius (Apr 27, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> The idea that you need some sort of expertise to get anything more than the simplest gruntlike 'Thag like'/'Thag not like' result out of looking at a photograph is:
> 
> * pervasive
> * slightly noxious
> ...


wow. you don't pull any punches do you.......


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 27, 2014)

I do so. That was a totally pulled punch!


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 27, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Give me a non-photographer over some DSLR-toting, um, person, any day for feedback



Perhaps that is your reason for not posting pictures here

Photography only seems to be accessible because so much of photography is just representing reality.
People, no matter how stupid or ignorant, can respond to a picture that shows something that they consider pretty or pleasant or desirable or interesting - at their level of understanding.

But that's photography as a craft.
Once a photograph goes very far beyond literal representation, it requires actual thought and understanding, perhaps even some education to understand or appreciate - and that's where your average groin-scratching Thag is left wondering what's the point.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 27, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Give me a non-photographer over some DSLR-toting, um, person, any day for feedback
> ...



I actually thought it was that stupid people are more attracted to shiny pretty things, the simpler the better for them. :lmao:


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 27, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> The idea that you need some sort of expertise to get anything more than the simplest gruntlike 'Thag like'/'Thag not like' result out of looking at a photograph is:
> 
> * pervasive
> * slightly noxious
> ...



I get it. You don't understand the visual language, or how photographers can use techniques also used by painters to impart messages and metaphorical statements into their work.  If photography for you doesn't go beyond being a straightforward, literal representation of what you see in front of you then so be it, but that doesn't make others who choose to take the craft to a higher level of art wrong.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I actually thought it was that stupid people are more attracted to shiny pretty things, the simpler the better for them. :lmao:



People are attracted to things for a great many reasons, often because those things represent a pleasant and enjoyable sensation. 
People are often repulsed by things they don't understand because it evokes in them feelings of insecurity and confusion.

So when insecure people don't understand something, they often respond by saying "I don't like it; it's no good."
That's self preservation; that's not admitting there are things one doesn't understand and, following from that, things one might even be not able to understand.

People don't like to admit their intellect and understanding falls short; that they are either ignorant or stupid.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 27, 2014)

You fellows are welcome to carry on assuming that I don't know anything about anything. I can see that it makes you feel comfortable, and that's nice.

For the lurkers, though, perhaps the most relevant point is this:

I did not say that knowledge and education would not enhance ones appreciation of a photograph. Only that a good photograph can be appreciated more deeply than with grunts by an average joe. You don't have to get all the metaphors and political references to enjoy Shakespeare on a more than primitive level. Simply being a native english speaker will open up a great deal of these plays to you. As will being a sighted person open up a great deal of a good photograph to you.

People who make pictures that you need to be specially educated to "get" at all are poseurs. People who make pictures that you can "get" in several ways, and at varying degrees of depth, might be artists.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 27, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> The idea that you need some sort of expertise to get anything more than the simplest gruntlike 'Thag like'/'Thag not like' result out of looking at a photograph is:
> 
> * pervasive
> * slightly noxious
> * wrong.....................





photoguy99 said:


> You fellows are welcome to carry on assuming that I don't know anything about anything. I can see that it makes you feel comfortable, and that's nice.
> 
> .....................


  Maybe you should make an effort to be a bit more concise and then you wouldn't have that issue.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 27, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> You fellows are welcome to carry on assuming that I don't know anything about anything. I can see that it makes you feel comfortable, and that's nice.



Thanks but you are doing fine demonstrating your capability by yourself.



photoguy99 said:


> People who make pictures that you need to be specially educated to "get" at all are poseurs. People who make pictures that you can "get" in several ways, and at varying degrees of depth, might be artists.



