# Pretentious Newb Photographers.



## Onyx (Feb 28, 2006)

There are a lot of great photographers here and we are all learning. However, I don't understand why some of the beggining photographers are so full of themselves and they don't take criticism well. I'm not refering to anyone in particular. I think one of the most obvious clues of this pretentiousness is smacking a copyright and tacky border on a picture. As if the picture was good enough that someone would want to frame or steal it. Am I alone in this perspective?


----------



## Reefbabe (Feb 28, 2006)

Well....coming straight from a noob's mouth, I think that I slap a corny signature on my photos because I personally believe that they are good according to my very own artsy eye. Why else would I have shot it in the first place or decided to post it. We have to remember that our standards for appreciating beauty are different and will vary greatly. Something that may not appeal to one...may touch the heart of another. I find this especially true for newbies because they haven't yet been tainted with that keen professional eye.
For those who are more advanced and find this particularly annoying...try to remember back when you yourself was a so called "noob". It takes time to learn, we are not all born with this knowledge. I suggest that for those giving critism....to give it in a teaching manner such as explaining your reasonings for such an opinion.....explaining why you believe it may be to the benifit of the photo. Not just stating that it totally sucks.


----------



## Onyx (Feb 28, 2006)

I don't think a signiture is neccesarily a bad thing. I was talking about putting something of that sort on a low quality snapshot. I myself am a noob( a not very good one:blushing. So this isn't really a "I'm better than everyelse" type thing.


----------



## Torus34 (Feb 28, 2006)

Whoops!

It seems as if there are several topics confounded here.  These include as a minimum egoism, the art of providing constructive criticism and pictorial  art aesthetics.  Each can be a major point for discussion.


----------



## panzershreck (Feb 28, 2006)

maybe because noob photographers are still so attached to what they make, because they have not made a lot of great photos, and they still feel they're learning, therefore they become more attached to what they do or have made, at least

that's what i felt when i first really got into photography, now i don't really hold much attachment at all because it's just another photo in a long line-up

not that attachment is a bad thing, but it's just like in drawing classes where everybody just loves the line they put on the page, they're too worried about what they do put down, than what they could put down... and you don't really make progress until you've detached yourself from the line, and can then go back and make corrections or be more free with it in the future

the results are noticably better, but something i hear a lot freshmen art students say all the time at the beginning of their first classes is how much art they've done in the past, how creative they are, and when they do a drawing early on, how great it is... even though in a few months down the line, they'll be looking back and saying how gawdawful that stuff was, and that usually is the case


----------



## terri (Feb 28, 2006)

Onyx said:
			
		

> There are a lot of great photographers here and we are all learning. However, I don't understand why some of the beggining photographers are so full of themselves and they don't take criticism well. I'm not refering to anyone in particular. I think one of the most obvious clues of this pretentiousness is smacking a copyright and tacky border on a picture. As if the picture was good enough that someone would want to frame or steal it. *Am I alone in this perspective*?


Nope.  But try to be tolerant. Everyone has to start somewhere, and what you are viewing as pretentiousness is, at best, misguided enthusiasm for what a beginner might think is pretty damn good work...for a beginner. You might find yourself becoming annoyed when they leave off those last 3 words to themselves. 

Think, too, of the digital user who is simply learning PS at the same time, and wants to try different borders, etc. They're just learning what works, and maybe what doesn't. Sometimes the borders really enhance an image, but I agree they can be overdone, like anything else.


----------



## slickhare (Feb 28, 2006)

Onyx said:
			
		

> There are a lot of great photographers here and we are all learning. However, I don't understand why some of the beggining photographers are so full of themselves and they don't take criticism well. I'm not refering to anyone in particular. I think one of the most obvious clues of this pretentiousness is smacking a copyright and tacky border on a picture. As if the picture was good enough that someone would want to frame or steal it. Am I alone in this perspective?



i think that most people can't take criticism well. especially if they've looked at their work for days and finally posted it proud of their work only to be shot down... i could see why they might not be good at taking crit. some people just can't handle it period. but when all you're used to seeing on your threads is "omg! nice shot!" it can be hard to remember what it's like when people tell you your pictures suck. 

as for the border and copyright. it's not an issue of "oh i'm so good people will steal my stuff" i don't think. i think it's just taking pride in your work. it's a good feeling when you have a "nice" shot and you can say "yeah i took that!". and what's wrong with them putting a copyright? it's theirs isn't it? as long as they're not trying to pass someone elses work as their own im fine with it.


----------



## markc (Feb 28, 2006)

I think people need to experiment. There are certain photos that I see pop up over and over again. They are photos that most people need to make as they progress. I made them, and I see a lot of other people that have made them. It's all part of the process. With Photoshop being an integral part of digital photography now, experiementing with borders is now part of that.

I can also look back at some of my work and see where I went overboard in other areas. But it was something new to me at the time and I had to experiment to learn how to use it. Learning often involves going too far. If you don't go too far, how do you know where you want to stop? As time goes on, the scattershot approach refines itself into a more focused goal.


----------



## markc (Feb 28, 2006)

slickhare said:
			
		

> i think that most people can't take criticism well. especially if they've looked at their work for days and finally posted it proud of their work only to be shot down...


That's what I see as the difference between a critique and encouragement. If they also say something like "please be nice" or the like in the thread, then they probably really want encouragement. The main difference comes down to expectations. If they want the image to be liked, they want encouragement. If they want to learn something, they want a critique. We often want both, which is where the conflict comes from. The trick is to get the balance over towards the learning side, and that comes from time.


