# Some Thoughts and Warnings for Beginners...



## MikeLem (Sep 9, 2012)

I've spent the past couple of weeks reading countless threads here on TPF (and several other forums).  I'm noticing a trend, and I wanted to throw my concerns out there.  I'm sure I'll be burned at the stake for this post, but I think it's important.

A few things to note:  *1)* I'm not a full-time professional.  I earn about 40% of my income through photo/video work, but I'm not one of the true professionals who puts all of their food on the table with his/her camera.  If I didn't earn a dollar doing this stuff, my family would steal eat, albeit not as well as we do now.   *2)* When I first got into photography, I did it to make money.  I didn't know what I was doing, and basically did everything I could to copy what I saw others doing.  I failed miserably, and had to start over.  Not lying to myself about what I am capable of has served me well this time around.  My business is new, but growing quickly.  *3)* I'm having a very hard time finding my "vision" and/or style.  But, I know that it'll find me if I keep shooting regularly.  It takes time.  I'm not going to find it sitting in front of my laptop talking about it.

*Typing, Not Shooting
*
Overwhelmingly, I'm finding many contributors here (and on most other forums) spend much more time talking about photography than taking pictures.  Be aware of that, beginners.  Many know the technical aspects of photography, but have a severely limited understanding of how to apply that knowledge, how to please clients, and/or how to make great photos.  Remember to listen to advice, think about it, and make a decision about whether or not it applies to what you're looking to accomplish as a photographer. Every post is not gospel.  It's one person's opinion.  Also, technical input is not always correct, even from long-time members.

Spend more time shooting than you spend here on the forum.  I wish there were a way to require each poster to have picked up their camera within the past month in order to be allowed to post.  You'll learn something from reading and posting here, but you're going to improve as a photographer a hell of a lot faster by shooting.

*Your Vision and Style Matters*

Over and over, I see photos that lack any soul/feeling at all applauded purely for being properly exposed, composed "by the book", and in an appropriate orientation for the genre.  Meanwhile, great photos are being crapped on because they don't comply with the standard rules of photography.  I know, I know: Learn the rules first, and then break them.  Sorry, but if someone is creating awesome work out of the gate because they see something that the average person who picks up a camera does not, they ought to be applauded.  The frequency with which sameness is encouraged is scary, and damaging to photography, in my opinion.  Fortunately, my work sucked initially, so I didn't have to worry about this.  I still don't, for the most part.

*This Stuff is Mostly Personal Preference*

No matter what your photos look like, there will be people who love them, people who like them, people who dislike them, and people who hate them.  Remember that.  This happens at every level.  Terry Richardson gets paid (a bunch of money, presumably) to shoot for magazines and advertising campaigns, and I think his work is ****.  A lot of people do.  A lot of people disagree, however.  It is what it is.  There's an ass for every seat and every vision.  Again, listen to the advice and critique offered by other forum members, but don't be afraid to believe in your vision, whatever that may be.


*To the veteran members:* I would encourage you to offer your input as "the book would say to do it this way" instead of saying "you did it wrong".  Stop promoting sameness, and in many ways, mediocrity.  As it becomes easier and easier to create properly exposed photos, vision matters more and more.  Let people develop theirs without shooting them down from the get-go.

Cheers,
Mike


----------



## tirediron (Sep 9, 2012)

MikeLem said:


> ...Overwhelmingly, I'm finding many contributors here (and on most other forums) spend much more time talking about photography than taking pictures.


And on what evidence do you base that conclusion.  Several very active members here are full time working photographers who provide a lot of assistance, but don't always post a lot of their work.  Just because someone doesn't post a large number of images does not mean they don't shoot a lot.



MikeLem said:


> Many know the technical aspects of photography, but have a severely limited understanding of how to apply that knowledge, how to please clients, and/or how to make great photos.


Again, you make this assertion based on what?



MikeLem said:


> Remember to listen to advice, think about it, and make a decision about whether or not it applies to what you're looking to accomplish as a photographer. Every post is not gospel.


Very true!



MikeLem said:


> Spend more time shooting than you spend here on the forum. I wish there were a way to require each poster to have picked up their camera within the past month in order to be allowed to post. You'll learn something from reading and posting here, but you're going to improve as a photographer a hell of a lot faster by shooting.


 Perhaps, but if you don't have someone providing object critique, it's quite possible that what you will learn is how to make the same mistake over and over.



MikeLem said:


> Over and over, I see photos that lack any soul/feeling at all applauded purely for being properly exposed, composed "by the book", and in an appropriate orientation for the genre. Meanwhile, great photos are being crapped on because they don't comply with the standard rules of photography. I know, I know: Learn the rules first, and then break them. Sorry, but if someone is creating awesome work out of the gate because they see something that the average person who picks up a camera does not, they ought to be applauded. The frequency with which sameness is encouraged is scary, and damaging to photography, in my opinion. Fortunately, my work sucked initially, so I didn't have to worry about this. I still don't, for the most part.


Photography is art; there is no good or bad, and classification of it is purely subjective, HOWEVER there are accepted standards for certain types of work, and accepted standards for composition and exposure in many cases.  When someone who has spent many years shooting a particular area and has first-hand experience with what is commonly accepted makes a comment, it's a good idea to take it under advisement.  IMO, far too many people use terms such as "artistic vision" as a cover-up for lack of skill and knowledge.  "I know it's poorly exposed but I meant it to be like that!"  Rightttt...sureeee...



MikeLem said:


> No matter what your photos look like, there will be people who love them, people who like them, people who dislike them, and people who hate them. Remember that. This happens at every level. Terry Richardson gets paid (a bunch of money, presumably) to shoot for magazines and advertising campaigns, and I think his work is ****. A lot of people do. A lot of people disagree, however. It is what it is. There's an ass for every seat and every vision. Again, listen to the advice and critique offered by other forum members, but don't be afraid to believe in your vision, whatever that may be.


Sound advice indeed!



MikeLem said:


> To the veteran members: I would encourage you to offer your input as "the book would say to do it this way" instead of saying "you did it wrong". Stop promoting sameness, and in many ways, mediocrity. As it becomes easier and easier to create properly exposed photos, vision matters more and more. Let people develop theirs without shooting them down from the get-go.


I'm not sure where this comes from.  If someone posts an image or series of images for critique, I will offer my opinion based on my knowledge and experience.  If I say that an image isn't well exposed or composed, that's my opinion, and I am doing what I believe will help the poster grow as a photographer.  You, and every other member of TPF are free to disagree with any or all of what I (or anyone else) posts...  promoting skill and the ability to master the basics, is not, IMO, promoting mediocrity!


