# reason for photography



## beddingfield (Jan 12, 2020)

When you go around the interweb looking at people who do phototography, it gets really depressing.

In order to be "different" from everyone, they follow the instagram hash code of the week for photos, and follow every single internet meme for direction.

Somewhat like everyone arrested for public nudity claims "I streaked to protest starving children in Bolivia".

So are we stuck trying to outdo each other in terms of subject matter in some bizarre attempt to become "interesting"?


Is simple photography a dead thing for people?


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 12, 2020)

I don't care to look at people who do photography for the Interweb.
I take photographs ... because, I like taking photographs.


----------



## beddingfield (Jan 12, 2020)

Its just that so many photo takers, even those claiming to be professional paid level, have taken to doing kitche meme type things to "stand out from others".

Sad when a wedding photographer charges extra to customers to take photos with the pre exposed film sold by lomography, or to take photos of the entire event with a holga camera.


----------



## TWX (Jan 12, 2020)

I post very few pictures to the Internet and I don't honestly make a point of looking at others' photography too often, in part because I don't want to follow what might turn out to be lame trends, and in part because my reason for getting all of this crap was initially for high quality family pictures.

Most of what I look at is technical, in the sense of trying to improve my handling of the camera itself.


----------



## beddingfield (Jan 12, 2020)

Technical skills other then photo shop, putting a lens on the camera, and tossing it to AF, may be rather unwanted now.

Even proper focusing doesn't seem to matter with the glut of funky special effects lenses out in the great yonder that make things blurry and hazy and downright migraine inducing


----------



## TWX (Jan 12, 2020)

beddingfield said:


> Technical skills other then photo shop, putting a lens on the camera, and tossing it to AF, may be rather unwanted now.
> 
> Even proper focusing doesn't seem to matter with the glut of funky special effects lenses out in the great yonder that make things blurry and hazy and downright migraine inducing



I might agree with you for nice daytime lighting, but skill with the equipment very much matters in nighttime and dark indoor settings, and it may still be some time before camera manufacturers manage to create cameras that are good automatically in low light.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 12, 2020)

I have it on good authority that the sky is falling.

OP... your post is about the tenth one echoing the same sentiment within the past 2 years. It's too bad that we live in the 21st century instead of in the 1940s. You know, before Polaroid and color film came along and ruined everything.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Jan 13, 2020)

TWX said:


> beddingfield said:
> 
> 
> > Technical skills other then photo shop, putting a lens on the camera, and tossing it to AF, may be rather unwanted now.
> ...



What's the difference between daylight and night time? What's the big skill difference? Ambient light is ambient light whether it's at night or in the day. 
Post an example of one of your night shots that's more difficult than a daylight shot?
SS


----------



## 407370 (Jan 13, 2020)

beddingfield said:


> When you go around the interweb looking at people who do phototography, it gets really depressing....
> ?


Depressing??????
Millions of people are posting pictures of their dinner with bunny ears. I find that very amusing. Photography has evolved into a much more accessible form of communication and photo's have become words in a non-verbal conversation. *Brilliant!!!
*
The sanctity of searching for the perfect photograph is as intact as it has ever been and is a laudable goal to which I aspire. BUT......

The skill and effort required to achieve a perfect photograph is a personal thing. My daughter takes dozens of photographs every day but has no real interest in photography other than what can be done with her phone in under 2 seconds. Her vision of the perfect photo is as valid as mine.

The current state of the evolution of photography is very exciting. I cant wait for whats coming next.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Jan 13, 2020)

beddingfield said:


> When you go around the interweb looking at people who do phototography, it gets really depressing.
> 
> In order to be "different" from everyone, they follow the instagram hash code of the week for photos, and follow every single internet meme for direction.
> 
> ...



