# Bad Photography?



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 11, 2007)

What is bad photography and why?

I've spent the last couple of weeks going out into the night with old 'worthless' cameras and getting very merry whilst snapping away. The results often are undoubtedly bad, but they're also good.

Here's a set from a 1974 Olympus trip bought for just 1 and loaded with the cheapest 400 ASA film I could find. 25 exposures from a 24 exposure film. No tripod, no cropping, no post production. 

This is a very 'unglamorous' set of me mixing with anyone I met on the street the other night. I'll post a set taken of me mixing it with the social high flyers another day.

Bad photography or, good photography. What's your measure of good and bad?

http://www.totalism.co.uk/WHLN/web/index.htm

Loads of bad spelling also I'm afraid.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 11, 2007)

Definitely not the technical aspects of the equipment you are using. I saw the most amazing photo of Al Gore's Campaign a few years ago and it was shot on a Holga.

It doesn't matter if it is soft or slightly missexposed, or doesn't obey the rule of thirds. As long as the photo can convey a meaning and make the reader feel something other than bored it's a good photo IMO.


----------



## Chas (Jul 11, 2007)

Quite so.  It's got to have that ........ _Je ne c'est quoi _... but I know it when I see it. Piles of old photos have it in spades. Terrabyte loads of digital files need to be annihilated with positrons or something ..... 

Technical imperfections can easily be consciously overlooked by the trained mind, but aesthetic blunders - they are irremediable.


----------



## craig (Jul 11, 2007)

For me a good photo has some thought in it. Let us take your photos for example. Some of those ally way shots are amazing. A lot of nice shapes and dramatic light plus I get a sense of mystery. Not positive that there is such a thing as bad photography. For instance; the shots of the drunk people are dull to me. To you they may have frozen a moment dear to your heart. That will forever make them great shots. 

Let me know if that makes any sense. 

Love & Bass


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 12, 2007)

craig said:


> ...
> 
> Let me know if that makes any sense.
> 
> ...




Makes perfect sense to me. I wasn't trying to convey any personal feelings. In fact I had drunk far to much myself to think about anything much. I enjoy taking cheap old cameras out and just snapping for fun occasionally. It's a release as much as anything and helps to keep the fun in photography for myself. I think it's a good exercise to just go out and forget all the technicalities once in a while.

Most of the new photographs we see today benefit from sophisticated, auto everything digital technology. As much as I appreciate a well exposed photograph in difficult conditions, every photograph looking next to perfect gets a bit sterile after a while.

Perhaps understanding why you think a photograph is a bad photograph is a good way to learn how to take good photographs?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 12, 2007)

As I have said on many occasions - a photograph being judged good or bad depends solely on it's purpose.
If a photograph does what you want it to then it is a good photograph. If a photograph fails to do what you intended of it then it isn't any good as an image.
Composition and technical perfection only matter in an image if they are integral to the photographer's intention. If they do not form part of the visual equation then they are not important.
If you are going out with the intention of taking random pictures (and with a Trip you do not need to even look through the viewfinder, just point it with your hand and shoot) then part of the charm - and an essential part of their success - is their complete 'randomness' and spontaneity. If you spent time composing and getting the exposure right all of that would be lost.
It is also true to say, though, that when you review the pictures you will engage your critical faculties and find that some of the random images work better that others - and there will be one or two that you will think 'would have been really good if the composition/exposure had been just a little better...' 

Craig is also right in saying that the images will be seen differently by you. You have all the memories that go with taking them to provide an extra dimension. Others do not have those memories when they look at the pictures.


----------



## Chas (Jul 12, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> Perhaps understanding why you think a photograph is a bad photograph is a good way to learn how to take good photographs?


So true. If I may use an analogy from another forum I play in, knowing why you just "bounced" that crosswing landing in a Cessna is going to greatly decrease the probability of your doing it again. That's how you get to make greasers every time (well, almost ...... ).


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 12, 2007)

To my mind, bad photos are those of big faces stuck so close to the lens that it can impossibly focus on them any more, lit up with the full on-camera flash - your typical party photography where very thoughtlessly people snap away with little cameras on "AUTO" ... which is quite a bit different from what you have taken with your the camera you used for your photos behind the link!

