# Poll: Should I give up photography?



## unpopular (Sep 19, 2012)

Discuss?


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 19, 2012)

Where's the "Who cares" option?


----------



## unpopular (Sep 19, 2012)

^^ My shameless attempt at receiving coddles foiled again!


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 19, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Discuss?



Let's not and say we did.


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 19, 2012)

Yes.

Your mediocrity is like a cancer on this forum and it would be in everyones' best interest if you would stop being delusional about your ego and and your skill and just go find a hobby that better suits your...slowness. 

Maybe you could take up finger-painting. You might be able to excel at that. But don't get your hopes up.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 19, 2012)

What do you mean??? You are THE ****! The photography world would be totally lost without you!


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 19, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> What do you mean??? You are THE ****! The photography world would be totally lost without you!



No need to flatter the poser.


----------



## MK3Brent (Sep 19, 2012)

Eh... it's up to you. 

Your last photo posted was pretty bad in my opinion.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 19, 2012)

needs to be a plain "hookahs" option!


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 19, 2012)

mjhoward said:
			
		

> Where's the "Who cares" option?



LoL.....I looked and couldn't find it!


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 19, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Yes.
> 
> Your mediocrity is like a cancer on this forum and it would be in everyones' best interest if you would stop being delusional about your ego and and your skill and just go find a hobby that better suits your...slowness.
> 
> Maybe you could take up finger-painting. You might be able to excel at that. But don't get your hopes up.



_Janine, someone with your qualifications would have no trouble finding a  top-flight job in either the food service or housekeeping   industries.   _
----Dr. Peter Venkman


----------



## unpopular (Sep 19, 2012)

^^^ Awwww. I knew you'd come around!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 19, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Yes.
> 
> Your mediocrity is like a cancer on this forum and it would be in everyones' best interest if you would stop being delusional about your ego and and your skill and just go find a hobby that better suits your...slowness.
> 
> Maybe you could take up finger-painting. You might be able to excel at that. But don't get your hopes up.



Im quite certain you will be a very successful senior portrait photographer.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 19, 2012)

I voted "Yes"...along with four other brave souls. Hooray!!! We are the majority!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We want to wish you luck, and send you on your way. I hear that fly fishing is a good hobby for a Montana resident. Or hunting! And tree-watching is new, and is said to be "*the next big thing coming to Montana*" by the MTWAT (Montana Tree Watching And Therapy) website. Best of luck, and please, check out a free MTWAT membership. Stop back in once in a while and let us know how you're getting along! And don't let the swinging door hit you in the butt on the way out! Ciao baby!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 19, 2012)

Oh Derrel. 

At one time you didn't have any problem with me. But now, after that whole racism thing, you're holding a grudge - just like Bitter.

And to confuse the issue with my ability as a photographer. How delightfully childish.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 19, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Discuss?




Well, I really, really hate brussel sprouts.  They really stink, and their round nature makes them a choking hazard. I don't mind broccoli though, and my favorite is when its covered in cheese.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 19, 2012)

Derrel said:


> ...check out a free MTWAT membership




I wont be joining THAT club. I'm not mad at the vajayjay, I just aint friends with it.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 20, 2012)

I was actually kidding...just so you know...I could care less what you actually decide to do...but, I tell you, that _trout fishing thing_ has some really fun aspects to it!


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Sep 20, 2012)

Never ask the question if you don't want the answer, but most importantly don't read more into the answer than was actually given. 


Tis why I never ask the question....  Enjoy your new hobby of needle point.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

I have no idea why i did this.

I'm really not doing well right now.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I have no idea why i did this.
> 
> I'm really not doing well right now.



Whoa,whoa,whoa...dude,don't go all Dougie Downer on us tonight...I thought you were just in it for the sheer "kicks and giggles"...are we gonna have to fly out there to like, the only airport in Montana (Bozeman???) and do an intervention, and ruin this upcoming gorgeous weekend? [I am of course kidding around, trying to lighten up the mood. I know, for sure, that there is a second airport in Montana. Somewhere.]


