# Why are we fighting so hard to impress each other?



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm probably going to get blasted for what I am about to say... but oh well. 

Why do people put so much emphasis on impressing fellow photographers when it doesn't seem to be a requirment in the actual world? I've been spending a lot of time observing magazines, calenders, posters for clothing in lines in malls and it seems no one else in the world really cares about all of the boundaries we have set for ourselves here. I'm not talking about exposure, focus, weight balance which are technical issues. I'm talking about all of the subjective areas like. One in particular nitpick I see a lot is "distracting" background. I've been looking through a lot of resources as I mentioned earlier, and they have a lot of so-called "distracting" elements scattered all through the background. 

I've been seeing people say on here "Just because it makes money and general people will like it, doesn't mean it's good or other photographers will like it." Soooo it doesn't matter if it's reaching a lot of people or you're making money, the important thing is that the, maybe, 40 people on here don't approve? It's like "pssh, forget all of the people making money and the people who like you're work, it's only a real work if it's validated by the people on this site, these are the ones who REALLY matter." 

Again, I understand correcting technical errors such focus, exposure, weight balance etc. I have been a sketch artist for a long time now, so I understand the importance of improving on a technical level, but everything else just seems like they're setting imaginary boundaries that don't actually exist in the real world. Isn't it more important to reach people in your community rather then the people on here?

If you like your work, other people like it and it could possibly make money who gives a **** what strangers on the internet have to say?


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 16, 2012)

Who is trying to impress anyone around here?  I think most people who are posting for cc are trying to learn something, not impress anyone.


----------



## MReid (Jan 16, 2012)

When you boil it all down it is the individual images that stand on their own merit....not whether the images follow the "rules".


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Isn't it more important to reach people in your community rather then the people on here?


*
ANSWER #1*

No

What is important is learning the best way to do things, to understand perfection and at least know how to reach for it.
If you or someone else must make do with less than the best later on for other reasons, that's a different issue.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 16, 2012)

Oh god, here we go again!


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 16, 2012)

After thought: you posts for cc were only to impress someone? The cc you got didn't help you to grow at all and your images before were so great. After all, you liked them, right? Then they're good enough and you don't need us!


----------



## zcar21 (Jan 16, 2012)

:er:

Photography is a form of communication, so subjective elements do matter.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> If you like your work, other people like it and it could possibly make money who gives a **** what strangers on the internet have to say?



Why continue posting here?

GO! Go do your own thing!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 16, 2012)

zcar21 said:


> :er:
> 
> Photography is a form of communication, so subjective elements do matter.



Photography is a form of visual communication with a language that should be learned.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 16, 2012)

Are you responding to the guy who self-promoted his blog post? Yeah, I know what you mean. 

Art seems to mostly be about impressing the next person. Why do you think that photographers are always like "dude look at the shot I just got." That happens to me ALL THE TIME when I'm shooting sports. There's even one guy who wears headphones and won't talk to you unless you obviously have the photographic qualifications to demand his attention. Regardless of how other members try to play it down, a lot of people are secretly pretentious, I believe. That's why there's always so much drama on here. People come in, they wants oohs and aaahs about their photos, they don't get them, then they get defensive and leave. I think it's because photography is soooooo much more subjective than many other areas, and that causes people to be insecure about their abilities.

It is superiority under a façade of humbleness and self-deprecation. Those are just my observations. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong people.

That being said, there are several, several, photographers who aren't like that, and I appreciate them for it.


----------



## zcar21 (Jan 16, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> zcar21 said:
> 
> 
> > :er:
> ...



You'll expect an artist to know this.


----------



## Joey_Ricard (Jan 16, 2012)

The need for social acceptance - it's a sickness


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 16, 2012)

zcar21 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > zcar21 said:
> ...


Indeed, I would.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

You really need to read through the post. I didn't say there is NO point in learning. I even said there are elements that you NEED to listen to criticisms. I specified I am merely taking about the subjective elements. I never one said CC is useless.More of what I'm saying is how much should we take in on the SUBJECTIVE side of things.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Are you responding to the guy who self-promoted his blog post? Yeah, I know what you mean. Art seems to mostly be about impressing the next person. Why do you think that photographers are always like "dude look at the shot I just got." That happens to me ALL THE TIME when I'm shooting sports. There's even one guy who wears headphones and won't talk to you unless you obviously have the photographic qualifications to demand his attention. Regardless of how other members try to play it down, a lot of people are secretly pretentious, I believe. That's why there's always so much drama on here. People come in, they wants oohs and aaahs about their photos, they don't get them, then they get defensive and leave. I think it's because photography is soooooo much more subjective than many other areas, and that causes people to be insecure about their abilities.It is superiority under a façade of humbleness and self-deprecation. Those are just my observations. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong people.That being said, there are several, several, photographers who aren't like that, and I appreciate them for it.


Well said.


----------



## enzodm (Jan 16, 2012)

There is a kind of portrait called "environmental portrait", where you portrait the person and his/her own environment. In such a kind you surely may use background as an additional subject (~). But at that point you need to treat it with the dignity of a subject. 
Also street photography has often more components inside than the main subject only. 
Avoiding cluttered background is just a guideline, meaning that you should decide what there is in your picture and how.
Most of "distracting background" pictures here have just a random  background - sort of background noise, more than added meaning.

It could be useful to see some of the examples you speak of, in order to discuss them. Just post links.


----------



## nmoody (Jan 16, 2012)

I think deep down we all want to have our pictures to be loved and become known for them. My purpose here is to learn photography from others and at some point give back to the forum. Though my pictures currently are not to the caliber that I want, they will be someday. I love all these threads with visually stunning pictures and the hash but comical users that make them.


----------



## GnipGnop (Jan 16, 2012)

Who do you shoot for? Yourself, or an audience? Most of the time, you can only pick one.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

GnipGnop said:


> Who do you shoot for? Yourself, or an audience? Most of the time, you can only pick one.


My question more is who should be your selected audience.


----------



## Sonoma (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> If you like your work, other people like it and it could possibly make money who gives a **** what strangers on the internet have to say?



So, if this statement is accurate, why do you post here? 
Seems ludicrous!


----------



## sm4him (Jan 16, 2012)

You're right about one thing: at the end of the day, *I* have to decide whether I like the photography I am producing.  If I think what I'm doing is good enough, then frankly, I wouldn't have much use for TPF (well, yes, I would. You regulars are a highly entertaining bunch, and I feel like family at this point).

I am not here to impress ANYone...if that were my goal, I'd have to say that so far, I've been a dismal failure at achieving it!