Though don't get me wrong, I am quite a defender of "the snapshot", for it captures a moment in time that without it would have come and gone and be forgotten. But you can even put some thoughts into pointing and then shooting, or you just ... you know ... point and shoot. Like that. Snip! Snap!


----------



## Chas (Jul 12, 2007)

IMO the very worst "photos" are the ones you never took but should have if you had your act together more. Like the one of the massive brown bear just inside some woods in a park near Banff in the Canadian rockies - watching me from maybe 80 ft through some trees. He saw me before I saw him, and was on his hind legs, truly magnificent in the wild like that. I should have just bolted I suppose but got off a shot with the P&S (very little detail from that range sadly) but as I was fumbling with the A2 around my neck for a decent one he dropped down, turned unbelievably quickly and bolted. If he'd chosen to go after me I mightn't be posting this - the rental car was about the same distance the other way (ahem ...). OK this wasn't so smart ..... 

Always be properly prepared. No, it's the ones that got away that I most regret.


----------



## JC1220 (Jul 13, 2007)

I enjoy and appreciate all types of art, but it has to be good and well executed in its own terms, not my terms, but its own. What I really dislike is the half-assed excuse "I wanted it that way" especially when presented with flat, sooty prints that could have and should have more tones for greater emotional impact.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 13, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> ...What I really dislike is the half-assed excuse "I wanted it that way" especially when presented with flat, sooty prints that could have and should have more tones for greater emotional impact.



Maybe they wanted the emotions to be flat? 

Have you considered that? Seriously. There are some great works of art (photographic and otherwise) that are as toneless as a erm.... I dunno.... erm.... a depressed mind stuck in grey mud.

It can work.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 13, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> Maybe they wanted the emotions to be flat?
> 
> Have you considered that? Seriously. There are some great works of art (photographic and otherwise) that are as toneless as a erm.... I dunno.... erm.... a depressed mind stuck in grey mud.
> 
> It can work.



Yah, but most of the time it isn't done for the effect but it just occurs for the lack of skill. Flat and lifeless is OK if that's the intent but not if its just the happenstance.


----------



## JC1220 (Jul 13, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> Maybe they wanted the emotions to be flat?
> 
> Have you considered that? Seriously. There are some great works of art (photographic and otherwise) that are as toneless as a erm.... I dunno.... erm.... a depressed mind stuck in grey mud.
> 
> It can work.


 

Name the work from a great 20th century photographer who printed this way and a specific photograph?  Seriously.

It is RARE that it works, and the actual intent. Traveler is correct, 99.9% of the time it is lack of technical skill.  

Another origin of bad art often comes from trying to be an artist in school, teachers tell their students to be different to the extent the student tries so very hard to be different they loose touch with what feels good, and you get bad art because it does not come from the core of who they are.


----------



## WingedPower (Jul 13, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> What is bad photography and why?
> 
> I've spent the last couple of weeks going out into the night with old 'worthless' cameras and getting very merry whilst snapping away. The results often are undoubtedly bad, but they're also good.
> 
> ...









There really isn't a simple answer to that question, is there? This is reflected by the fact that many of the answers already submitted to your question are very relative to some purpose or are highly subjected in nature.

Ie, what is beauty and art is solely in the eyes of the beholder.

However, referring to your photographs specifically, most of them lack beauty, as I see it, and in many cases, lack the correct setting and/or correct composition.

As others have pointed out, your alleyway shots are interesting. To me, if they had been shot to within the capabilities of the film and no over/under exposed to the point of failure, then you would have some nice stock photography on your hands.

This shot:

http://www.totalism.co.uk/WHLN/web/13.htm

I happen to like it alot, since it showed some thought and spontaneous action. It's a good composition and would work well in a stock photo agency, a social/people piece, or for some photojournalism work. It's nice and just looking at it, you can't help but like it.

The series of shots with the drunks aren't noteworthy or beautiful. They lack the composition and storytelling that a good photojournalistic photograph needs to tell a story, without the words. They resemble the photographs people take, while at a convention and are bored, and are just taking photographs of people in line, because there isn't anything else to do. This isn't to say that no thought was put into the photographs, just that it doesn't show in the final product.

Seriously, to me, taken as-is, the only one I would have kept, if it had been my roll of film, would be the one I listed above, of the store owners. It has the potential of telling a story and saying "something".