Bed, you're making an assumption that everybody goes around the internet looking at photos. Either way, in what way does looking at the internet get depressing? Are you saying that it's depressing because there is no originality or individuality left? Just people that want to follow?
I don't see how following hashtags will make you different, better or worse? Why would one follow the hashtags at all? I have an Instagram and I don't follow hashtags. I think we all look at photography and sometimes we are inspired and probably most times are not. I'll admit there is a lot of pitiful and over-saturated crap on the internet that many try to pass off as good photography.
That said there are a lot of beginners on the internet desperately looking for ways to improve their photography. At that stage a lot of that crappy photography looks great to them and is well worth aspiring too. We all started somewhere and if following hashtags is what helps, what's wrong with that?!
"So are we stuck trying to outdo each other". Not sure I even understand that statement? Whose trying to out do each other and in which way? Maybe I have to start following the hashtags to understand your frustration.?
What does simple photography even mean? One persons simple photography might be very complex to someone else and some photographers wouldn't know complex photography if it slapped them in the face!!! LoL
SS


----------



## TWX (Jan 13, 2020)

Sharpshooterr said:


> TWX said:
> 
> 
> > beddingfield said:
> ...









Cropped from this:



 168mm f/8, 1 second, ISO 400.

The balloons were firing their gas jets for around a second.  When they weren't firing the only light was from the buildings in the background and reflecting off of the water.  The camera did not know what to focus on in auto mode as it couldn't make-out the balloons in the darkness.  It would try to focus on the lake in the foreground or it would try to focus on the lights but would struggle.

I had been attempting to get both of these balloons firing at the same time.

This composite photo:






Started out with individual photos of balloons like this:




50mm f/8, 1 second, ISO 400

Again, with basically nothing bright enough to focus on quickly enough to get an automatic shot.

Now, perhaps a more skilled photographer than I am could have paradoxically gotten a better shot on full-auto in these conditions- I'm more like Gomez Addams than Ansel Adams when it comes to photgraphy- but to get good color and a wide enough depth of field to include all of the balloons at different distances without resorting to an incredibly high ISO I had to pick a shutter speed and aperture that no camera would automatically choose, and I had to manually focus during prior firings in order to get sharp images when I finally started snapping the shutter.

So, what would you have done differently?


----------



## beddingfield (Jan 13, 2020)

id avoided the composite photo


----------



## TWX (Jan 13, 2020)

beddingfield said:


> id avoided the composite photo


Why?

The composite photo was close to what I was originally looking to do.  I had to patiently figure out depth of field that included both the closest and the furthest balloons plus any reflection off of the water that I wanted focused, then wait and snap various shots as the balloons did what I wanted them to do.  I did miss a few moments when multiple balloons were firing simultaneously.

While it is a composite shot, the camera never moved or was otherwise changed between shots.  If anything, the composite image further illustrates how automatic settings wouldn't have worked, since undoubtedly the camera would have picked different settings for each balloon if it had managed to determine any settings at all, rather than maintaining a consistency across all shots to allow for the compositing to be extremely minimal effort.


----------



## Original katomi (Jan 13, 2020)

I quite like the 3rd image.  I would do some more photoshop to it. Loose the bottom 1/3 from the edge of the still water on the left.
Loose the white lighting like light right of the square patten ballon and a few other clones to remove distractions 
Other than that I would have taken the same approach as you


----------



## TWX (Jan 13, 2020)

Original katomi said:


> I quite like the 3rd image.  I would do some more photoshop to it. Loose the bottom 1/3 from the edge of the still water on the left.
> Loose the white lighting like light right of the square patten ballon and a few other clones to remove distractions
> Other than that I would have taken the same approach as you



It might benefit from a little bit of burn.  I'd have to take care in the process since a simple black spot would probably itself detract too given the presence of other background lighting, but it is just a little distracting.  If I had to do it all over again I'd probably have gotten there earlier and checked the layout better, but I'm not sure I could have really done a lot better.  Another photographer was set up not far from where I chose, I made sure to keep well out of his way.  I'd probably have tried to be more patient about the last balloon that I didn't get, and I might've even set up the M100 to keep one camera focused on the whole scene while using the other to zoom-in.  Oh well, live and learn.