I came to TPF because I KNOW that, while my friends, family and co-workers have loved my photos, I needed to really improve my skills if *I* wanted to be satisfied with what I was producing.

For example, I recently posted a set of night photos of my workplace for C&C? My boss absolutely LOVED them; so why did I post them? So you all could be suitably impressed? NO. I posted them because *I* knew that they could be improved, if only I knew HOW to improve them.  And I knew I would probably get humbled and "put in my place" for thinking they were even reasonably decent, lol.

Sure enough, some hated them...boring subject, boring composition, etc. Eh, okay, whatever. The subject wasn't my choice; it was a photo I was trying to produce for a specific purpose.

But some posted some really helpful information...in particular, mannaheim, who linked to a thread he's written about doing night photos, offered some advice, and also offered to give me additional pointers as I need them.  I have learned SO much from his comments, and can't wait for the next nice night when I can go out and do a re-shoot....even though my boss couldn't care less because she already loves the photo!  But I don't WANT to produce what is "good enough" for my boss, or my family or even for clients...I want to produce what is good enough for ME. 

Really, so many regulars on here have really helped me improve, already.  MTVision, MLeek, Bitter, on and on....I don't want to list too many, because I'll miss some who have been helpful for sure! Even some who have made "rude," harsh remarks have been helpful, because the essence of what they're saying is true.

I doubt ANY of the people who have commented on the few photos I've put up for C&C have been impressed. No, I don't just doubt it, I'm sure of it. I'm equally sure that most of them find my work on par with a rank amateur (well, at least, I *hope* they think I'm at least up to *that* level, lol). But I'm not trying to IMPRESS them, I'm trying to LEARN.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to put my soapbox away and go work on my photography.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

nmoody said:


> I think deep down we all want to have our pictures to be loved and become known for them. My purpose here is to learn photography from others and at some point give back to the forum. Though my pictures currently are not to the caliber that I want, they will be someday. I love all these threads with visually stunning pictures and the hash but comical users that make them.


Yep same here. I will use a thread I had with Bitter as an example. I had a scenery photo with deers, chairs etc. I started getting a bunch of "subjective" CC and started way overediting it and ruining the photo because people were telling me how I should feel about the subjective elements. Assuming these people knew more I followed what they said. Until Bitter came along and said WTF are you doing? It's a good photo and YOUR instinct was correct. So who should we follow with these SUBJECTIVE matters?


----------



## zcar21 (Jan 16, 2012)

the answer should be simple the audience, otherwise why would you show your picture to other people and expect them to like it?


----------



## Dao (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> .... Why do people put so much emphasis on impressing fellow photographers when it doesn't seem to be a requirment in the actual world? I've been spending a lot of time observing magazines, calenders, posters for clothing in lines in malls and it seems no one else in the world really cares about all of the boundaries we have set for ourselves here. I'm not talking about exposure, focus, weight balance which are technical issues. I'm talking about all of the subjective areas like. One in particular nitpick I see a lot is "distracting" background. I've been looking through a lot of resources as I mentioned earlier, and they have a lot of so-called "distracting" elements scattered all through the background.  ....



I think sometimes we just need to learn the fundamental stuff first before we deviate from them.

We all learn 1 + 1 = 2 when we were little.  Once we know the basic, we can go from there (and learn more and more)

Of course, there are times that 1 + 1 is not equal 2 (deviation) .  For example, when you add 1 pile of shxt to another pile of shxt, you 1 pile of big shxt.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

Sonoma said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > If you like your work, other people like it and it could possibly make money who gives a **** what strangers on the internet have to say?
> ...


Ummm you clearly didn't read the entire post. I said why I did. I said there ARE elements that ARE important for criticisms and am merely talking about the subjective parts.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Isn't it more important to reach people in your community rather then the people on here?


*
ANSWER #2*

No

Good photos are understandable by everyone, not just the _cognoscenti _and you might as well do things right if you know how.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Isn't it more important to reach people in your community rather then the people on here?


*
ANSWER #3*

No

In general the people in your community will be morons (photographically speaking)  and eventually one of them will wake up and realize that your appealing-to-the-common-man photos are crap and they will talk about it. 

Always do your best by anyone's standards.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Regardless of how other members try to play it down, a lot of people are secretly pretentious, I believe. That's why there's always so much drama on here.


 Don't forget those who are smug. 






> I think it's because photography is soooooo much more subjective than many other areas, and that causes people to be insecure about their abilities.


 What other areas?
I have found it to the same in every area of art I have worked in and studied.




> It is superiority under a façade of humbleness and self-deprecation. Those are just my observations. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong people.


If we bring this back to the forum, you have a ton of people pretending they know a lot about art, but don't. We repeatedly hear their opinions on how stuff doesn't really matter. But what point, what foundation are they arguing from?


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

Dao said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > .... Why do people put so much emphasis on impressing fellow photographers when it doesn't seem to be a requirment in the actual world? I've been spending a lot of time observing magazines, calenders, posters for clothing in lines in malls and it seems no one else in the world really cares about all of the boundaries we have set for ourselves here. I'm not talking about exposure, focus, weight balance which are technical issues. I'm talking about all of the subjective areas like. One in particular nitpick I see a lot is "distracting" background. I've been looking through a lot of resources as I mentioned earlier, and they have a lot of so-called "distracting" elements scattered all through the background.  ....
> ...


Umm if you read the post I did state that the fundelmental stuff was important. I am only speaking of the subjective elements.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> I'm probably going to get blasted for what I am about to say... but oh well.
> 
> Why do people put so much emphasis on impressing fellow photographers  when it doesn't seem to be a requirment in the actual world? I've been  spending a lot of time observing magazines, calenders, posters for  clothing in lines in malls and it seems no one else in the world really  cares about all of the boundaries we have set for ourselves here. I'm  not talking about exposure, focus, weight balance which are technical  issues. I'm talking about all of the subjective areas like. One in  particular nitpick I see a lot is "distracting" background. I've been  looking through a lot of resources as I mentioned earlier, and they have  a lot of so-called "distracting" elements scattered all through the  background.
> 
> ...





blackrose89 said:


> You really need to read through the post. I didn't say there is NO point in learning. I even said there are elements that you NEED to listen to criticisms. I specified I am merely taking about the subjective elements. I never one said CC is useless.More of what I'm saying is how much should we take in on the SUBJECTIVE side of things.


This whole thing is completely contradictory. It looks a bit like I said something stupid, but that's not what I really said... 

