# Missed opportunity



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

I have no idea why some of the more experienced people choose to post pictures - or not to.

Perhaps it's a self-image issue. I do notice that many of these 'more experienced' people, when they do post,  seem to want to maintain their image by only posting stuff well within their area of competence - and rarely stuff that can be critiqued in any meaningful way. Thus their pictures,  however good technically, are artistically boring to tears - nothing I would look at unless there was a calendar below it.

To my way of thinking that is a real loss, both to them and to the less experienced photographers. I would like to see people shooting and posting out of their comfort zone, forsaking some of the comfort of being good at something to try to expand their artistic vision. That provides an example for the less experienced that art is always meant to progress and it also gives people a chance at some c/c that goes beyond the very basic stuff, a chance to look at the artistic vision and make comments about them, rather than being stuck in the critically low-rent areas of sharpnes, focus, dof and wb.

I try to post pictures routinely for those two reasons: to keep beyond my comfort areas - at least in areas that interest me - but trying to expand my vision (and that has nothing to do with skill) and to give people whom I have criticized a fair chance at me.

I am an unremitting critic, trying to say exactly what I think out of respect for the art, however poorly practiced. 

It is a bit disappointing that people don't take advantage of the opportunity either to work harder and post differently or to look at what gets posted and learn about critiquing by actually doing some serious looking and talking about it.

Why would I post pictures here?
What does it get me?
What good does it do others if they don't use what I post - however good or poor - as an exercise for their critical sense?


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 2, 2012)

I don't post 'out of my comfort zone' for C&C because I already know what the issues are.  What I lack is the intuitive experience needed to see those issues before the shutter clicks.  Portraiture, for instance.  Although I used to do this professionally, I gave up the craft years ago and have become totally rusty with it.  Although I'm sure many of the basics still hold, what is demanded by the paying public is simply beyond my abilities today.  








So instead of trying to improve on that aspect of photography, I just accept the fact that I'm as good as I'm ever going to get, and I also simply do not have the drive and ambition to get better.  I'll stick to candids, thank you.








I have been repeatedly asked to do commission work, especially by those who know I have a 'home studio'.  I politely refuse.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

Sparky, you're talking about skills, I'm talking about photography as expression.

I couldn't give less of a crap about well-staged, well-lighted, plastic images that all look the same.  Just swap out the heads.
I know people can actually try to see things, think about things and show what they've seen, instead they get caught up in pixels and wb and sharpness and what do I buy now. This is, should be, art not Home Depot for cameras.

I can't image any artist who paints on canvas perseverating about the kind of stretchers except as a method to make his images work better.
It is now wonder that photography gets little shrift from all the jerks who think the camera does it all.
For many/most, the camera does do it all with damn little support from the photographer.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 2, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Sparky, you're talking about skills, I'm talking about photography as expression.
> .........



You need the skills to create the expression.  I doubt many photographers do well using blind luck.

I am reminded of the M*A*S*H scene (Season 8, Episode 19, _Morale Victory_) where Maj. Winchester (David Ogden Stiers) amputates the right hand of a concert pianist.  The soldier thinks his life is over.  Winchester orders sheet music designed for just the left hand and explains, "_Don't you see? Your hand may be stilled, but your gift cannot be  silenced if you refuse to let it be. The gift does not lie in your  hands. I have hands, David. Hands that can make a scalpel sing. More  than anything in my life I wanted to play, but I do not have the gift. I  can play the notes, but I cannot make the music. You have performed  Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Chopin. Even if you never do so again, you've  already known a joy that I will never know as long as I live. Because  the true gift is in your head and in your heart and in your soul. Now  you can shut it off forever, or you can find new ways to share your gift  with the world - through the baton, the classroom, or the pen. As to  these works, they're for you, because you and the piano will always be  as one._"

In some areas, I just do not have 'the gift'.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 2, 2012)

I guess in a similar vein I've never understood the advice some posters give to 'only post your best for C&C'  

What I tend to post here 99% of the time are shots that I think have potential, but are lacking something that I can't quite put my finger on that keeps them from being exceptional images.  Now, I think this tends to mean that my photos don't get a whole lot of commentary, because there usually aren't very obvious flaws (which is what TPF is best at with C&C) and they arent stunning enough to get a lot of attaboys.  I rarely post work I'm completely happy with (or at least as close as I get to completely happy with a picture) and I rarely post something I hate.  In the former case, usually any C&C would just be about matters of taste that I've already made up my mind about, and in the latter, well, I can spot what's wrong in images that I hate most of the time.  So, while I don't get a whole lot of comments on my photos, what I do get tends to maybe be more helpful for my growth.


----------



## PlanetStarbucks (Dec 2, 2012)

Why shouldn't vanity be the reason to post an image?  I know the pure artist's mantra is to create without a care for what other people think.  Surely that attitude is essential in the process of creation, but I recognize that your work is always going to be judged by other people.  Therefore, you have to care what people think of your work.  I think that even the best photographers in the world do themselves a disservice if they never take a heat check on their own creation.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

PlanetStarbucks said:


> Why shouldn't vanity be the reason to post an image?  I know the pure artist's mantra is to create without a care for what other people think.  Surely that attitude is essential in the process of creation, but I recognize that your work is always going to be judged by other people.  Therefore, you have to care what people think of your work.  I think that even the best photographers in the world do themselves a disservice if they never take a heat check on their own creation.



Vanity has nothing to do with it.
I like being praised as much or more than anyone.
But I know, more than anything else, that I want to create art.  
I will almost certainly fail but that is what I need to do.
And the moment I start only doing easy stuff is when I cheat my own effort.

I post here for two reasons: First, to elicit comments to see if what I am doing is 'working' and I am succeeding a bit.
Second, I think I am working at a different level/purpose than many of teh people here and I think it is fair to give people a shot at my crude tries as I work.
I can take pictures of easy things all day and I wouldn't get anything out of doing it and the viewers would get little out of looking at it.

So when I try to do something and people just don't take the opportunity to quiz me on why I'm doing it that way, I lose the interaction and so do they.
Not that I'm terrific or great or whatever, but I am trying to do something and it is a benefit for me to get interaction and it is good for a newer photographer to try to see how other people think.


----------



## panblue (Dec 2, 2012)

Quality thread. Interesting discussion.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 2, 2012)

Different people post photos here for different reasons.  With different styles,  different skill levels,  and different expectations.  Why would any of the reasons someone posts here be wrong?  Isn't the point for people to post here for their own reasons,  not someone elses?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 2, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> Different people post photos here for different reasons.  With different styles,  different skill levels,  and different expectations.  Why would any of the reasons someone posts here be wrong?  Isn't the point for people to post here for their own reasons,  not someone elses?



Because they are not doing it right!


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 2, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> Different people post photos here for different reasons.  With different styles,  different skill levels,  and different expectations.  Why would any of the reasons someone posts here be wrong?  Isn't the point for people to post here for their own reasons,  not someone elses?





Bitter Jeweler said:


> Because they are not doing it right!



Aparantly not.  I never realized there was a wrong reason to post here.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 2, 2012)

I find that with me, personally, there is a thin line between being too generic and too pretentious. 

Now I'm not saying that all of my images meet my own criteria for an amazing image. I'm still in the stage of being ecstatic when I can get a photo looking technically how I saw it in my head, event if the photo is super cliche.

Like, I understand posting perfectly lit, perfectly composed, generic photos of children and models in the studio etc...but at the same time I don't usually comment on those photos because they're trite and boring. The whole essence of the photo hinges on the physical subject.

But on the same token, if a photo is too "artsy" or too post-modern, I roll my eyes. The metaphorical content of the image outweighs what the subject shows.

There has to be just the right mixture of content to subject for me to really say "THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE IMAGE. I feel the need to express my honest opinion."

(And I have met my quota for artsy-fartsy meta posts for the week. Yayyyyy)


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Different people post photos here for different reasons.  With different styles,  different skill levels,  and different expectations.  Why would any of the reasons someone posts here be wrong?  Isn't the point for people to post here for their own reasons,  not someone elses?
> ...



I didn't say that.
I said I wish more people would post more work that actually show something beyond what they always post and that more people would try to C/C on a higher level than the technical stuff.

Of course that gives Bitter a chance to be snarky so he is happy.


----------



## Overread (Dec 2, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I didn't say that.
> I said I wish more people would post more work that actually show something beyond what they always post and that more people would try to C/C on a higher level than the technical stuff.



Eh but experimentation is not something everyone goes for and even if they do and it goes wrong its often just for fun so not something they often feel the need to share and work toward perfecting the talent of. Most people get into photography with an interest within specific areas (or develop said interests) so they will, when learning, try to focus upon those areas. The more established meanwhile just have their comfort zones and do varying amounts of experimentation outside of them depending on the person. Some people do lots and others very little.


As for critique beyond technical - well you'll have to hunt around for that. Sadly most here is technical because most posting for education are just learning the ropes. For some reason we get far fewer advanced level photographers having their work critiqued. I guess its a problem that once you're at a certain level people assume that what you show them is what you fully intended.

Add to that the problem that most people have no education in the arts what so ever so they've not built up a series of understandings to apply to understand what they are seeing from a technical artistic perspective (generally they get as far as rule of 3rds).


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

Overread said:


> I guess its a problem that once you're at a certain level people assume that what you show them is what you fully intended.



I think the best learning tool is to look at a picture and try to figure out why you like or - or don't.
That's what builds up one's personal understanding of composition and art in a way that is more more integrated with your 'responses' than just reading about Rules.

The Rules or Guidelines are attempts to codify simply how the largest proportion of people respond to certain arrangements of the elements in a picture. 

It's the simply part that takes a lot of nuance out.


----------



## panblue (Dec 2, 2012)

Lew, would a 'No Words' photo theme be useful?
  The language we are using is a visual one. To roughly paraphrase Kandinsky from a long ago written book, it's less effective to critic one artistic medium with another, different one. The mode is fundamentally different. When we critique as visual artists, with words, we cease to be visual artists for the duration of that activity. We could instead call-and-respond  with pictures.

Just an idea for the pot


----------



## joshua_ (Dec 2, 2012)

I'm very new to photography but wanted to say that I posted a few photos in hopes that others would help me learn. I look at photos from others here and learn a lot that way.  So, I appreciate the photos and c&c of others as it helps me learn.  As I progress I hope to return the favor.

I've long had another hobby where I'm on the other end where I'm able to help out others.  One problem I see on the net in relation to my other hobby is that some folks seem to portray themselves as experts in all aspects.  That makes it difficult for them to ask for help in areas where they might have.  I think it's pretty easy to determine the folks who are truly students of something.  I think part of the issue is the lack of true relationship on the net.