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 9, 2012)

Some photos are just bad. 

All the "it's just not my cup of tea"s will not change that.

Depending on what the photographer wants to accomplish, they can do some things wrong, and I will try and help them discover what that is.

Vision is all fine and good, but pleasing aesthetics do matter more in my opinion. Anybody can take a crappy image and put some BS existential meaning behind it. A "true" photographer can create both a compelling image visually as well as conceptually.

Also; what's up with all of the info dump posts lately? Lol


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Sep 9, 2012)

I agree. I always get crapped on for my photos not being by the technical correctness, because i have more of an artsy style. Well frankly it makes me not want to share my work on here. And i left another forum because of how much they hated my photos.


----------



## MikeLem (Sep 9, 2012)

tirediron said:


> MikeLem said:
> 
> 
> > ...Overwhelmingly, I'm finding many contributors here (and on most other forums) spend much more time talking about photography than taking pictures.
> ...



Right or wrong, I base this opinion on the quality of limited amount of work that I do see. Here's the thing, tirediron: Being a full-time photographer doesn't mean you're qualified to give advice on anything other than being a full-time photographer.  There are plenty of (IMO) terrible photographers making a full-time living, and plenty of (IMO) great photographers who can't make the income part of the equation happen.  Again, ass for every seat, etc., etc.



tirediron said:


> MikeLem said:
> 
> 
> > Many know the technical aspects of photography, but have a severely limited understanding of how to apply that knowledge, how to please clients, and/or how to make great photos.
> ...



Again, based on quality of work.  There are plenty of frequent posters who know what they're doing and produce some beautiful stuff.  There are also plenty who know the data, and produce junk.  Again, all of this is IMO.




tirediron said:


> Photography is art; there is no good or bad, and classification of it is purely subjective, HOWEVER there are accepted standards for certain types of work, and accepted standards for composition and exposure in many cases.  When someone who has spent many years shooting a particular area and has first-hand experience with what is commonly accepted makes a comment, it's a good idea to take it under advisement.  IMO, far too many people use terms such as "artistic vision" as a cover-up for lack of skill and knowledge.  "I know it's poorly exposed but I meant it to be like that!"  Rightttt...sureeee...



Often, the "standard" is boring.  Galleries full of "the standard" are boring.



tirediron said:


> MikeLem said:
> 
> 
> > To the veteran members: I would encourage you to offer your input as "the book would say to do it this way" instead of saying "you did it wrong". Stop promoting sameness, and in many ways, mediocrity. As it becomes easier and easier to create properly exposed photos, vision matters more and more. Let people develop theirs without shooting them down from the get-go.
> ...



That's just it, beginners don't know that they're allowed to disagree and still be a good photographer.  Promoting one way to do things is DEFINITELY promoting mediocrity.  So, clarifying the opinion vs. law factor is important, IMO.


----------



## MikeLem (Sep 9, 2012)

3bayjunkie said:


> I agree. I always get crapped on for my photos not being by the technical correctness, because i have more of an artsy style. Well frankly it makes me not want to share my work on here. And i left another forum because of how much they hated my photos.



Careful, though.  It's perfectly reasonable for people to not like what you do.  It is what it is.  Where the issue lies is when the more seasoned posters indicate that there is only one way to do things.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 9, 2012)

I yammer on plenty about photography, but rest assure, when I do actually pick up a camera, I do still know how to use it!

Thinking about photography is every bit as important as actually taking pictures. It's important to reflect on the art and technique. Perhaps some of us (not me, naturally) go to extreme or have other issues getting in their way from taking as many photos as they'd prefer - or perhaps some don't post everything they produce. But good photographers do think about photography and internet forums are a great place to do that thinking in a participatory way.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I yammer on plenty about photography, but rest assure, when I do actually pick up a camera, I do still know how to use it!
> 
> Thinking about photography is every bit as important as actually taking pictures. It's important to reflect on the art and technique. Perhaps some of us (not me, naturally) go to extreme or have other issues getting in their way from taking as many photos as they'd prefer - or perhaps some don't post everything they produce. But good photographers do think about photography and internet forums are a great place to do that thinking in a participatory way.



Awwww...hogwash! If a person doesn't post a whole bunch of so-so, to fair-to-middlin' pictures, and ask for C&C on those pictures, then they don't know SQUAT!!!!! Posting images is what separates the two-year people from the three-week people from the multi-decade shooters. NO post....NO skill...no POST...no BRAINS.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

CC welcome! Just keep it positive, mmmk?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Awwww...hogwash! If a person doesn't post a whole bunch of so-so, to fair-to-middlin' pictures, and ask for C&C on those pictures, then they don't know SQUAT!!!!! Posting images is what separates the two-year people from the three-week people from the multi-decade shooters. NO post....NO skill...no POST...no BRAINS.






I just quit posting pictures because I got tired of know-nothings posting useless comments about how much they don't know anything. Besides, they weren't signing the checks that were being deposited in my bank account, so their "good photo" "bad photo" "i'd change this" comments weren't needed anyway.

...and for the record, the only times that I'm on the forums are the times when I _CANT _be out shooting. I rarely log in on my days off.


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> CC welcome! Just keep it positive, mmmk?
> 
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19884"/>



I like how you have incorporated the fingers in the foreground. It really presents a sense of immersion. I feel like im really there taking the photo! It also helps tell a story. The photographer is part of this little slice of time and it makes the details in the background seem less important. Which in this situation i think really goes to improve on the photo as a whole. Great exposure. Spot on


----------



## Forkie (Sep 10, 2012)

I don't post my photos in the forum very often simply because I don't often require C&C.  I'm happy with the way my photos look because the final version is pretty much what I wanted it to be.  

Even if I'm not quite sure about a photo, I probably wouldn't post it for C&C because I generally don't exhibit photos I'm not happy with.  So it's a vicious circle, really: There's no point posting a photo I'm already happy with and I don't like posting images that I'm _not_ happy with.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 10, 2012)

The "it's all personal taste" and "it's all subjective" and on on, while containing germs of truth, are cop-outs and basically wrong.

If nobody likes your work, you're probably just not very good.

On the other hand, if everyone likes your work, that does not mean that you are good. Goodness and popularity are not the same thing. In fact, if your work is any good it's probably true that some people won't like it. The point about really good work is that most people like it, at least a little, and most people get something out of it whether they like it or not. Not everyone, but most people.