You seem to state that as a fact when it is indeed only your opinion, and the opinion of someone whose knowledge and abilities are unknown to us here so it might not have much weight except with those others who are also made uncomfortable by stuff they don't understand. 
Your 'fact' certainly isn't true for music or painting or written works and it is difficult for me to see why photography as a medium should go by a different set of rules than the others.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 27, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Your 'fact' certainly isn't true for music or painting or written works



This is simply untrue, and suggests to me that you're not understanding me.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 27, 2014)

high art could be very well overated. Even the concept of it. wasn't that a joke all the way through the eighties? I remember they came out with that movie "high art" at one point to and everyone though it might have to do with art. we have art coming out of our ears. Can we even consider it high anymore? OR just different? How much high art means a damn thing in the end? Very little I imagine. And sometimes, it can go so far, ill admit I don't understand some art i've seen. I don't even get the purpose of it. But it is received well, apparently by people who understand it better than me.
But you just keep the pretty shiny things going and keep them looking for a few seconds, its all good.
I said before, I listen to a lot of classical. I cant play it, but I listen to it. I have read Shakespeare too. Personally, I wasn't that impressed with Shakespeare but I did enjoy a few plays ive been to. i am a fan of theatre even if I cant act. Art, a lot of it I don't like, I think they are more caught up in the b.s. than anything if it goes too "high". im sure we've all been there. see a sculpture and the reaction is "what the **** is that?". course if you are really into trying to look smart you can pretend you understand it or like it and b.s. your way with technicalities about it. some of it is good, some really is just a lot of b.s. course, the shiny happy things I don't see the depth often, so I figure they must have been done for a ten year old to enjoy...
:lmao:
The realistic photos, I usually enjoy the most. As hum drum as they can be, that is life it isn't always entertaining. it is the real world I live in. im not looking to escape it. Perhaps study it more. I don't read much for fiction novels or watch much for fantasy movies either. All said and done though, I still watch cartoons sometimes. But cartoons themselves can be considered high art for anyone that knows how much work goes into them. There might be more creativity in cartoons than you find in many galleries.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 27, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> You fellows are welcome to carry on assuming that I don't know anything about anything. I can see that it makes you feel comfortable, and that's nice.
> 
> For the lurkers, though, perhaps the most relevant point is this:
> 
> ...


I cant totally agree with this either. sometimes it takes the right frame of mind to begin with, to adequately contemplate any work of art. But yes, I can agree the art world is full of many educated and uneducated poseurs. I can usually tell when I hear them talk and my b.s. meter skyrockets. just call it like I see it.


". This is precisely why photography always seems to suffer from a lingering 'but is it art?'"

photography in art was always considered one of the lesser arts. Many not even considering it a art at all. The reason I would imagine is because its very nature is a direct copy of what one is seeing. A representation. And in earlier times tweaking images wasn't as available. A painter could tweak a painting much easier than one could tweak a replica photo. So it was considered more a record than anything else, and still is by most. The idea of it being art has never really held on by the general populace, and still doesn't. Its popularity is because most untalented people that cant sculpt, paint, write music can manage to take a photo. And photos are much easier as tools in forms of family photos or records than trying to sculpt.
It isn't taking a month to complete a sculpture or painting. OR even a week. Most photographs take minutes or hours. They are copies of what one is seeing and started off as a record, turned film, turned entertainment and record, with a small off shoot of photography as actual art.. while some bring it to artform, it is always a struggle. Most photos are valued less, received harder by others. I went through a place the other day, the only photographs they had weren't for sale they were for reference. What was for sale were the paintings. Not a single photo for sale they weren't even on the walls for sale. I asked about it, they referred me to discuss it with someone else that controlled what went on the walls for sale. looking at the paintings, I actually considered getting one of my photos up so was curious.

the same way film turned entertainment not just being a record, photography has to a extent too. Entertainment is far different than art. what a lot of people are considering art. im actually considering more entertainment level. "shiny pretty things".

And this is where you run into a problem. Capture ones attention, interest. some of the basic foundations of what is considered a good photo in composition, IS BASED ON ENTERTAINMENT VALUE. Which is a fairly recent transition of photography. But That is Not art. Least to me. Art is not about entertainment. It is expression, it is saying something, pleasing to look at perhaps, disturbing, confronting. it is many things, but it isn't really meant to be entertaining. 

two cents I could just be ignorant "i don't get it".