Anyway....  I appreciate the folks who post up photos and the folks who help with good c&c.  So I appreciate the great photos for one reason and the not so great for another reason, but I appreciate them all.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 2, 2012)

I don't think TPF is a very good place to post images for C&C if one hopes for C&C that goes very far beyond the technical and practical aspects of the photos themselves. This forum is populated mostly by beginning and intermediate-level photographers who are interested in "photography", more than they are interested in "artistry", or in creating art.

Honestly, if you say you are interested in "*creating art*", then I have little idea why you shoot so much street photography...to me that's more like "stealing images" than it is about "creating" anything...street scenes play out with zero input from the photographer...the photographer does not create much... he (and it's almost always a 'he') points a camera and presses a button, and the people in the photo and whatever it is that they are doing is frozen by the camera...that always seemed to me to be quite weak on the "creating" front, and much more along the lines of simply "*capturing* what is actually there". I don't consider street photography as art as much as I think of it as documentary photography.

Anyway...I do not think TPF is really geared toward "art" or "artistic" photography, or to "artistic expression" nearly as much as other places, like say, Deviant Art, where the actual word "art" is in the title of the forum. Quite honestly, I think that well,well over 95% of photography is in no way "art", nor "artistic", but is actually just simple, solid representational translation of the real world into photographic images. Photography does not have to be high art to be successful...unless one's stated goal is to create "art".

If one wants to indulge in esoteric discussions about fine art, a sports bar is not the place to hope to find engaging conversation about fine art...but an art gallery might be....know what I'm saying???


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 2, 2012)

I know what I like to photograph and I know the types of photos I like to look at. I have very little interest in working/ looking outside that construct. I've learned the basics enough to practice the types of photography I enjoy. Ill spend a good portion of the remaining time tweaking settings, locations, etc.

I like to go out to look for bugs, photograph them, then share with others who enjoy the same. I enjoy watching the weather reports, radars, and setting up to maybe catch lightning on silicone, then share with others who enjoy the same. I've expanded the latter by attempting to integrate time lapse into it, but that is less than 6 degrees difference between what I was doing and something "new" ... Don't ask me to photoimmortalize people. I have no interest beyond capturing snippets of time that contain loved ones.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Honestly, if you say you are interested in "*creating art*", then I have little idea why you shoot so much street photography...to me that's more like "stealing images" than it is about "creating" anything...street scenes play out with zero input from the photographer...the photographer does not create much... he (and it's almost always a 'he') points a camera and presses a button, and the people in the photo and whatever it is that they are doing is frozen by the camera...that always seemed to me to be quite weak on the "creating" front, and much more along the lines of simply "*capturing* what is actually there". I don't consider street photography as art as much as I think of it as documentary photography.
> 
> .know what I'm saying???



You are taking the word 'art' too literally.
I mean pictures that might actually carry some meaning or impact beyond a reproduction of what one can see.

Why are street pictures captured, converted (if done), edited, cropped to create something more than a random shot?
That's what I mean.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> Don't ask me to photoimmortalize people. I have no interest beyond capturing snippets of time that contain loved ones.



Didn't ask but there is something different from just capturing a technically correct image.


----------



## KenC (Dec 2, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I don't think TPF is a very good place to post images for C&C if one hopes for C&C that goes very far beyond the technical and practical aspects of the photos themselves.



If you know of somewhere on the net that is, please let me know; I'd like to post there as well.  Most images posted on here that are "out of the mainstream", for lack of a better term, get very few comments, including a lot of mine.  I create several kinds of images, some more in the mainstream than others, and I post some of each.  There are a few people on here, you included, who will delve into an abstract and venture an opinion about why it works or doesn't, but some of the experienced photographers don't.  I'm sure some of this is just a matter of where one's comfort zone is.  For example, I rarely comment on portraits because I don't do them and don't feel qualified to offer advice, and I also don't really enjoy looking at them, just as some of the portrait photographers would rather not look at an abstract.  So, I agree that I'm not likely to get that much discussion of a lot of my stuff on TPF, but I'll still post images just to show what I do to anyone who might be interested.


----------



## runnah (Dec 2, 2012)

I've been trying post as often as I get what I think is good stuff but have been *really* frustrated when stuff I posts gets zero feedback. If it's **** or if its decent let me know or give me pointers. I am to the point of not even bothering.
I try to at least comment on people's work, good or bad. Often I joke but I really try to be helpful.

Sorry if that is whining.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 2, 2012)

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> Didn't ask but there is something different from just capturing a technically correct image.



It was a figurative expression of words not meant to be taken literally. Regardless I still have no interest in photographing people or looking at people portraits.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 2, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I don't think TPF is a very good place to post images for C&C if one hopes for C&C that goes very far beyond the technical and practical aspects of the photos themselves. This forum is populated mostly by beginning and intermediate-level photographers who are interested in "photography", more than they are interested in "artistry", or in creating art.
> 
> Honestly, if you say you are interested in "creating art", then I have little idea why you shoot so much street photography...to me that's more like "stealing images" than it is about "creating" anything...street scenes play out with zero input from the photographer...the photographer does not create much... he (and it's almost always a 'he') points a camera and presses a button, and the people in the photo and whatever it is that they are doing is frozen by the camera...that always seemed to me to be quite weak on the "creating" front, and much more along the lines of simply "capturing what is actually there". I don't consider street photography as art as much as I think of it as documentary photography.
> 
> ...



Garry Winogrand,HCB,Joel Meyerowicz,Alexy Titerenco all shot on the street and are very artistic


----------



## gsgary (Dec 2, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > I guess its a problem that once you're at a certain level people assume that what you show them is what you fully intended.
> ...



Here's one for you, i don't mind trying my hand at arty shots


----------



## JAC526 (Dec 2, 2012)

I think a lot of the critique on this forum consists of people parrotting easy to understand ideas (rule of thirds) without really considering why someone may have broken that rule intentionally.

Its like dogma.  Its also easy and doesn't require a ton of thought or analysis.


----------



## Overread (Dec 2, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> I think a lot of the critique on this forum consists of people parrotting easy to understand ideas (rule of thirds) without really considering why someone may have broken that rule intentionally.
> 
> Its like dogma.  Its also easy and doesn't require a ton of thought or analysis.



You know barring a very few sites which tend to be very small in population and very focused - I hear these exact same comments on several large photography forums. The fact is if you have a large community any content gets diluted you can't avoid that fact. This is especially the case when you've a a forum which has an active uptake of new members who are also new photographers. This constant influx doesn't keep the site from getting advanced, but it does mean that there are more non-advanced comments to be thrown around.

The real core problem comes from apathy of the higher level photographers. Mostly because they all know each other - already know most of the viewpoints each other will share and because they've lost that same sense of rapid leaning that they had when they were beginners. They tend to either go through a stage of being trollish on the site or just outright leaving (sometimes quietly sometimes after a big huff). 

Most of them spread their wings fly off and then come back sometime later . Because the fact is this never ending search for the holy grail of critique just - well it isn't really out there in the net to be found. Its something you've got to build and if you're not prepared to build it, well, it just won't appear. Those in the know will avoid some subjects or will refrain from commenting (often sighting the fact that some newbies have challenged their viewpoint - disagreed- got defensive or just not even given any reply at all) and the knowledge gets held up. 

I'm more than certain that we've a community here who are more than capable of advanced level discussions - the fact that these do happen now and then is a reason many still hang around the site itself. The thing is its more difficult than it should be to really get people to spark up and speak up. 

Thick skin is oft something touted that newbies need to have when taking critique on their photos yet I can't hide the feeling that thick skin is also something "advanced" shooters need to have when being prepared to release their critique out into the world. It doesn't have to be a fight - in fact it never should be. But so long as photographers babying their photos clash with those doing similar with their own viewpoint/critique we'll continue to have friction.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 2, 2012)

Mostly I deal with the problem of "too much technical critique" by offering mostly non-technical critique.

Over the last couple of months TPF has actually gotten quite decent at this, I like to imagine I have played a small role in that change, but that hardly matters. There's a small but persistent cadre that work at giving more artistic "does it work" critique, and that's valuable and good. It's our forum, just do what you want to see more of, and see if it sticks.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Here's one for you, i don't mind trying my hand at arty shots



I wrote a response but how about posting it in its own thread?

Lew


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 2, 2012)

Maybe as a forum we can learn to  give and accept both artist and technical critique.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

*


Overread said:



			The fact is if you have a large community any content gets diluted you can't avoid that fact. 

This is especially the case when you've a a forum which has an active uptake of new members who are also new photographers. This constant influx doesn't keep the site from getting advanced, but it does mean that there are more non-advanced comments to be thrown around.

The real core problem comes from apathy of the higher level photographers. 

thick skin is also something "advanced" shooters need to have when being prepared to release their critique out into the world. But so long as photographers babying their photos clash with those doing similar with their own viewpoint/critique we'll continue to have friction.
		
Click to expand...




amolitor said:



			There's a small but persistent cadre that work at giving more artistic "does it work" critique, and that's valuable and good. 

It's our forum, just do what you want to see more of, and see if it sticks.
		
Click to expand...

*
I think that all of these lines above are on target.

I believe that it is sort of the responsibility of those who can give better C/C to do it.  
Just hanging around and shooting the eventual laser comment, does not help.
It may make the shooter look cool but it is destructive to the effort that others are putting in.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 2, 2012)

gsgary said:
			
		

> Garry Winogrand,HCB,Joel Meyerowicz,Alexy Titerenco all shot on the street and are very artistic



I disagree on Winogrand entirely; he shot like a man on amphetamines, running sooooo much film through a Leica that he wore the pressure plate out; he shot the chit out of the most mundane and tedious stuff, trying to become Robert Frank, and died with so much undeveloped film it was ridiculous. Winogrand srikes me as the epitome of the *spray-and-pray* street shooter.

HCB...yeah...I'm familiar with his decisive moment, everything with a 50mm lens stuff...it was pretty cool back in the 1940's...but not much of him was in the photos...it was all about the SUBJECTS. Not the artistry, but the SUBJECTS. He also never printed his own images....he just snapped them.

Joel Meyerowitz...I know him almost exclusively from his *Cape Light* book, and his use of color negative film back in the early 1980's, when shooting color negative film for "serious" work was a bit anti-establishment. Joel Mererowitz + Cape Light - Google Search

Alexy Titerenco is much, much more of a photographic "artist" than Winogrand or HCB;  Winogrand never met a scene he didn't think warranted 20-36 frames, while HCB looked for "moments" where things came together, and had a bit more restraint than Winogrand, who if he were shooting digitally, would probably come home with 128 gigs of files every 8 hours out...