RARELY do you see anyone here posting for the impressive quality. We are all trying to learn something or help someone learn. There are a few people here who I can learn from and that is the only reason I'd post anything and it's the same for the "professional level" members here. The new photographers are posting not to have someone blown away-those ones come in, find out they're not the shiz-nit and leave. The ones who stay and post their images here are doing it to LEARN what the don't know. Sure as hell not to impress anyone. We all know it takes a WHOLE LOT to impress most of us. 
Although I will mention that I see you posting the "raise the anty" posts that seem to be looking for the impressive factor. So maybe that's where this comes from? 
We see great photography every day and appreciate it for that. We also look at that great photo and think about what makes it great, how the photographer created it and how we could do it or do it differently. 
So, who is here to IMPRESS anyone except maybe Vandal who got called out for his imperfections?


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 16, 2012)

The decision of what you like is yours. Yes sometimes people will make suggestions based on what they feel. Doesn't mean they are right as they could be talking out of their arse. So why bother trying? It's useful to try out people's suggestions as although you may not like it applied in one way on one shot doesn't mean it won't work on another shot. It's actually quite a positive thing for your development as a photographer and will teach you to understand why you like or dislike a shot. Understanding why is more valuable than the fact of liking or disliking.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 16, 2012)

Yes, I do realise a lot of photographers here are morons and bull **** a lot.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> nmoody said:
> 
> 
> > I think deep down we all want to have our pictures to be loved and become known for them. My purpose here is to learn photography from others and at some point give back to the forum. Though my pictures currently are not to the caliber that I want, they will be someday. I love all these threads with visually stunning pictures and the hash but comical users that make them.
> ...



Ah, but that thread points to you not knowing enough to make decisions for yourself, or stand behind what you have done and explain why it works. In subsequent threads, you have taken the stance that people don't need to learn about art. You have taken the stance that the "rules" should be thrown away, or that it's ok to "break" them. It all comes from a point of naivete. 


So many expect to be "breaking" rules and be successful right out of the gate. So many want to dismiss educating themselves and reach the point that they can make their own decisions. You know why? Cuz it takes too long. They don't have that experience to judge objectively.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 16, 2012)

I didn't know I'm here to impress people.  Well, maybe I should start posting more to impress ya'll.  

Generally speaking, photographers know more about photography than the general population.  If you work is well received by a group of experienced people in your field, you must be doing something right.  It's not that hard to impress your Facebook friends, just use shallow DOF and vignette.   

With that said, I don't feel that people are on here to impress others.  We're here to learn and improve.  I don't post much because I try to learn from the more experienced members.  I certainly don't want to be the noob that gives out the wrong information to another noob, which I have done before. lol  A lot of people don't care much for photography as long as they know the basics and make money from it.  Others want to take it to the next level, making money or not.  Most of the great artists throughout history were not wealthy and did not gain much from their artwork, while they were still alive.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 16, 2012)

Nothing better to do.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm not impressed with this thread.  It seems to be another call for attention rather than a genuine topic of conversation.



On an aside note...........


The_Traveler said:


> *ANSWER #1*
> 
> *ANSWER #2
> 
> **ANSWER #3*


Hey Lew, glad to see you posting again.  Hope you had a good holiday.  However, I do miss Mother Teresa.


----------



## ph0enix (Jan 16, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Why continue posting here?


Let me guess: for attention.
The issue has been beaten to death.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 16, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of how other members try to play it down, a lot of people are secretly pretentious, I believe. That's why there's always so much drama on here.
> ...



I mean other areas in general. Like math. I HATE math, because I'm not very good at logical critical thinking. I think some people who are very logical thinkers have a tough time with photography for the simple fact that it's more abstract...

I think that photography is 2 parts intuition and 3 parts "what works."


----------



## GnipGnop (Jan 16, 2012)

If you're so concerned, why bother posting? Keep them to yourself, and spare your creatives works from the no-holds-barred scrutiny of the Internet-folk.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> I mean other areas in general. Like math. I HATE math, because I'm not very good at logical critical thinking. I think some people who are very logical thinkers have a tough time with photography for the simple fact that it's more abstract...


Oh. I get it.

You want abstract? Take a Logic/Critical Thinking class or two. :shock:



> I think that photography is 2 parts intuition and 3 parts "what works."



That's the thing. What is the "what works part", and for whom?


Sorry for challenging you, we generally have seen eye to eye. I guess this is for thought clarification.


----------



## Joey_Ricard (Jan 16, 2012)

Internet forums are what they are these days.

In the case of this forum - The topic and variety is wide open and all over the place within the world of photography
You post an image and people will tell you what they think. Good, bad or otherwise. Giving our opinions is one of the things we do on here.

I don't see us running up to someone on the street and ask them what they think about an image. This is a photography gathering with a lot of variety.

With that said, this isn't a place like Flickr, where you have groups that you can join and interact with people about a specific style within the wide field of photography in general (ie landscape photography). On the Flickr groups to which I belong, you don't have C&C, but more of a sharing characteristic with comments. If you like something, you comment, if you don't, dont comment, but generally it's not a C&C. You can have contacts you socialize with and share on a regular basis.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 16, 2012)

Here is what I think.

Don't post for C&C if you have a thin skin and take everything personally.  
If you are going to comment on someones work, always *TRY to be tactful* and at least find something good to say about some part of it.
Kind of like being a teacher at a parent teacher conference LOL


----------



## Ballistics (Jan 16, 2012)

C'mon blackrose, when will the madness stop? Why does everything have to be so effin deep with you? It's not that serious. Post pictures, get critiqued, critique others, enjoy life. Who cares about people's motives? If you don't like the forum or the people on it... remove yourself from it. It's that easy. It's becoming evident that every once in a while you need the spot light on you, as if you crave attention, or if you are looking for affirmation to fulfill an acceptance insecurity. One too many "Who's with me?" threads.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 16, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I mean other areas in general. Like math. I HATE math, because I'm not very good at logical critical thinking. I think some people who are very logical thinkers have a tough time with photography for the simple fact that it's more abstract...
> ...



Yeah, I understand what you mean about logic being less concrete than one would assume it to be. XD

What I mean by what works is statements like "if you place the light this way, it's more flattering. If you place it this way you get a different effect." It's just those things in photography that are tried and true. It has nothing to with the photographer not being creative. It has everything to do with what looks good. It's annoying how some photographers will ask critique on a _creative_ portrait, when they obviously don't know the fundamentals of portraiture in the first place. I think you should be able to get a technically good, albeit generic photo first, so you at least have some basis for your creativity.