Internet forums are certainly filled with people who tend to glom on to technical details and criticize those. Amateurs who have recently mastered technical detail X will naturally see and criticize X in everything -- this is the way our brains work, the thing we learned most recently is the most important thing. Professionals who are actually making money will tend to criticize work based on how closely it conforms to the work they're doing -- again, perfectly natural, Y sells and Z does not, therefore Y is better, your photo is Z so it sucks.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 10, 2012)

One more thing.

Typing versus shooting. There's nothing wrong with talking about photography, and talking about it doesn't exclude you from the private club of people who are allowed to have opinions about it. If I had a nickle for every time I've been snidely asked "Where are YOUR photographs!!!" I'd have.. well, I'd be well on my way toward a good cup of coffee at least. I find this bizarre and defensive. When someone tells you 'that book is lousy' do you ask 'where are YOUR novels?!!!' -- no you do not.

If you take no pictures at all, if you take only terrible pictures, if you keep your pictures to yourself, you are nonetheless permitted to have opinions about photographs. You may have excellent opinions, in fact. See my previous remarks about amateurs and pros, and they way they tend to critique. Being a photographer tends to get in the way of good critique as much as it helps.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 10, 2012)

You make some fair points, but i guess I can't post anymore because I have a full time IT job and kids so i really only pick up my camera for probably 30mins every other week.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Sep 10, 2012)

The responses about being perfectly ok to not post a lot or any pictures is strange to me. I have read sooooo many threads where long time members and their followers constantly slam people for never posting any of their work, and call them trolls. So, which way is it?


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> CC welcome! Just keep it positive, mmmk?
> 
> View attachment 19884




Well, from what I can tell you were trying to evoke a modern Constructivism. You can see how the shapes of your fingers glide through the frame, the smooth blurred edges obscuring the roughness of the grass. It's erect nature giving us the vision of the phallus, a symbol of masculine strength. 

What is behind the finger? What are you hiding? It's so peculiar and intriguing, as if you're coyly beckoning me to stare longer - to take in the photo in it's beautiful entirety - to question even the meanings of why I'm here, and who I am.

I rate it 5/5


----------



## Dao (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> CC welcome! Just keep it positive, mmmk?
> 
> View attachment 19884



I feel a sense of suspense here.   I will name this "Kidnapped"


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

MikeLem said:


> I've spent the past couple of weeks reading countless threads here on TPF (and several other forums).  I'm noticing a trend, and I wanted to throw my concerns out there.  I'm sure I'll be burned at the stake for this post, but I think it's important.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Mike



And these are all OPINIONS (your opinions) .... just like the opinions you are bashing / discounting. The difference is some of those opinions you are discounting have multiple decades of experience behind them... so discount them all you want!  

We do see posts like this time to time.. and it is usually from someone trying to justify their ideas, and opinions! (and change the world to meet their expectations... good luck with that!)



MikeLem said:


> Often, the "standard" is boring.  Galleries full of "the standard" are boring.



 So you don't like what is in most galleries, huh? Well, then your work (if it is that different) may never end up in a gallery. (although I am sure that FB will open a gallery one of these days, maybe you can get your work in there!) 

We hear the same stuff you are saying from the Facebook Pros all the time. (again.. trying to justify why they do what they do!)


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> CC welcome! Just keep it positive, mmmk?
> 
> View attachment 19884



Title it "Area 51"! It is very evocative of something.. it is a mystery.... and it is shot in vertical orientation, YOU REBEL!


----------



## MikeLem (Sep 10, 2012)

Do you guys really feel like you're helping new members?  I think this is a serious issue.  Several seem to agree.  Why make a mockery of it?


----------



## amolitor (Sep 10, 2012)

MikeLem said:


> Do you guys really feel like you're helping new members?  I think this is a serious issue.  Several seem to agree.  Why make a mockery of it?



I certainly try to, but I'm one of the guys who yells at people being jerks.

There's a cultural problem here. At first I thought it was a selected subset of yahoos who just liked to bully the noobs, but I no longer think that is true. What we see in the Photo Galleries is a culture among the members in longer standing where it is simply viewed as acceptable to say nasty things to newbies. There's a set of standard rationalizations that get trotted out (when you've been at it as long as us, you get frustrated; the newbie was a total jerk in some other thread; you can't help people unless you force them to see the truth of their crumminess; etc), but what's really going is this: If you've had a bad day, or are frustrated with this one guy, or really think the work is terrible, it's OK to be a jerk to the newbie. After all, everyone else does it, it's just part of the rough and tumble of TPF!

It's not a selected group, it's pretty much most people, but not all the time. People who were complete jerks on Monday can be the most helpful and thoughtful contributor on Tuesday.

No, it doesn't help the newbies to get yelled at, the rationalizations are just rationalizations.

I dunno what to do about it, but it's kind of fun to tweak the guys who do it.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

MikeLem said:


> Do you guys really feel like you're helping new members?  I think this is a serious issue.  Several seem to agree.  Why make a mockery of it?



YES! Most of us honestly try to help new members.. with the problems they have (A lot of technical issues, like exposure, DOF, flash use, how-to's on many different subjects, etc, etc, etc). The majority of the users lack any art education (most lack even the basic concepts), so we try to help with that too (you know, those common guidelines... like ROTS, not centering subjects, how to emphasize subjects, etc, etc, etc.) 

And yes.. we usually end up mentioning that you should know the guidelines, and HOW and WHEN to break them. However.. most break them without a clue.. and some continue to do so in some sense that they are right, no matter what people say (these are usually the same ones that don't understand exposure, DOF or any of the basics).

Speaking of Art Education... most of the people we get who post what you have posted, lack Art education (most lack any education)! Have you had any "Art" education, and if so.. is that what you base you opinions on?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

amolitor said:


> MikeLem said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys really feel like you're helping new members?  I think this is a serious issue.  Several seem to agree.  Why make a mockery of it?
> ...



Isn't that the definition of a TROLL?


----------



## amolitor (Sep 10, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > MikeLem said:
> ...



Nah, "troll" just means "someone who doesn't agree with me" these days.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

amolitor said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



Really? I thought that was a A-hole!  lol! I just don't know the terms now...


----------



## sm4him (Sep 10, 2012)

MikeLem said:


> Do you guys really feel like you're helping new members?  I think this is a serious issue.  Several seem to agree.  Why make a mockery of it?