But that is just my way of looking at photographs. I expect the photograph to say something to me, not in words, but in conveyance of the moment. That I didn't need to be there... to experience what the photographer was trying to convey. 

If I needed to have been there and I need words and titles to tell me what to think/feel about the photograph, then that photograph isn't accomplishing much and is really something that can only be enjoyed amongst those who were there when it was taken, as a rememberance or vacation photo.


----------



## Chronicle (Jul 13, 2007)

WingedPower said:


> There really isn't a simple answer to that question, is there?


I think this comes close.  


Hertz Van Rental said:


> As I have said on many occasions - a photograph being judged good or bad depends solely on it's purpose.
> If a photograph does what you want it to then it is a good photograph. If a photograph fails to do what you intended of it then it isn't any good as an image.
> Composition and technical perfection only matter in an image if they are integral to the photographer's intention. If they do not form part of the visual equation then they are not important.
> If you are going out with the intention of taking random pictures (and with a Trip you do not need to even look through the viewfinder, just point it with your hand and shoot) then part of the charm - and an essential part of their success - is their complete 'randomness' and spontaneity. If you spent time composing and getting the exposure right all of that would be lost.
> ...



As for this:


			
				JC1220 said:
			
		

> Name the work from a great 20th century photographer who printed this way and a specific photograph? Seriously.


my response is this: http://www.soulcatcherstudio.com/exhibitions/blossfeldt/index.htm


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 13, 2007)

WingedPower said:


> But that is just my way of looking at photographs. I expect the photograph to say something to me, not in words, but in conveyance of the moment.



From your comments it is clear that you have a precise and definite idea of what you want a photograph to say, as well as the way it says it.
If an image does not fit in with your expectations then to you it is a 'bad' photograph. You also like to pigeonhole - you talk about the shots only in terms of your definition of stock photography and photojournalism.
A great many people look at photographs in this pre-conceived way. There is nothing wrong in this. But it is very limiting.
Try looking at photographs on their own terms and from the point of view of their original purpose.
You might just see something that you missed the first time.
When we go about our daily lives we do not look at the world in terms of exposure and composition. We do not edit what we see in the normal course of events, but take it all as fragments of a continuous flow.
I would be very surprised if, when watching TV in the evening you got a friend around to watch with you and positioned them precisely because 'the composition' required it.
Random photography like this works if you look at it as a whole. No one images is very good but taken all together you start to re-create the 'continuous flow' of the evening. Like taking random frames from a film, a pattern emerges and you build up a mental image.
I suspect a lot of the problem is in the showing of them, though, where they are presented as individual shots.
Like the viewing, the way they are shown has to respect their original intention too.

I used to collect junked images. The ones that people take when winding the film on until that first number one appears in the counter. You often get them.
Shots of your feet and the floor, corners of rooms, backs of heads.
On their own they are not much - which is why people throw them away.
But I found that if you collected enough and grouped them together....
About 100 shots all looking at shoes and the floor are amazingly similar and all put together you begin to notice the differences - the shoes, the floor...
The images stop being junk and begin to take on a life of their own: they have nothing to say individually but as a group and speaking with one voice you see them differently. People who saw them exhibited were quite amazed at the effect.

You just need to stop looking at pictures with a fixed, pre-conceived notion of what you _expect_ them to be.


----------



## JC1220 (Jul 14, 2007)

Chronicle said:


> my response is this: http://www.soulcatcherstudio.com/exhibitions/blossfeldt/index.htm


 

I think not, for one most of his prints are not soot and chaulk, second he was part of the pictorial movement late in his life, although some would debate this, pictorial photography lead to more bad art. Third, his intent was to document for educational purposes which he did for many years, but I would say he did not grow as a photographer, his recognition as a "photographer" was a relitively short period of time. To be considered among the greats they must expand ones world over a long and sustained period, more than just a decade, and that growth must be evident in thier work.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 14, 2007)

Chronicle said:


> my response is this: http://www.soulcatcherstudio.com/exhibitions/blossfeldt/index.htm



But if you care to actually read what it says you will see that the images are photogravure prints and not photographs.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 14, 2007)

Is this a good or, a bad photograph?

I suspect everyone will say it's a good photograph because we've all been told it's a good photograph, but why is it good/bad in your opinion?