To me, artistry is when the photo is less about the SUBJECT, and more about intent, and photographer intervention and creation...so many people cannot separate great SUBJECT MATTER from artistry...they confuse the two...when a photo is all about the SUBJECT, there's usually very,very little artistry in the shot. That to me is why documentary photography is typically not very "artistic", but merely representational...mere recordings of what existed for one, short,brief moment. The images might just as well have been snapped by an unmanned Google camera roaming the streets...if ya' know what I mean...


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

Derrel said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not the end result, that's always arguable. It's that these people were actually trying to do something, to catch that lightning in a bottle that all artists dream about.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 2, 2012)

Ummmm....if it's not the end result we evaluate, then what is it that we evaluate? How nice of a guy each photographer was? How much he loved his wife? if one wishes to capture lighting, shooting a series of time exposures during a lighting storm oughtta' do it. If it was Garrry Winogrand, shooting three thousand frames to get one keeper was about right.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Ummmm....if it's not the end result we evaluate, then what is it that we evaluate? How nice of a guy each photographer was? How much he loved his wife? if one wishes to capture lighting, shooting a series of time exposures during a lighting storm oughtta' do it. If it was Garrry Winogrand, shooting three thousand frames to get one keeper was about right.



It's that your opinion of any specific end result of these specific guys isn't important.

What is important is that each of us as photographers have an end result that we are searching and working toward and that others respond to our efforts.
If you aren't moving towards an end, well then, like they say about sharks, if it isn't moving .........................


----------



## Tamgerine (Dec 2, 2012)

I guess I don't really understand the point about posting outside of my comfort zone that you're trying to make. If I fail and know it, I typically know why I failed. It's those times that I'm within my comfort zone and don't know I failed that I need to be told. The point of that is to extend my comfort zone and thus my skill. 

I shoot outside of my comfort zone a lot, but all critiquing those photos would do is tell me something I already know, rather than push my good photography into the great category by telling me things I don't know.


----------



## runnah (Dec 2, 2012)

Disagree. The only reason I joined here was to get the advice of those better than me. I live and work in an area where there is no one to learn from. I come on here and post photos I want to get options on so I can become a better photographer. If I only posted things I am good at, what is the point? Just to show off? I am sure a lot do that but I really want to become better.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 2, 2012)

So, what's being said, is that everyone is using the forum as a means to their own end, regardless of how other people think they should be using it.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> So, what's being said, is that everyone is using the forum as a means to their own end, regardless of how other people think they should be using it.



Aw come one, Bitter.  
Stop trying to sound like you know how everyone should act, being the Wise One who sits back and gives pearls of wisdom.

What I'm saying is that people who have the capacity to, as Andy says, "giv(e) more artistic  "does it work" critique, and that's valuable and good." should do it.

No one has to do anything they don't want to or can't.
But I think the harder one works, the better it is for those involved.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 2, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> So, what's being said, is that everyone is using the forum as a means to their own end, regardless of how other people think they should be using it.



Yup.  And thats how it should be. Wouldnt be much incentive for me to use the forum the  exact same way other people do. It wouldn't suit my needs.  Different strokes.


----------



## runnah (Dec 2, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> So, what's being said, is that everyone is using the forum as a means to their own end, regardless of how other people think they should be using it.



I'm here for easy money and loose women...


----------



## JAC526 (Dec 2, 2012)

Overread said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> > I think a lot of the critique on this forum consists of people parrotting easy to understand ideas (rule of thirds) without really considering why someone may have broken that rule intentionally.
> ...



I've heard plenty of the more "experienced" members do exactly what I was referring to.  For example, people routinely say that using a wide angle lens for portraiture is an absolute mistake b/c of distortion...blah blah blah.  Then I read a book from a very experience professional who is widely considered an expert in his field and a lot of the portraits he shot utilized a 14-24.  

I think its more important to have a thought process that gets you to the shot you want.  If in that shot process you break some of the "rules" I fail to see the problem with that.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 2, 2012)

I'm not sure if you'd call me "in the experienced bunch", but being a bit vain I assume that I am. 

I don't post much outside my creative zone because as much as I can see and appreciate how someone totally pulled off something very impressive... such as many of Bitter's recent shots where he took some very simple elements and showed us something with them... and what gsgary did there with his fork and his plate... I just seem to lack the creative juices to identify and compose images like those.  I'm also not as into the act of creating pictures as I once was, so I don't shoot much... when I do, and when I have something that I think is cool, I post it.

That said, this very thread has put a bit of inspiration into me to go out and shoot and actually try to pull off something... so maybe.

All this said, I agree with what Derrel and Over were saying about the forum getting bogged down by the technical issues and why.  For my part, I try VERY hard to discuss artistry and composition and such in my critique first, and technical issues last... in many cases I'll avoid technical comments entirely, because I think it should be there but not the focus.  In other words, I try to lead by example.  What's more is if I see people pounding on the technical elements but ignoring all else, I'll call it out and try to get people back on track.

For me, I think this is where us "older folks" might be able to contribute more significantly... by not only providing comments more along the lines of artistry, but to also try to train others here to focus more on that as well.  Perhaps if we all banded together and made a point to do that we could elevate the discourse around here.  I DO think the culture can be bent here... it just takes a bit of a focused effort and some time.  I'd be game.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 2, 2012)

runnah said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > So, what's being said, is that everyone is using the forum as a means to their own end, regardless of how other people think they should be using it.
> ...



I'm here for you, baby.


----------



## panblue (Dec 2, 2012)

Fred Berg is one of my favourite contributors. He regulalrly posts a few pictures. It's relaxed. Just "nice" shots you know? Not so much gearhead BS but all the same, an appreciation of an optic, situational light/context. I know nothing about Herr Berg but I don't get a grandiose 'pushing-the-boundaries' vibe from reading his posts or chatting generally about the photo or the camera or the subject in the shot.

Can we create a scene, (without displacing/inconveniencing any of the other 57 varieties), for photographers like me and a number of others who are not looking to be coached, aren't green but aren't the font of all knowledge either since Nicéphore Niépce, don't want to be commercial photographers, aren't upgrading every fortnight to keep up with joneses; just would like to share the keepers of what they photograph every other day and use that as a social device with the option of, at any moment, discussing photography as deeply or a casually as they wish ?

 If Photo Themes is the only option, then OK, I'm hanging out there, but PT seems not the place to back and forth over the top of incoming, photographic contributions. This mandatory C&C culture has bugged me for years on this forum and other forums. If I want to change what or how I photograph things, I will be INSPIRED TO CHANGE, you know?  The fact that a random 19 year/90 year old who I have never interacted with in Oklohoma/Omsk/Osaka 'isn't feeling it', matters not one iota to me and has never done since the dawn of 28Kb dial-up.

cheers


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 2, 2012)

Just post your photos.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 2, 2012)

panblue said:


> Fred Berg is one of my favourite contributors. He regulalrly posts a few pictures. It's relaxed. Just "nice" shots you know? Not so much gearhead BS but all the same, an appreciation of an optic, situational light/context. I know nothing about Herr Berg but I don't get a grandiose 'pushing-the-boundaries' vibe from reading his posts or chatting generally about the photo or the camera or the subject in the shot.
> 
> Can we create a scene, (without displacing/inconveniencing any of the other 57 varieties), for photographers like me and a number of others who are not looking to be coached, aren't green but aren't the font of all knowledge either since Nicéphore Niépce, don't want to be commercial photographers, aren't upgrading every fortnight to keep up with joneses; just would like to share the keepers of what they photograph every other day and use that as a social device with the option of, at any moment, discussing photography as deeply or a casually as they wish ?
> 
> ...



Its called the "just for fun"  section


----------



## runnah (Dec 2, 2012)

manaheim said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



Go on...


----------



## coastalconn (Dec 2, 2012)

Interesting thread.  This is why I dislike people and only shoot birds


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

coastalconn said:


> Interesting thread.  This is why I dislike people and only shoot birds



you better hope that the birds don't get a chance to shoot back. :lmao:


----------



## molested_cow (Dec 2, 2012)

Where I am right now, the most I get to shoot is landscape. The population here is relatively low. I want to take my camera around and walk around the village and photograph people. I guess I am too timid to do that even though I know a lot of the kids here. And it's been raining all the time here too(excuse).

Landscape is great, but I am not nearly as inspired shooting landscape compared to shooting street and people.

Then there are the bugs, but looking at what's already in the macro section, I don't see any reason to post mine. I know it's really quite mediocre. 

About posting photos. I notice that I don't get many replies, if any at all. Not sure why. Too many in one thread? Too boring? Too...? So that has been discouraging.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 2, 2012)

molested_cow said:
			
		

> About posting photos. I notice that I don't get many replies, if any at all. Not sure why. Too many in one thread? Too boring? Too...? So that has been discouraging.



+10^10


----------



## gsgary (Dec 3, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I disagree on Winogrand entirely; he shot like a man on amphetamines, running sooooo much film through a Leica that he wore the pressure plate out; he shot the chit out of the most mundane and tedious stuff, trying to become Robert Frank, and died with so much undeveloped film it was ridiculous. Winogrand srikes me as the epitome of the spray-and-pray street shooter.
> 
> HCB...yeah...I'm familiar with his decisive moment, everything with a 50mm lens stuff...it was pretty cool back in the 1940's...but not much of him was in the photos...it was all about the SUBJECTS. Not the artistry, but the SUBJECTS. He also never printed his own images....he just snapped them.
> 
> ...



Not many can see the shots like HCB and Winogrand


----------



## gsgary (Dec 3, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I wrote a response but how about posting it in its own thread?
> 
> Lew



I think it had its own thread a while back


----------



## Dikkie (Dec 3, 2012)

I'm still quite happy with the responses I get on my pictures here on this forum.
Although, everything still can get better in the future.

Compared with another forum I'm posting photos on, this one here is really nice with friendly users. 
I know some forum where they only want to criticize your photo if it's posted larger than a specific amount of pixels, for example minimum 900px width or height. If you post a smaller one, they say they cannot criticize the photo. They always say it's not sharp if you post smaller, ridiculous. Sharpness has nothing to do with size, to me. And furthermore, they don't want to criticize the composition, bokeh, colours, other stuff...  

To me, this forum is way better. People already react, are nice, and make jokes from time to time.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 3, 2012)

rexbobcat said:
			
		

> +10^10



There are several threads out there on getting more critique.  Go read up on those if you haven't already.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 3, 2012)

Dikkie said:


> I know some forum where they only want to criticize your photo if it's posted larger than a specific amount of pixels, for example minimum 900px width or height. If you post a smaller one, they say they cannot criticize the photo. They always say it's not sharp if you post smaller, ridiculous. Sharpness has nothing to do with size, to me. And furthermore, they don't want to criticize the composition, bokeh, colours, other stuff...