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 20, 2012)

Derrel said:


> ...are we gonna have to fly out there to like, the only airport in Montana





Would that be like a paper airplane and a gravel road? Cause if so I'll send him a taxi....


----------



## Derrel (Sep 20, 2012)

Gravel is reserved for their HIGHWAY in Montana, Christopher! For the "beeeeg road". The one that leads outta' state!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

You have no idea how terrible the roads are here. Srsly.

We used to drive across the WY/MT border frequently, and you could always tell because the roads go to crap. None of the state highways are banked, and they don't post suggested speeds on the turns. So you'll be going like 70mph, then out of no where there is a sharp turn sign and you have about 500 ft to estimate how fast you should be going. Sometimes it's 60mph, sometimes it's 30mph, but they don't tell you.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 20, 2012)

I've heard that on some highways in Montana its like the Audubon because there's no posted limit and no highway patrol.


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Sep 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> You have no idea how terrible the roads are here. Srsly.
> 
> We used to drive across the WY/MT border frequently, and you could always tell because the roads go to crap. None of the state highways are banked, and they don't post suggested speeds on the turns. So you'll be going like 70mph, then out of no where there is a sharp turn sign and you have about 500 ft to estimate how fast you should be going. Sometimes it's 60mph, sometimes it's 30mph, but they don't tell you.




Oh I have an idea I drove across the state on my way to Washington and it was the longest drive I can say I have ever had..


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

it used to be no speed limit at all, until some ass abused the system, and then successfully sued the state over his ticket.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 20, 2012)

SamSpade1941 said:


> Oh I have an idea I drove across the state on my way to Washington and it was the longest drive I can say I have ever had..




You've obviously never driven from Dallas to El Paso....


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

SamSpade1941 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > You have no idea how terrible the roads are here. Srsly.
> ...



Not as bad as the NY Turnpike. NOTHING is as bad as the NY Turnpike.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 20, 2012)

Sooooo... since this is the thread of random topics.... Should I sell my 80-200 AF-S and buy a Sigma 70-200 HSM Macro EX?


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

You should buy this instead:



(Zeiss COMPCT ZOOM CZ.2 70/200/T2.9 F - FEET 1984-035 B&H Photo)

I wonder what a $20,000 lens buys you?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> You should buy this instead:
> 
> I wonder what a $20,000 lens buys you?





If I had that kind of money, I'd buy that in a heartbeat.... but seeing as how that lens costs more than my car, no go.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

In my case, it's worth 10-20x my car.

---

Honestly, it can't be THAT great.

I think film makers just like to roll out tens of thousands of dollars on everything. And why does it have so many dials? I'm thinking focus pulls? Like, you can preset a distance range?

Seriously, is that what 20k buys you?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 20, 2012)

Well Zeiss lenses are supposed to be superior to anything else on the market.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

well, I know that they are (or at least were) ... but $20k is a LOT of money.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> well, I know that they are (or at least were) ... but $20k is a LOT of money.




No - the $2300 70-200 VRII is a LOT of money.... $20K is plain obsurd.


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Sep 20, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Sooooo... since this is the thread of random topics.... Should I sell my 80-200 AF-S and buy a Sigma 70-200 HSM Macro EX?




No you should send me your 80-200 AF-S and then buy the Sigma 150 mm f/2.8 macro. That way we will both end up being happy...


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Sep 20, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> SamSpade1941 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I have an idea I drove across the state on my way to Washington and it was the longest drive I can say I have ever had..
> ...




I have taken the 12 hour train ride from Oklahoma to San Antonio .... that is just as long I would wager.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 20, 2012)

SamSpade1941 said:


> No you should send me your 80-200 AF-S and then buy the Sigma 150 mm f/2.8 macro. That way we will both end up being happy...





Aw hell naw. I don't do primes. The first time I missed a shot because I could only fit, I dont know someone's nostril in the frame and couldn't zoom, that thing would end up in the water. I'll back up or step forward a few steps, but I aint running the football field.