----------



## D-50 (Feb 28, 2006)

Just because someone is a "noob" to this site does not necessarily mean they are new to photography, someone with a vast amount of knowledge who found and signed up on this sight yesterday would be a "noob" in the eyes of the forum but not in photogrphy. If people are putting signatures and borders on things maybe it is because they are practicing putting borders and signatures on photos. I would not stress over people treating a crappy snapshot like a work of art, personally I find some well established photographers photos to be ridiculous and unimaginative does that make the proffesional not good? no..they are just not my taste.


----------



## 'Daniel' (Feb 28, 2006)

i think being pretentious and putting a border with your name on around an image are different things.  Just doing that could be that you are following a trend or like how it looks.  I don't think you should assume that because they put the (c) sign that they think their photos are "good enough that someone would want to frame or steal it"

I think that you can read too much into some things.  some people are arrogant and usually a good slap gets them in order for ever.  As said some people can't handle critique.  Those people don't succeed or progress much.


----------



## Onyx (Feb 28, 2006)

yeah i guess ive stopped being patient with people that cant take criticism. when i first started to try to take nice photos a pro photographer friend told me they were crap and told me why. i think that was probably the most helpful thing she could have done. i learned quickly that just because i like it doesnt mean its good. it helped me to be more objective with my own photos. to this day i still like to hear that my photos suck because i see something i  can work on:mrgreen:


----------



## D-50 (Feb 28, 2006)

If you ever think you have reached the top you are wrong, there is always room for improvment. People who brag about their work in any field tend to not be that great. the best people are their own worst critics and will rarely admire any of their own work, rather they will point out flaws in it.


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Feb 28, 2006)

Onyx said:
			
		

> There are a lot of great photographers here and we are all learning. However, I don't understand why some of the beggining photographers are so full of themselves and they don't take criticism well. I'm not refering to anyone in particular. I think one of the most obvious clues of this pretentiousness is smacking a copyright and tacky border on a picture. As if the picture was good enough that someone would want to frame or steal it. Am I alone in this perspective?


 
It's a personal thing.

BTW Why is it pretentious?  I'm sure that nobody posting on TPF is concerned about having their 600 X 400 pixel 72dpi image printed & framed on someone elses wall!


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Feb 28, 2006)

If someone wishes to stick a flashy boarder around one of their pictures and write their name all over it, I don't see why they can't. It is their picture after all so they can make it into a paper aeroplane and throw it out of the window should they wish to.
My personal view is that borders, signatures and all of that detract from the image itself and become more important than the photo - you are quite often reading the name instead of looking at the picture - which I feel is counter-productive.
I always advise people against doing it. But that is just my opinion.
For the same reason I don't give my pictures titles or any other reference. Pictures exist in their own right and don't need labeling.
But if we all thought the same way it would be a boring old world.


----------



## magicmonkey (Mar 1, 2006)

Well as a noob myself, both to the forums and photography in general, I have to say that I've found the people on this board extremely helpful. My knowledge is growing every day and most of it is through either asking questions or looking at older posts here. As far as the copyright goes, I do put a copyright on my web site, not the images themselves though, which is as follows:

All images on this site are © Copyright Ben Moores 2005

If you would like to use any of the images on this site then please contact me first.

My contact details are on there and I don't really mind people using the images but I'd rather that they asked first so I knew where they were being used. I don't think this is pretentious, just me being interested in what's happening to my images on the internet. I'm well aware that I'm a very long way from being the world&#8217;s best photographer, we're talking different galaxies here!

As far as borders go I'll have to confess that I often can't look at a picture objectively enough to work out what works with them, most of my borders are hit-and-miss things which usually miss but it'll get better with time, hopefully...

I do hope that I take criticism well as I've always thought it to be the best way to learn, if anyone does catch me taking things the wrong way please PM me and let me know!


----------



## JTHphoto (Mar 9, 2006)

i hope i don't fit into the "pretentious" category... i haven't put my name/copyright on anything, but then i don't feel like i have a business to protect either...  that may change in the future, but for now, i am happy just posting my 400 x 600 72dpi photos as plastic referred to above, there's not much damage that can be done with them...

as for the frames, i started doing this just because I like the way it looks, i mean you don't just hang a picture on your wall without a frame do you?  i guess you could, but something about a frame makes a photo look finished to my eye... and 99% of the time my frames are black because i think it draws the eye into the photo better than the white background...


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 9, 2006)

JTHphoto said:
			
		

> as for the frames, i started doing this just because I like the way it looks, i mean you don't just hang a picture on your wall without a frame do you?


Hanging a picture on the wall is one thing. Posting it on a computer to look at on a monitor is something entirely different, surely


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 9, 2006)

Oh now I come down on both sides of the fence at the same time and that hurts...  A lot of my posts came here directly from a stint as a poster with a title or saying all over them.  And yes they were made to sell and I even sold a couple of them.  That is one leg now the other one...

I don't much care if any one person likes what I post or shoot or not, I have been kicking around this to know some will some won't and for different reasons.  That said if you have something to say about a picture of mine or something to show me about one, please feel free to do so... 

My only stipulation is be able to defend what you say... I don't think any of us have a direct line to Ansel, or whoever your photo god is, so please take anything I say with about a half pound of salt and I will do the same.  I hope im not pretensious, God knows I'm not new at anything at my age.  I shot my first piece of film before most of you guys were born and thats it not a good thing in my opinion.  I have a lot to learn and I know it.  We each come at photography in different ways.  I might not agree with what you have to say but I sure want to hear it.