If you post small pictures, then the details get lost and, without saying that sharpness is the ultimate factor, if the critic can't see what you are doing, how can the critic say anything sensible?
I don't have any idea why people would not post decent size pictures and take up the surface they are given to use.
It makes no sense to me that, if you are trying to get people to respond to an image, to shrink it to where it can't be well presented.


----------



## Dikkie (Dec 3, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Dikkie said:
> 
> 
> > I know some forum where they only want to criticize your photo if it's posted larger than a specific amount of pixels, for example minimum 900px width or height. If you post a smaller one, they say they cannot criticize the photo. They always say it's not sharp if you post smaller, ridiculous. Sharpness has nothing to do with size, to me. And furthermore, they don't want to criticize the composition, bokeh, colours, other stuff...
> ...


Well, on this forum, they cán criticize the photos very well. All stuff is visible.

But these same photos can't be criticized on that other forum I was talking about. It's not the fault of the size of the photo, it's those forum people there who are the problem.
Anyway, the photo's I'm talking about are at least 200px wider than those I see on your website.

That's why I still like this forum, right here, people aren't that difficult.


----------



## runnah (Dec 3, 2012)

manaheim said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Be nice if it made a difference one way or the other.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 3, 2012)

I'd like to interject a bit off topic here, since Derrel brings it up.

I got no problem with spray and pray, if it produces results. So what if the "creative act" is largely in looking at the contact sheets (or digital equivalent)? Nobody ever gets it "right" in the camera 100% of the time, so it's really just a quibble about degree, not of kind, and even if it WAS of kind, why does it matter? Spray and pray just tries to whittle the WHole Real World down to a large but more manageable world in real time, and then goes looking through the smaller world for the image. What's wrong with that?


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 3, 2012)

amolitor said:


> I'd like to interject a bit off topic here, since Derrel brings it up.
> 
> I got no problem with spray and pray, if it produces results. So what if the "creative act" is largely in looking at the contact sheets (or digital equivalent)? Nobody ever gets it "right" in the camera 100% of the time, so it's really just a quibble about degree, not of kind, and even if it WAS of kind, why does it matter? Spray and pray just tries to whittle the WHole Real World down to a large but more manageable world in real time, and then goes looking through the smaller world for the image. What's wrong with that?



you bring up an interesting point here (as you often seem to do) but I would like to add one little tidbit to it, if I may. (and i will)
I typically hear the words "spray and pray" used as a derogatory term, and sometimes..."sometimes", with possibly good reason. 
I understand that it is  used (maybe often) by people in lieu of "knowing" when to take the proper shot, or waiting for the proper moment, or whatever the case may be.  I would like to point out however, that sometimes..."sometimes", it is an almost necessary tool for getting "just the right shot". sporting events are often that sometimes. there are occasions at weddings where my wife will do it, like at the bouquet toss, to make sure she gets just the right shot she wanted.   Like any technique in a photographers arsenal, there are people that will tell you there is a "right way" and a "wrong way"....and then there are people that just go out and get the photograph they wanted.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 3, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to interject a bit off topic here, since Derrel brings it up.
> ...



I beg to differ, i never spray and pray when shooting sport 90% of the time you will get the shot either side of the moment you wanted when i'm shooting on the street i cant spray and pray because i'm using a film Leica M4, here's an example shot with Leica M4 spay and you might not have got the foot still on the pier


----------



## coastalconn (Dec 3, 2012)

"Spray and pray" as some call it is an essential part of wildlife photography, especially if you have a small twitchy bird and want just the right pose and a perfect catchlight.  Or if you want to grab an 8 frame sequence like my eagles the other day..  I wanted a d300 with a grip for a reason.  Especially when Osprey season starts up again.  And who cares? It's digital take as many pictures as you want, throw out the bad ones and enjoy the good ones...  There must be a reason the d4 does 11 FPS.. Just saying..


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 3, 2012)

Yes but it's different when getting approximately the good shot is basically not getting the shot at all. When I assisted Sport Illustrated at a college football game they would anticipate the action and then spray, because they really could not afford to not get the exact shot they need. And since they now have DSLRs capable of shooting at half the FPS of the cinema (12 FPS), it makes the act of getting the shot that much more precise.

I don't understand people who just spray, and spray, and spray some more, but if you anticipate the action and then let loose I find that from a career/job standpoint it's much more "safe."

Now, if I'm shooting my brother playing HS basketball or something then having a photo that's .1 seconds off isn't that big of an issue.

I don't think of you like this, but in certain instances people saying "I don't believe in spray and pray" or something along those lines reminds me of people who says "I never Photoshop." I mean, do you want a cookie or something? lol


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 3, 2012)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



so do you differ with my entire statement, or just the sports analogy? I don't do sports photography, so I was just imagining that anytime you have fast moving objects, "spray and pray" MIGHT prove effective in some situations. otherwise, why do the "pro" cameras have a higher FPS than the consumer cameras?


----------



## Rick58 (Dec 3, 2012)

" *...Thus their pictures, however good technically, are artistically boring to tears - nothing I would look at unless there was a calendar below it."
*

     It's unfortunate, but that attitude is exactly why I don't post often. My interest isn't in the "art" side of photography. As everyone knows, my interest is in record / snapshots. The unfortunate part is becuase they are viewed as such, they are mostly overlooked and passed by. 
     I have no interest in changing my views or interests, but I'm VERY interested in hearing how a shot could have been better, without changing the overall subject. Just because it's a record shot, doesn't mean it has to be "boring" or a photo out of Granny's photo album. There is so much that can be discussed on a simple record shot. Exposure, cropping, angle of the shot, lighting etc...
     Any way, that's why *I* don't post often...Rant over.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 3, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> " *...Thus their pictures, however good technically, are artistically boring to tears - nothing I would look at unless there was a calendar below it."
> *
> 
> It's unfortunate, but that attitude is exactly why I don't post often. My interest isn't in the "art" side of photography. As everyone knows, my interest is in record / snapshots. The unfortunate part is becuase they are viewed as such, they are mostly overlooked and passed by.
> ...



My best friend at our camera club does a lot of record shots of land marks but they have an arty feel, but some of his older record are priceless because most of the landmarks have dissapeared


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 3, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> " *...Thus their pictures, however good technically, are artistically boring to tears - nothing I would look at unless there was a calendar below it."
> *
> 
> It's unfortunate, but that attitude is exactly why I don't post often. My interest isn't in the "art" side of photography. As everyone knows, my interest is in record / snapshots. The unfortunate part is becuase they are viewed as such, they are mostly overlooked and passed by.
> ...



Sorry, I don't get the connection here.
You don't post because you don't get feedback?   

Or am I missing something?


----------



## Rick58 (Dec 3, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > " *...Thus their pictures, however good technically, are artistically boring to tears - nothing I would look at unless there was a calendar below it."
> ...



Pretty much Lew. If I post and ask for C&C, it's because I want I want to hear how my photo could be made better AS A SUBJECT. My red barn shot is a perfect example. Common opinion was "Yep it's a barn", but it got much better reviews when I just focused on the doors. 
The problem is, the doors alone are not a record of the barn or tell me what I could have done to improve it as a record shot. You said yourself that you are bored to tears with this type of photo unless there is a calendar attached and it seems that is pretty much the common consensus.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Dec 3, 2012)

I'm not one of the experienced photographers around here so I can't really weigh in on why they post or don't post what they do but I can weigh in on posting and not getting feedback.  

For a while I was getting post after post passed up or with very few comments, that is just as telling as the posts that get a lot of action.  Most posts that got passed up I didn't give enough to the viewer in my description to give them a jumping off point and the shots were admittedly mediocre for the most part (looking back now).  Mediocre or documentary (NO I'm not saying documentary is mediocre!!) without a pointed question to go along with it will almost always get passed up here, if you aren't going to stimulate the mind with something visual for people to latch onto and be compelled to post then you have to stimulate the mind by what you SAY by posing a question, stating your intent, giving your own thoughts... something!!
Reaction or lack thereof can teach you sooooo much, it is for each individual to figure out why they aren't getting the reaction or input they want, especially when there is zero reaction.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 3, 2012)

I know why i dont get many replies to my photos  i'm a bit of an arse


----------



## JAC526 (Dec 3, 2012)

gsgary said:


> I know why i dont get many replies to my photos  i'm a bit of an arse



Really?


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 3, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> Pretty much Lew. If I post and ask for C&C, it's because I want I want to hear how my photo could be made better AS A SUBJECT. My red barn shot is a perfect example. Common opinion was "Yep it's a barn", but it got much better reviews when I just focused on the doors.
> The problem is, the doors alone are not a record of the barn or tell me what I could have done to improve it as a record shot. You said yourself that you are bored to tears with this type of photo unless there is a calendar attached and it seems that is pretty much the common consensus.





PixelRabbit said:


> For a while I was getting post after post passed up or with very few comments, that is just as telling as the posts that get a lot of action.  *Most posts that got passed up I didn't give enough to the viewer in my description to give them a jumping off point and the shots were admittedly mediocre for the most part (looking back now).  Mediocre or documentary (NO I'm not saying documentary is mediocre!!) without a pointed question to go along with it will almost always get passed up here, if you aren't going to stimulate the mind with something visual for people to latch onto and be compelled to post then you have to stimulate the mind by what you SAY by posing a question, stating your intent, giving your own thoughts... something!!
> *
> Reaction or lack thereof can teach you sooooo much, it is for each individual to figure out why they aren't getting the reaction or input they want, especially when there is zero reaction.



What she said.
If I see something that I have no connection to, no way to understand what and why you are shooting, or what you think is deficient, I have nowhere to go and I just leave.

I have to respond to something, and if it isn't visible, then you have to tell me.

Fill in the blanks-

I want to ..............
I don't know how to............
This isn't...............
I'm missing......................

I'm willing to do my part as much as I can, but reading minds is out of my area of competence.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 3, 2012)

It's a tough compromise. SOOOO many people post on here just wanting attaboys and similarly there are a few posters who critique more to put their 'enemies' down than anything else. It can get tiring. 

That being said, sure, we still need to try to do it and we still need to post our stuff up. 

Commentary on photography is what keeps this place alive and as someone that this place has helped I feel some duty to keep it going for myself and others by posting as much critique and photos as I can. I've been trying to do one a day and respond to at least three, to the extent where sometimes I feel like I overwhelm the galleries with my mediocre work, haha. 

And I think we all hold back too much on posting shots we aren't 100% happy with. I know I learned as much by trying to critique imperfect shots as anything else here. It made me start to think why a shot didnt work, which is the first step to fixing it in the field.


----------



## JAC526 (Dec 3, 2012)

I like attaboys....don't get me wrong.  But I'd much rather have someone tell me how to improve.  Generally I know what I like about a shot.  I want to know what I can do better.