----------



## Overread (Jan 13, 2020)

beddingfield said:


> Is simple photography a dead thing for people?




Sometimes you've got to look at others and let them do as they wish with their hobby whilst you go your own way. You can't "control" the rest of the photographers in the world; you can't force them to appreciate and enjoy and engage with the hobby in the same way you do. You can encourage, teach, and share your way; but you can't force others to go your way. 

Indeed trying to do so often leads people down a depressing path feeling like the sky is falling; that "standards" are failing; that no one is "doing it right" etc... I tend to see people burn out of a hobby that way. Those that make it through tend to be those who realise that in the end it doesn't matter, they've just got to do their thing and enjoy it. 


The fantastic thing about photography is that its a very solo affair in terms of what you can produce. Even if you're working with a team its toward your vision. You can very easily do your own thing and the rest of the world can go their way and it won't harm you in any way. It's not like a team game where you've got to get everyone on the same page and the same team and such to get a game. Photography you can even go out with a whole group of people to the same place and you can all create your own unique visions there. 



So I'd say don't worry if its dead for others, just worry about YOU.


----------



## TWX (Jan 13, 2020)

Overread said:


> Sometimes you've got to look at others and let them do as they wish with their hobby whilst you go your own way...



If everybody did the exact same thing, photography in particular and art generally would be incredibly boring.  Like little boxes made of ticky-tacky level of boring.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 13, 2020)

ANOTHER of these threads?  Is it the full moon? The new year? The Santa Ana winds?  This topic has been done to death around here lately.


----------



## Overread (Jan 13, 2020)

SquarePeg said:


> ANOTHER of these threads?  Is it the full moon? The new year? The Santa Ana winds?  This topic has been done to death around here lately.



Well there WAS a full or nearly totally full moon the other day! 
I even took a photo of it too.... wait does that make it worse?


----------



## TWX (Jan 13, 2020)

Overread said:


> I even took a photo of it too.... wait does that make it worse?


No, you didn't make the Moon worse by taking a picture of it.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 13, 2020)

Why would anyone care about the photographic motivation of others?

The art and photography world evolve over time. You can board and exit the photo train whenever you want.


----------



## Designer (Jan 13, 2020)

beddingfield said:


> When you go around the interweb looking at people who do phototography, it gets really depressing.
> 
> In order to be "different" from everyone, they follow the instagram hash code of the week for photos, and follow every single internet meme for direction.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what you're getting at.  I think everyone has his own reasons for being interested in photography, so it would be impossible to categorize everyone's motives.  

Do I understand your post?


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Jan 13, 2020)

SquarePeg said:


> ANOTHER of these threads?  Is it the full moon? The new year? The Santa Ana winds?  This topic has been done to death around here lately.



Jeez Peg, now that’s a fine and helpful “how do you do”!
It says you’re a Staff Member and a Supporting Member. Well you’re not supporting Bedington very much. Bed joined TWO DAYS ago and already has a post!!! Instead of welcoming him and giving him a pat on the back for a good start, you’re informing him his post redundant and wasn’t needed.
He has no idea what has and hasn’t been posted before. What post by ANYBODY has not come up in the last 15 years???
You should be embarrassed!!!
SS


----------



## TWX (Jan 13, 2020)

Sharpshooterr said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > ANOTHER of these threads?  Is it the full moon? The new year? The Santa Ana winds?  This topic has been done to death around here lately.
> ...


Interesting that you basically demand proof for part of the topic in the form of shots that wouldn't have worked on-automatic, then ignore that when the proof is offered and start critcizing the moderation staff when they point out reundant topics by an experienced poster that apparently hasn't read-through other recent topics before launching a similar one.

Seems like you're talking _at_ people on the forum, not talking _with_ them.