----------



## texkam (Sep 20, 2012)

Just give up posting bad photos.


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> You should buy this instead:
> 
> View attachment 20760
> (Zeiss COMPCT ZOOM CZ.2 70/200/T2.9 F - FEET 1984-035 B&H Photo)
> ...




It looks so dorky. lol


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2012)

When I read this and thought for a moment, what a loss to photography.

The one photographer who, by his work, makes everyone look better.
The single person who pushed up the curve so that color blind newbies with a cheap point and shoot look average.
That personality who solely by his presence makes everyone sound smarter must not go.

Unpopular, I hope that your keeper reads this entire thread to you and that the warden allows you to keep on shooting and posting what you refer to as pictures - we all in the outside world need that comic relief in our day.





(was that the approbation you wanted?)

Lew


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 20, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> SamSpade1941 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I have an idea I drove across the state on my way to Washington and it was the longest drive I can say I have ever had..
> ...


Or from El Paso to Tucson. I am pretty sure that drive is longer than the drive from the top of Fairbanks, AK to Dallas, TX.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> In my case, it's worth 10-20x my car.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...


Hey, I didn't pay that for my house, so don't feel so bad.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

I don't feel bad about my car cheap car. It runs awesome now that I have everything tuned up.

I'd buy this lens before I buy a $20k car.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I have no idea why i did this.
> 
> I'm really not doing well right now.



Yo buddy... jut remember, this is the INteRnEtz! If you ask silly questions.. you are going to get silly answers!


----------



## Overread (Sep 20, 2012)

This poll lacks bacon as an option.

I'm thus considering it an invalid poll - please make a second poll and this time include bacon


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 20, 2012)

I seriously can't tell if you're the least bit serious or not.

Either way, this kinda reeks of attention whoring.


----------



## sm4him (Sep 20, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> I seriously can't tell if you're the least bit serious or not.
> 
> Either way, *this kinda reeks of attention whoring*.




Well, geez, when you put it that way, it sounds like a BAD thing. 

unpopular, I'd go with "you should consider STARTING to do photography" as my answer. :lmao:


EDIT: For the record, this post is entirely NOT serious. It is intended as a delightful, witty response to a thread that is intended either as an attempt to see just how ridiculous we can all be, or as a horribly desperate plea for attention.  

EDIT of EDIT: Actually, that first sentence was entirely serious.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 20, 2012)

Overread said:
			
		

> This poll lacks bacon as an option.
> 
> I'm think considering it an invalid poll - please make a second poll and this time include bacon



I would totally vote for bacon if it was an option.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Either way, this kinda reeks of attention whoring.



Well, aren't you astute.


----------



## Overread (Sep 20, 2012)

Bacon fans  -  I've fixed the poll!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 20, 2012)

Overread said:


> Bacon fans  -  I've fixed the poll!



Oh, you *"fixed"* the poll alright!!!!!! You musta' been involved in the Florida presidential election counts back in Bush's second term!!! Bacon-lover! Cheater!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

LMFAO. The best part is, this was done completely without my consent! Nothing like moderators abusing their privileges to impose their bacon agenda.

(Not that I am complaining, or anything)


----------



## Derrel (Sep 20, 2012)

This bacon agenda is OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! This ham-handed act smacks of a pork-barrel project designed to enrich the coffers of the world's bacon producers!!!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

Holy shartballs! In five minutes the "Bacon" option generated 43 responses.

... actually this reminds me. When I was taking Into to Art for the third time, I actually used real bacon encased in several layers of acrylic medium for my harmonious color assignment.


----------



## Overread (Sep 20, 2012)

Well I had to add an appropriate number of votes for Bacon of course- considering that it didn't get to start out at the same time as the rest. 42 is a good answer to almost if not actually everything as well


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

You can do that?


----------



## ceejtank (Sep 20, 2012)

What's the actual purpose of this poll?  Seems like an attention grab.. haha


----------



## Overread (Sep 20, 2012)

maybe.....


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

ceejtank said:


> What's the actual purpose of this poll?  Seems like an attention grab.. haha



if it smells like bacon, and looks like bacon ........


