Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: wmchauncey on November 07, 2015, 02:30:29 pm
-
My pre-retirement career revolved around giving anesthesia, it was easy to measure one's level of competence...
the patient either lived or not. Was a black or white issue...no middle ground, no gray areas.
The frustrating aspect of photography/art is the difficulty in measuring our level of competency...
if we do this as a hobby, as do I, it is measured simply by opinion polling data.
The professionals have it somewhat easier...does your stuff sell.
Am I missing another method?
-
A vast amount of the photography on LuLa is the equivalent of anesthesia. You should feel right at home. Why are you worrying about your level of competence? What does that mean? Are you satisfied with your photographs? If so, enjoy. Do you need extra income from sales of your pictures? If not, relax. Nobody nowadays is going to make big bucks on photography unless he's become a favored teddy bear on one or more of the big auction houses. Since you're retired, don't sweat it. Just go shoot pictures.
-
A vast amount of the photography on LuLa is the equivalent of anesthesia...
Ouch! ;D
-
Not you, Slobodan. You sometimes do some pretty good work. But, let's face it, an awful lot of the stuff in User Critiques is tourist photography -- the kind of stuff people used to bore their dinner guests with, using a slide projector and 35mm transparencies from an Argus C3, and going on and on while the guests yawned and fought to stay awake. "See that hump back there. That's the Mingus Mountains." You may not be old enough to remember that kind of thing, but you often can experience the equivalent in User Critiques.
-
..You sometimes do some pretty good work...
Ouch, again! ;D ;D ;D
P.S. I don't mind, Russ, you are correct, none of us is capable of consistently producing only good work... just couldn't resist joking about it
-
Okay, fairly often. ;D ;D ;D
-
I imagine you are oversimplifying anesthesiology and, hopefully, you didn't have too many failures - at least fewer than than 34 of 36 "failures" in photography, so to speak!!
In one sense, given my style of photographing nature and outdoors, primarily landscapes, I hope my work is calming (but not too anesthetic.) Anyone can shoot shocking, repulsive, make-you-think photography - just take a camera on to any one of a number of street corners and back-alleys of any major city: the shock and awe stare us in the face. I know it's Dangerous to say "anyone", but it's actually easier than one thinks, the users of Lu-La just don't seem to choose that path, at least not by the work shown here.
Much of the photography we see here is competent, but pedestrian, but that's part of the raison d'être of this site: for users to learn from the feedback they get. It's interesting to note how some people post photos, receive feedback, perhaps not to their liking, and we never hear from them again. Others post and build feedback into what they are doing and are better for it. I can't begin to imagine all I have learned at LuLa, not just from posting my own photos, but from reading feedback from others.
As far as one's own photography, yes, it is tough to measure - and a $$ figure only measure success in one way. I measure my own work by asking myself two questions: Has this been "done" before? If so, how can I make it different, my own? More often than not, it has been "done" already, but not where I live and/or not in these circumstances and if it has, I work to make it unique, but true to my own vision. Yes, they are "pretty" pics for the most part, and I don't apologize for that. But I do know that people do think differently after seeing my work, not radically different, but it does open their eyes to different ways of seeing places they've been to a dozen times before.
I also use many of the fine photographers here as a yardstick. Is the work I'm doing on par with some of the regular posters here of compelling work? Not usually, but sometimes. Hopefully it's improving over the years!
-
"My pre-retirement career revolved around giving anesthesia, it was easy to measure one's level of competence...
the patient either lived or not. Was a black or white issue...no middle ground, no gray areas.
The frustrating aspect of photography/art is the difficulty in measuring our level of competency...
if we do this as a hobby, as do I, it is measured simply by opinion polling data.
The professionals have it somewhat easier...does your stuff sell.
Am I missing another method?"
............................................
Russ is right, of course, for the reasons that LuxBorealis mentions:
"Much of the photography we see here is competent, but pedestrian, but that's part of the raison d'être of this site: for users to learn from the feedback they get."