----------



## beddingfield (Jan 13, 2020)

Perhaps as im not trying to continue any other thread that devolved into name calling, and thread closing... saw a few interesting ones concerning ethics that got closed... I chose to start a new one of my own.

Photography has become a lot like tattoos.  Nothing but meaningless trends that EVERYONE HAS TO FOLLOW in order to express their individuality. yeah, the irony escapes the 20 people standing in line at the tattoo shop to get the same tattoo of something, say a feather, that is supposed to "proclaim their individuality to the world".

With photography, things have devolved more then that.  Once upon a time in the 1900-1960 range, photography was used to capture important moments and events.  Say billy graduates from Ranger School,  break out the camera and put him in uniform with the family cuz we gonna make pictures. And theyd take photos of him with everyone. 

Nowadays, people will do instagram hash tag photos non stop. Like, on Monday everyone has to do a photo of their shoe as a hand puppet. On Tuesday its a photo of their cat sleeping on the kitchen table.... yada yada yada.

With the semi professional world of photography, the wedding and school photo group. NOT putting them down but they seem to adore kitchy crap in photos. NOT because it makes a photo better, but because someone more famous is doing it.

Example, some partially known actor or actress or singer in California does a wedding shot with a balloon on their head, EVERYONE who WANTS to be someone in the wedding photography world will HAVE to start doing that type of photo to appear relevant to potential customers.


----------



## beddingfield (Jan 13, 2020)

In regards to the composite photo image.

To ME the two balloons on the far left DO NOT mesh with the other balloons, and they don't really mesh together when you look closely at the reflections on the water.  In the two on the left the two balloons SHOULD have an impact on the water in front of each balloon, but in this case they don't.

So for my brain the image doesn't work.   

The 4 balloons on the right DO work together as studying it closely, there is no way the balloons would have any influence on the water in front of any of the other balloons. SO it works mentally as the images can happen naturally like that. Would have been somewhat nicer if the event had been done at dusk.


----------



## TWX (Jan 13, 2020)

beddingfield said:


> Photography has become a lot like tattoos. Nothing but meaningless trends that EVERYONE HAS TO FOLLOW in order to express their individuality. yeah, the irony escapes the 20 people standing in line at the tattoo shop to get the same tattoo of something, say a feather, that is supposed to "proclaim their individuality to the world".


You see, you invalidate your very argument with this straw-man you've constructed.  While I have no tattoos myself I know lots of people that have tattoos, including people that got theirs long before I met them, people that got them 20+ years ago around the time I met them, and people that I was already acquainted with that got them.  I've been to tattoo parlors with some of them and listened as they discussed their ideas with potential tattoo artists, and when some browsed through existing artwork that was available either for direct duplication or for inspiration.

At no point were people standing in line at the tattoo parlor.  People scheduled appointments with the tattoo artist or else found the artist free and got spur-of-the-moment work done because of his or her availability.  No one sat around for extended periods of time, and other than groups going in for something relevant to that group, like fraternities or sororities, series of people did not get the same tattoos over and over and over again.



beddingfield said:


> With photography, things have devolved more then that. Once upon a time in the 1900-1960 range, photography was used to capture important moments and events. Say billy graduates from Ranger School, break out the camera and put him in uniform with the family cuz we gonna make pictures. And theyd take photos of him with everyone.
> 
> Nowadays, people will do instagram hash tag photos non stop. Like, on Monday everyone has to do a photo of their shoe as a hand puppet. On Tuesday its a photo of their cat sleeping on the kitchen table.... yada yada yada.
> 
> With the semi professional world of photography, the wedding and school photo group. NOT putting them down but they seem to adore kitchy crap in photos. NOT because it makes a photo better, but because someone more famous is doing it.