----------



## Overread (Sep 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> > What's the actual purpose of this poll?  Seems like an attention grab.. haha
> ...



it's ham?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 20, 2012)

I found, quite by accident, that if one overcooks the DAYLIGHTS outta' thinly-sliced ham, one can tell a 9 year-old boy that ," It's bacon!" and he will believe it...and he will enjoy it...as will his middle-aged dad...


----------



## mishele (Sep 20, 2012)




----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)




----------



## jake337 (Sep 20, 2012)

But why would you care what we think.  If it makes you happy, that is all that matters.  If it seems people don't like what you create, and post, here then possibly finding another medium to present your work is in order.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

I've known for a long time my photographic work is not exactly "popular", and it seems as time goes on the more off into the weeds I get. I am happy with what I produce, but it's hard without a lot of encouragement.

I mean, I'm not looking for praise, exactly. Sometimes I just wonder if I'm just spinning wheels.

In any case, I doubt i'll stop. This was more out of frustration - from photography, but mostly from some health issues I'm dealing with.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 20, 2012)

If you are happy with what you produce, then, NO! You shouldn't quit. If you are doing it to impress everyone else and not to make you happy-then maybe. 
I don't happen to like a LOT of impressionist art in the last 50 years. That doesn't make it any less ART than a beautifully painted landscape or portrait or... 
I don't' happen to understand what people see in many different things. I also tend to find things beautiful for reasons other than other people find the same things to be beautiful. 

How do I know that you see green the same way I see green? We've been taught it's green all of our lives. Could be you see something totally different than I do. 
I cannot stand the taste of Airheads. I think they taste like chemicals and I cannot fathom how that can possibly taste good to anyone. There's another popular candy that tastes like soap to me. I am pretty sure that those who do like those things do NOT taste the same things I am tasting-otherwise they would NOT eat it. 
There's one perfume on the market that is INCREDIBLY popular. It's very strong and it STINKS like B.O. However, it's WELL loved and sells for a HIGH dollar. Obviously it does not smell like B.O. to an awful lot of people. 

The point is-it's all subjective. I am not going to quit eating brussel sprouts because my whole family hates it. I LOVE them. I am not going to wear the BO perfume because everyone else likes it...              

If you are happy and enjoying what you do-DO IT! Create for YOU and what YOU like!


----------



## amolitor (Sep 20, 2012)

So, what do you want out of photography?

I poked around for threads you started to get a sense of what you're working on these days. If what you're posting for C&C is representative of the kind of work you want to do, I have to say -- this stuff is INSANELY HARD. This semi-abstract found-piles-of-crap work almost always comes out as a pile of crap. It feels like it ought to work better, it's *interesting* but it's never comes out right when you throw a rectangular frame around it.

Is this a form you want to master? My advice is to put the camera down and spend some time looking at two things. The first thing is some tutorials on graphic design, because this stuff is ALL about the placement of objects in the frame -- the subject matter is anti-interesting, you have no leg up from the subject matter, you're actually starting in a hole. You have to generate the interest entirely graphically. The second thing is to look at the world more closely. There's a HUGE problem people have, and I include myself in there, with "that's a cool thing!" and converting that to a good photograph. Not every cool thing is a good photograph. Not every cool thing can be represented by a moment in time enclosed in a rectangular frame.

Your "labels" photo is a good example of that. What you're seeing is a pile of tangled material in some context, there's a texture there that's interesting. It truly is a cool thing, but maybe the cool thing is inherently not representable in two dimensions, maybe you really need to literally feel the depth. Maybe it's the context that makes it cool. If there's anything to be made of this, it's going to be something unexpected that captures the feeling you get looking at the labels, NOT a literal representation of some of the labels.

I think you figure these things out by looking at the pile of labels, thinking about how you feel, how the textures relate to the environment, what you want a viewer of your photograph to feel, and then start putting imaginary rectangles around things.