I also find it irritating when people are creative just for the sake of being creative. Like when someone takes a photo of a flower and adds borders and faux-lomography and blah blah....their treatment doesn't add anything to the photo, it just makes everyone realize that they don't know the fundamentals, so they're just creating their own....which rarely works.....

There are a few people, though, who are damn good at backwards engineering. Just take the third party TTL flash units as examples. 

I can't really tell if I'm making any sense or not. My mind moves faster and my fingers, and I feel like I'm just rambling.


----------



## skieur (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> You really need to read through the post. I didn't say there is NO point in learning. I even said there are elements that you NEED to listen to criticisms. I specified I am merely taking about the subjective elements. I never one said CC is useless.More of what I'm saying is how much should we take in on the SUBJECTIVE side of things.



The elements of design/"rules" of composition are NOT subjective.

skieur


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



You are. Sometimes I just need clarification on vague variables. So I get you now.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

skieur said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > You really need to read through the post. I didn't say there is NO point in learning. I even said there are elements that you NEED to listen to criticisms. I specified I am merely taking about the subjective elements. I never one said CC is useless.More of what I'm saying is how much should we take in on the SUBJECTIVE side of things.
> ...



That is simply not true. If it was then we always have to apply the RO3, we could never center our photos etc. Every photo would look the same if this was true.

Besides they're guidelines not rules.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > nmoody said:
> ...



Good point, but still doesn't contradict what I was saying. What made that photo stand out was one one the foundations I said was important to learn in this very original post: weight balance. So the CC was something I needed to learn. I didn't say it should be discarded. I'm merely saying at what point do we judge for ourselves? I didn't even neccassarily mean myself. I am not saying I am that point yet.

And yes I agree that at first you can't break the rules. If you remember in another thread I said the best advice I got and give to others is to make completely correct photos to start with to build a solid foundation, a foundation which I advocated for in this original post. 

I am quite suprised to see the turn around in your stance, did you not blast people in another thread for reffering to these design elements as "rules"?


----------



## enzodm (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Besides they're guidelines not rules.



one definition of guideline (something used in many fields, not only in art) says that it is the way to _correctly_ carry out a task in the majority of cases. This is what is needed by a beginner. The _best_ way may be another one (which you will have to reach with your forces), but in the meantime at least you may take decent pictures according to human perception. For the next step, I think you should go outside a beginner forum. Go to 500px and see if you are even considered by someone  .


----------



## LuckySe7en (Jan 16, 2012)

I think you need to relax, dear.  Most here post pics for c&c to learn not to impress anyone.  Everyone here or mostly everyone here critiques your photos honestly.  Hell, if all I did was go off of the feedback I get around home (family, friends, etc) I'd think I'm a professional!  lol  So Im very interested in hearing what these guys and gals have to say about my progress.


----------



## Overread (Jan 16, 2012)

When you associate with experts/experienced people of any field of interest you are more and more likely to encounter people who set a higher and higher bar for quality (in whatever it is they are doing). The more "elite" and focused the group is on the subject, generally, the higher the bar will be set. 

Its your own choice as to if you want to aim for that same high bar, or even exceed it and no one can pressure you to do otherwise (well barring teachers/parents/your boss). Of course if you come to a learning site like here (or any community based around furthering understanding of a craft) you'll get a lot of people pushing and trying to help you reach those higher bars. 


Just take drawing, that you do already, do you really only aim for the skills needed for common, average skills in it? If so go back to stickmen cause most people are quite happy with stickmen level skills at drawing. But you don't, you've already shown that you aspire to and aim to reach a higher grade than most. Whether you follow this same practice with photography or not is your own choice in the matter - just accept that if you are posting for critique on a site that takes it more seriously you'll get the serious replies. You'll get people taking their own time to try and encourage you to improve and develop in skills.
Best thing is to remain grateful for the time they take, better is to take on board and learn from it. 



Its the same with any community in the real world (the internet is very much real, if you doubt this just stop paying your fees for using it for a while ) its just that with the net you've the added bonus that you can get in contact with some of the best. You can find and talk to those people who are experts in their field or who are far more experienced than many local to yourself. You can even find those who specialise in just one or two very key areas.


----------



## mjhoward (Jan 16, 2012)

I strive for mediocrity.

See how dumb that sounds.


----------



## mjhoward (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> If you like your work, other people like it  and it could possibly make money who gives a **** what strangers on the  internet have to say?



The many threads that you have started requesting C&C would indicate that _you _do.  Just sayin'


----------



## Derrel (Jan 16, 2012)

Overread's post, post #51, has two very critical paragraphs at the start. As he wrote, "When you associate with experts/experienced people of any field of interest you are more and more likely to encounter people who set a higher and higher bar for quality (in whatever it is they are doing). The more "elite" and focused the group is on the subject, generally, the higher the bar will be set."

There are people here who have been involved in real-world photography for more years that you have been alive--or even DOUBLE the number of years you have been alive. Or, in the case of a handful of respected members here, double + XX years of actual involvement in photography, and the visual arts. And the arts in other disciplines. As well as "life" itself. There are people for whom beginner-level work looks "beginner-level", even if it appears in some wall poster at the mall, advertising clothing or products. A fair number of companies today are having in-house "people" shoot photos, as a way to save money. Some of the advertising photography seen today in some venues is not very good, nor very "advanced" work...American malls for example, have a mix of average and excellent advertising and promotional photos; it depends largely on the company, and the kind of clientele they attract. There are different levels of quality and experience in advertising photos, just as there are in advertising campaign design; there is low-rent, middle,high-end, and elite advertising work.

Back to the "distracting background" line of thought; in a portrait, a distracting background is a bad,bad thing. In an environmental portrait, the background is an absolute necessity to have--it is part and parcel of the image. In a commercial product shot, the product itself might be the essential part; however, in say CLOTHING photos, very frequently the BACKGROUND is EXPLICITLY sketched out and dictated by the art director. The same goes for other types of products, such as liquor, travel services, and automobiles. A person with some experience can differentiate between different types of photography, and the different roles photography can be called upon to play. A straight, low-rent website product shot made on a seamless paper backdrop is one thing; a photo advertising a $4,500 home espresso maker might very well have an attractive, fit 30-something dude making espresso in a high-end kitchen, while in the background, shown in only moderate defocus is a lounging female figure, clearly dressed in something kind of slinky...the morning sun just coming over the skyscrapers in the background (and held in perfect value by multiple sheets of .9 ND filter material over the window). In the case of the $4,500 espresso maker for the home, the background's elements are there for an explicit reason. Imagine if the same slinky woman, shown at sunrise, were in the background of a portrait designed to be given to the guy's wife. MAJOR DRAMA would ensue. Images can have designed impact, or accidental impact.