Well, I'm just an enthusiastic, mediocre amateur, so I reckon by your standards my opinion isn't worth the screen space it takes up, but I'll give it anyway.

In direct answer to the question I quoted--they certainly helped ME when I was new here. 
Whether they are helping new members or not, is really more up to the new members. The majority of the longtimers here are quite helpful--some of them are also sarcastic or blunt to the point of rudeness--and a couple of them just seem to have missed the line where "social graces" were handed out.   This does not mean their advice isn't worth listening to--it's funny to me how people so often rail against people being "rude," or "sarcastic" in a forum, when the fact is, it is JUST like Real Life!!  

Are they "helping new members?" Well, they're putting good advice out there--but it's up to the new members to decide whether or not to pay it any heed, or to decide that they are an "Arteest" and do not need anything so ridiculous as a solid foundation in the basics of photography.  If they are "above" helping because all they want to do is "defend" their work, then there's little anyone can do.  If they are teachable, then YES, many, MANY of the longtimers here are immensely helpful.

I won't really belabor your original post, as I think most of what I'd say has already been said by others. But your remark, "Often, the "standard" is boring.  Galleries full of "the standard" are boring" really strikes me as interesting. 
Boring to WHOM?  It kinda seems to me like you're just bashing the traditionalists among us for trying to teach the basics of composition and exposure and the importance of a good foundation.

Creativity and originality are certainly laudable goals in photography, or in any artistic endeavor. But, IMO, a good, solid understanding of the principles and basic guidelines is also critical. As far as I'm concerned, when you understand WHY those "boring standards" BECAME the "Standard", your creativity and originality can be used to even better results.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

sm4him said:


> MikeLem said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys really feel like you're helping new members?  I think this is a serious issue.  Several seem to agree.  Why make a mockery of it?
> ...



Well Said!


----------



## amolitor (Sep 10, 2012)

sm4him said:


> This does not mean their advice isn't worth listening to--it's funny to me how people so often rail against people being "rude," or "sarcastic" in a forum, when the fact is, it is JUST like Real Life!!



But it's not just like Real Life. People say stuff to one another on TPF (and on any other internet forum) which would get them punched in the nose in Real Life, and they say it all the time. In real life, we couch our criticism in pleasantries. We say 'well, I have to admit I don't much like this photograph, and I think there are a number of technical and artistic problems with it' rather than 'you are obviously clueless, since your photographs are such crap'.

The sentiment expressed in both is roughly the same, but the first one is respectful of the person, and the second is not. The second one gets you popped, in real life, and for excellent reasons. The second one also causes anyone with a lick of sense to stop paying the slightest attention to anything you say.


----------



## KenC (Sep 10, 2012)

There's no justification for being nasty.  If someone's work is so bad a viewer finds it annoying, then they can just choose not to comment, or to stick to constructive criticism.  However, sometimes constructive criticism is taken as nastiness when it really isn't.  We can spend a lot of time pointing fingers and arguing about this, but most likely it won't change anything.  The forum is a subset of the photo world, which contains a lot of jerks, both among the experienced and the inexperienced.  The best thing for someone posting images (or anything else for that matter) is to ignore the nasty people and get whatever you can from the comments.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 10, 2012)

[


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 10, 2012)

MikeLem said:


> *This Stuff is Mostly Personal Preference*
> The frequency with which sameness is encouraged is scary, and damaging  to photography, in my opinion.  Fortunately, my work sucked initially,  so I didn't have to worry about this.  I still don't, for the most part.
> 
> *To the veteran members:* I would encourage you to offer your input as "the book would say to do it this way" instead of saying "you did it wrong".  Stop promoting sameness, and in many ways, mediocrity.  As it becomes easier and easier to create properly exposed photos, vision matters more and more.  Let people develop theirs without shooting them down from the get-go.



There are two issues here. 
People at all levels of experience give c/c and those who are just learning how to do photography latch on, as Amolitar said, to the last thing they learned and use that as a hammer on any nail, appropriate or not.
I think that most of what I see 'veterans' say and remark about myself is not driving people towards sameness but suggesting that people know how to do what they want technically correctly before they try to become 'artists.'

You find very few fine woodworkers using their screwdrivers as chisels because they know their tools. 
I think it's the same thing in photography. 
Once the photographer has the tools - and that include a sense of composition - then he or she can do whatever he wishes, however he/she wishes. 

To be honest there are painfully few photographers here who are posting creatively; moist are striving to just get the basics down. 

*On the 'veterans' posting:* I am older so that makes me a veteran but I don't post much because I don't need what I would get here.  My pictures are what I want them to be. When I do post, it's to 'pay my dues.'

* On being unfairly criticized
*


3bayjunkie said:


> I agree. I always get crapped on for my photos  not being by the technical correctness, because i have more of an artsy  style. Well frankly it makes me not want to share my work on here. And i  left another forum because of how much they hated my photos.



Your pictures, not you, get what you asked for - critique. When people point out what they see as technical and artistic failure, you defend that as being your style or because the light is some special way in Alaska or  something else. 



3bayjunkie said:


> Well i like it despite of the lighting. I cant  control where lighting is  coming from if im taking a picture from a  top looking down, it was in the shade as well.





3bayjunkie said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think that teh OP, if he feels things are being done incorrectly, should do his best to set an example for the rest of us.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

MikeLem said:


> Do you guys really feel like you're helping new members?  I think this is a serious issue.  Several seem to agree.  Why make a mockery of it?



I'm making a point! People need not post every single image they produce!

IDK. Maybe it's the fact that you're coming on here, telling people with decades of experience that they don't know how to apply those decades simply because they don't post enough images for your approval.



Forkie said:


> I don't post my photos in the forum very often simply because I don't often require C&C. I'm happy with the way my photos look because the final version is pretty much what I wanted it to be.



I think this outlines another issue: that most people don't know how to critique images, rather present a laundry list of problems, often sought only for the sake of critique requested.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 10, 2012)

Stuff being personal preference or not is valid from the perspective of what people like, but doesn't say much about the finer qualities of art.

McDonalds and Friendlys are super popular, and I do enjoy them myself, but they're both pretty much crap.  I wouldn't dare present a Filet o Fish as a culinary masterpiece and try to suggest to a five star restaurant chef that he's just being stodgy and unreasonable- this is the new way!  And yet... That's exactly what we get here.  A lot.