Walker Evans did a certain amount of this sort of thing, just to pull a name out of the air (I just got a book of his work, so he's on my mind. Go check out what he did. His are usually simpler then yours.

Also, go take some pictures of girls and or flowers.


----------



## fjrabon (Sep 20, 2012)

I've never had a problem with you photography.  I think it's a ncie change of pace, and I've liked a couple of things you did.  

However, I always have found it a bit irksome when you give C&C using your aesthetic principles that you admit are highly unusual.  Like you will occasionally trash photos that don't look like the work you are striving to make, when I think you at least somewhat get that the work you're trying to produce isn't for everybody, to put it mildly.  For instance any photo without really flat muddy lighting, you tend to disparage.  anything with any saturation or contrast at all, you talk down about.  

This has led to quite a few pointless arguments and highly confused newbies.


----------



## sovietdoc (Sep 20, 2012)

mmm....bacon..

What was the question?


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Is this a form you want to master? My advice is to put the camera down and spend some time looking at two things. The first thing is some tutorials on graphic design, because this stuff is ALL about the placement of objects in the frame -- the subject matter is anti-interesting, you have no leg up from the subject matter, you're actually starting in a hole. You have to generate the interest entirely graphically. The second thing is to look at the world more closely. There's a HUGE problem people have, and I include myself in there, with "that's a cool thing!" and converting that to a good photograph. Not every cool thing is a good photograph. Not every cool thing can be represented by a moment in time enclosed in a rectangular frame.



I've spent a lot of time working as a graphic artist, actually, and one of the things I do experiment with is composition. I'm very interested in this kind of equal importance of form. I'm trying to make things dynamic, not allowing the eye to find any one subject. I hope to make the whole of the composition the subject, not any particular dominant element.

I have always been interested in spacial ambiguity, also. I like the sense of flatness, I think this comes from my earlier interest in abstract expressionism. Its very easy to just start taking pictures of walls and stuff, because they're flat, though this gets pretty boring.



fjrabon said:


> anything with any saturation or contrast at all, you talk down about.



It's not so much that I am trying to make a big stink out of things; honestly, I don't understand this vocabulary. If I see an overly contrasty, punchy image I react negatively to it.


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Sep 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I've known for a long time my photographic work is not exactly "popular", and it seems as time goes on the more off into the weeds I get. I am happy with what I produce, but it's hard without a lot of encouragement.
> 
> I mean, I'm not looking for praise, exactly. Sometimes I just wonder if I'm just spinning wheels.
> 
> In any case, I doubt i'll stop. This was more out of frustration - from photography, but mostly from some health issues I'm dealing with.



Listen guy unless you are doing it for cash and fame you should not give one hoot what someone else thinks and I am dead serious. The only reason I put something up in the C&C occasionally is because I seriously want some critical feedback to help me improve my self.  

I dont care if someone likes what I photograph and to be honest I don't care what someone else thinks art is. *NOR SHOULD YOU ! *Take photos because you enjoy it, because you like photography as a hobby and because there is some serious science involved  if you really want to get involved to that level in photography. 

The only reason you need to worry about whether someone likes what you are doing is because you trying to get them to give you their money. 


JMTC and YMMV


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Sep 20, 2012)

Unpopular, I think this thread was highly unnecessary. 

"Stick to your guns" and move on. If everybody did everything the same, the world would be boring.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I've spent a lot of time working as a graphic artist, actually, and one of the things I do experiment with is composition. I'm very interested in this kind of equal importance of form. I'm trying to make things dynamic, not allowing the eye to find any one subject. I hope to make the whole of the composition the subject, not any particular dominant element.
> 
> I have always been interested in spacial ambiguity, also. I like the sense of flatness, I think this comes from my earlier interest in abstract expressionism. Its very easy to just start taking pictures of walls and stuff, because they're flat, though this gets pretty boring.



Dude, you seem to have selected an absurdly hard row to hoe, more or less on purpose. This SOUNDS like a completely crazy quest to create an idea of composition that is defined almost as the opposite of composition. This feels like the birth of atonal music. They had to invent whole new ways to think about music, even to listen to it, more or less. You must know that your selected target may actually be unattainable, right?