So..."distracting background" or "environmental clues". It takes some skill and training to understand criticism of images. Visually sophisticated people who have been looking at and evaluating their own images and the images they see around them every day for 30,40,50 years are going to have a different approach to images than people who are pretty much passive sponges that just look at images, and who do not have a background in looking at images, contemplating on what they mean, and so on.


----------



## Tee (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> If you like your work, other people like it and it could possibly make money who gives a **** what strangers on the internet have to say?



That's easily solved by not posting photos for critique on here.  If you like it, great!  If you post on here then don't be shocked when people offer up their own thoughts.  When someone posts on here, the members are going to approach the image with a more critical eye.  You know, being a photography forum and all.  I agree with another poster above in which you appear to have some sort of drama aspect going on.  It feels as if you're looking for your own validation and acceptance on the internet.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 16, 2012)

I only try to impress BitterJeweller.  I couldn't care less what everyone else thinks.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> ... If you like your work, other people like it and it could possibly make money who gives a **** what strangers on the internet have to say?


A couple of comments (that might even take some heat off of you) and I'm going back to minding my own business.

1.  There is a big difference between not "Caring" what people think and not "Listening" to people.  I've been around the block enough times that I don't care what people think about my photography, but I do listen to their comments and input.  I don't pretend to have all the answers and I will gladly listen to advice.  I may not follow it but I will try it.  If I don't like the results I'll simply go back to doing things my own way.

2.  It is very important to know who to listen to, who to ignore, and how to tell them apart.  Like every forum in existence this one has a lot of very helpful, very knowledgeable people.  It also has its share of people who know are convinced that they know more than they actually do, and a handful who just like to stir things up.  Learn to separate the knowledge from the BS.

3.  If you think this forum is hard, it is.  But it isn't as hard as some I frequent.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> I'm probably going to get blasted for what I am about to say... but oh well.
> 
> I've been seeing people say on here "Just because it makes money and general people will like it, doesn't mean it's good or other photographers will like it." Soooo it doesn't matter if it's reaching a lot of people or you're making money, the important thing is that the, maybe, 40 people on here don't approve? It's like "pssh, forget all of the people making money and the people who like you're work, it's only a real work if it's validated by the people on this site, these are the ones who REALLY matter."
> 
> ...



If you are looking for validation...today is not your day. I'm not sure if you actually are accomplished at sketch...if you were this sort of dialog would be moot because you would know better. The LAST people I'd take for real was 'my community'....what do they know about photography?...Like minded peers...and masses of them....that's where the body of weight is.

And BTW...I dont try to impress anyone...I work to improve to impress ME.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jan 16, 2012)

To the OP, I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but using the word impress probably wasn't the best choice.  You said something about choosing your audience and I think is a much better way of describing it.  In my opinion, the flaw in your logic is that you have to choose one or the other.  Make images the public like or make images your photographic peers like.  Now if you choose the former, you're never going to get the respect of your (experienced) peers.  However, if you choose the later, I don't see how that would keep the public from also enjoying your work.  Unless you're talking about abstract fine arts or something that the general public just doesn't understand there's really no reason they wouldn't enjoy your images as well.  They may not be able to pinpoint why but to some degree they can see the difference between your shots and the standard facebook photog's and even in the worst case scenario they certainly won't think they're any worse than those.


----------



## jaicatalano (Jan 16, 2012)

Very true...  It's about the work and very subjective...


----------



## MTVision (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:
			
		

> That is simply not true. If it was then we always have to apply the RO3, we could never center our photos etc. Every photo would look the same if this was true.
> 
> Besides they're guidelines not rules.



The rule of thirds isn't the only compositional guideline though. There are tons of ways to compose a photo without the rule of thirds - symmetry, repetition, rule of odds, color, lighting, viewpoint, framing, leading lines, etc. Sometimes rule of thirds just doesn't work but centering does. 

My take on all of this is - before I started posting here and learning photography I was so proud of my amazing photography with my amazing camera    Now...that I have learned so much I want to learn even more and get even better. Honestly, I could probably make money doing portraits because people around me like my work - even though I suck. But, I want to be the best (I know that probably won't happen) and I couldn't dream of taking money for something that I know is sub-par. 

Normal everyday people know little to nothing about photography and are easily impressed - which is why there are so many photographers out there who have just bought a camera and went into business. 

My whole point is that most anybody can impress the public with a cute photo or gimmicky editing. I want to learn, improve and one day be impressed with myself when I look back to where I started.  I want to be satisfied with my work because I know i did my best and not just because the general public liked it. 


Rose - didn't someone tell you when you first became a member that this was a great place to get CC on basic stuff but not for creativity?


----------



## Armymom (Jan 16, 2012)

People come in, they wants oohs and aaahs about their photos, they don't get them, then they get defensive and leave. I think it's because photography is soooooo much more subjective than many other areas, and that causes people to be insecure about their abilities.


I agree 100%. When it comes to me, give me some ideas and I can take them or leave them. If I choose to use the input it is my prerogative. If I am on this forum for kudos and flattery rather than honest opinions, then I'm in the wrong place.


(Sorry rex...I deleted too much of the thread and deleted your quotation acknowledgement...new to this forum thing)


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 16, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm probably going to get blasted for what I am about to say... but oh well.
> ...



Exactly.  At the start it's easy to impress yourself. As you learn more, you learn to get things into perspective and challenge yourself more.  Some of my early things that impressed me, no longer do so.  It's all part of the learning process.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> If you like your work, other people like it and it could possibly make money who gives a **** what strangers on the internet have to say?



That is exactly the attitude of some of the people who come here... don't like the C&C.. and LEAVE! (and guess what.. they probably don't get any better either...)!!!!!  And all I can say is GOOD.. let them leave, that way we can spend more time with the people who want to learn!!! And not have all the "Vandalistic PG" drama that has been so prevalent lately!!!   

And ROSE... I thought you were getting a clue.. why did you post something like this? <shaking head sadly>!


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 16, 2012)

thereyougo! said:
			
		

> Exactly.  At the start it's easy to impress yourself. As you learn more, you learn to get things into perspective and challenge yourself more.  Some of my early things that impressed me, no longer do so.  It's all part of the learning process.



Have you ever shared your work?


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > If you like your work, other people like it and it could possibly make money who gives a **** what strangers on the internet have to say?
> ...



And that's when we get to buy their equipment on craigslist for super cheap!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 16, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ooh, ooh! Pick me!