Why heck I was thrilled when Hurtz put me on the right track with paper negatives.  So please feel free to say whatever you want about anything I shoot.  If I sound defensivel it's because like everyone else i'm married to my photographs lol.  but also like my wife I'm sure they could use a facelift now and then.


----------



## JohnMF (Mar 9, 2006)

people might not steal your 400x600 72dpi image and have it stuck on their wall, but some people will steal it and use it on a website. I've seen this done recently to a member on DeviantArt, and not for the first time.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 9, 2006)

Well I can only speak for my images... no one would want to..... if they had to use mine to pretend they were a photographer, it would really be sad... everyone would know right away that they have no taste. In my case it isn't the principle of anything lol.

Oh yeah I have posters I made thumb tacked all over my old studio walls... No frames at all.


----------



## darin3200 (Mar 10, 2006)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Pictures exist in their own right and don't need labeling.


How about explanations of pictures? Some pictures are more interesting if the story of the shot is given. There are times where a picture can stand in its own right, but becomes deeper with explanation.


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 10, 2006)

For those who are upset by signed photos: time has a habit of taking care of problems.

Consider, for instance, the 'Newbee' who signs his/her initial pictures.

If the 'Newbee' progresses and becomes really competent at making a picture [composition, etc.], he/she will be haunted by those earlier signed efforts.

There is no need to make any comment on this issue at all.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 10, 2006)

Onyx said:
			
		

> ...I don't understand why some of the beggining photographers are so full of themselves and they don't take criticism well....one of the most obvious clues of this pretentiousness is smacking a copyright and tacky border on a picture.



I see the same clues, but my reaction is different these days.  I think it's all part of a maturation process, both on their part and mine.  When beginning, one may not be able to recognize any other difference in their own work and that of others except the presentation.  So, in an attempt to enter into the next level, one may try to emulate what one respects.

When I was a kid, just starting to make photographs, I remember seeing a photographer discard a film box labeled "Kodak Professional Film."  I decided I had to have some myself, and felt as if I was doing something a bit wrong when making the purchase.  But I was very proud when someone saw THAT in MY case.

I guess my point is, it's all part of the process...  the growing... the learning.

As for defending their below par work, proclaiming it's all a matter of taste...  well, that can be a tough one to swallow.  Again, I try to chalk it up to lack of professional maturity.  Some of us NEVER move beyond it.  I think the most helpful reaction is to question them about the choice they've made...  try to get them to express their intent.  It gets them thinking about if they had a clear goal, and if they had a good plan to achieve it.  Or, they may realize their effort way little more than random opportunity.  Either way, they grow a bit more, and so do I.

Pete


----------



## darin3200 (Mar 10, 2006)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> I see the same clues, but my reaction is different these days.  I think it's all part of a maturation process, both on their part and mine.  *When beginning, one may not be able to recognize any other difference in their own work and that of others except the presentation.*  So, in an attempt to enter into the next level, one may try to emulate what one respects.



Great point :thumbup:


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 10, 2006)

darin3200 said:
			
		

> How about explanations of pictures? Some pictures are more interesting if the story of the shot is given. There are times where a picture can stand in its own right, but becomes deeper with explanation.


Then the photograph becomes an illustration to the text and ceases to be a picture in it's own right. This is because we give language a higher priority. It's an established phenomenon and has been studied extensively.
Personally I believe that if a picture has to be explained then it isn't a successful picture.
Are we photographers or writers?


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 10, 2006)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Personally I believe that if a picture has to be explained then it isn't a successful picture.



Amen.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 10, 2006)

Hurtz just defined poster art... the poster isn't just he picture or the wording it is both.  Now you may not think poster art is art, but it does need both.  So if you look down on poster art as trash, you probably wont want to write on it.  If you think of it as a high art form (giggling like  school girl here)  then you might want to do like i do.  The shot info a the bottom isnt part of the poster I had to include it for a post somewhere else sorry,


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 10, 2006)

I think this is like being a redneck.... I just might be one lol...should I ask forgiveness and if so from who...


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 10, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> Hurtz just defined poster art... the poster isn't just he picture or the wording it is both.  Now you may not think poster art is art, but it does need both.  So if you look down on poster art as trash, you probably wont want to write on it.  If you think of it as a high art form (giggling like  school girl here)  then you might want to do like i do.  The shot info a the bottom isnt part of the poster I had to include it for a post somewhere else sorry,


If you take the image away the text still works!
I rest my case


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 10, 2006)

and if you take the text away the image is still what it is.  But people are not going to pay to hang that text on their walls.  They did pay for the whole package..., I rest my case.  

It ain't art by your definition maybe, but there is a place for it in this world.  Everybody in it doesn't have your refined taste lol

I don't come down on either side, poster art isnt great art, but it still has a audience.  Like the words on another thread, You might think its crap, that doesn't mean I have to.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 10, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> It ain't art by your definition maybe, but there is a place for it in this world.


There are lots of different kinds and levels of art.
The Victorians had High and Low Arts. We would call Low Art 'Popular' Art these days, I think.
Your 'poster' Art is more properly called Commercial Art - and there is nothing wrong with it.

And if you take the text away of course the image works. That was my point.
It is when you put image and text together that the picture becomes an illustration to the text. D'uh!


----------



## JTHphoto (Mar 10, 2006)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Hanging a picture on the wall is one thing. Posting it on a computer to look at on a monitor is something entirely different, surely


 
i'm sure it _could_ be different, but a frame isn't necessary when hanging a pic on a wall, why would a photographer or artist choose to mat and frame a piece of their work? Isn't it _mostly _an issue of presentation?