With music, we were pretty sure that the idea of tonality was a learned thing. With composition we pretty much know or at any rate believe that SOME of it is neurological wiring (and, of course, some of it is learned). In principle, that which is learned can be unlearned, or at a new thing can be learned on top of it. With neurologically wired stuff, you're pretty much screwed.

You're trying to launch a space mission to a planet that may not even exist, and you're frustrated? Duh! If you can't do it any more, don't pack in photography, look for a planet that you actually know exists, and plan another space shot. Or take some pictures of flowers and girls.

All that said, have you experimented with scale? Pollack is pointless on the printed page, on the computer screen, but merely very very difficult in real life. There may be something about size that makes this kind of thing easier to apprehend -- make it too large for the eye to encompass at once, and you change the way we perceive it, Possibly in good ways?

You could project rather than print, since printing at scale is obviously going to be.. expensive.


----------



## fjrabon (Sep 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> It's not so much that I am trying to make a big stink out of things; honestly, I don't understand this vocabulary. If I see an overly contrasty, punchy image I react negatively to it.



My point was, I think you've admitted several times that you think what are generally accepted as 'standard' levels of contrast and punch, to you, look bad.  Which is fine, but you tend to say "this is overly contrasty" instead of "hey, I tend to like really flat lighting, and I personally don't like this."  And normally, I don't think most people have to qualify, but your tastes are often so far off the beaten trail (nothing wrong with that), that newbies get highly confused, about what is, in general, too contrasty.  

You've stated several times that you hate the lighting that people like Zack Arias and Joe McNally use.  I think most people could say they're 'lighting masters' and if they could get that type of lighting, most people would be very happy.

It's one thing to have your sort of 'vision' of what you like.  It's quite another to criticize newbies based on a highly non-standard set of aesthetic principles.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 20, 2012)

I get what you're saying, but honestly, I think you're completely wrong. It's not that my aesthetic is non-standard, it's just not commercial. It's just that kind of pro-idolization which is really annoying to me. I can point to several examples of muted palettes in photographs found in museums or selling for what these guys make in a single workshop.

Zack Arias, Joe McNally - whatever. They're just run-of-the-mill technical photographers; after they're dead, nobody will think of them as "masters" or really as anything else. In fact, I'd venture to say most people don't already.

---

And also, about light: it's a tool to convey the subject. If you see a photograph and think "good light" then it's a distraction. I'll maintain that position to my penniless grave. Light should be an unobtrusive element.


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 20, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> I get what you're saying, but honestly, I think you're completely wrong. It's not that my aesthetic is non-standard, it's just not commercial. It's just that kind of pro-idolization which is really annoying to me. I can point to several examples of muted palettes in photographs found in museums or selling for what these guys make in a single workshop.
> 
> Zack Arias, Joe McNally - whatever. They're just run-of-the-mill technical photographers; after they're dead, nobody will think of them as "masters" or really as anything else. In fact, I'd venture to say most people don't already.
> 
> ...



It depends on how you're viewing the photograph, whether you're just enjoying the experience or if you're really "appreciating" the piece.

Light is the most basic factor that comes into play in photography, so people are usually going to notice good light.

Under the logic that it's a distraction, then saying anything specific could be a distraction.

IE: 

"Nice composition."
"Wonderful depth of field."
"I like your processing."

It's how all of these elements work together. Noting a specific technical detail that you enjoy does not necessarily make a photo any less "good"

Now if the light unintentionally overpowers the main subject then yeah, I could see it as a distraction.

But since you said you're carrying your opinion to  your grave then....w/e lol


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 21, 2012)

unpopular said:


> And also, about light: it's a tool to convey the subject. If you see a photograph and think "good light" then it's a distraction. I'll maintain that position to my penniless grave. Light should be an unobtrusive element.