So far, so good, but if you really believe that somebody else's work is going to improve your own, I think you have another serious disappointment on the horizon!
The best that other people's work can do for you is twofold:
1. it can open your eyes to genres that you might dig;
2. it can show you the state of the art in those genres.
After that, you're out on your own, baby! If you really think you see improvement in your work, it's because you are doing more of it, not because you allow others to clone you into their ways of doing whatever, and in fact I don't believe you consciously could, even if you wanted so to do. For example: I love Sarah Moon, her feminine touches and vision, her handling of her models; I can no more pretend to have learned anything from her than from St Ansel. I just look at her work and love her for her talent. Ditto Haas, Avedon, Frank. Nothing of theirs comes out in my work, neither as pro nor amateur.
Measuring competence is an attempt to measure art, to measure something we can't even define!
Rob C
-
I can't really speak for anyone else, but I found that my photography improved immeasurably when I started to figure out what I actually wanted to do. What the endpoint was.
Just going around trying to take "good photos" without some idea of what "good" is, and in general what the point of it all is, was getting me nowhere.
-
My pre-retirement career revolved around giving anesthesia, it was easy to measure one's level of competence...
the patient either lived or not. Was a black or white issue...no middle ground, no gray areas.
You're very kind: most anaesthetists I worked with were capable of finding a way to blame the surgeon if the patient didn't wake up.
Rob is overly harsh, though:
So far, so good, but if you really believe that somebody else's work is going to improve your own, I think you have another serious disappointment on the horizon!
Someone else's work obviously can't improve mine. But looking at other people's photography, learning why their images are more pleasing than mine, listening to the critiques of my photographs made by those people and responding to that information: those can improve mine, and I like to think that in the decade I've spent reading articles and forum comments here have indeed done that.
Maybe I'm deluding myself and my photographs are as bad as they ever were. I know of surgeons who claim that good surgeons are born, not made, and that delicacy of touch can't be taught. I think they're wrong; and I think that the suggestion that the ability to improve the quality one's photographic output can't be taught or learned is wrong, too.
Jeremy
-
I can't really speak for anyone else, but I found that my photography improved immeasurably when I started to figure out what I actually wanted to do. What the endpoint was.
Just going around trying to take "good photos" without some idea of what "good" is, and in general what the point of it all is, was getting me nowhere.
That's it: that fits exactly into my point no. 1 above. It's about self, understanding clearly what the personal goal might be. It was my own salvation too.
Rob
-
You're very kind: most anaesthetists I worked with were capable of finding a way to blame the surgeon if the patient didn't wake up.
Rob is overly harsh, though:
Someone else's work obviously can't improve mine. But looking at other people's photography, learning why their images are more pleasing than mine, listening to the critiques of my photographs made by those people and responding to that information: those can improve mine, and I like to think that in the decade I've spent reading articles and forum comments here have indeed done that.
Maybe I'm deluding myself and my photographs are as bad as they ever were. I know of surgeons who claim that good surgeons are born, not made, and that delicacy of touch can't be taught. I think they're wrong; and I think that the suggestion that the ability to improve the quality one's photographic output can't be taught or learned is wrong, too.
Jeremy
Listening: yes, but what's the value in those voices? As many have already mentioned, the overall standard doesn't take your breath way... can often remind me of the dumb teaching the deaf to sing.
I think your surgeons are correct: that's native talent, not learning. Just as my wife could always rustle up fantastic meals whenever somebody dropped in unexpectedly etc. etc. Her mother wasn't bad, and neither was mine, but she could leave both of them standing, and do everything so very quickly, too. The surprising part of this was that she never seemed to have actually had to stand and watch anyone cook in order to know how to do it. I base this last assumption on us having been an item since she was fifteen, so I do know a bit about her, and where her time was spent.
If by 'improving the quality' you are referring to technique, as in exposing, processing, I'd agree, but that's all far too late in the image-making process, which starts in the mind and the eye. Technique is neither visual recognition nor is it creativity, and those are the foundations of good photography, whether reportage, studied and contrived, or simply 'on the wing'.