How is this "entirely different" from presenting a piece of work on a computer screen?


----------



## Rahb (Mar 10, 2006)

I have been watching the thread for a little while and it seems to be full of different views on signatures and borders.  FIRST OF ALL, let me say that ass a "noob" myself the title to the thread, and the original post were kind of harsh and unwelcoming.  People who are beginners expiriment and have to learn new things by TRYING new things.  copywrighting is in everyones mind just because in our society now there's the "everyone's out to screw me" feeling.  When I did painting i signed the bottom right corner of every picture, because it was my art.....and it was my way of noting that.  This has been a good thread however, and it did not take the "rant" approach I thought it would with the orinal post, so I guess it turned out ok.  I would still change the title........it's just not welcoming to be a newcomer to the forum or photography and see "Pretentious Newb Photographers"  

It kind of makes it look like the forum ha close minded professionals who don't have time for noob photographers and their silly questions, which I have not found to be the case.  Actually I have discovered just the opposite, a welcoming helpful atmosphere.


----------



## Arch (Mar 10, 2006)

I think everyone will have a different opinion on frames depending purley on thier tastes. I personally use either black or white _'boarders'_ around my pictures when presenting on this forum. For me, this helps the image colour stand out best, rather than being on this blue/gray forum backdrop. I'v always presented my artwork in a similar way, my porfolio for example has black or white pages... i wouldn't use any other colour to present my work. However, my background being in art and design, i think those OTT hand made paper / huge drop shadow / multipul colour layerd, preset design package frames... are vile. I dont mind watermarks but I dont go for huge signitures either.... a photo doesn't need it.


----------



## pfleck86 (Mar 10, 2006)

you think noob PHOTOGRAPHERS are pretencious? going to an art school has taught me a few things, one being that ALL artists are pretencious until they have been ripped to shreds (which happens all the day pretty much in different classes).  It doesnt bother me anymore, and Im sure that many people would call me pretencious (which is fine, its for the love of the art, not the reputation).

The only thing I dont agree with is glaming up a snapshot taken with a point-'n-shoot camera in the school stairway with nothing redeeming about it and giving it some really prententious name (i.e. "Untitled: Stairway of Failure").  If you are going to create something that makes fun or satires this or the whole subculture of people that are known for doing it (*cough*emogothart****cough*) then it is a whole different ballgame.  Its really a very hard game to pin-point in a lot of cases, for me at least) when someone is being pretencious, but its usually found in a combination of the title of the work in contrast to what the work actually shows/depicts.  Borders and signatures (which I definately use both of to showcase pictures I like) are simply an aesthetical tactic in presentation IMO.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 10, 2006)

The reason I giggled hurtz is I knew your reaction in advance... I am not kidding myself I shoot to sell.. I only want to impress enough people to find one who will buy.  We think a lot more alike than you can imagine.  I just don't mind admitting that everyone doesn't have to see things my way lol.  Down boy.

To all the rest of you guys thats what great about this forum that I didn't have forty years ago.  Somebody had return what I thought was fine art because the colors didn't match her bathroom before I learned that it might be art to us, but it's a picture to them.

So listen to those other old guys who know and save yourself some grief.


----------



## Arch (Mar 10, 2006)

pfleck86 said:
			
		

> going to an art school has taught me a few things, one being that ALL artists are pretencious until they have been ripped to shreds



Deciding who is and isn't a pretentious artist is a subjective argument. An artist one person thinks is pretentious, another could think is genuine and heartfelt.


----------



## JohnMF (Mar 10, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> I personally use either black or white _'boarders'_ around my pictures when presenting on this forum. For me, this helps the image colour stand out best, rather than being on this blue/gray forum backdrop.



this is one of the reasons i sometimes put a border on my photos when posting here, even if it's just a 1 pixel black line. The wishy-washy pale blue background seems to drain the colour from a photo


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 10, 2006)

JTHphoto said:
			
		

> How is this "entirely different" from presenting a piece of work on a computer screen?


If you can't tell the difference between a real object on a wall and an electronically created object on a TV then you need help 

Sorry. Being a little Zen there.
It's all to do with the role the frame actually plays.
What is a frame doing to a picture?
How is a TV different from a wall?
What is the difference between the frame around a painting and a frame around a photo (and there is one)?
What is the Social significance of the 'frame'?
If a computer monitor is itself within a frame, then a frame within a frame...?


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 11, 2006)

A frame by any other name would work as well.

On sub-titles: one of Arbus' more powerful prints [of a woman, back toward the camera, seated before a cracked mirror] included one.

And while we're at it: where would Magritte's 'This is not a pipe' be without 'This is not a pipe?'


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 11, 2006)

dont forget the picture within the pictures framed of course


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 11, 2006)

That's a well-framed reply.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 11, 2006)

Torus34 said:
			
		

> And while we're at it: where would Magritte's 'This is not a pipe' be without 'This is not a pipe?'


It wouldn't have the joke - 'pipe' is Belgian slang for 'f*ck'.

There is rather a big difference, too, between adding text to a photograph and having text as part of a painting.
And you probably haven't noticed but there is a slight difference between painting and photography too.
But if I'm going too fast for you...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 11, 2006)

Hertz that would be the difference between high art and low art .... I have heard this before at sidewalk shows.  It's just a picture not the dead sea scrolls.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 11, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> It's just a picture not the dead sea scrolls.