----------



## table1349 (Apr 27, 2014)




----------



## bribrius (Apr 27, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> View attachment 72453


see all the crap I just wrote? I can bull**** just like the rest of them..............get your waders...


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 27, 2014)

I just looked at Gryphonslair's contributions to this forum.
6000+ posts, and I could only find 2 times where he actually posted a picture for C/C, and that was back in 2006.

Well, 6000 posts and only two pictures shown certainly seems to make him the expert on intellectual masturbation.


----------



## runnah (Apr 27, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> I just looked at Gryphonslair's contributions to this forum. 6000+ posts, and I could only find 2 times where he actually posted a picture for C/C, and that was back in 2006.  Well, 6000 posts and only two pictures shown certainly seems to make him the expert on intellectual masturbation.




Never get a haircut from a bald barber.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 27, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> I just looked at Gryphonslair's contributions to this forum.
> 6000+ posts, and I could only find 2 times where he actually posted a picture for C/C, and that was back in 2006.
> 
> Well, 6000 posts and only two pictures shown certainly seems to make him the expert on intellectual masturbation.



You make the faulty assumption that I gave a rats ass what you or anyone else thinks of them or any of my photography.  I liked them at the time I took them.  Still do.  That is all that matters.  Nor do I care if you think you can or cannot find some "meaning" in them.   

That's why you don't see me give C&C either.  To me it is really simple.  Take a photograph, process the photograph, look at the photograph.  Do you like it?  Good, your done.  Do you not like it?  Why not?  Figure out how to fix it, retake photo, be happy and move on. 

It's even simpler with clients.  Don't fill them with a whole lot artsy fartsy BS.  Talk to them.  More importantly listen to them and provide them what THEY want.   If you think that they are having some difficulties with what they want, do what they stated, then do a few more of what you think they might be looking for.  Show them to the client and let them pick what they want.  If they got what they wanted, be it what they said or your experiments life is good. No use pouting or stressing out over what they did or didn't pick.  Jobs done, move on.   As long as the client satisfied with what I provide them, what you or anyone else thinks doesn't mean a damn thing. 

FYI. Two of the three also sold to the institutions that were interested in them even though I didn't even take them for anyone, just for my self.  In fact I did a seasonal series of one of them and all four were purchased by the institution that owns the property and are displayed in their front lobby.  That is all that mattered to them and to me.  They didn't bother to try and find some meaning in them, some "deep prepossessing soul."  They liked them, they framed them to match their decor and have displayed them since 2007.  

  Lew, we are basically two different types of people.  Me, I am confident with who I am, what I am, what my skills are and my place in this universe is, not just photographically but in all aspects of my life.  You can take it or leave it, doesn't matter to me.  I have no need to constantly question others about myself, my beliefs, my photos, my work, my clothes, my shoes, the toothbrush I use, or the soap I shower with.  Nor to I need to have others provide me with their ideas or opinions of me or any of those things or how I should think.  I'm just not Borg material.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 27, 2014)

runnah said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I just looked at Gryphonslair's contributions to this forum. 6000+ posts, and I could only find 2 times where he actually posted a picture for C/C, and that was back in 2006.  Well, 6000 posts and only two pictures shown certainly seems to make him the expert on intellectual masturbation.
> ...



Why not, when was the last time you saw a barber cutting THEIR OWN hair?   I guess you would never use a surgeon that hasn't performed the same operation on themselves? :lmao:


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 27, 2014)

If you were so confident about what you are you wouldn't have to spend all your time pointing out how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.

You are essentially useless here, an empty barrel that makes a lot of noise.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 27, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> If you were so confident about what you are you wouldn't have to spend all your time pointing out how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
> 
> You are essentially useless here, an empty barrel that makes a lot of noise.



There you go Lew getting angry once again spewing venom and hate.  Have you nothing constructive to add to the discussion?