People still take photos of personal significance.  Hell, of the ~10,000 photos I've taken in the last three years, more than 9000 of them are family photos.  I do not upload or share those photos with anyone other than family or close personal family friends.  Those photos are for me, and while I want to make them as good, arguably artful as I can, they're not really for anyone else.  Most people wouldn't find them interesting anyway, so why over-share?

If you don't like hash tags, or instagram, or fads, or challenges, don't go to Instagram, or follow hashtags, or look at what fads or challenges people have elected to participate with.  No one is forcing you to look.  I'm generally not a fan of modern art, so when I vacationed in London a few years ago, I _didn't_ go to the Tate Modern.  Wow, that was a tough one.  I'm not a fan of mixed-media, so I avoid going to galleries for mixed-media artists.  Such a chore!  I'm not a fan of "influencers" or of fads or of instagram, somehow I've managed to generally avoid going to instagram.


----------



## TWX (Jan 13, 2020)

beddingfield said:


> In regards to the composite photo image.
> 
> To ME the two balloons on the far left DO NOT mesh with the other balloons, and they don't really mesh together when you look closely at the reflections on the water.  In the two on the left the two balloons SHOULD have an impact on the water in front of each balloon, but in this case they don't.
> 
> ...


The only two balloons that were brightened in the composite photo are the first balloon on the far left, and the dimly-lit balloon just off-center.  Both balloons were also visibly dimmer during the event as not all of the balloons were constructed of material with the same refractive properties.

The second-from-left balloon and its reflection has the same exposure as the other non-manipulated balloons.  It might not work for your brain, but that's fine.  There's a dusk photo on the board if you want to seek it out, only shot I could get with all balloons firing simultaneously.  I happen to like the photos from the nighttime setting better.


----------



## beddingfield (Jan 14, 2020)

Look at the whole BOKEH craze and the High Definition Reflection craze of a few years back. ANYONE who felt or thought they WERE a PHOTOGRAPHER or an "ARTIST",  dived right in.  Billions of photographs of something or someone encased in migraine and nausuea inducing BOKEH donuts and swirls ruled the interwebs. People dove after high priced custom art lenses, lensbaby kids.., simply to become part of this annoying kitsch movement.

Did it DO or achieve anything useful?

Did anyone become a great photographer simply because they got a 500$ bokeh lens and used it on EVERY shot they took for a year? 

NO it didn't.

Look at great photos of the olden days,

The Terror of War, Nick Ut 1972

*Falling Man, Richard Drew, 2001*

*The Hindenburg Disaster, Sam Shere, 1937*

*First Cell-Phone Picture, Philippe Kahn, 1997*

*Famine In Somalia, James Nachtwey, 1992*
  This one, this is the start of an as yet, un ended food supply mission to Somalia. Entire generations have grown up with the only known food supply coming from the internation red cross system.   yet they still keep making babies.

*Saigon Execution, Eddie Adams, 1968*
An unstaged photo that was taken without understanding. The execution of a northern Vietnamese military officer that had been well known for slaughtering civilians on both the northern and southern sides of the war.  Executed for just having wiped out the families, including women and children, of several top level southern Vietnamese military officials.
    Usually considered the moment America lost Vietnam.

*Betty Grable, Frank Powolny, 1943*

Top 100 Of The Most Influential Photos Of All Time


----------



## beddingfield (Jan 14, 2020)

Or are we all stuck trying to duplicate those photos as the only way to be taken as a photo taker?

taking thousands of pics of your cat sleeping, as is soooo common,, versus having to paratchute into Indochina to be the next sean flynn


----------



## Overread (Jan 14, 2020)

beddingfield said:


> First Cell-Phone Picture, Philippe Kahn, 1997



It's quite literally a snapshot of the persons baby. It holds no artistic nor photographic merit save the context behind the tool used to create it. I mean after your long argument that snapshots aren't worth anything you're now holding up a snapshot as value. Indeed the history of photography is littered with snapshots that are only important because of the moment itself that they capture. 