----------



## Rick58 (Dec 3, 2012)

I'm a little confused about Judi's and Lew's posts. If I post a photo of a tree in the middle of a field and ask for C&C, I _really_ need to add "How could I make this shot better?". Isn't that what C&C is all about?


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 3, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> I'm a little confused about Judi's and Lew's posts. If I post a photo of a tree in the middle of a field and ask for C&C, I _really_ need to add "How could I make this shot better?". Isn't that what C&C is all about?



if you look at C&C lately, it seems to me, that when you post a picture for C&C, you not only need to specify that you want to know how to improve, but also WHY you took that shot, what you were looking for in the shot, what you were trying to convey with the shot, EXIF data and equipment used to take the shot, how YOU feel about the shot,  and what you had to eat before taking the shot.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Dec 3, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> I'm a little confused about Judi's and Lew's posts. If I post a photo of a tree in the middle of a field and ask for C&C, I _really_ need to add "How could I make this shot better?". Isn't that what C&C is all about?


Rick, I wasn't targeting you specifically with my post, it just happened to fall right after yours  It was more in general to those who say they get no feedback. 

That depends on what you want to get out of the feedback you get.  It has been my experience here that the ones who are just looking for an attaboy! generally don't post any text with the image. 

Post an image of a barn without text for C&C and unless it hits someone on a personal level or it is hitting a specific mark creatively nobody is going to say anything, it can be nicely composed, exposed, focus is good, etc etc... but .... it's a barn and it WILL get passed up.  Post the same image and ask a pointed question about how to capture the barn in a different way with X intention in mind and you WILL get replies, you have stimulated the viewer by your words to illicit a response regardless of whether your initial image hit the mark with them or not.
Sometimes you have to guide the viewer into your thought process so they can get on the same page as you, give them something to chew on other than the image to get THEIR creative juices flowing in your direction so YOU get what you want out of the C&C.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 3, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> I'm a little confused about Judi's and Lew's posts. If I post a photo of a tree in the middle of a field and ask for C&C, I _really_ need to add "How could I make this shot better?". Isn't that what C&C is all about?



Better in what way?
Are you concerned about the composition, the lighting, the depth of field, the color?

If just sitting back and expecting people to figure out what it is you don't know and want to know doesn't get you the feedback you want, shouldn't you consider actually trying to elicit answers?

And if you don't want to make a step, then you will continue to get what you have been getting, I guess.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 3, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a little confused about Judi's and Lew's posts. If I post a photo of a tree in the middle of a field and ask for C&C, I _really_ need to add "How could I make this shot better?". Isn't that what C&C is all about?
> ...



but, if you specifically TELL people what you want them to say...you lose the diversity of the different views people have on a photograph. one person might look at the photo and see some technical aspects that they recommend changing, color, temp, WB...
another person might see compositional flaws, or artistic flaws. if you ask for just one, you might miss out on all the rest. ask for C&C, and you can see what different people see in your photo, without the bias of them knowing what YOU think they should see.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Dec 3, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Rick58 said:
> ...



We are talking about not getting any responses to a picture posted for C&C, if someone can post an image without any input from themselves and get the feedback they want then good on them, their method of posting for C&C is working just fine.
If you aren't getting any responses and you WANT more then it is up to you to figure out why nobody replies and how to get them to.  The absolute simplest way to do that is to ask a question, open the conversation.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 3, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> but, if you specifically TELL people what you want them to say...you lose the diversity of the different views people have on a photograph. one person might look at the photo and see some technical aspects that they recommend changing, color, temp, WB...
> another person might see compositional flaws, or artistic flaws. if you ask for just one, you might miss out on all the rest. ask for C&C, and you can see what different people see in your photo, without the bias of them knowing what YOU think they should see.



No, what you are doing is giving people somewhere to start, an entry into a conversation.

It doesn't take a master tactician to say, "what I'm interested in is this ....... but I'm happy to hear anything else.'

Let's not make this a silly passive aggressive encounter just asking for input.

If you don't get what you want and you don't ask for it, who loses out?

If there is help/input available if you ask, and you don't ask, who loses out?


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 3, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > but, if you specifically TELL people what you want them to say...you lose the diversity of the different views people have on a photograph. one person might look at the photo and see some technical aspects that they recommend changing, color, temp, WB...
> ...



but it didn't seem like Rick was looking for anything specific as far as critique on his photos. just peoples general opinions of them as far as a record of some particular item. that's what I got from his posts anyway. If he wants general opinions, then he pretty much asked for just that by requesting C&C.  saying "here is my photo, opinions and C&C welcome seems like a decent conversation opener to me. Im not sure to what you were referring  as "passive aggressive", my comment was honestly not meant as such, just my thoughts on pictures posted for general C&C.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 3, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> but it didn't seem like Rick was looking for anything specific as far as critique on his photos. just peoples general opinions of them as far as a record of some particular item. that's what I got from his posts anyway. If he wants general opinions, then he pretty much asked for just that by requesting C&C.  saying "here is my photo, opinions and C&C welcome seems like a decent conversation opener to me. Im not sure to what you were referring  as "passive aggressive", my comment was honestly not meant as such, just my thoughts on pictures posted for general C&C.



But he was complaining that he didn't get what he wanted.

So, he can persist in his previous behavior and be disappointed in the feedback he gets or he can try a new tack and see if that works.

His choice.
But, if he does persist in letting it 'happen' and it doesn't 'happen', he's got no complaint.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 3, 2012)

There's an old story about a man marooned on the roof og his house during a flood.
First someone comes by in a boat and offers to take him off and he declines, saying he's waiting for God to help.

Then the Coast Guard sends a power boat, and again he refuses, saying that he's got a strong belief and he'll wait for God.

Finally, a National Guard helicopter hovers overhead and he waves them off.

Later that night, in the dark, he is sitting, wondering why he was left alone and God speaks to him.

He yells back, 'Hey God, why'd you leave me here?'

And God says, 'Hey moron, who do you think sent those other people?'

The moral being that, if help is available and you sit on your butt waiting for it to be handed to you the way you want, well, even God won't help you then.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 3, 2012)

my process is usually something like this.  First, I post the photo with next to no information, just the image.  I want to see if somebody has thoughts on it without any prompt.  I leave it to sit on the board for about a day or so.  If nothing, i might give a little more and ask a specific question.  Then if a conversation gets going, I'll give more and more info about the photograph.   

It's a tough balance, because a photo should generate thought with minimal content from the artist.  On the other hand, you sometimes need something to get conversation going.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 3, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > but it didn't seem like Rick was looking for anything specific as far as critique on his photos. just peoples general opinions of them as far as a record of some particular item. that's what I got from his posts anyway. If he wants general opinions, then he pretty much asked for just that by requesting C&C.  saying "here is my photo, opinions and C&C welcome seems like a decent conversation opener to me. Im not sure to what you were referring  as "passive aggressive", my comment was honestly not meant as such, just my thoughts on pictures posted for general C&C.
> ...



I will admit I can find no fault in that statement. 
I would just caution people getting too specific with what C&C they want, unless they really ARE looking for specific aspects of a photo to be changed.


----------



## JAC526 (Dec 3, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> There's an old story about a man marooned on the roof og his house during a flood.
> First someone comes by in a boat and offers to take him off and he declines, saying he's waiting for God to help.
> 
> Then the Coast Guard sends a power boat, and again he refuses, saying that he's got a strong belief and he'll wait for God.
> ...



Wow man, I just got freakin deja vu.  I just told this story to my father-in-law last night.  How crazy.


----------



## Demers18 (Dec 3, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> Pixmedic seems to be the only one that gets it. If a person asks for C&C, that's exactly what they're asking for. "Hey here's photo, How can I make it better?"
> 
> Just so I'm clear, I guess I need to say.
> 
> ...



I think what Lew is trying to explain, correct me if I'm wrong, is that if you like to have some feedback on the image you are posting you also need to put in a little effort as to why you are posting it for CC. For example, give a sinopsis of why you took the shot and what this image does for you. 
I don't think it's asking for too much and quite frankly agree with it. Some of the people who help on this board will go to great lengths and share their wealth of knowledge, but at the same time they want to know that you actually put some effort into the photo.


----------



## Rick58 (Dec 3, 2012)

I must have deleted that post while you were typing. It isn't worth the argument.
Is it too much to ask? Of course not.
Do I understand what needs to be said beyond "C&C would be appreciated"? Not really.
Lets shoot it in the head and move on


----------



## Demers18 (Dec 3, 2012)

Rick58 said:
			
		

> I must have deleted that post while you were typing. It isn't worth the argument.
> Is it too much to ask? Of course not.
> Do I understand what needs to be said beyond "C&C would be appreciated"? Not really.
> Lets shot it in the head and move on



There nothing wrong with a good debate and I find it unfortunate that you relate with that kind of comment.

It's completely fine if we don't agree, just as it's fine if we do agree. The fun part of the process is the debate and trying to understand the others point of view.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 3, 2012)

When you take your car into the garage, do you just say, 'Fix it'?
When you go to the doctor, do you just say, 'Make me better?'

If you do either of these, the end result is not optimal.

No, although they might be able to diagnose some issues without you, you tell them what you think is wrong.
You take some responsibility. 

Same here.
If your pictures don't attract attention, you need to engage people to interact.

And you do that by meeting them part way, by telling them where you think the picture is weak or why you think that certain things don't work.

In short, you work with them, rather than doing nothing and just sitting back and blaming the lack of response on them.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 3, 2012)

One of the most interesting, and also most ironic, things that a fellow TPF member told me was an observation that he had made, which was that the photos that, as he put it, "really suck are the ones that get lots of C&C", while the better work often "gets like two comments then gets buried." I have noticed that as well...images that reflect very poor, poor methods (poor technique, poor composition, poor processing, questionable taste, and so on) have massive C&C heaped upon them. 

But here on TPF, the better quality images often have very little attention payed to them. Does that seem right?

Perhaps intermediate and more advanced shooters need a better outlet, a better vehicle for the C&C they want and or need???


----------



## Demers18 (Dec 3, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> One of the most interesting, and also most ironic, things that a fellow TPF member told me was an observation that he had made, which was that the photos that, as he put it, "really suck are the ones that get lots of C&C", while the better work often "gets like two comments then gets buried." I have noticed that as well...images that reflect very poor, poor methods (poor technique, poor composition, poor processing, questionable taste, and so on) have massive C&C heaped upon them.
> 
> But here on TPF, the better quality images often have very little attention payed to them. Does that seem right?
> 
> Perhaps intermediate and more advanced shooters need a better outlet, a better vehicle for the C&C they want and or need???