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 27, 2014)

jenko said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Photographs are like the Bible, you can make anything out of it you like and people always do.   Subjective opinion or informed opinion doesn't matter.  Still just an opinion.  You like it, you don't like it or you don't care either way.  Why you do or don't like something doesn't really matter to me and vice-versa.  The only opinion that matters to anyone is their own.  The pomposity of the whole thing shows itself when one person tries to subject their opinions on others.
> ...



irregardless, 

however "right" the curators opinion might be, it does not necessarily have any weight or impact on _*my*_ feelings of a piece of art.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 27, 2014)

so..before things get too heated, i would like to take a moment to point out that opinions are like....you know...things that...everyone has...

whatever....

my point is, (and I think we can pretty much _*all*_ agree) that Bacon is pretty awesome, and a vitally important component of the incredibly yummy BLT. 




aaaaand....probably also that we should keep any personal attacks off the forum. 
aaaaand...maybe even something about Peace, Love, and kinship among kindred photography spirits....or, i dunno...something like that.  


Fine..look...just play nice mmm-kay?


----------



## table1349 (Apr 27, 2014)

Not sure if it could get better than this?

If in doubt consult the rules.

What woman in her right mind would turn these down?


----------



## limr (Apr 27, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Not sure if it could get better than this?
> 
> If in doubt consult the rules.
> 
> *What woman in her right mind would turn these down?*



I would. And let me cut you off and say that I AM in my right mind.

Roses are cliched and buying me roses shows me that the man has no imagination or pays no attention to what flowers I actually like. And bacon is all well and good, but I don't eat it. Ergo, therefore, to wit...I would refuse roses made out of bacon.


----------



## runnah (Apr 27, 2014)

limr said:


> I would. And let me cut you off and say that I AM in my right mind.  Roses are cliched and buying me roses shows me that the man has no imagination or pays no attention to what flowers I actually like. And bacon is all well and good, but I don't eat it. Ergo, therefore, to wit...I would refuse roses made out of bacon.



I know! An apple!


----------



## limr (Apr 27, 2014)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I would. And let me cut you off and say that I AM in my right mind.  Roses are cliched and buying me roses shows me that the man has no imagination or pays no attention to what flowers I actually like. And bacon is all well and good, but I don't eat it. Ergo, therefore, to wit...I would refuse roses made out of bacon.
> ...



For the teacher, yes!


----------



## table1349 (Apr 27, 2014)

limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vc238Yjynyk/TxgxZUMrSOI/AAAAAAAABzE/veKKl61knj0/s1600/IMG_1308b.jpg


----------



## limr (Apr 27, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



No.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 27, 2014)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I would. And let me cut you off and say that I AM in my right mind.  Roses are cliched and buying me roses shows me that the man has no imagination or pays no attention to what flowers I actually like. And bacon is all well and good, but I don't eat it. Ergo, therefore, to wit...I would refuse roses made out of bacon.
> ...





limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



In that case I'll be sending my minions forthwith  :  

Midnight Apple Delivery by tltichy, on Flickr


----------



## limr (Apr 27, 2014)

Apples, old books, and clever photographs...see, Scatterbrained knows the way to a woman's heart! :heart: 
Y'all should take lessons from him


----------



## table1349 (Apr 27, 2014)

limr said:


> Apples, old books, and clever photographs...see, Scatterbrained knows the way to a woman's heart! :heart:
> Y'all should take lessons from him



Well if that's the way you are going to be about it, I guess I will just take the apple I was going to give you back to the store. :mrgreen:


----------



## limr (Apr 27, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Apples, old books, and clever photographs...see, Scatterbrained knows the way to a woman's heart! :heart:
> ...



Sorry, got it wrong again! I've always been a PC girl


----------



## table1349 (Apr 27, 2014)

limr said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



hunh.... Never would have ttaken you for an old fashioned school marm. :lmao:


----------



## limr (Apr 28, 2014)

Me? A marm? I WISH!


----------