What's even more noteworthy is that's what I used to do here myself.  I eventually learned enough to realize how wrong I was.  And believe me I'm stubborn, so it wasn't like I was just worn away by the members here.

As far as the older members being grouchy... From where I sit, it's almost always started by the requester... Not the responder.  Rarely do I see old older person be anything other than helpful on their response to an OP.  Then usually the OP bristles and responds snarkily or defensively and then usually the old folk put them in their place... Usually brusquely but reasonably respectfully.  At the end of the day people just generally don't do well with being told "you could do better", no matter how gently it's done.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 10, 2012)

manaheim said:


> As far as the older members being grouchy... From where I sit, it's almost always started by the requester... Not the responder.  Rarely do I see old older person be anything other than helpful on their response to an OP.  Then usually the OP bristles and responds snarkily or defensively and then usually the old folk put them in their place... Usually brusquely but reasonably respectfully.  At the end of the day people just generally don't do well with being told "you could do better", no matter how gently it's done.



Often new people see TPF as sort of a public school where any kind of smart-mouthing little turd gets to stay because he's alive.
I see it as more like a nice private school where, if the student is well mannered and bright, he or she can get a great education with almost full-time tutors.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

^^ nope. not elitist at all.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 10, 2012)

I remember an incident from a few months ago.
A very new member gets on and posts a great many, small images and asked for c/c.

I responded (an approximation) saying that there were so many images that good c/c on all of them wouldn't be likely to occur, that he should post fewer images, that the images should be bigger so we could actually see them and they should be numbered so we could refer to them more easily.

His response (almost exactly) was that he would take it under advisement in the future but I should go ahead and respond to these now.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^ nope. not elitist at all.



If we were, would you be here?


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

my wife goes to a private school. it's not all that difference from a public school, just more khaki.

---

I used to contribute more here. It's kind of a waste of effort.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 10, 2012)

manaheim said:


> As far as the older members being grouchy... From where I sit, it's almost always started by the requester... Not the responder. Rarely do I see old older person be anything other than helpful on their response to an OP. Then usually the OP bristles and responds snarkily or defensively and then usually the old folk put them in their place... Usually brusquely but reasonably respectfully. At the end of the day people just generally don't do well with being told "you could do better", no matter how gently it's done.





This is what I see the most. someone asks for a criticism or critiuqe. someone replies with something the OP  doesn't want to hear and cops an attitude and then the stuff hits the proverbial fan. I have seen tons of posts about starting a business. some people get hammered and some people get a ton of help. its all in how the person asks the questions and how they respond. if someone comes in clueless and then starts complaining. people will let them have it. if someone comes in. asks a good question, one where you know that the poster has put some thought into it and is willing to listen and learn, then they usually get really helpfull responces. I think you get a lot of people that come on here and don't want to hear criticism. They want to hear that they are great and amazing. and when that doesn't happen and people question them on there skill they get mad and throw out cop out answers like it was there artistic vision to underexpose the shot and render it blurry.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 10, 2012)

I am new here and have posted a few of my pictures. When I posted the first few, I was deflated because of the critism. Honestly, it was hard to swallow. But looking at them and then learning more and thinking, I realized that they were just making a point. It helped me think about that issue for my next round of photos. I haven't forgotten that. They have helped me with exposure, white balance, making sure that the horizon is level and with composition.

My photos have gotten better because of all of this. It still hurts to get critism of work that I think is pretty good, but I realize that they aren't attacking me, just pointing out what I actually asked for.

For all of this, I have messaged a couple of the people for clarificaton and they have become a person that I feel I can trust. They may not like my work but that's okay.

It must be working because the last photos that I posted got a lot of looks but not many comments. That's better than getting slammed. (I'm looking at it positive.)


----------



## manaheim (Sep 10, 2012)

ronlane said:


> I am new here and have posted a few of my pictures. When I posted the first few, I was deflated because of the critism. Honestly, it was hard to swallow. But looking at them and then learning more and thinking, I realized that they were just making a point. It helped me think about that issue for my next round of photos. I haven't forgotten that. They have helped me with exposure, white balance, making sure that the horizon is level and with composition.
> 
> My photos have gotten better because of all of this. It still hurts to get critism of work that I think is pretty good, but I realize that they aren't attacking me, just pointing out what I actually asked for.
> 
> ...



This is an uncommon response to the feedback people get, and it's awesome to see.

I was EXACTLY where you are when I joined here, and I handled it way worse than you are.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> my wife goes to a private school. it's not all that difference from a public school, just more khaki.
> 
> ---
> 
> I used to contribute more here. It's kind of a waste of effort.



This made me :LOL:.  Literally.


----------



## Jaemie (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> my wife goes to a private school. it's not all that difference from a public school, just more khaki.







Oh and, from now on, I won't be able to help but imagine you're married to a 6th grader.  :3


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

LMFAO. So THAT'S why they all wear kaki! 

They never got the memo that they don't need to wear uniforms in college.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 10, 2012)

manaheim said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > I am new here and have posted a few of my pictures. When I posted the first few, I was deflated because of the critism. Honestly, it was hard to swallow. But looking at them and then learning more and thinking, I realized that they were just making a point. It helped me think about that issue for my next round of photos. I haven't forgotten that. They have helped me with exposure, white balance, making sure that the horizon is level and with composition.
> ...



Thanks Manaheim. I spent a bunch of time sulking if you will about it but in the end, all I can do is take what is said and keep shooting pictures. I'll get better despite myself, that much I know because I've seen it.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 10, 2012)

A common grunt fires his rifle as fast as he can, and occasionally hits a target. A true marksman fires and expects to hit almost every time.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> A common grunt fires his rifle as fast as he can, and occasionally hits a target. A true marksman fires and expects to hit almost every time.



I'm some where in the middle there Derrel. I see the target and know whick way to aim, but still learning to use the scope to sight it in better. Example, I took over 200 pictures this weekend at a parade and carnival and came away with a handfull of good ones. I spent a lot of time moving around trying different angles and such of the same thing. My main focus was a friend that was singing.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

AHHHH too much wasabi on my sammich

... carry on.


----------



## Jaemie (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> LMFAO. So THAT'S why they all wear kaki!
> 
> They never got the memo that they don't need to wear uniforms in college.



Oh... a private _college!_ *derp* Ya know, I'm such a perv that, when I saw khaki mentioned, college never entered into my mind. All I could remember was the throngs of Catholic school girls with which I was blessed to share the bus when I was in junior high. God bless short khaki skirts.