Ah! So you can tell the difference between some things, then. :mrgreen:

Because of the way we humans are, everything we do has a meaning, though most people are unaware of this.
Most things have a much deeper symbolic meaning that we read at a subliminal level but rarely at a conscious one.
This is how Advertising (and an awful lot else) works.
Frames around photos, signatures on prints, et al, all have deeper levels of meaning than the immediately obvious. Being aware of these deeper meanings and trying to understand them means that you can use them to advantage.
The alternative is to whistle in the dark, but some people are happier doing that.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 11, 2006)

Sorry I have facial thingie from brain surgery.  I can't pucker up to whistle, but I try not to look too deep into people's minds.  It just makes it much harder to hate them.  And I try to hate everyone equally.  It is the best way I know not to be called bigot.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 12, 2006)

Like I said, some people are happier being in the dark.
I prefer to look for the light switch - it's my way of helping others rather then being self-indulgent.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 12, 2006)

Hertz, Hertz, Hertz, you are truly a saint lol.  I am so glad you haven't fallen into the pomposity trap that so many saints fall into.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 12, 2006)

I learn from your example


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 12, 2006)

so true so true..


----------



## Dawn Roberts (Mar 12, 2006)

Against my better judgement, I will reply.

I think the original poster here is being the pretentious one actually.  Assuming anyone with a border on their images, or a signature is a noob?  This is the exact attitude most noobs have.  

I'm a professional photographer.  I put borders around my images, and usually put a copyright sig on my images.  Why?  Well, I don't put images on my wall without a frame...generally a frame enhances and compliments the picture.  Sure frames are useful for keeping the image ON the wall, but it's also a part of the art itself.  So why do it online?  Because it enhances the images, makes them look more finished.  Why do I put copyright sig on mine?  I've found my images all over the net, and many peoples personal websites, and on many websites where I don't speak the language.  For all I know, they could claim it's theirs.  Why do I care?  Why do copyright laws exhist...to protect MY artwork.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 12, 2006)

Dawn Roberts said:
			
		

> I don't put images on my wall without a frame...generally a frame enhances and compliments the picture.  Sure frames are useful for keeping the image ON the wall, but it's also a part of the art itself.  So why do it online?  Because it enhances the images, makes them look more finished.


Is the frame actually part of the 'art' or is it that we think it _makes_ it 'art'?
On a computer the frame isn't real but an image. Perhaps putting a frame around images on a computer is more of a convention than a necessity?
If you printed the image out in order to frame it and hang it on the wall would you leave the computer-created frame on it or remove it first?
Just curious.

As for Copyright and signatures. The author of an image has Copyright protection whether they put a sig on or not. It's more probable that signing a print (on a computer at any rate) is more psychological than anything: it gives us a sense of protection because we have put our mark on it.
The truth is, if someone is going to steal your work then putting a sig on it isn't going to stop them. A few minutes with PS will remove it.
Digimarc is a far more secure solution.
http://www.digimarc.com/watermark/mypicturemarc/

As I have said before - what people do to and with their images is entirely up to them. I'm just curious as to the reasons why people do things.


----------



## Dawn Roberts (Mar 12, 2006)

On the wall, it certainly is part of the art.  I tend to frame images with frames that are complimentary, that add to the dimension of the image, etc.  

Of course I wouldn't print the border around the image.  Well, actually, I take that back, I do for some of my client albums, a small border again to add dimension against black backgrounds.  It's not a necessity by any means, but aesthetically more pleasing to the eye........obviously a matter of taste.

As for copyright...I'm certainly not naive to think that people will use my images anyway, or attempt at removal.  In the end, I'm not all that worried about it, otherwise I wouldn't do online proofing with my clients, or even post images online period.  However, if it means they have to put a bit of effort, or extra thought on copyright, then it's worth it.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 12, 2006)

The *©* phase is part of being an excited beginner. When I discovered photography couple of years ago, I heavily used '_© my name and/or website_', because the I've seen the pros doing that. So in effect, the '*©*' made me a 'pro'! 
But it never was to protect my image, since 'Print Screen' coupled with a some minor tweaks in PS could easily defeat the purpose. 

As for the border on the computer, I tend to usually (99.9999%) stay away from using them, since I want the viewer's attention on the image, sans the frame. Certain frames adds to the image and it is great if that is what the intention is! 
It all depnds upon the creator's intention.

Thanks Hertz. _Digimarc_ is great info. :thumbup:


----------



## Arch (Mar 12, 2006)

Dawn Roberts said:
			
		

> On the wall, it certainly is part of the art.  I tend to frame images with frames that are complimentary, that add to the dimension of the image, etc.
> FONT]






			
				Hertz said:
			
		

> Is the frame actually part of the 'art' or is it that we think it makes it 'art'?



Some interesting points here. I can see where your coming from Dawn in that for clients it makes the work presentable. But i think what Hertz is saying here (my interpritation of anyway).... is that does a frame actually make the picture art.... i.e. if you have a blade of grass... it is just that.... but if you frame a blade of grass, what does that do to it?..... it changes it from being 'just' a blade of grass to being something of importance...... or something that could be questioned. Its what a frame actually 'does' rather than simply finishing off a piece work which is the question. Something to ponder......


----------



## Dawn Roberts (Mar 12, 2006)

Hmmm, interesting.  I don't think anything can make something a piece of art.  As we all know, art is subjective, so I don't think just adding a frame makes it art.  If you call it art...it's art.  If you consider it art..it's art.  That doesn't mean I need to like it, it just means that I can appreciate it, because you consider it art.

Ohhh I think I'm getting way off topic here.

Basically, in response to the OP....doing the things you mention, doesn't make an artist pretentious.