Man Ray:


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 14, 2007)

By to-day's standards it's not very good.
But at the time it was taken it broke new ground - it went against the prevailing 'rules' for portraiture.
You have to see it in context. By doing stuff like this photographers like Man Ray have allowed us to do the stuff we do now.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 14, 2007)

What about this one:







Photography imitating the conventions of art at the time or, something more?

Difficult to imagine how people viewed photographs in Henry Peach-Robinson's day. On the face of this they were just hyper real copies of popular paintings of the day. However, there are many that will argue that photography influenced painters far more than painters influenced photographers during this time.

By today's standards it is a pretty shyte photograph no?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 14, 2007)

It's not one of his best.
Peach-Robinson saw photography primarily as a method of conveying morality. A lot like religious groups having their own TV channels these days. Most of his pictures have a moral message and are heavily overlaid with sentiment.
(By the way, that's how country folk dressed in those days.)
Peach-Robinson is not really remembered so much for his pictures as for pioneering multiple image techniques. Often a print would be made up from a dozen or more seperate negatives.
It's actually quite impressive. Especially as they were on glass.
The Victorians had a completely different view on everything to what we have now. Trying to see things as they would have is pretty near impossible. But then, in 150 years from now people will find it difficult to imagine how we see the world - and they will probably laugh at our pictures too.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 14, 2007)

Here's interesting.

Henry Peach-Robinson.  The Lady of Shalott, 1860-1861.









"The Lady of Shalott"
by J.W. Waterhouse (1888).







Straying way of thread topic now.

How much Alfred, Lord Tennyson and how much Henry Peach-Robinson do you see in this painting?



> In the stormy east-wind straining,
> The pale yellow woods were waning,
> The broad stream in his banks complaining,
> Heavily the low sky raining
> ...




I think Henry Peach-Robinson was appreciated more for his pioneering work in special FX. However, he was also a recognised painter and I will argue that the photograph above influenced other romantic painters of the time as much as the poem itself.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 14, 2007)

Peach-Robinson was regarded as the finest photographer of his day. He was certainly highly regarded and his images would have been known in artistic circles.
Peach-Robinson would certainly have been influenced by the Pre-Raphaelites who were painting this sort of thing before he photographed it.
See Millais' _Ophelia_ - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Millais_-_Ophelia.jpg
Waterhouse was loosely connected with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (founded 1848) and was certainly influenced by them and their style.
They would have all been aware of each other, even if they did not know each other, so the connections between Waterhouse and Robinson are not as clear cut as you suppose. Those works have some similarity most likely because both would have drawn their inspiration from the Pre-Raphaelites.


I believe you will find that Robinson was not a painter - he started life as a book seller but turned to photography and did that for the rest of his life.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 14, 2007)

Ophelia (1852) ^ above image.

Peach-Robinson's photograph was a blatant rip-off. I'll now change my argument.



> I believe you will find that Robinson was not a painter - he started life as a book seller but turned to photography and did that for the rest of his life.



He was also a painter (I've seen some). His paintings were almost copies of his own photographs. He did triptychs and stuff. Separate compositions exhibited together as a single composition. Early art special FX?

He seemed to rely on technological mastery above art.

Personally, I think he was a dumb rich kid supported by his family.


----------



## WingedPower (Jul 14, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> When we go about our daily lives we do not look at the world in terms of exposure and composition. We do not edit what we see in the normal course of events, but take it all as fragments of a continuous flow.
> I would be very surprised if, when watching TV in the evening you got a friend around to watch with you and positioned them precisely because 'the composition' required it.



In addition to the description of my pre-concieved notions regarding photography, I would definitely agree. That is the filter/lens through which I look at the art/photography in front of me. I couldn't agree more.  I miss things that my wife and my friends point out to me, then I go, "Oh! Hadn't thought of looking at it like that!".




Hertz van Rental said:


> Random photography like this works if you look at it as a whole. No one images is very good but taken all together you start to re-create the 'continuous flow' of the evening. Like taking random frames from a film, a pattern emerges and you build up a mental image....You just need to stop looking at pictures with a fixed, pre-conceived notion of what you _expect_ them to be.



I understand the presentation you are describing. There was actually a series of photographic gallery presentation a few years back, that employed that concept, but only presenting slots of the images in conjunction with other images presented in the same way. All of the images presented represented the same scene, but from different angles, moments, subjects, etc.