IMO!
Rob C
-
I can't really speak for anyone else, but I found that my photography improved immeasurably when I started to figure out what I actually wanted to do. What the endpoint was.
Just going around trying to take "good photos" without some idea of what "good" is, and in general what the point of it all is, was getting me nowhere.
I'd fully agree with that, in fact I rarely take a photo unless it has purpose nowadays and I think the only way I would return to doing it just for the sake of doing so is if I got a darkroom set up again for B&W prints.
-
Sometimes I take photos because it gets me out of the house where I can think clearer.
-
A vast amount of the photography on LuLa is the equivalent of anesthesia
I can't say that I would dispute that opinion, however...it would not be limited to LuLu.
-
The frustrating aspect of photography/art is the difficulty in measuring our level of competency...
if we do this as a hobby, as do I, it is measured simply by opinion polling data.
The professionals have it somewhat easier...does your stuff sell.
Am I missing another method?
In answer to the OP's question, yes. Yes, there is another method: Does it satisfy you?
As long as our photographs continue to satisfy ourselves, then our level of competency is good, even increasing. When I pull a 40X60 off my Epson 9800 and go WOW!, it feels just as good as that day long ago when I saw my very first good print appear in a tray of Dektol.
As long as we continue to wow ourselves, we're competent. After all, the only judge that really matters is us. We are the most competent judge of our own competency.
-
Listening: yes, but what's the value in those voices? As many have already mentioned, the overall standard doesn't take your breath way... can often remind me of the dumb teaching the deaf to sing.
I think your surgeons are correct: that's native talent, not learning. Just as my wife could always rustle up fantastic meals whenever somebody dropped in unexpectedly etc. etc. Her mother wasn't bad, and neither was mine, but she could leave both of them standing, and do everything so very quickly, too. The surprising part of this was that she never seemed to have actually had to stand and watch anyone cook in order to know how to do it. I base this last assumption on us having been an item since she was fifteen, so I do know a bit about her, and where her time was spent.
If by 'improving the quality' you are referring to technique, as in exposing, processing, I'd agree, but that's all far too late in the image-making process, which starts in the mind and the eye. Technique is neither visual recognition nor is it creativity, and those are the foundations of good photography, whether reportage, studied and contrived, or simply 'on the wing'.
I suspect, Rob, that the difference between us isn't as stark as it might appear. I certainly don't deny that there is such a thing as native talent; the surgeon who was particularly known for making that comment, Sir Magdi Yacoub, had it in spades. But an understanding of what makes "good" photography can be acquired.
I wasn't referring only to technique, although I certainly have learned a lot of that. I was referring also to knowledge of composition, of lighting; of seeing others' work and analysing, sometimes for myself and sometimes with their and others' assistance, why their photographs appealed to me so much more than mine did.
Nature v nurture. Not a new debate.
Jeremy
-
As long as our photographs continue to satisfy ourselves, then our level of competency is good, even increasing.
That is true only if the individual concerned has insight; and insight is a rare commodity.
Jeremy
-
That is true only if the individual concerned has insight; and insight is a rare commodity.
Jeremy
This is best illustrated by American Idol. People have access to professional songs. They probably even have access to preproduction or acoustic tracks from professional singers. And yet, not all of those awful singers auditioning were purely trying to get on TV; some of them honestly couldnt tell when they listened to themselves that they sounded bad.
-
That is true only if the individual concerned has insight; and insight is a rare commodity.
Jeremy
Jeremy
I agree, and in doing so, suggest that you are actually agreeing with my own view, too! To all extents and purposes, swap 'insight' for 'talent' (in the sense of seeing ability) and you are talking about the same, unbuyable/unlearnable quality.
Ability, in the sense of technique can, of course be taught and learned. The true autodidact is a more rare creature.