I think you're honestly trying to make an argument where there isn't one. All you're basically saying is that lots of people treat photography casually and that's true. The very same is true of people who drive cars; who make coffee; who draw; who go to pottery class once a week every week for ten years and yet still can't make a pot that isn't a bit on the wobbly side. 

People do things for different reasons and sometimes people want to just be part of the crowd and make puppet photos with their shoe on mondays. That isn't devaluing photography, that's just a different use of it. Alongside it you've got utterly outstanding photos being taken every single day. If you choose to ignore the latter and focus on the former then, yes, the world is falling apart and photography is getting worse. Photography and people aren't really the problem, its your own personal choice of what you're choosing to expose yourself too which is tainting your viewpoint. 



Again stop trying to define what other people should do with their cameras. Worry about your own camera and your own desires.


----------



## TWX (Jan 14, 2020)

beddingfield said:


> Or are we all stuck trying to duplicate those photos as the only way to be taken as a photo taker?
> 
> taking thousands of pics of your cat sleeping, as is soooo common,, versus having to paratchute into Indochina to be the next sean flynn



You've made almost fifty posts in three days, yet you do not appear to have posted any of your own photographic content, experiences, or questions about equipment, technical operation, or composition.  You've posted merely opinion, after opinion, after opinion, and when you've found your opinions challenged you stop responding to the line of discussion that you yourself started.  What exactly is your purpose for being on this forum?


----------



## beddingfield (Jan 14, 2020)

TWX said:


> beddingfield said:
> 
> 
> > Or are we all stuck trying to duplicate those photos as the only way to be taken as a photo taker?
> ...




perhaps what, 15% of posters on here put a photo up. Shouldn't you ***** at them instead


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 14, 2020)

Who is the pious soul that can pass judgment on another's artistic expression?
Too much Bokeh, out of focus vs soft focus, mundane snapshot verses photography, too much post processing, ad nauseam.

I too have strong opinions about what passes for art and photography and several other issues; but that does not keep the world from changing.

My photography reflects what I think photography should be. I will let others pursue their ideals. If I like it, I will say so; if I do not like it, I will usually just shrug and pass it off to changing times.

Many fads will come and go, some will stay and become art forms.  That is way the photographic world turns.


----------



## terri (Jan 14, 2020)

beddingfield said:


> perhaps what, 15% of posters on here put a photo up. Shouldn't you ***** at them instead


No, because you're being officially un-masked today as the former member called "pocketshaver," who was banned for exactly these kinds of threads.  They go nowhere, incite fights between members who otherwise have no issues among themselves, while you sit back and contribute nothing else.  

Troll.   Please don't try to join here again or the same thing will happen.


----------



## zulu42 (Jan 14, 2020)

High Definition Reflection lol

Nice work mods- you are appreciated


----------



## terri (Jan 14, 2020)

Sharpshooterr said:


> Jeez Peg, now that’s a fine and helpful “how do you do”!
> It says you’re a Staff Member and a Supporting Member. Well you’re not supporting Bedington very much. Bed joined TWO DAYS ago and already has a post!!! Instead of welcoming him and giving him a pat on the back for a good start, you’re informing him his post redundant and wasn’t needed.
> He has no idea what has and hasn’t been posted before. What post by ANYBODY has not come up in the last 15 years???
> You should be embarrassed!!!
> SS


_You_ should, actually.  You literally don't know what you're talking about here.  FYI, a Supporting Member means only someone who gives financial or other value to the forum, such as the unpaid time devoted to moderating.   It does not mean acting as an emotional support animal. 

"He has no idea what has and hasn't been posted before" - actually, this now-former member knew exactly what he was doing.    As Staff Members, we tend to notice similar topics and conversational styles which can lead to a little background digging.

Best to think twice before you attack one of the staff members like this, who work quietly in the background noticing things and taking actions that make the forum run smoothly - and keep trolls under the bridge, as opposed to feeding them.


----------