It much more closely resembles and represents one's perception of reality and was a real eye opener for me.  Though, ultimately, I still ended up with the filters I have now.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 15, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> I think he was a dumb rich kid supported by his family.



Far from it. He was a self-made man who earned his living purely from photography. He worked as a successful portrait photographer to begin with. He was considered one of the greatest photographers of his day. Prince Albert used to buy his prints.
He is credited with not only perfecting composite printing from several negatives (it started as an attempt to cope with the exposure limitations of the materials of the time), but of being the first person to purposely use vignetting.
His most famous composite was 'Fading Away' which portrayed someone dying. This outraged critics. It was OK for painters to portray death but it was not considered a suitable subject for a photograph.
Robinson spent a lot of his later years fighting for Photography to be recognised as having artistic potential - up to that point it was seen as a purely scientific exercise - and to this end he established the Linked Ring, a group of photographers who became extremely influential.
When he got married he told his bride "photography first, wife afterwards". 
Robinson was extremely important in the History of Photography.

As for paintings - I can find no reference to any in any of the Histories that I have (and I have quite a few, some rather detailed). He had no artistic training of any kind and spent his whole life as a photographer so I am doubtful.
But if you can point me towards any paintings by him I would appreciate it.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 15, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> ...
> 
> As for paintings - I can find no reference to any in any of the Histories that I have (and I have quite a few, some rather detailed). He had no artistic training of any kind and spent his whole life as a photographer so I am doubtful.
> But if you can point me towards any paintings by him I would appreciate it.




I'm playing ignorant for the sake of a good thread here. I actually studied the life of Peach-Robinson as part of my college photography training. Then, a few years later I found myself living within yards of his old studio in Ludlow, Shropshire (UK). Most of his working life was spent in Leamington Spa and London.

Exploring the town I stumbled across a triptych painting in the church that was credited to Henry Peach-Robinson. Further research revealed more paintings.

The stuff you can't learn from Google!

From Wikipedia:

'At the age of 19 he practised as an artist, and exhibited an oil painting at the Royal Academy of Art in 1852.'


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 15, 2007)

Apparently all the books I have only concern themselves with his Photography and that fact is considered unimportant.
Doesn't surprise me, though. Fox-Talbot was a failed artist and Daguerre studied as an architect. It's a common trait among photographers.
I used to teach the History of Photography as a College lecturer and I taught that it is important to look at _everything_ that was going on in the Arts and not just see photographs in isolation. Art and Photography had a great deal of cross-fertilisation in second half of the 19thC.


I rarely, if ever, Google. 99% of what is on the Interweb is normally wrong or misinformed. I prefer books, but even then...


----------



## killcrazy (Jul 15, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> I rarely, if ever, Google. 99% of what is on the Interweb is normally wrong or misinformed. I prefer books, but even then...




even though you put "but even then... " at the end of that, that is probably still one of the most narrowminded things i've ever read. 
and quite snobbish too. 

Just because something is printed doesnt make it "right". nore does it make it good either. 
Sure the internet is full of cr*p, but it is an easy (and in some cases) free way to get information out to the world. 

Give someone the ability to do something, and they will abuse it. In general terms that statement is correct for the human race, and the internet is _definatly_ not excluded from that. 

But The internet is the biggest source of information in the world which is also factual, and correct. sometimes access to that information might not be legal. (for example, some torrent sites), but the information is THERE. 

If google's information was wrong, then people wouldnt use it would they? 
_google it_ has, unfortunatly, become a recognised term in households accross the WORLD, beacuse it is the easiest way of finding out information which IS correct. 


As for the "bad photography", my 2p would be, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 
Noone can truley say what is good and bad photography.I might think a photograph is brilliant but another person might hate it. 
Im sure anyone who has ever sold photographs will agree, that when showing clients a set, they might absolutly LOVE a picture, but you hated it, because the exposure was wrong, or it was cropped slightly too much to the left or whatever. 
Your the photography proffessional, but they are the client. the client with the money, the one whos going to BUY it.. 

whos right? who can truely say that that photo is good or bad, your the one with the expereince in taking photos, but they are the one who likes it. 
Answer: to you: Bad photo
            to them: good photo. 