Rob
-
This is best illustrated by American Idol. People have access to professional songs. They probably even have access to preproduction or acoustic tracks from professional singers. And yet, not all of those awful singers auditioning were purely trying to get on TV; some of them honestly couldnt tell when they listened to themselves that they sounded bad.
It's known as the Dunning Kruger effect. Those who are bad at something don't appreciate how bad they are; those who are good underestimate how difficult it is to do what they're good at.
The cognitive defect that makes bad singers bad - tone deafness, in short - is the defect that makes them fail to appreciate how bad they are.
Jeremy
-
Dunning Kruger effect
I had to Google that term as I have never before encountered it. It almost indicates inadequate prefrontal cortex development.
-
Tone-deafness is an extension of the Dunning Kruger that I hadn't thought of.. but yeah. Another example: I was crazy enough to write a novel in French. To me, it reads really well. My friends like the story, but tell me the language pretty much sucks: I simply don't have the life-time of exposure to the language to know what "sounds right" and what doesn't.
And in a way, it's somewhat arbitrary: for the most part, the grammar is correct, it's just that the way I choose to say things is recognisably not the way a francophone would say it, so a francophone does not like it. A Romanian friend who speaks fluent French along with a long list of other languages has no problem with it because she doesn't have such a tight expectation of how something "should" be said.
So... to what extent is an aesthetic judgement of a photo absolute or relative to expectation and habit? I expect it's mostly the second, even if certain "rules" of composition tend to be a useful guide. Then to go beyond that and decide whether it is "art"... hmm.
PS: patient waking up during the procedure is also a bad outcome, although where you rate it between "all good" and "dead" is a bit challenging (I used to work in clinical epidemiology... you get to think about quite worrying scenarios at times).
-
The frustrating aspect of photography/art is the difficulty in measuring our level of competency...
The concept of measuring art is a contentious one. Personally, I don't think there is an objective way of measuring art competency. There are ways of measuring technique and other technical qualities of art. But art itself is subjective.
In your case, find out who you are creating the photography for... and strive to make that person happy with your art.
For my photography, that person is me.
It is just a shame that I am such a hard to please dick at times. ;D
If this is your hobby, shoot for yourself
Good luck with it.
-
We all shoot for ourself...in the beginning. But there comes a time when we ask if self-satisfaction is enough.
We crave the accolades of our peers...then we wonder if our peers are competent.
In the end, the only way to grade our stuff is to properly market it and see if it sells.
-
My pre-retirement career revolved around giving anesthesia, it was easy to measure one's level of competence...
the patient either lived or not.
You must have been a VERY BAD anaesthetist!
Were you really only worried about whether the patient lived or died? What about how much pain he felt or what after-effects he experienced?
I had an experience where the anaesthetic was shot into the cannula just as the BP cuff on the same arm was at full compression. For a moment I wished I could die!
-
In the end, the only way to grade our stuff is to properly market it and see if it sells.
Absolute and complete disagreement. Sales figures do not indicate quality. Witness the high sales of black velvet airbrush paintings and the rest of the crap we see in high-volume mall art stores.
If your art is art to you, it's art.
-
If your art is art to you, it's art.
At which point, we have completed a hundred-years of hollowing-out any meaning from the word "art".
-
Well, you can always ask someone who loves you whether they like it.
-
Interesting conversation.
I know a lot of the stuff I like and shoot is probably thought of as fluff or tourist pics but I try not to let that bother me. Just like the hard hitting photos of people in crisis and living on the streets, it's not for everyone. I live in a town that relies heavily on a tourist economy so the postcard photos tend to do well. The tourists like and buy my work to take a little piece of the valley back home with them. When I make the images I'm usually enjoying myself on a mountain top or riverside or some other scenic spot at sunrise or sunset. It's good for the soul and looking at the photo takes me back there again but without all the effort of actually climbing that mountain.
I also like these kinds of images from others if they were able to put themselves in the right place at the right time and tick all the technicalities boxes. That's basically what Adams did, isn't it?