Yes, and no. You are right in that it should be an unobtrusive element (in almost all cases-sometimes it IS about the light.) However when things really CLICK together for most photographers they realize it is ALL about light. When you no longer have problems with exposure and can instinctively set your exposures you will find that you are seeing in terms of LIGHT and not the pretty picture. Yes, then light is an unobtrusive element-however it's all about seeing that "good light" or "bad light" as the case may be. I can see my dog sitting on the sofa like she's human right now. However-the lighting is HORRIBLE and I'd have to fix that in order to have a decent image of her. Otherwise she'd be partly well lit where the window is falling across her and partly black as pitch where it's not. It IS about light and seeing it. 
When you ignore good and bad light and your abilities is when you end up with the hollow eyed people, poorly exposed skies or subjects in relation to the sky, etc.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 21, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > And also, about light: it's a tool to convey the subject. If you see a photograph and think "good light" then it's a distraction. I'll maintain that position to my penniless grave. Light should be an unobtrusive element.
> ...



Saying 'it's all about the light' puts the emphasis incorrectly I  think.  One could just as easily say 'it's all about the air'; without  either the picture wouldn't work.
They are both enabling tools photographers use to capture what they see.
If the light is difficult then the photographer needs to use what he/she has to make a picture.

Yes, it's nice to have nice light, and nice lenses and nice camera bodies and lots of interesting subjects.

But to emphasize the light as the determining factor put too much emphasis on one issue - and, in some ways - is like looking for the perfect lens.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 21, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


No, it really is about the light. You may have very little or a whole lot, but a camera doesn't record anything but the light that is reflected into it. It uses light-whether it is a lot or a little-to create the image. If you don't have any light-you cannot make a picture. There isn't one to make.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 21, 2012)

You can use exposure and processing to "place" light and shadow. We're still limited by the practical dynamic range of the gear, but that's more of a technical thing than a quality thing.

I still maintain that the only reason I can't cope with certain lighting situations is due to my own abilities, and nothing intrinsic to the light itself. This is kind of what the Zone System is about...


----------



## Overread (Sep 21, 2012)

It's important to remember that in any scene where there is light there is the potential to use that light for a photograph. However that light itself will restrain what is and is not possible; furthermore each photographer has their own vision and personal style of working. If you're in a situation, and you don't have the means to add more light to the scene and you want to take a kind of picture a certain way to show a certain thing - then you need a certain amount of light in the right places to do that. 

If you don't have the light for it - you can't take the shot you want to. This means some might see a scene and say "Yep ain't no point getting the camera out, the lights too dim I'll never get the shutter speed fast enough to get a clear shot of the flying bird." Whilst another will say "Yep just the right amount of light for a great shot of the stars". (or possibly in that case cloud cover )


So yes light is both an enabler and a limiter on any given situation. Just like the camera, lens, photographer and all the other parts of the photographic setup are.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 21, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> No, it really is about the light. You may have very little or a whole lot, but a camera doesn't record anything but the light that is reflected into it. It uses light-whether it is a lot or a little-to create the image. If you don't have any light-you cannot make a picture. There isn't one to make.



You keep on saying that as if the answer is somehow obvious - it's a belief not a self evident fact.
Why isn't a trumpet solo all about the air or the instrument?

None of the elements work without the artist and his/her vision.
Physical elements are important and have their relative rank in how they affect the possible output but they only constrain the artist's ability.
Without the artist, they are nothing, like a trumpet in the hands of a non-player or a pencil in the hands of a nincompoop.

Saying its all about the light is a kind of pseudo-mystical mantra that is really nice to hear and implies some mystique that we should buy into - and gives everyone hope that they'll find that time and place.

What it really is about is having the time, patience, talent and skill to create something with what one has.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 21, 2012)

MLeek - you do everything in camera, right?


----------



## jpo_tx113 (Oct 11, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> SamSpade1941 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I have an idea I drove across the state on my way to Washington and it was the longest drive I can say I have ever had..
> ...



That's what airplanes are for!


----------



## bhop (Oct 11, 2012)

I haven't read through the thread, but the way I see it is this..

If you enjoy photography, keep doing it.
If you don't enjoy photography, quit.


----------