I completely agree. But how do we, as a group, help create that movement. It would require a conscious effort from all of us to achieve that. 

I think a thread like this is a start and hopefully others will jump on board. I know I've been making a point to try to give feedback as much as I can, within my capabilities, as I really appreciate it when I get feedback.


----------



## Overread (Dec 3, 2012)

Derrel said:


> One of the most interesting, and also most ironic, things that a fellow TPF member told me was an observation that he had made, which was that the photos that, as he put it, "really suck are the ones that get lots of C&C", while the better work often "gets like two comments then gets buried." I have noticed that as well...images that reflect very poor, poor methods (poor technique, poor composition, poor processing, questionable taste, and so on) have massive C&C heaped upon them.
> 
> But here on TPF, the better quality images often have very little attention payed to them. Does that seem right?
> 
> Perhaps intermediate and more advanced shooters need a better outlet, a better vehicle for the C&C they want and or need???



I'd say that that is not a TPF unique element. Critique for intermediate and advanced photographers is an issue on almost every single forum/photo community I've been to (with - again - the sometime exception of very small very focused groups). 

In general I suspect its because getting to intermediate isn't too difficult. Most people can get there and most people also know "how" they got there. Knowing how they got there and what they had to learn to get there gives them the understanding to be able to easily impart that info to the less experienced photographers. Even if they don't know all the maths and physics behind it all they know enough to advance the beginner to a similar stage.

The problem is moving up from intermediate is less structured an area (esp when self learning). So there is less structure and the advances are much slower and become a little more intuitive. So people lose touch with the structure of how they are learning and also don't recognise how they've advanced. Indeed I've known quite a few very experienced photographers who are convinced that the very basics of photographer ARE all they know. As a result they simply don't feel confident to start commenting upon either their equals or their betters.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 3, 2012)

Ok boys and girls, let's go out there and critique some pictures!!!!


----------



## bentcountershaft (Dec 3, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> When you take your car into the garage, do you just say, 'Fix it'?
> When you go to the doctor, do you just say, 'Make me better?'
> 
> If you do either of these, the end result is not optimal.
> ...




There's a flip side to that.  I don't know about you but I don't take my car to the mechanic if I don't think there is anything wrong with it.  There are times when I post a shot that I consider finished.  I'm happy with it and have no interest in doing it again or trying to "fix" anything.  I generally don't ask for anything specific in responses when I post these because I'm more interested in how others react to the image and I don't want to lead them one way or the other.  Perhaps you're right and I should engage the viewer directly, at least in some way, to explain what I'm looking for.  But then another part of me thinks that if the shot doesn't compel them enough to say something on their own then the shot didn't do the job I wanted it to.


----------



## Dikkie (Dec 4, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I would like to see people shooting and posting out of their comfort zone, forsaking some of the comfort of being good at something to try to expand their artistic vision. That provides an example for the less experienced that art is always meant to progress and it also gives people a chance at some c/c that goes beyond the very basic stuff, a chance to look at the artistic vision and make comments about them, rather than being stuck in the critically low-rent areas of sharpnes, focus, dof and wb.


That's right.

I don't like to see professional photo's to be commented. Why? Everything is already correct lit, balanced, composed, and the photographer knows it. These pics are mostly boring. 
If these photographers want to stay in their comfort zone, that's fine, no problem, but they have to make their photos more attractive, stunning. They have to add some other value or parameter in it to make it dynamic.
Emotion, or an x-factor.

This way, you'll get more feedback. Your photo won't be the perfect boring photo like it should be as the rules tell you to shoot. 

Also, when there's something wrong in a photo, it's mostly an eye catching effect. Try to add something like this, but without destroying your photo.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 4, 2012)

Fred Berg said:


> My feeling concerning C&C is if the OP has a particular issue they want help with, perhaps composition, WB, noise, etc., then they should mention this in their post. Equally, when viewing other people's work, if some issues are apparent that the OP has either missed or not mentioned, then these should be brough to the OP's attention so that they can at least be aware of these points in future.
> 
> Otherwise, I think posting in one of the galleries and including some exif data should suffice.* After all you wouldn't expect to walk into a gallery made of bricks and mortar and be told what the ehibits are about or what the artist was trying to achieve. You have to think about that for yourself normally*.



Catalogs, artists' statement?

This isn't exactly a gallery.
People here post pictures of all levels of skill and their desired input ranges from basic stuff to a wish for a more intensive rigorous look.
If people don't get what they want as responses, they need to know how to ask.

People may think they shouldn't have to ask, but clearly their opinion on how things should be isn't making the situation change.

I have the feeling that some people here would starve to death in a restaurant because the server doesn't take their order.
Perhaps their 'starvation' is making some point but they're still the ones without food.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 4, 2012)

> _Forums inevitably descend to the level of the lowest common denominator of their participants._



A. D. Coleman

It may not be 'inevitable' but without work it sure is likely.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 4, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> Ok boys and girls, let's go out there and critique some pictures!!!!



You KNOW it doesn't work like that Bitter. How many times am I going to have to remind you?


----------



## slackercruster (Dec 4, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > I guess its a problem that once you're at a certain level people assume that what you show them is what you fully intended.
> ...




Well Lew...

I've pretty much left or been kicked out of all the online photo forums. There is just too much prejudice and censorship. The photo hosting sites censor my stuff, so even if I wanted to send pix in I am blocked. I opened up a Flickr and they banned me after 9 days. I had spent 50 hours setting it up with tons of pix. i joined 100+ groups and set up 5 of my own groups. All my work was lost at Flickr. Who wants to waste time like that?

While this forum is a very nice one for the average tog. It is just like the rest of the forums when it comes to blocking serious discussion. That is why I don't participate here any longer. I don't like my photography blocked Lew. 

Tumblr and Devaintart are the only places that allow free discussion. But Deviantart sucks for ease of use with posting pix, so I don't post there. And Tumblr is easy to post pix to, but has nil discussion. So no matter how you slice it, currently my venues are poor for what I like to do with my online photography. 

Here is some of my latest work and some old work Lew:

slackercruster

Lew, just for you I added a pix on Tumblr to show you how a mistake can turn out good. One of my mistakes went from my trash can directly to the Los Angels County Museum of Art!

I'd like to suggest you all start a 'Best of 2012' thread for your own pix. Showcase what you did right and if you like, what you did wrong during the year. With me I try to trash my bad stuff Lew. I am drowning in pix and don't need a lot of crap hanging round to clutter up my world. 

I owe this forum lots of thanks though. It was one of 2 forums that helped me get started with digital in Feb of 2012. I was an old film tog trying to make a comeback and knew next to nothing about digital. While I still need to learn tons of stuff, I have made a lot of improvement in the last 9 months. So a big thanks to all those that have helped me learn the ropes. 

Here is something else I owed you guys. The dye stability teats I talked about when I was here. 

Slackercruster-Tests

Good luck to you all and hope you have a pleasant and relaxing holiday season

slackercruster


----------



## manaheim (Dec 4, 2012)

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> A. D. Coleman
> 
> It may not be 'inevitable' but without work it sure is likely.



Any social group, really.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 4, 2012)

The levels of critique (tongue in cheek, of course):

1.   Whazzat?
2.   Like it/don&#8217;t like it.
3.   Too much noise/missed sharpness/too dark/too light.
4.   The WB is off.
5.   You&#8217;re not using the rule of thirds.
6.   Missing a point of interest/the foreground or background intrudes.
7.   The dark is not balanced by the light/ the flow seems off/the processing distracts.
8.   Does not emotionally engage/image is annoying/I don&#8217;t get it.
9.   Almost as good as what I imagine I would take under the circumstances...(if I had the camera/lens/grip/filter/flash...)
10. Wow.  I wish I took that.

There are many things that influence the dynamics of critique:
1.   the perceived ability of the critic relative to the creator of the image.
2.   The artistic sensibility of the critic relative to the creator.
3.   The apparent motivation of the poster of the image.

When a newbie posts an image, almost everyone on the forum has more experience than the poster, so all kinds of helpful (and not-so-helpful) comments get given, partly because no-one is going to be proven wrong.  When an intermediate-level photographer posts images, it&#8217;s trickier, as the critics know that the poster has some skills and ability, and the easy technical critiques are probably not appropriate, so the discussion moves to composition/effect, and there are fewer comments because I suspect fewer feel &#8220;safe&#8221; in stating an opinion.  When an advanced photographer posts, we KNOW that they have the technical stuff figured out, so whatever effect we see MUST be part of the artist&#8217;s vision, so the critiques become more &#8220;attaboys&#8221; than critiques.

And yet, this type of critiquing misses the mark.  IF we make the assumption that the purpose of an image is to evoke an emotional response, THEN anyone can react and indicate whether or not in their case, the goal was achieved.  I don&#8217;t have to be a master chef or a violin virtuoso to be able to appreciate a delicious meal, or a stirring rendition by Paganini.  Of course, it can be argued that an image may be crafted so finely that only the top 1% of photographic cognoscenti will &#8220;get it&#8221;, but in my mind, it will miss the mark as it will not touch the majority of viewers.  There is the opposite position of an image that panders to the easy sentimentality (think kittens, beautiful people, pictures that have &#8220;cute&#8221; all over them), but again I think these miss the mark because they tend to be superficial.  In between, there is a medium, when the image affects enough people deeply enough to make it a worthy image.

The motivation of the poster is also something to consider.  Is the poster showing us the result of a high skill level, or are they looking for ways to improve what is already a well-crafted image?  I thoroughly enjoy seeing some of the higher-level work by others &#8211; it is inspiring and instructive to me, which is partly the reason I come to (this and other) forums.  On the aesthetic side, it opens up my eyes to seeing in a different way (always a good thing), and on the technical side, I get inspired to try and replicate the effect or vision, and in doing so, learn new skills.  If the poster of such an image also discusses some of the challenges they faced, and overcame, then this becomes a seriously interesting image as it engages me in both the esthetic and technical sense.

However, there is a dark side to this, and that is that once an artist reaches a level where they are in the top 0.1% of the field, it is hard to give any kind of meaningful critique.  If that artist wants to keep moving and not become stagnant, they have to find new areas/groups where they are now among peers.  I know of several such photographers who are or were members of our photo club &#8211; they regularly win all the club competitions, and then they either withdraw/pull back, or they leave the club to associate with &#8220;higher-level&#8221; beings.  The former still play a role as mentors, the latter we hear of occasionally when they send us notices of their exhibits.