The only true way to take a bad photo, would be to show it to every single person on the planet, and have everyone hate it. 
Even if ONE person likes it... to THEM, its still a good photo. even if the rest of the world hates it. 

This debate, in my honest opinion is pointless. (for finding a winner), as noone is truely a winner or a looser in this argument/debate. It dfoes make an interesting read. But really noone can answer this question. As different things appeal to different people.


----------



## bakuretsu (Jul 15, 2007)

I waxed philosophical about this in my blog a little while ago after witnessing a similar debate to this one occur on Usenet. Fundamentally, whether a particular photograph is "good" or "bad," and whether any purported piece of art is or isn't art is completely up to the viewer to decide.

There are famous works of art that some people may see absolutely no value in, and likewise there are "flat," "sooty" prints that others may value greatly. The most wonderful thing about art, and hence photography, is its ability to accommodate everyone.

http://www.singleservingphoto.com/2007/06/26/photography-whats-the-point


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 15, 2007)

killcrazy said:


> that is probably still one of the most narrowminded things i've ever read. ...and quite snobbish too.



Apparently you do not understand the concept of humour.


----------



## JC1220 (Jul 16, 2007)

There is a big disconnect between great photography and artistic photography. True, almost anyone can show some artistic talent, but are they Artists? No. Are they photographers, almost always, No. Owning a camera is not a priori to being a photographer or an artist. Just because one can golf, or drive a car only makes you someone who golfs or drives in the most simplest of terms. Unless you consider photography your most important life concern, you are not a photographer, same goes for being an Artist.



The "art" world and general public has been so dumbed down to accept anyone who picks up the tools of certain medium, makes one a painter, photographer, sculptor, etc. It is more than just "in the eye of the beholder" there are higher standards to uphold and answer too, curators, greats of the past, great contemporaries, history. Understanding how to view art is critical, your experience in doing so and maturity level in viewing is critical in understanding what you are viewing, that is a big reason why you may consider something that is junk, good and others will dismiss it. Perhaps in your world everyone craps happy puppies and barfs rainbows, sorry, that does not make one an artists in a particular medium, and perhaps why one would think this a pointless arguement. A true artist is never concerned about making art.

_"So why bother about art - a word so abused it is almost obsolete."_
_Edward Weston, 1930_


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 16, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> Unless you consider photography your most important life concern, you are not a photographer, same goes for being an Artist.



I totally disagree here, I know counterexamples ... great artists, who value other things in life higher than what they produce on the field of arts, and I know people who are obsessed by what they or others consider arts, but still they are no great artists ... they lead unhealthy lives though.

I agree with some of your other points though.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 16, 2007)

What happened? A thread about 'Bad Photography?' becomes a thread about Art.

Are you all inferring that lots of bad photography masquerades as 'good' art?


----------



## JC1220 (Jul 16, 2007)

Sorry about that:greenpbl:

and, yes I'll agree with that last statment!


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 16, 2007)

Here we go with the soup cans again!  

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 16, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> What is bad photography and why?



I guess I must be a bad person or something, but I guess I just don't care what it is and/or why.

IMHO you take an image. It works, or it doesn't. It is what it is.

I know what I like when I see it, and I am sure y'all do too. What works for me may not work for you, but that is OK.


----------



## Chronicle (Jul 17, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> I think not, for one most of his prints are not soot and chaulk, second he was part of the pictorial movement late in his life, although some would debate this, pictorial photography lead to more bad art. Third, his intent was to document for educational purposes which he did for many years, but I would say he did not grow as a photographer, his recognition as a "photographer" was a relitively short period of time. To be considered among the greats they must expand ones world over a long and sustained period, more than just a decade, and that growth must be evident in thier work.



Well, I think you are right, I disregarded the sooty and focused on the flat and unemotional comments.  The primary reason I mentioned him is that his intent was not to create art, yet for me at least, he created art.  Illustrating that the intent of the creator is of secondary importance when weighed against the opinion of the viewer (probably cause they are the folks with the money )........  And the hallways leading to the wealthy bathrooms lived happily ever after, as did the people who sold the pictures that hung there. 



Hertz Van Rental said:


> But if you care to actually read what it says you will see that the images are photogravure prints and not photographs.



I can't help but get this feeling that you have spent an inordinate amount of time with college students.;


----------