----------



## fotomumma09 (Sep 10, 2012)

IMO I have found many people here helpful, however I am willing to learn and accept criticism . I have seen many people post images or ask for advice that in reality have no intention of taking because they are emotionally invested in their photos and seem to take the criticism offered as a personal attack when most often it is not the case. When you are new to a community such as this it is imperative that you be respectful and pay your dues. The ego can get you in a lot of trouble! 

That being said I have witnessed a lot of unessecary attacks and avoid silly drama at all costs. 

I feel that my images have greatly improved because of my willingness to hear the truth and invest time in learning on my own instead of being spoon fed.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

silly &#8203;drama is why I am here!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> A common grunt fires his rifle as fast as he can, and occasionally hits a target. A true marksman fires and expects to hit almost every time.



Spray and Pray vs. Precision! yeppers!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> AHHHH too much wasabi on my sammich
> 
> ... carry on.



You should snort it, like a REAL MAN!  lol! (or is that REAL IDIOT?)


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

There was so much on there, I think I did!


----------



## tirediron (Sep 10, 2012)

manaheim said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > I am new here and have posted a few of my pictures. When I posted the first few, I was deflated because of the critism. Honestly, it was hard to swallow. But looking at them and then learning more and thinking, I realized that they were just making a point. It helped me think about that issue for my next round of photos. I haven't forgotten that. They have helped me with exposure, white balance, making sure that the horizon is level and with composition.
> ...


What's with the use of the past-tense?


----------



## subscuck (Sep 10, 2012)

No matter what discipline in the wide world of art you're involved in, there are certain immutable facts. There are accepted conventions. There is technical knowledge one must posses. Practice is a must. All of these things add up to education. Why is convention so important? The Egyptians, Greeks and cathedral builders of feudal Europe all knew the Golden Mean and sacred geometry in general had an impact that went far beyond the visual. It exists in everything they did. Non religious people who walk into Chartres cathedral are all struck with the same sense of awe when they walk in. If you want to study posing, look at ancient Greek sculpture. Even the stuff missing limbs, noses, whatever. It conveys a sense of life, emotion. These things still work today, that's why conventions exist. They've always worked, still work, and will work long after our sorry asses have drifted off of this mortal coil. Before you can successfully bend, break, bypass or ignore the rules, you have to know *why *
the rules work.

In my profession (Pastry Chef), I see this silliness all the time. I see Culinary Chefs, Pastry Chefs right out of school, and wannabees who've never devoted a single minute to learning the science of baking, turning out the most ridiculous products. "It's different", "It's edgey", "I'm pushing the envelope". No. You're pushing bull****. Sorry, you may be in love with your Passion Fruit and Thyme cup cake with sweet smoked Salmon mousse buttercream frosting, but nobody else is. We all fall in love with our labors until we learn to discriminate between good and garbage. These Chefs and wannabees don't realize that when a Pastry Chef puts out a new and different award winning product, they've spent weeks *thinking* about it. They've thought about the primary flavors and what accent flavors to use to pull all the flavors together in a way that works. They've thought about textures, they've thought about should it be served warm, cold or room temp. All of that before weighing out the first ounce of sugar, or cracking the first egg. Then they spend weeks or months perfecting it before they present it to the public. And all the while, through the whole process, they're thinking about accepted conventions and how to use them or bend them in ways that work. And they're able to do it because they know the *why.*

OP, I agree, there is an ass for every seat. Those with the education, experience and ability to bend rules *in a way that works,* realize not every seat should have an ass in it. Those who *think*&#8203; they're breaking rules, being artsy, or being original without the requisite knowledge, willingly and eagerly sit in those seats and then defend an indefensible position because pride and ego together with the love of their (poor) labor won't allow them to see what really is. And I must agree also with Lew. When the ****storm starts, it's almost always the person who posted for c&c who dips his/her hand in the commode to hurl the first turd.


----------



## MikeLem (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> MikeLem said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys really feel like you're helping new members?  I think this is a serious issue.  Several seem to agree.  Why make a mockery of it?
> ...



Whoa.  I think it's clear that the purpose of my original post was to tell new members to be selective when choosing advice/tips to alter their work.  Each post is an opinion, and something that should not be considered to be fact without further review.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

subscuck said:


> No matter what discipline in the wide world of art you're involved in, there are certain immutable facts. There are accepted conventions. There is technical knowledge one must posses. Practice is a must. All of these things add up to education. Why is convention so important? The Egyptians, Greeks and cathedral builders of feudal Europe all knew the Golden Mean and sacred geometry in general had an impact that went far beyond the visual. It exists in everything they did. Non religious people who walk into Chartres cathedral are all struck with the same sense of awe when they walk in. If you want to study posing, look at ancient Greek sculpture. Even the stuff missing limbs, noses, whatever. It conveys a sense of life, emotion. These things still work today, that's why conventions exist. They've always worked, still work, and will work long after our sorry asses have drifted off of this mortal coil. Before you can successfully bend, break, bypass or ignore the rules, you have to know *why *
> the rules work.
> 
> In my profession (Pastry Chef), I see this silliness all the time. I see Culinary Chefs, Pastry Chefs right out of school, and wannabees who've never devoted a single minute to learning the science of baking, turning out the most ridiculous products. "It's different", "It's edgey", "I'm pushing the envelope". No. You're pushing bull****. Sorry, you may be in love with your Passion Fruit and Thyme cup cake with sweet smoked Salmon mousse buttercream frosting, but nobody else is. We all fall in love with our labors until we learn to discriminate between good and garbage. These Chefs and wannabees don't realize that when a Pastry Chef puts out a new and different award winning product, they've spent weeks *thinking* about it. They've thought about the primary flavors and what accent flavors to use to pull all the flavors together in a way that works. They've thought about textures, they've thought about should it be served warm, cold or room temp. All of that before weighing out the first ounce of sugar, or cracking the first egg. Then they spend weeks or months perfecting it before they present it to the public. And all the while, through the whole process, they're thinking about accepted conventions and how to use them or bend them in ways that work. And they're able to do it because they know the *why.*
> ...



Nicely put!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

I don't mind people doing things out of the ordinary, even if they aren't the best photographers in the world. Innovation shouldn't be delegated only tho those who have "paid their dues" - I don't like the idea of needing to "know the rules before breaking them". Good art is good art, regardless who made it, and the popular conclusion that Pablo Picasso actually does know how to paint only weakens his later work rather than strengthens it.