----------



## Arch (Mar 12, 2006)

Dawn Roberts said:
			
		

> Hmmm, interesting.  I don't think anything can make something a piece of art.  As we all know, art is subjective, so I don't think just adding a frame makes it art.  If you call it art...it's art.  If you consider it art..it's art.  That doesn't mean I need to like it, *it just means that I can appreciate it, because you consider it art.*



:thumbup: so framing it does make it art then!



			
				Dawn Roberts said:
			
		

> Basically, in response to the OP....doing the things you mention, doesn't make an artist pretentious.



I agree :mrgreen:


----------



## Dawn Roberts (Mar 12, 2006)

LOL am I totally talking in circles or what?


----------



## Arch (Mar 12, 2006)

Dawn Roberts said:
			
		

> LOL am I totally talking in circles or what?



It happens to me all the time.... i'm one of those people that can 'say' what i mean quite easily....but often can't type what i mean.... all my friends know this...and especially ex girlfriends who have taken things that i type the wrong way.... why can't i just type whats in my mind!!!!... tonight i'm doing unusually well


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 12, 2006)

Dawn Roberts said:
			
		

> As we all know, art is subjective, so I don't think just adding a frame makes it art.  If you call it art...it's art.  If you consider it art..it's art.


What we like is subjective - but Art transcends such considerations, so Art _per se_ is not subjective.
Subjective means one person's view. Society defines Art by consensus and then influences what we consider to be Art.
This issue was raised by Duchamp back around 1917 when he came up with the idea of 'ready mades'.
http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/fountain.html 
This was a work he put up at an exhibition - and outraged the organisers who said it was 'an Art exhibition, not a plumber's merchants'.
Duchamp's answer was reputedly 'it's being exhibited in an Art gallery, it's signed by an artist.... and you can't p*ss in it. So if it isn't Art then tell me what it is.'
The argument has raged ever since.

And yes, that was the point I was making about frames.
We do everything for a reason. I therefore like to question everything we do. The answers give more meaning to the activity


----------



## Dawn Roberts (Mar 12, 2006)

> organisers who said it was 'an Art exhibition, not a plumber's merchants'.


 
   That's great and a great example.


----------



## Onyx (Mar 12, 2006)

darin3200 said:
			
		

> How about explanations of pictures? Some pictures are more interesting if the story of the shot is given. There are times where a picture can stand in its own right, but becomes deeper with explanation.



to me its like explaining why a joke is funny. Its pointless and ruins it.


----------



## Onyx (Mar 12, 2006)

Dawn Roberts said:
			
		

> I think the original poster here is being the pretentious one actually. Assuming anyone with a border on their images, or a signature is a noob?



By definition I'm not pretentious. I've identified myself as a noob and I don't think my photos are all that great. 

I never said every who puts a border or sig on a pic is a noob or pretentous. To clarify I think its a symptom of pretentious noobs. To clariy even further, noob photographers that ARE pretentious will try to fit in any way they can. My original intent was not to say borders or sigs are silly. It was about the frustration I have with my peers(noobs) and the arrogance that they exhibit.


----------



## JohnMF (Mar 12, 2006)

I put frames on a couple i've displayed here. My intention was to create a neutral space around my photo/image, that would de-clutter and seperate it from all the distracting avatars and sigs etc on the screen, and hopefully draw the viewers eye in towards my picture... i decided to stop doing it when people kept asking me "how do you make your frames?" rather than commenting on my pictures :hertz:


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 14, 2006)

[Hertz van Rental]  "But if I'm going too fast for you..."

Oops!  I didn't mean to trigger this response!  Sorry to take so long getting back to you with an apology for any misunderstanding.

What was obtusely intended [soft focussed?] with the reference to Arbus' and Magritte's works was that these examples are viewed as photographs and paintings respectively and not as literature or containing a literary component.  They were intended solely as examples of well-regarded works which contained 'explanations.'  Magritte's pun wasn't a part of the concept: the words can, and often are, considered in the context of our understanding of the relationship between sign, symbol and object.

Again, my apologies.


----------



## monicam (Mar 15, 2006)

everyones opinions was right...we cannot hender other's taste and beliefs..the only thing we can do is that accept all the comments from our members here..

I'm glad am part of thisforum..i am learning now.


----------



## ceecookie (Mar 15, 2006)

Onyx said:
			
		

> yeah i guess ive stopped being patient with people that cant take criticism. when i first started to try to take nice photos a pro photographer friend told me they were crap and told me why. i think that was probably the most helpful thing she could have done. i learned quickly that just because i like it doesnt mean its good. it helped me to be more objective with my own photos. to this day i still like to hear that my photos suck because i see something i  can work on:mrgreen:



ah ok....after reading this one i wont be like so hurt with criticism


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 15, 2006)

Constructive criticism is one thing... criticism without something being taught isn't much more than an ego trip for the one doing the criticising.


----------



## photoromopr (Mar 22, 2006)

that is very true mysteryscribe, very well put


----------



## 'Daniel' (Mar 22, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> Constructive criticism is one thing... criticism without something being taught isn't much more than an ego trip for the one doing the criticising.



What about if it is someone's job?

I don't really like the term constructive criticism.  Usually what I find it is is just criticism that a 5 year old could understand.   

If criticism tells you what is wrong with it in a stern way it's usally not labelled as constructive.  If the information is in there then its fine for me.  Sometimes being stern gets stuff across better.

Also criticism doesn't have to be negative.