Click thereyougo! ---> View Profile ---> View all threads started.

And, well, there you go!

Posted lots!


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> I'm probably going to get blasted for what I am about to say... but oh well.
> 
> Why do people put so much emphasis on impressing fellow photographers when it doesn't seem to be a requirment in the actual world? I've been spending a lot of time observing magazines, calenders, posters for clothing in lines in malls and it seems no one else in the world really cares about all of the boundaries we have set for ourselves here. *I'm not talking about exposure, focus, weight balance which are technical issues. I'm talking about all of the subjective areas* like. One in particular nitpick I see a lot is "distracting" background. I've been looking through a lot of resources as I mentioned earlier, and they have a lot of so-called "distracting" elements scattered all through the background.
> 
> ...



Some people really got what I was saying. Very few, but some. I was not bashing improving. As I said originally in this thread wasn't even aimed at me. I wasn't speaking of the people on here just aimlessly snap their camera. I said foundations are very important in the very first post and how you shoudn't dimiss these criticisms, people just chose to not pay attention to that part. It's much more fun to nit pick and get stuck on little details of my statement rather then really paying attention, looking at the post as a whole and coming up with an argument that adds something. Some got it. Scraig, Rexobobcat, Mtvision. I'm not saying they agreed, but at least there is some validity in their argument rather then childlike defensiveness that most of the reponses were. I'm saying, after we have a foundation, how much should we have for the subjective part? If we have a foundation, and are able to make a success of ourselves, should you really rely on others to tell us what is acceptable and what is not?

Again, as I said before although people chose to ignore it, the foundations ARE important. I'll use my sketching for example. I listen to criticisms on the technical, like if the porportions are off, if the nose looks crooked etc. But I'm not about to let people tell what can and can't draw, what background I can add, what can be contained in my drawing etc.


----------



## MTVision (Jan 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> That is exactly the attitude of some of the people who come here... don't like the C&C.. and LEAVE! (and guess what.. they probably don't get any better either...)!!!!!  And all I can say is GOOD.. let them leave, that way we can spend more time with the people who want to learn!!! And not have all the "Vandalistic PG" drama that has been so prevalent lately!!!
> 
> And ROSE... I thought you were getting a clue.. why did you post something like this? <shaking head sadly>!



Maybe she just posted this to start a discussion....


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

MTVision said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah. Pretty much.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 16, 2012)

MTVision said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yea.. I know.. I am just teasing her.. (we are sort of friends.. but don't tell anyone! ) lol!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Uh oh.. you took me serious? (Now I am in da doghouse!  WOOF!)


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 16, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > blackrose89 said:
> ...



I LIKE the way you think!  lol!


----------



## MTVision (Jan 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Yea.. I know.. I am just teasing her.. (we are sort of friends.. but don't tell anyone! ) lol!



I kind of figured. Yours was just one of the last posts - I didn't want to search for the posts where people said it seemed like she liked to stir up drama or whatever. 

There's nothing wrong with starting a discussion - no reason to say someone likes drama because they are interested in hearing what other people have to say about something.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 16, 2012)

MTVision said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yea... that's me!! Open mouth, insert Hoof!  lol!


----------



## Overread (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Again, as I said before although people chose to ignore it, the foundations ARE important. I'll use my sketching for example. I listen to criticisms on the technical, like if the porportions are off, if the nose looks crooked etc. But I'm not about to let people tell what can and can't draw, what background I can add, what can be contained in my drawing etc.



I think sketching is falling down as an analogy here somewhat. Choosing what you do and don't draw is rather like choosing what we do an don't want to take a photo of. If you want to draw a snake you draw a snake, if you want to photograph a snake you photograph a snake.
However most people, once they get over the early days, don't just want to take a photo of something. They want to say something with it or show something specific about the subject/context/content etc... At this point the consideration of framing, composition, elements that are included and excluded start to come to the fore. 
You might well not listen if I say " don't draw snakes draw flies" but if I were to say "if you want my focus on the snake don't draw a dragon the background" then that comment might well be one you take into consideration because it helps promote the vision you want.

The same is true in photography, only that many don't always help themselves by putting into words what it is they wanted to create at the time of taking the shot. As such commentary tends to focus in on the basics of presentation; ie clean backgrounds, clear subject etc... Without direction things focus in on the basics - with direction in the opening post people can give a much clearer set of aids to help present the subject.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

MTVision said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep! And I've been learning from like Mtvision, Scraig through this. After you get the past the initial brunt and the calm people come on they can have some real insight to offer. sometimes you can learn a lot from introducing an unconventional way of thinking.


----------



## Austin Greene (Jan 16, 2012)

I take photos. 

I post them on TPF asking for CC, I could care less if the CC is from some pro, or someone with a point and shoot. 

I consider what people have to say, and weigh on if I personally think it will improve my photos (most all of the time I think it will). 

I go outside.

I take photos. 

Rinse and Repeat....



No trying to impress people, no controversy, very simple and helpful for me


----------



## Ms.Nash (Jan 16, 2012)

Getting back to the original topic??? Big fat egos????


----------



## Derrel (Jan 16, 2012)

Sketching and photography are wildly different. How so? The sketch artist chooses every single element that he will include in his sketch. He can create anything he wishes. He can add an elephant to the background of a sketch of a Wall Street stockbroker. He can add a snarling grizzly bear behind a street preacher standing on a San Francisco corner. The sketch artist creates his composition through the process of inclusion. The photographer typically works in the exact opposite manner--by deciding what NOT TO SHOW, and what NOT to include in his compositions.

It is interesting that the field of composition began back in the days long before photography, when an artist was faced with BLANK sheet of canvas or paper, and had to decide what to INCLUDE within the confines of the image area, in order to make a pleasing picture. A photographer on the other hand, aims his camera at the physical world, and makes his compositions better mostly by EXCLUDING the majority of what is in front of him, and by showing only a few elements out of many.