I've actually had people tell me this "pay your dues" line about composition, which is pretty ironic given my earlier work which was pretty much stifled by thirds and fifths. People assume erroneously that my compositions are kind of arbitrary simply _because_ I don't always follow conventional views.

What does bother me is when people try to use technical faults as artistic decisions, after the fact and only once negative reviews come in. When a photograph breaks convention in an intelligent and intentional way, it's obvious and it works - it's not so clearly an oversight. However very often I do hear "Oh, I meant it to be that way" or "that's what I had in mind" and I have to leave scratching my head wondering "why?".

Another thing that people often mistake is that simply because something is intentional, it has weight. I've done plenty of things intentionally - but this doesn't necessarily mean that those decisions worked out. Just because something is intentional doesn't automatically mean that it is successful.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 10, 2012)

There are no oil painting prodigies. It's just too difficult a form to master. There are no prodigies of sculpture. There ARE prodigies of the piano. They're not the world's greatest pianist at age 10, but they're awfully  good.

This has to do with the mechanics of the art, leaning to press a piano key expressively is, ultimately, not very hard. All that is required after that is the ability to press a lot of them in a more or less predetermined sequence, with suitable expression at each turn. This can be taught, and to a surprising degree can be simply intuited. The prodigies, in general, have had a shocking amount of formal training by age 10, but nonetheless, the 10 year old can play.

The lowest-level mechanic of oil painting, the smudging of a single blob of paint onto a piece of canvas in an expressive way, appears to simply be harder, or to require a higher degree of cognitive or motor development. Carving marble, of course, requires motor skills that no 10 year old possesses. There are surely ten year olds with the higher level innate talent to visualize, to imagine what they WOULD paint, but for whatever reason they cannot manage the physical act.

What about photography? The lowest level mechanic is 'press this button'. The ability to press a button, plus the ability to "see" for a very particular meaning of that verb, is really all that is necessary for photography as art. Commercial is another kettle of fish entirely, of course.

Photography resembles baking pastries in no interesting way whatsoever. Cooking at a high level requires a wide range of skills, large and small, from knowing how to crack eggs, to stir, all the way to knowing what is going to happen when you add these three ingredients together. Cooking requires you to be able to "visualize" flavors and how they will interact, and you still need to experiment.

Photography requires the ability to "see" (which, if teachable at all, is certainly much more innate to some people than others) and the ability to push a button.

Francesca Woodman comes to mind. I don't much care for her work, but you can't really ignore it.


----------



## subscuck (Sep 10, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Photography resembles baking pastries in no interesting way whatsoever. Cooking at a high level requires a wide range of skills, large and small, from knowing how to crack eggs, to stir, all the way to knowing what is going to happen when you add these three ingredients together. Cooking requires you to be able to "visualize" flavors and how they will interact, and you still need to experiment.



OK, and that's different from photography how?


----------



## amolitor (Sep 10, 2012)

subscuck said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Photography resembles baking pastries in no interesting way whatsoever. Cooking at a high level requires a wide range of skills, large and small, from knowing how to crack eggs, to stir, all the way to knowing what is going to happen when you add these three ingredients together. Cooking requires you to be able to "visualize" flavors and how they will interact, and you still need to experiment.
> ...



Well, for one thing, we hardly ever use eggs in photography these days.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

^^ i see what you did there.


----------



## subscuck (Sep 10, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Well, for one thing, we hardly ever use eggs in photography these days.



Eggsactly why photography has gotten boring.

Seriously though. My point was about the artistic process. *All* art has the same goal, whether it's culinary, visual, or music. Understanding how conventions achieve that goal is a must whether you strictly adhere to convention or wish to break away from convention. Just saying "I like it and I meant to do it that way" doesn't achieve the goal. Unless you just happened to get lucky.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 10, 2012)

And my point, just to simplify it down to a comprehensible nugget is this:

Some art can be produced by relatively untrained geniuses. Some art cannot. Photography is of the first sort, baking is not.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

20ml, 30% hexavalent chrome in water
2 egg whites

It's like a recipe for carcinogenic meringue!


----------



## KenC (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> 20ml, 30% hexavalent chrome in water
> 2 egg whites
> 
> It's like a recipe for carcinogenic meringue!



Don't forget to lick your brushes the way painters used to when they were using this stuff, or pigments made from copper, arsenic, cadmium, etc.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

lol. when I was in college, I never used gloves. I figured if 10% potassium metabisulfate could clear chromium from my prints, it would work equally as well on my hands.

Problem solved!

By the way. I was too busy throwing brushes around the darkroom. I was terminally afflicted by registration problems. The worst part is that I had pins, but i never bought a hole punch to use them.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 10, 2012)

to do something out of the box and make something creative with knowledge i would consider that person skilled

to do something outside of the box without knowing where the box is, i consider luck. 

I'd rather learn where the box is learn how to work in the box so that i can learn to work outside of it. odds of success seem greater to me that way.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

amolitor said:


> And my point, just to simplify it down to a comprehensible nugget is this:
> 
> Some art can be produced by relatively untrained geniuses. Some art cannot. Photography is of the first sort, baking is not.



IDK. Some would say that Woodman was a photographic prodigy.



12sndsgood said:


> to do something out of the box and make something creative with knowledge i would consider that person skilled
> 
> to do something outside of the box without knowing where the box is, i consider luck.
> 
> I'd rather learn where the box is learn how to work in the box so that i can learn to work outside of it. odds of success seem greater to me that way.



and certainly her work was 'outside of the box'


----------



## Derrel (Sep 10, 2012)

MikeLem said:
			
		

> I've spent the past couple of weeks reading countless threads here on TPF (and several other forums).  I'm noticing a trend, and I wanted to throw my concerns out there.  *I'm sure I'll be burned at the stake for this post*, but I think it's important.



Wait--what's that hubbub I can hear in the distance? A mob? A growing mob? Oh, my!

"I've got the diesel!" 

"I have the matches!" 

"I brought rope and a fencepost! " 

"This looks like a good spot right here!" 

"So, where's he live at again?"

"Over THERE!!!!!!! Let's get 'im!!!" [sound of man footsetps, running!]


----------



## manaheim (Sep 10, 2012)

amolitor said:


> There are no oil painting prodigies. It's just too difficult a form to master. There are no prodigies of sculpture. There ARE prodigies of the piano. They're not the world's greatest pianist at age 10, but they're awfully  good.
> 
> This has to do with the mechanics of the art, leaning to press a piano key expressively is, ultimately, not very hard. All that is required after that is the ability to press a lot of them in a more or less predetermined sequence, with suitable expression at each turn. This can be taught, and to a surprising degree can be simply intuited. The prodigies, in general, have had a shocking amount of formal training by age 10, but nonetheless, the 10 year old can play.
> 
> ...