In relation to Lew&#8217;s original post, perhaps the gurus here will consider taking the time to detail their thinking process and preparation when creating an image.  It is always educational to walk in someone else&#8217;s shoes (and that goes beyond photography).  How about some of the &#8220;out-takes&#8221;which didn&#8217;t make it to the gallery wall &#8211; why did they not succeed?  What was the thinking behind why image A was competition-worthy, and image B was not? I raise this suggestion because in our photo club, when we opened up the workshops to discuss the &#8220;genesis&#8221; of a shot, it really opened up my (and I&#8217;m sure many others) eyes at how much prep work goes into creating a really good shot.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 4, 2012)

I looked at slackercruster's stuff and while I liked some a lot and hated others, I have to respect him and his work, because he is working at it to show what he sees and not just trying to reflect what a mirror catches.

The image completely overwhelms what we might conceive of as technical faults.
Who cares about technical stuff being 'right'?
It's the image that is 'right'.

That's making art, you might not like it, it may not in some absolute terms be any good, but it is creating art.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 4, 2012)

Since this will get emailed to a lot of people, I'm just tagging this on the end.

If you have 20 minutes to read some truly excellent thought about being an artist, being an artisan and looking at your own cr@p shots, read this article and the featured comment s


----------



## PixelRabbit (Dec 4, 2012)

Interesting read and great food for thought Lew, thanks for posting it.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 4, 2012)

pgriz says many wise things.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 4, 2012)

Lew, I read your recent blog post, with your letter to AD Coleman, and I feel like I understand a little better where you're coming from.

A good part of the problem you're having, and which we all have, is that the form we're interested in doesn't exist as "art" any more. Galleries are interested in it only as retrospective pieces, as art history. Photography arrived in a fast-moving era, and most of the forms that it has taken are now in the past, like oil portraits and still lifes. There are plenty of people who paint in oils, there are plenty of people painting attractive arrangements of fruit and teapots in oil, but none of them is being hung in galleries. This is, arguably, for good reason. There is not much left to be said, artistically, by painting apples or by making straight photographs of El Capitan or waterfalls.

The leading voices in the art community aren't going to critique your painting of apples, or your b&w landscapes. There probably are small communities who will, but in both areas you are, essentially, a craftsman laboring away alone or in a small community of similar artisans. There's nothing wrong with this, it does not make you a bad person. It simply means that the thing you are interested in doing is not Artistically (with a capital A) interesting. I suspect that the painters of small oils can probably also find communities of not very good painters who will complain about their brushwork endlessly.

Photography actually enjoys much easier access to critique (albeit much noisier critique) because it is a kind of nerdy thing, and because it's popular for everyday documentary snapshooting.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 4, 2012)

amolitor said:


> The leading voices in the art community aren't going to critique your painting of apples, or your b&w landscapes.



My complaint is not so much that they are critiquing different things; it's that they are critiquing in mid air, essentially only in reference to what the artist might have achieved - or claims to have achieved.

There  is this enormous gap between what the photographers and critics are  saying about photography and what photography is actually doing. 

I  have complained before - and in that note - that I see criticism and  explanation and I look at the supposed source, the images, and see  really no relationship. 
The photographers and the critics are discussing  meanings and ideas that really don't seem to exist in any crafted form  in the original.

This is like my having a grandiose idea for a  sculpture, making a mediocre try at it and then making believe that the  sculpture really embodied the idea - in some grand collusion with the  critics. 

In so many cases, the only well developed concept is the text  because the images are just that terrible and terribly done. 

I am happy to sit at  the feet of real artists but I am totally not interested in being part  of some play where artists and critics all make up grand ideas about  what their art means - when the actual art itself doesn't exist.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 4, 2012)

Well, yeah, there's a basic problem with postmodernism, conceptual art, and so on. The thing is diminished, the idea is everything. It's possible to do interesting work in these areas, but a) it's hard b) it's hard to recognize and c) it's not photography (or painting, or sculpture, or whatever, it's just "art")


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 4, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Well, yeah, there's a basic problem with postmodernism, conceptual art, and so on. The thing is diminished, the idea is everything. It's possible to do interesting work in these areas, but a) it's hard b) it's hard to recognize and c) it's not photography (or painting, or sculpture, or whatever, it's just "art")



Postmodernists are the people who made the word "artist" almost derogatory, roll-your-eyes worthy. They're the hipsters in the coffee houses leeching internet to help create their next minimalist, ironic installation.

Like that English artist, can't remember her name. He had a piece f art that was basically a messy bed with bloody sheets and used condoms or something.

I mean, come on.  The absence of art is the new art. And it sucks...at least to me.

Sorry; I have a sister who's an artist working generally in ceramics and earthworks. When a piece of art that is basically a dollar bill being blown against a piece of glass by a leaf blower (true story) is given the same amount of recognition as one of her pieces that took 100+ hours to complete, I have to call bull****.


----------



## KenC (Dec 4, 2012)

amolitor said:


> There is not much left to be said, artistically, by painting apples or by making straight photographs of El Capitan or waterfalls.



I'm not so sure about this.  A famous photo class exercise is to try to copy a famous photograph.  The students usually find out that it is incredibly hard to do.  There are so many variations in how it is taken (equipment, angle of view, light, etc.) and also in how it is processed.  Pretty much everything has been photographed at this point, so if there is nothing left to say, what are we all doing?  I like to think we all express something of ourselves, our view of the world, or something in anything we do.  Of course there are carelessly taken photos that don't express anything at all, and the debate as to which is which could go on forever.  Some critics really have exalted some junk as art and I have to shake my head at some of it, but there is some sort of "art" to be made by all of us, even if no one famous really cares (see below).




amolitor said:


> The leading voices in the art community aren't going to critique your painting of apples, or your b&w landscapes.



Somehow I think I'll live!  Looking for recognition from a bunch of academic or celebrity dilettantes is a fool's errand.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 4, 2012)

I don't hold with measuring art by the amount of effort it takes to make it, but I basically agree.

That said, I think it IS possible to create interesting art in the conceptual way. There's a guy who does "art" that is basically training groups of people to hold conversations with museum patrons. I don't fully understand how it works, but there are aspects of performance to it (I think the hired people do things are preset times, in a sort of "flash mob" sort of way) and there are aspects of one-on-one conversation, and so on. The idea is to create, for the museum patron, this unique experience. You walk into the museum, someone approaches you, you talk, they might perform a monologue at some point, they will engage with you conversationally but direct the flow, and so on.

On the one hand there isn't anything physical there, where's the art? There is no art. On the other hand, from the patron's point of view, who cares? It's not like I get to take the paintings home with me. I come to the museum to have my mind engaged, to experience new things and ideas, to be forced to consider and thing. Also, to relax and spend some time in contemplation.

This guy's art (which is, by the way, quite complex and difficult to pull together, so the Effort component is there) gives me, the museum patron, all of that stuff. It doesn't give the museum anything physical, but that's not my problem.

Interestingly, it's relatively cheap. Yes, it might cost the museum a couple hundred grand to "buy" the piece and a few hundred grand more to stage it, but that's actually QUITE in line with the costs of hosting a traveling exhibit of work from another museum. So, in the end, it seems to be pretty much a win for everyone.

AND it's totally postmodern crapola!

I haven't experienced it myself, so I cannot vouch that it's actually any good. The idea sounds plausible, though. Even if this guy's work sucks, work like this could surely be made that was excellent.

ETA: Tino Sehgal is the artist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_Sehgal


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 4, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> I don't hold with measuring art by the amount of effort it takes to make it, but I basically agree.



I wasn't trying to say that time has a positive relationship to quality.

I meant that artists seem I have gotten lazy. "Art is soooo haaaarddd." 

And I don't mean just in the effort it takes to put a piece together. I'm talking about creative effort too. Having some vague metaphorical piece isn't creativity in my opinion. It's just laziness, because the artist can just explain it in the artist statement. Where's the intriguing mystery anymore?

All of these pieces that are suppose to be social commentary would be really great if they were actually interesting to look at.

It's like they're openly insulting the art viewers.

Anyways; I have a lot to say on postmodernism. It's the only art movement that I genuinely cannot stand.

Also, the artist I was talking about - her name is Tracey Emin. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracey_Emin


----------



## manaheim (Dec 4, 2012)

pgriz said:


> In relation to Lew&#8217;s original post, perhaps the gurus here will consider taking the time to detail their thinking process and preparation when creating an image.  It is always educational to walk in someone else&#8217;s shoes (and that goes beyond photography).  How about some of the &#8220;out-takes&#8221;which didn&#8217;t make it to the gallery wall &#8211; why did they not succeed?  What was the thinking behind why image A was competition-worthy, and image B was not? I raise this suggestion because in our photo club, when we opened up the workshops to discuss the &#8220;genesis&#8221; of a shot, it really opened up my (and I&#8217;m sure many others) eyes at how much prep work goes into creating a really good shot.



Nice post with many good points, but this almost makes me think of members interviewing other members... like a spotlight thing.  Like grab invisible or mish or bitter or someone who really produces some interesting stuff, and have everyone submit questions to one person who serves as some sort of panel moderator or something... and then have that person filter through the questions and pose them, then the person can writeup responses, maybe post some images that relate, etc.

I dunno.

Just a random spark in my brain.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 4, 2012)

manaheim said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > In relation to Lews original post, perhaps the gurus here will consider taking the time to detail their thinking process and preparation when creating an image.  It is always educational to walk in someone elses shoes (and that goes beyond photography).  How about some of the out-takeswhich didnt make it to the gallery wall  why did they not succeed?  What was the thinking behind why image A was competition-worthy, and image B was not? I raise this suggestion because in our photo club, when we opened up the workshops to discuss the genesis of a shot, it really opened up my (and Im sure many others) eyes at how much prep work goes into creating a really good shot.
> ...



Hey, sparks are good! (especially considering the alternative. ).  Although, I would think that this process may get bogged down in artsy-fartsy posing.  On the other hand, it might work.  You never know until you try.  I think guys like Bitter have enough sharp objects about them to pop any outburst of pretentious balloonery.  The point being, of course, that we learn from each other, challenge each other, and create enough ferment to push people into unexpected directions.  Yup, I think your idea has merit.  And Chris, how long have you been suffering from an outbreak of modesty?  You've got some good stuff to share, and if I recall, you did a really good writeup on night photography.  Plus, anyone with a D800 has GOT to take great pictures, right?


----------



## JAC526 (Dec 4, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You clearly just don't get it...geez.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 4, 2012)

PixelRabbit said:


> Interesting read and great food for thought Lew, thanks for posting it.



A handful of the commenters did most of the work on the article, and made the most salient and sensible points.

I thought this link in the comments was the most valuable aspect of the commentaries various readers left. Area Woman Finally Uploads All 12 Million Pictures Of Her Vacation To Europe On Facebook | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 5, 2012)

I was thinking sort of a similar thing.

It might be interesting if, individually, we could take an image that we think is successful and analyze how and why the final image came to be, why we did what we did, what we intended to show and, importantly, why we think the various elements support the impression we want to give.   