Sketching and photography are two fields of art that have little in common, at least in terms of compositional direction. Perhaps your background (absolutely no pun intended) in sketching is why you have concerns about people discussing what is included in the backgrounds of photographs; perhaps your sensitivity to people talking about your sketch work has affected the way you perceive photography critics when they comment on "distracting backgrounds"??? Food for thought, if you're so inclined to take it and not reject it.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Sketching and photography are wildly different. How so? The sketch artist chooses every single element that he will include in his sketch. He can create anything he wishes. He can add an elephant to the background of a sketch of a Wall Street stockbroker. He can add a snarling grizzly bear behind a street preacher standing on a San Francisco corner. The sketch artist creates his composition through the process of inclusion. The photographer typically works in the exact opposite manner--by deciding what NOT TO SHOW, and what NOT to include in his compositions.It is interesting that the field of composition began back in the days long before photography, when an artist was faced with BLANK sheet of canvas or paper, and had to decide what to INCLUDE within the confines of the image area, in order to make a pleasing picture. A photographer on the other hand, aims his camera at the physical world, and makes his compositions better mostly by EXCLUDING the majority of what is in front of him, and by showing only a few elements out of many.Sketching and photography are two fields of art that have little in common, at least in terms of compositional direction. Perhaps your background (absolutely no pun intended) in sketching is why you have concerns about people discussing what is included in the backgrounds of photographs; perhaps your sensitivity to people talking about your sketch work has affected the way you perceive photography critics when they comment on "distracting backgrounds"??? Food for thought, if you're so inclined to take it and not reject it.


 Hmmm good food for thought. I really enjoyed this response. It's also refreshing to hear someone admit that they are vastly different. I hear so many times that it's all the same thing just different mediums which just isn't true. So thanks. The background thing has been bugging me because I have not seen this applied anywhere in the real world. Yes I see the RO3, I see focus, I see framing, proper white balance etc in published photos. I have spent quite a few weeks looking through published magazines, posters, photography galleries for the sole purpose of examining backgrounds, and I'm just not seeing clean simplified backgrounds. I just at times wonder if something such as a "cluttered" background is really an issue or just parroted advice?


----------



## MTVision (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:
			
		

> Hmmm good food for thought. I really enjoyed this response. It's also refreshing to hear someone admit that they are vastly different. I hear so many times that it's all the same thing just different mediums which just isn't true. So thanks. The background thing has been bugging me because I have not seen this applied anywhere in the real world. Yes I see the RO3, I see focus, I see framing, proper white balance etc in published photos. I have spent quite a few weeks looking through published magazines, posters, photography galleries for the sole purpose of examining backgrounds, and I'm just not seeing clean simplified backgrounds. I just at times wonder if something such as a "cluttered" background is really an issue or just parroted advice?



Yes but do you see trash cans behind a beautiful model in lingerie? Or beer cans on the table behind the amazing portrait of the newborn? It all depends on the type of photo. Whatever is in the background probably adds something to the story. Simplification is also another compositional strategy where you eliminate distracting elements and keep focus on the subject. 

But it all boils down to the type of photography I guess.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 16, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> I just at times wonder if something such as a "cluttered" background is really an issue or just parroted advice?



For the most part, photography is the art of exclusion where painting is the art of inclusion.  Coming from a design background, I have to remind myself hence my signature.    A cluttered background typically has nothing to contribute to the photograph/composition but distracts the viewer from the main subject.  Generally speaking with photography, you don't have control of what exist in your environment but you can only exclude things out of your photograph.

IMHO of course...


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

MTVision said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course I don't mean beer cans with a langerie model. I'm speaking more in terms of say, an urban /street photograph and people complain that there are power lines or too many cars in the background. Maybe so many come from a portrait perspective. For example there were some skateboard photos and people were like "I don't like the street, the equipment, the fence" etc. clean cut background seem fine for portraits, but life doesn't have a background.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 16, 2012)

MTVision said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 16, 2012)

One thing to bear in mind is that subjectivity is tempered by experience. If people look at my efforts and share their knowledge, I have twice as much experience: mine in taking the photo plus theirs in telling me what they think works or not. Originality is for the gods; I'm happy to recycle.


----------



## MTVision (Jan 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > MTVision said:
> ...


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 17, 2012)

MTVision said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > MTVision said:
> ...


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 17, 2012)

MTVision said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good idea, I like that kind of pictures, contrasted.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 17, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed I have - they are in the main gallery threads.  Although I have posted a few shots here in the beginner's section to give an example, I've always felt that the beginner's section here has too many photos that are really intermediate at least.  Having made that point before, it would be hypocritical of me to post my shots here.  So there is only 1 thread in this section started on here, my very first thread nearly two years ago.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > If you like your work, other people like it and it could possibly make money who gives a **** what strangers on the internet have to say?
> ...


I think that some of the reactions here demonstrate that sometimes it is all of us that need a thicker skin sometimes.  I know that some unnamed posters that come on here asking for C&C saying that they want it to harsh for them to learn, really believe that their work is good and want a pat on the back.  When they don't get it there is a backlash.  We've got to be careful that we don't get so cynical that we shoot ourselves in the foot.  We ALL have to be prepared to learn something, no matter how old, young, experienced, inexperienced, professional or amateur we are.

I think we ALL post photos that we secretly want people to be impressed by.  We all have egos.  Simply having an ego doesn't make you egoistical.  It's human nature for us to want people to like what we do.  How we learn from criticism is the defining moment.


----------



## Diver_matt (Jan 17, 2012)

I had a long response but I'll just say, I'm with you blackrose.  Some on here call themselves photographers and their photos meet all the "rules".  Then when one doesn't meet the rules, they claim it's art.    I won't feed anyone's ego on here by posting my horrible photos.  I'll just learn from reading the threads thanks to all the quality C&C that some provide.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 17, 2012)

Diver_matt said:


> I had a long response but I'll just say, I'm with you blackrose.  Some on here call themselves photographers and their photos meet all the "rules".  Then when one doesn't meet the rules, they claim it's art.    I won't feed anyone's ego on here by posting my horrible photos.  I'll just learn from reading the threads thanks to all the quality C&C that some provide.


how do you feed other people's egos by showing *your* photos?  So you're willing for other people to go through the 'horrible' harsh criticism so you can learn without risking criticism of your own?  The moment I made progress ost with my photography was when I had harsh criticism on another forum.  I was initially defensive then tried some of the suggestions and read and read and then tried things out.  I still have some way to go in my own photography, but the watershed moment was when I took it on the chin.

As far as rules/guidelines is concerned, yes there are some rules or guidelines.  There are places in a picture or photograph that our eyes are naturally drawn to.  It's how our brains work.  For example our eyes are naturally drawn to the brightest part of the scene so we need to make sure that we expose the subject correctly.  It's been established that our eyes naturally look to the upper right third of a picture, so the structure of photos often works that way.  There are exceptions to some guidelines and rules, but you do need to understand the rules in order to break them.  It's all about balance.  If a shot looks unbalanced, it's less pleasing.  Photography is a form of communication and the guidelines are important in helping you communicating your subject or message.  If your audience has to search the image for the subject then you have failed to effectively communicate your subject.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 17, 2012)

I forgot to add something to my post earlier (#57) that I think is important:

4.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking perfection in a photograph as long as the person doing the seeking is wise enough to understand that they are chasing an unobtainable goal.  The knowledge gained during the chase is invaluable but the goal can never be obtained.  It is not even possible to define "Perfect" in the context of a photograph because the subject is too ambiguous.