----------



## The Why Not Guy (Mar 25, 2006)

I can't speak for others, but when I first joined this and several other photography boards, I had a few goals in mind. I wanted to expose myself to the countless styles and approaches to photography out there, and add my own small vision to the mix. I wanted to learn from people with far more talent and experience than I have, by studying their work and reading their posts. I wanted to harness the spirit of friendly competition to push myself to improve. I'm thrilled that the boards have done this and more for me beyond my wildest expectations.

But it's also a mixed bag. Newcomers aspire. They want to be what you already are. Your acceptance and praise means a lot. When they frame their work and sign it, think of it as a (misguided, perhaps) attempt to emulate what they think photography is. Think of it as them taking care to only present their best work, as attractively (so they think) as possibly. They want to be part of the club, that's all.

Criticism is tougher. Once in a while I post a shot I'm really happy with and while my brain is thinking "maybe I'll get some good constructive criticism" my heart is saying "oooh I hope everyone loves this picture!" Then, when the advice rolls in, sure, my brain is grateful but my heart is hurt. That's if I'm lucky enough to not have my shot ignored completely.

That's not to say you should hold back on expressing your opinions or offering advice, particularly when it's asked for. I'm just saying that those of us who aspire react to criticism a bit differently than those of you who are already "part of the club." My favorite thing is when someone is kind enough to take the time to give me an honest appraisal of what I've posted, along with advice on how to improve it and praise for something I may have gotten right.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 2, 2006)

Onyx said:
			
		

> So this isn't really a "I'm better than everyelse" type thing.



I think it's a "Everyone else is doing it, so I'd better too" sort of thing.


----------



## Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski (Apr 3, 2006)

Because of the way we humans are, everything we do has a meaning, though most people are unaware of this.
Most things have a much deeper symbolic meaning that we read at a subliminal level but rarely at a conscious one.
This is how Advertising (and an awful lot else) works.
Frames around photos, signatures on prints, et al, all have deeper levels of meaning than the immediately obvious. Being aware of these deeper meanings and trying to understand them means that you can use them to advantage.
The alternative is to whistle in the dark, but some people are happier doing that.[/QUOTE]
Text by Hertz van Rental
==========================================================

It is true that photography can serve as a psycho-therapy. Or as a tool for spiritual growing. Photography can be very effective for this, once the protagonist is aware of this knowledge and learns how to use it. 
However, many make the mistake to think that the photographic results
are important for others because they were important for the photographer.
This can be observed in the field of art-photography.
Narcism of no importance to anyone else.
Nevertheless, there is a way to practise photography as a tool for a personal process of spiritual growing while also having meaning for a wide audience.


----------



## panzershreck (Apr 3, 2006)

Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski said:
			
		

> Because of the way we humans are, everything we do has a meaning, though most people are unaware of this.
> Most things have a much deeper symbolic meaning that we read at a subliminal level but rarely at a conscious one.
> This is how Advertising (and an awful lot else) works.
> Frames around photos, signatures on prints, et al, all have deeper levels of meaning than the immediately obvious. Being aware of these deeper meanings and trying to understand them means that you can use them to advantage.
> ...



i agree and i disagree

not everything has symbolism of a greater meaning

but anything can be viewed as having meaning, ie: if you write out everything that comes to your mind, everything, without thought... yah know, a lot of it is merely train of thought, logic, which needs a conclusion or end point than a real answer... so you write 10 things that can have meaning, and 10 things that are totally random... the randomness can have meaning, but the things themselves cannot (unless you really push it), and of course, there's mistakes, if some photographer takes a photo and simply twitches and frames incorrectly to what he wanted, but finds out later that the framing is unbelievably better... there is no meaning, he twitched uncontrollably

most people who create art are attached in some way, even if they did it in .5 seconds with little thought, an artist will defend it because it's a product of their being, they're expressing themselves in some way, and when somebody attacks that expression, it means they're attacking the person that expressed it

hence things like projecting one's view of importance of their product on others, it's sometimes obnoxious and pretentious, but totally natural

gotta separate those who copy from those who think they're da bomb though, copying is a trait of learning, da bomb is arrogance


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 4, 2006)

Personally I don't like flashy signatures and frames, and a big copyright watermark ruins the photo (which I guess is the intention).  I have always relied on keeping my photos low res to keep them safe.  But, whenever I find one of my photos used without permission or credit (over a dozen times now), I definately think about plastering my low res files with watermarks.


----------



## hot shot (Apr 4, 2006)

my oppion is that on here i can trust you guys but with some of my stuff where people would be quite willing to nick it rarther than buyin it i often just put a small watermark in a place that doesnt detract from the image but is still noticable, i realy dont do the whole SAMPLE thing across the middle 

JMHO


----------



## Arch (Apr 4, 2006)

the trouble with small watermarks is they can easily be photoshopped out. I for one have taken alot more than a tiny signiture off a picture before, like a big white van spoiling the bg or an unattractive fence, and still managed to keep the picture looking good. If your going to watermark, use it across as much of the centre of the image as possible, or not at all, that way people with ps skills cant take it off without ruining the image. :thumbup:


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Apr 4, 2006)

I've said it before but I'll say it again.
If you really want to protect your on-line images then you should use a dedicated system. Digimarc have just about the best and it works as a Photoshop pug-in.
http://www.digimarc.com/


----------



## AprilRamone (Apr 4, 2006)

Onyx said:
			
		

> yeah i guess ive stopped being patient with people that cant take criticism. when i first started to try to take nice photos a pro photographer friend told me they were crap and told me why. i think that was probably the most helpful thing she could have done. i learned quickly that just because i like it doesnt mean its good. it helped me to be more objective with my own photos. to this day i still like to hear that my photos suck because i see something i can work on:mrgreen:


 
I can totally relate to this post.  When I was still in college, I went up to Red Rocks (beautiful spot in Colorado) to take a whole series of photographs.  When I showed them to the gallery owner where I was interning he and his assistant had all kinds of criticism for me.  They weren't mean, but they weren't showering me with all kind of praise over my images either.  Their honest criticism helped me way more than any overabundant praise would have in the long run.  I am always so much more appreciative of helpful criticism than I am of compliments.  (Although I do appreciate those too!)  I never know what to say to someone who gets hurt over a criticism that I gave them on a piece of their art.  I just never took that sort of thing personally myself.  I always felt that it was there to make me a better artist.