I do have sort of a model in mind and, if several of you are willing and interested, I will do an example and send it to you before posting so we can all do one in a similar way and then post them on one thread for comments.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 5, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tracey Emin


----------



## Demers18 (Dec 5, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> A handful of the commenters did most of the work on the article, and made the most salient and sensible points.
> 
> I thought this link in the comments was the most valuable aspect of the commentaries various readers left. Area Woman Finally Uploads All 12 Million Pictures Of Her Vacation To Europe On Facebook | The Onion - America's Finest News Source



I read that as well. I seriously don't understand how someone could actually post that many pictures and even take that many pictures on a 6 day trip. How would you even have the time to enjoy the present?


----------



## Demers18 (Dec 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> I was thinking sort of a similar thing.
> 
> It might be interesting if, individually, we could take an image that we think is successful and analyze how and why the final image came to be, why we did what we did, what we intended to show and, importantly, why we think the various elements support the impression we want to give.
> 
> I do have sort of a model in mind and, if several of you are willing and interested, I will do an example and send it to you before posting so we can all do one in a similar way and then post them on one thread for comments.



I'd be interested in trying this.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 5, 2012)

Demers18 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 The Onion is a humor site that specializes in tongue-in-cheek satire.
My guess that's what this was.


----------



## JAC526 (Dec 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I was thinking sort of a similar thing.
> 
> It might be interesting if, individually, we could take an image that we think is successful and analyze how and why the final image came to be, why we did what we did, what we intended to show and, importantly, why we think the various elements support the impression we want to give.
> 
> I do have sort of a model in mind and, if several of you are willing and interested, I will do an example and send it to you before posting so we can all do one in a similar way and then post them on one thread for comments.



I am willing to do this.  I want to progress to the point where I have a conceptual idea in my head for a shot and then have the ability to execute that idea.  I think this kind of approach helps with that.


----------



## Designer (Dec 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I was thinking sort of a similar thing.
> 
> It might be interesting if, individually, we could take an image that we think is successful and analyze how and why the final image came to be, why we did what we did, what we intended to show and, importantly, why we think the various elements support the impression we want to give.
> 
> I do have sort of a model in mind and, if several of you are willing and interested, I will do an example and send it to you before posting so we can all do one in a similar way and then post them on one thread for comments.



You and I and some others will agree, but how are you going to get everybody else to adhere to the model?

Assuming you haven't blocked my posts yet.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I was thinking sort of a similar thing.
> 
> It might be interesting if, individually, we could take an image that we think is successful and analyze how and why the final image came to be, why we did what we did, what we intended to show and, importantly, why we think the various elements support the impression we want to give.
> 
> I do have sort of a model in mind and, if several of you are willing and interested, I will do an example and send it to you before posting so we can all do one in a similar way and then post them on one thread for comments.



I'm game.  Where's the sign-up sheet?


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 5, 2012)

Well, just with the four of you, it seems like a go.

I don't care if people stick with any specific model.

I am doing an example just so others can get an idea how one completely self-absorbed person might look at his own picture.

 As soon as I can, probably by tomorrow PM, I will send my first try to you all.
When you get yours done or close, let me know and I'll start a thread and you can add yours into the thread.
We'll see what the response/interest is.

FYI, my picture will be a street/sports image in BW.

Lew


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 5, 2012)

These quick points came to me and I'll probably go with them.
You may have others, you may use many fewer or different ones.
These are just a structure that will really flesh out what goes behind a shot for me, how much is intent, purpose, chance, choice, artistry. 



why did I go to that spot?
what kind of shots was I looking for?
what equipment I chose to use - and why?
what was my intent when I took this shot, what did I hope to show?
How much was the final pre-envisioned when I took the original?
Original  shot
What kind of PPing did I do to get to the final?
Why did I make those choices?
Final shot
How did my PPing choices - composition, cropping, global changes, local changes - make the final shot better/worse?


----------



## Demers18 (Dec 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> The Onion is a humor site that specializes in tongue-in-cheek satire.
> My guess that's what this was.



That I'm fully aware of, but the fact that this person actually did that, unless untrue, is rediculous.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 5, 2012)

This might give you a hint about whether someone really took 12 million photos on a trip to Europe: A movie camera will shoot about 2 million frames a day if run 24 hours a day.


----------



## Overread (Dec 5, 2012)

GUYS - lookie really interesting thread here http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...on-critique-generating-ring-site-feature.html

well least it might be potentially interesting


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 6, 2012)

As a newbie to this forum ( a nice one, I might add), I am somewhat baffled as to the context of this discussion. One joins a photography forum to post their shots and hopefully get some decent critiques, suggestions of imrpovement or some well deserved kudos. The degree of expertise, or lack thereof should never be the issue, nor should the egocentricities of some members play a part in how one responds. What I most love about a forum is the ability to not make a comment; I don't have to like a work; I don't have to wonder as to the reasoning of a poster; I don't have to like everything; mostly, I don't have to be liked by everyone to be a contributing member. Just my opinion.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 6, 2012)

ceeboy14 said:
			
		

> As a newbie to this forum ( a nice one, I might add), I am somewhat baffled as to the context of this discussion. One joins a photography forum to post their shots and hopefully get some decent critiques, suggestions of imrpovement or some well deserved kudos. The degree of expertise, or lack thereof should never be the issue, nor should the egocentricities of some members play a part in how one responds. What I most love about a forum is the ability to not make a comment; I don't have to like a work; I don't have to wonder as to the reasoning of a poster; I don't have to like everything; mostly, I don't have to be liked by everyone to be a contributing member. Just my opinion.



Yes but it's the issue that some more eccentric or popular members will get comments on their posts regardless of the content. It could be a snapshot of a piece of toast and it would get comments. 

But I see a lot of newer or less prominent members post something pretty awesome but get no comments.

It's not always an issue of liking the photos or not.


----------



## runnah (Dec 6, 2012)

10 pages, jeez. Anyone want to sum this up for me?


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 6, 2012)

runnah said:
			
		

> 10 pages, jeez. Anyone want to sum this up for me?



TPF is like high school.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 6, 2012)

runnah said:


> 10 pages, jeez. Anyone want to sum this up for me?



It's a lot of talk about critiqueing, without actual critiqueing. Which changes nothing.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 6, 2012)

Just give critique the way you would like to get critique. It works for me.

Complicated systems are interesting, but I don't think they're very practical. Don't get me wrong, I encourage you to go for it. I most likely won't take part, though, because I'm not much of a "system" guy, and my availability of time and my interest are sdufficiently random to prevent me from committing to any sort of scheduled or organized critique.

Modeling the behavior you'd like to see is, on the other hand, pretty effective. TPF critique has changed a lot over the last six months, for the better.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 6, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> ceeboy14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




When I was a teacher, there were students who got all the attention, all the kudos, all the scholarships..yadda-yadda-yadda. It was rarely because they excelled as much as because others reveled their glory - parents, influential members of society, etc. The regular students most often put out the best work for me even though they weren't in accelerated programs or were housed with the Top Ten of their class; they had to work harder to get to the same place. It is the nature of man that some live at the top, a lot more at the bottom and a great many in the middle. Call it a photographic caste system but it exists in every forum I've ever enjoined with. 

I just left one for exactly the reason you are describing. A lot of crap was getting great attention and a lot of really good stuff was often panned. Mostly I left because the comments were often limited to: Oh, that's great! good god, what does that tell a photographer? My advice is to do your best to speak your feelings about as much work as you can. I think everyone deserves a comment about their work, even if the comment tends toward the stinging side. You can't grow if you don't know.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 6, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > 10 pages, jeez. Anyone want to sum this up for me?
> ...




Actually that's just a facile comment, unfortunately typical of your participation, to make your own attitude look good.

No one has to participate in the discussion and, if it encourages people to do more or ask for more it's good.

OTOH, look at your vibrations thread, lots of great pictures, lots of interactions - but what is the eventual good to anyone who participates or looks?

If you don't think this is worthwhile, unsubscribe and don't read it.

Let whoever wants to do something, do it and stop trying to make your attitude seem like the 'cool' thing. 

To summarize, this entire thread has been about encouraging the people who can do good critique to do it, to tell the people who are just finding their way to understand that trying to critique is the best way to progress in their own artistic vision and lastly, to encourage the people who want more critique to learn how to ask for it.


----------



## runnah (Dec 6, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > 10 pages, jeez. Anyone want to sum this up for me?
> ...



Thanks, I'll go back to making inane comments with vague sexual undertones.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 6, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > 10 pages, jeez. Anyone want to sum this up for me?
> ...



I have to agree with you there. What's the point of an empty expression..."it's great or Nice, or gee, I wish I'd shot that." Photographers at every level should share what they know, how they do something, ask good questions and work toward building their abilities and not rest on their laurels. I recently read that 70% of all the photographs ever taken, were taken within this year's time period. That's staggering but it goes to show the influence of the digital world. But, of all the photos taken, there are but a precious few of truly stunning catches, catches that the regular, everyday photographer cannot ever hope to attain uless they are given good guidance through good critique.


----------



## runnah (Dec 6, 2012)

ceeboy14 said:


> What's the point of an empty expression..."it's great or Nice, or gee, I wish I'd shot that."



Despite how I appear I don't always have the most thought provoking things to say. It's takes 10 second of my life to say "Nice job on the photos" and hit submit. 

Will my verbal gems inspire them to greatness? No, probably not. 
Will it make their day a little brighter and encourage them to keep taking photos? Yes I'd like to think so.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 6, 2012)

I would like to add one more thing that I actively try to do, which is to give critique to newbies, to people I don't recognize, and to people who have not given my critique. I have a very very short list of people I won't critique because I think they are pests, but I really try to spread my critique time around a bit.

It's tempting to give critique mostly or only to people you like and respect, and that's not fair, that's not modeling the good behavior I want to see. I don't critique everything, but a long shot, and I am certainly unbalanced, but I do try to spread the love around a bit, at least.


----------



## Designer (Dec 7, 2012)

Gee, I don't know if there's room for another pointless post, but Andrew's post above sparked another thought:

When I see photos that are far superior to anything I can do, I feel self-conscious in offering criticism, and kind of silly parroting the "great work" kind of post, but I also recognize that the artist appreciates compliments as well as helpful criticism.

On the other hand, when I see a photo that holds no hope of being any good whatsoever, I feel like I may be wasting my time, unless I am the first to respond, and I try to "project" into the mind of the photographer to divine his level of competency so that my remarks might actually be of some help if it seems the poster is actually trying and is receptive to constructive criticism.  

If it is someone I remember offering some criticism in the past that wasn't well received, then I probably won't subject myself to another pointless argument.


----------