Are you a pianist?


----------



## amolitor (Sep 10, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Are you a pianist?



If people who play the piano extremely poorly are pianists, then I am a pianist. If not, no.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

amolitor said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Are you a pianist?
> ...



Does that mean that those who claim to be artists.. but do art poorly... are NOT artists?


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> *What does bother me is when people try to use technical faults as artistic decisions, after the fact and only once negative reviews come in. *When a photograph breaks convention in an intelligent and intentional way, it's obvious and it works - it's not so clearly an oversight. However very often I do hear "Oh, I meant it to be that way" or "that's what I had in mind" and I have to leave scratching my head wondering "why?".
> 
> *Another thing that people often mistake is that simply because something is intentional, it has weight*. I've done plenty of things intentionally - but this doesn't necessarily mean that those decisions *worked out. Just because something is intentional doesn't automatically mean that it is successful*.



THIS ^ :bounce:


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

OH, I know EXACTLY where this is heading. And let me start the "what is genuine art" debate with this:

Watch the whole thing. The ending is the best part.


----------



## charlie76 (Sep 10, 2012)

3bayjunkie said:
			
		

> I like how you have incorporated the fingers in the foreground. It really presents a sense of immersion. I feel like im really there taking the photo! It also helps tell a story. The photographer is part of this little slice of time and it makes the details in the background seem less important. Which in this situation i think really goes to improve on the photo as a whole. Great exposure. Spot on



Um....?


----------



## kundalini (Sep 10, 2012)

Yet again?   Truely, so sad.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

charlie76 said:


> 3bayjunkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL. You know that this is a joke, right???


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

kundalini said:


> Yet again?   Truely, so sad.
> loggins & messina - same old wine - Sittin' In - YouTube



That's some groovy **** right there, brother!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 10, 2012)

subscuck said:
			
		

> >SNIP>If you want to study posing, look at ancient Greek sculpture. Even the stuff missing limbs, noses, whatever. It conveys a sense of life, emotion. These things still work today, that's why conventions exist. They've always worked, still work, and will work long after our sorry asses have drifted off of this mortal coil. Before you can successfully bend, break, bypass or ignore the rules, you have to know *why *
> the rules work.
> 
> >>SNIP>> ...right out of school, and wannabees who've never devoted a single minute to learning the science of baking, turning out the most ridiculous products. "It's different", "It's edgey", "I'm pushing the envelope". No. You're pushing bull****. Sorry, you may be in love with your Passion Fruit and Thyme cup cake with sweet smoked Salmon mousse buttercream frosting, but nobody else is. We all fall in love with our labors until we learn to discriminate between good and garbage.>>SNIP
> ...



I agree with all of your points which I quoted back, above. Well-said. Very blunt, direct, and based on my experience, very true-to-life. Of course, you were , "*Awfully hard on the Beav last night, Ward*..."

I'm sure somebody will consider taking you to task for being such a plain-spoken,heartless internet meanie...lol...


----------



## pgriz (Sep 10, 2012)

Thanks, Kundalini.  Been a while since I've listened to those two.


----------



## JAC526 (Sep 10, 2012)

amolitor said:


> There are no oil painting prodigies. It's just too difficult a form to master. There are no prodigies of sculpture. There ARE prodigies of the piano. They're not the world's greatest pianist at age 10, but they're awfully  good.
> 
> This has to do with the mechanics of the art, leaning to press a piano key expressively is, ultimately, not very hard. All that is required after that is the ability to press a lot of them in a more or less predetermined sequence, with suitable expression at each turn. This can be taught, and to a surprising degree can be simply intuited. The prodigies, in general, have had a shocking amount of formal training by age 10, but nonetheless, the 10 year old can play.
> 
> ...



I am sorry but you are wrong about music entirely.  There are people who are technically perfect and then there are people who are technically perfect who also have an undefinable quality that makes them just better.  These people may be "prodigies" as you define it.  And they may have received a **** ton of formal training before age 10 but somehow they just have this extra something that I cant' define that makes them more amazing than someone who is just technically perfect.

The mandolin player Chris Thile is the best example I have.  There are other mandolin players who are technically as good but somehow he just manages to totally outclass them.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 11, 2012)

I think that this goes for everything. There are dime-a-dozon artists, then there are those who really "get it".

Music is just the most obvious.

There's Justin Bieber, and their's Edward Sharpe. There's nothing 'wrong' with Bieber. He's got enough talent to sell records, something more than what most of us can say. But he'll always just be a 'performer', not an 'artist'.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 11, 2012)

JAC526 said:
			
		

> I am sorry but you are wrong about music entirely.  There are people who are technically perfect and then there are people who are technically perfect who also have an undefinable quality that makes them just better.  These people may be "prodigies" as you define it.  And they may have received a **** ton of formal training before age 10 but somehow they just have this extra something that I cant' define that makes them more amazing than someone who is just technically perfect.
> 
> The mandolin player Chris Thile is the best example I have.  There are other mandolin players who are technically as good but somehow he just manages to totally outclass them.



I'm glad someone said that.  I'm not a pianist, but I am a musician, and amolitors remarks rang with a thud to my ears.  Just wasn't sure if there was something I was missing.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 11, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> If people who play the piano extremely poorly are pianists, then I am a pianist. If not, no.



Them I don't think you are qualified to make such a comparison.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 11, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> And my point, just to simplify it down to a comprehensible nugget is this:
> 
> Some art can be produced by relatively untrained geniuses. Some art cannot. Photography is of the first sort, baking is not.



You are mashing up a whole bunch of random crap to support a weird argument but it doesn't really work.

First, there are people who are naturally talented at all kinds of random things.  Said a better way... For everything you can do, there ate people who naturally do it well.

Second there are accidents that come out well, and there is planned and purposeful execution.  My father knows nothing of photography but has gotten a couple lucky shots that I'm literally jealous of, but I can get the shot I know will work almost every time and there's no way he can.

Last there are areas that are easier to produce something that comes close to resembling a finished product than others.  With no (and i mean utterly zero) training it's easier to click a shutter than it is to bake a cake.

However ALL things..., photography, baking, driving, music... Require training (or a gift) to do well, and a long time to master.


----------