----------



## Andrea K (Apr 4, 2006)

Personally, when I do put borders on photos I only put black ones around them.  I think I do this because I think it makes the photo more "official" or professional.  The same reasoning applies to when I put a sig in the corner of a photo.  I sign an image when I think it is good, regardless of what others think, and signing it just makes me feel that since I like it, perhaps others will too (not sure if that makes sense).  

It's funny that I've noticed a pattern to the images that I put sigs and borders on, not so much on content but on timing.  It seems that I go through cycles.  I'll post most pictures that I take the time to edit, this in itself showing that I like the image, and every so often I come upon a picture and I say to myself, "wow, this is fantastic," obviously in light of my recent work.  This photo that I say wow to is the one that I take the most time to put a border/sig on, while at the same time relishing in my apparent success.  As I look back through my signed images, the ones I say wow to, I usually end up realizing that past signed photos are not up to my current standards.  In this sense, it seems as if I have gone through stages where my "wow" pictures are getting better, at least to me.

So, in a nutshell, I think the reason I sign a photo is to show to myself and the rest of the world that this particular photo is my "best" so far.


Thanks for reading, tell me if I don't make sense.


----------



## JamesD (Apr 4, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> the trouble with small watermarks is they can easily be photoshopped out. I for one have taken alot more than a tiny signiture off a picture before, like a big white van spoiling the bg or an unattractive fence, and still managed to keep the picture looking good. If your going to watermark, use it across as much of the centre of the image as possible, or not at all, that way people with ps skills cant take it off without ruining the image. :thumbup:





			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> I've said it before but I'll say it again.
> If you really want to protect your on-line images then you should use a dedicated system. Digimarc have just about the best and it works as a Photoshop pug-in.



The purpose of a copyright notice is not to "protect" a work, and it never has been.  All works are _automatically_ protected by law at the moment of creation--meaning, in the case of photographs, when the latent image is formed in the emulsion of the film or stored in the digital memory bits of the memory-thingy.

The purpose of a copyright notice is simply to eliminate the possibility of the plagiarist using the "Oh, I didn't realize it wasn't protected by copyright" argument.  If they use your image (or other work) _without your permission,_ copyright notice or no, then they have violated the applicable laws and are liable.  If they photoshop out your copyright notice, then they are even more obviously wrong.  It makes it easier to prosecute and/or sue.

As for borders:  I believe they're an aesthetic element, suitable in some cases, and less so in others.  I've got a bunch of photos hanging on my walls that are matted but not framed.  That's how I choose to display them--because it's a bit different from what I usually see, and I like it, and I think it looks less tacky than a photo merely tacked up (although I think my matts are kinda tacky, and I intended them that way... sort of a goofy theme thing going on--It amuses me, so leave me alone! LOL).  Online, I include borders (if I want to) because I want to set the image apart from the background, or simply because doing so makes it more attractive to my eye.

I don't think I've ever looked at someone's photograph and said "Wow, that border is horrible and completely destroys the image."  If anything, I've occasionally, for just a brief moment, though "Hmm, interesting," or "I wonder how they do that."  Mostly, though, I look at the image.  After all, I'm here to look at pictures, not fret over their presentation.

And now, I'm going to go create some copyright-protected latent images. :camera:

-JamesD


----------



## Arch (Apr 4, 2006)

JamesD said:
			
		

> The purpose of a copyright notice is not to "protect" a work, and it never has been. -JamesD




yea sure it is. You think everyone knows how to remove a copyright watermark in ps? the majority of people using your images would just take them and use them at will.... if they have lettering across them and they dont know how to effectivly use the stamp tool, they're not going to get very far. They shouldn't be able to make a decent print out of them anyway because the rez should be too low. Yea, an image is rightfully yours when you produce it, but people arn't going to let that stop them.
Also the plugin hertz is refering to, doesnt just write something on your image, it tracks distribution and usage of images and is able to produce a usage report.
So yes they do protect images, i personally dont watermark, but if you see an image on here or on like a stock photog site with a watermark, it is a clear sign that the image is protected and the producer of the image will take action if its used inappropriately.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Apr 4, 2006)

The Digimarc system is not removable and it is not immediately visible. It also remains in the image if it is cropped or manipulated.
It's purpose is twofold: 
Publishers are supposed to check for Digimarc and if it is there and they still use the image then you can sue them and win.
If you claim that someone has stolen part of one of your images, or manipulated it to produce their 'own' work, or used your image in any way, you can quickly prove ownership.


----------



## JamesD (Apr 5, 2006)

Even so, it's the law that protects your work, not the mark.  The mark merely makes it easier to prosecute.  If an image is used without permission, even if it isn't marked, the plagiarist is still liable.  The mark serves only as a reminder of protection, not as protection in and of itself.


----------