----------



## Sonoma (Jan 17, 2012)

Blah, blah blah, blah blah!

Give it a rest already.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 17, 2012)

Diver_matt said:


> I had a long response but I'll just say, I'm with you blackrose.  Some on here call themselves photographers and their photos meet all the "rules".  Then when one doesn't meet the rules, they claim it's art.    I won't feed anyone's ego on here by posting my horrible photos.  I'll just learn from reading the threads thanks to all the quality C&C that some provide.



I have news for you! Even though you try to apply what you see here.. to your own photos, there is stuff you will miss. Another person looking at them will see stuff you that you don't.. because you are "used" to seeing it, and don't even pay attention to it. Not saying you can't improve just by reading.. but you can improve a lot more (and faster) by posting your work. Kind of a cop out to let others take the flak.. with you benefiting, but not willing to join in.. don't you think?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 17, 2012)

Sonoma said:


> Blah, blah blah, blah blah!
> 
> Give it a rest already.



You don't have to read it.. if you don't like it!


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 17, 2012)

Diver_matt said:


> I had a long response but I'll just say, I'm with you blackrose.  Some on here call themselves photographers and their photos meet all the "rules".  Then when one doesn't meet the rules, they claim it's art.



That's not their problem, it's yours because you are missing some basic bits of knowledge.

The "Guidelines" reflect what experienced people know about how viewers see pictures.  Viewers get hints from picture composition and form that have nothing to do with the content but merely the placement or structure of the key elements. 

So the beginning photographer should use these basic guidelines until they know more about how people see things.  If you can't explain why you like something in a certain place and position, you don't know enough to go outside the guidelines. 

When you are more experienced, you can use and challenge the viewers' expectations in order to add to the interest of an image.

That is the 'art' that doesn't necessarily fit the guidelines.

Here is an example of a picture that doesn't follow the 'guidelines'.  Rather than one subject or center of interest that are on the thirds, this picture has two - the couple embracing and the woman walking seemingly oblivious.  It was framed exactly that way to make the viewer look back and forth to show that there are essentially two different worlds going on in that one small space.

Whether you like it or not, that was an intentional breach of the 'guidelines' for a purpose - and that's what is called making art.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 17, 2012)

She's sooo gonna run into that bike!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 17, 2012)

Yeah Lew.  I am not* impressed*.  Should have shot that 2-3 seconds later 


Bitter Jeweler said:


> She's sooo gonna run into that bike!


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 17, 2012)

Sorry, she glanced up, turned across the street and was gone.
This was the best of 10 or so shots.

but that is off the point, which was that it was intentionally framed and shot this way.
Guidelines aren't what make good shoots, necessarily.


----------



## mishele (Jan 17, 2012)

LOL


----------



## GnipGnop (Jan 17, 2012)

My favourite part of your art is the watermark.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 17, 2012)

Another winning thread


----------



## Diver_matt (Jan 17, 2012)

I may miss some things by merely reading on here. True. But I could sit on here for the next 5 years and that will still be the case. If I can learn a few things here and there by reading (and I have), great!! Is that a cop out? Not at all. I don't tell a guy that knows the name of every mma submission that he's copping out by not fighting. He's a fan of the sport (or hobby) and that's enough for him. I'm a fan of photography & that's enough for me. If my photos please me and the untrained eyes that view them, I'm happy. Isn't that what it's all about?  Meeting our own satisfaction? If someone else's idea of satisfaction is admiration of those on here, have at it. I fully understand it & it certainly will make them a better photographer. Its just not one of my needs in this hobby. Thereyougo:  to answer your first question, there's a handful on here that make me think of high school. You know, the guys that talked crap about someone else thinking it would make him look better. Don't misinterpret that to mean all. There's plenty of quality comments too. That's why I keep reading.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Why do people put so much emphasis on impressing fellow photographers when it doesn't seem to be a requirment in the actual world?



Who told you it isn't? Ok, maybe requirement is a bit much but I do try and impress my fellow artists whether as a photog or as a painter. Who else am I going to impress? People who have never tried to shoot a photo or paint a canvas? Hell no. As long as they buy something, I couldn't care less if those people are impressed or not. Frankly, if he buys something because my name is Suchandsuch and he hopes his investment is going to grow, that's fine with me. If she buys something in hope of going to bed with me, that's fine too.

But if I impress a fellow artist who impresses me, then I know I'm doing something right.

And since I was once a young artist I know how much it matters to get a nod from a recognized artist so I make darn sure and give a nod to those who cross my path and deserve it. I have met a couple of those here and I gave them the nod. One of them is now showing in the same gallery I am.

A couple more I gave an encouraging nod to so as to give them a boost, a kick in the rear end so to speak, to see what would develop next, to help them develop a next. One dropped off the face of the earth. Another is not interested. Maybe he's scared. A third is working on something and, I hope, she is going to explode the art world someday.

Anyways, all this to say there is nothing wrong with wanting to impress your fellow artists. Trying to do it here is kind of funny though considering this is such an amateur level forum.

Yes there are some pros here but that doesn't really mean a darn thing. There are, however, some really amazing photogs here but they don't post a whole lot and you need to keep your eyes peeled for their threads. And then, there are a few truly wonderful ones who post a couple times, get no reaction whatsoever and move on. To catch those you need to keep your eyes wide open 24/7.

Get to work.

Work as in "try to impress those."

Cheers.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 17, 2012)

Diver_matt said:


> I may miss some things by merely reading on here. True. But I could sit on here for the next 5 years and that will still be the case. If I can learn a few things here and there by reading (and I have), great!! Is that a cop out? Not at all. I don't tell a guy that knows the name of every mma submission that he's copping out by not fighting. He's a fan of the sport (or hobby) and that's enough for him. I'm a fan of photography & that's enough for me. If my photos please me and the untrained eyes that view them, I'm happy. Isn't that what it's all about?  Meeting our own satisfaction? If someone else's idea of satisfaction is admiration of those on here, have at it. I fully understand it & it certainly will make them a better photographer. Its just not one of my needs in this hobby. .



I understand.... and if that is all you are wanting, that is cool! If you ever decide you want more.. we will be here!


----------