What if the message I want to convey is "Holy shit, it's beautiful here!"? Does that make me or my work shallow?
-
At which point, we have completed a hundred-years of hollowing-out any meaning from the word "art".
You're welcome. :)
-
At which point, we have completed a hundred-years of hollowing-out any meaning from the word "art".
"Art" has never had any meaning standing by itself, Isaac. It always has to be connected with something concrete.
-
"Art" never had had any meaning standing by itself, Isaac. It always has to be connected with something concrete.
or, at a push, marble.
-
I had an experience where the anaesthetic was shot into the cannula just as the BP cuff on the same arm was at full compression. For a moment I wished I could die!
Based on your troll-like comment, I would have done that on purpose.
-
...What if the message I want to convey is "Holy shit, it's beautiful here!"? Does that make me or my work shallow?
Not at all. That's how I shoot. I see something interesting and beautiful and try to capture it hoping others can find it interesting and beautiful as well. In the end, art is mainly about aesthetics. At least landscape photography.
-
My pre-retirement career revolved around giving anesthesia, it was easy to measure one's level of competence...
the patient either lived or not. Was a black or white issue...no middle ground, no gray areas.
A heavy hand has made more than one patient sick to various degrees...very much shades of gray from the patients point of view. Just saying.
Peter
-
Based on your troll-like comment, I would have done that on purpose.
So, everyone who disagrees with your very limited view is a "troll".
I think you have just said more about your mental state than I ever could.
Commiserations.
-
That is in fact what 'troll' means. It means someone who disagrees with me.
Of course, people who use the term lie about the meaning, but that is what it means, almost without exception.
-
The most frustrating thing about photography/art?
Reading comments on the Internets Tubes......
I think I was a much happier photographer before the advent of the Internet. ;)
-
Not all photography have to be "important" like photo journalism from crisis situations in the world. It's hard to make important art from landscape photography. I know of one that has succeeded though, Edward Burtynsky. But that artistic concept is already occupied by him, so you have to come up with something else :).
You can make photographic art in many ways.
Some see each photograph as a single piece of art which has no connection to any other picture or context, much like an isolated piece of music. Say a beautiful sunset on a famous location, and the art is that beautiful well-made image you're looking at. Artist statements are things like "enrich people's lives with beauty", and if that seems too shallow you may add things like "remind people about the fragile environment, reconnect people with nature" etc.
Another approach is to have themes, or "projects" where the context of each image becomes important and the art lies not only in each image isolated but as a group. This context can be very specific, or very vague. I prefer projects myself where you can see some sort of "artistic concept" and that images belong together, and that concept as a whole is more important than that every picture in the group is that "great".
I also think originality has value. Traveling around the world to capture the most beautiful places in the most beautiful light with well-established composition techniques may be nice, but I think it's hard to create great art this way as there's so many before you that has done it already, and is doing it.
That is I think that the actual photographs are only carrier of an artistic idea or concept, and the "quality" of the art is much, sometimes more, about that concept than how good the images are as such.
-
The frustrating aspect of photography/art is the difficulty in measuring our level of competency...
I find it hard to directly gague my level of competency. I can always look at someone else's work and see where they are doing things better than me. And I look at my own work and see all the areas it could have been better. I've reached a point where i know I am a good photographer, but I don't know what level of good I am at.
I guess I tend to rely on my own taste. I am always in competition with myself to do better work this year than I did last year. I know I can't clearly quantify my level of competency so instead I think in terms of trending quality. Am I getting better at what I do? If so, then I'm headed in the right direction. If not, I need to work harder.
All i can do is to try to see better and create images that communicate what I see. Actually mybe it is more important to see more deeply or more carefully than it is to worry about how competent I am. It is up to others to determine if my work is good.
-
Although I have never officially entered a competition, I will occasionally submit my stuff to a jury committee.
-
It's known as the Dunning Kruger effect. Those who are bad at something don't appreciate how bad they are; those who are good underestimate how difficult it is to do what they're good at.
The cognitive defect that makes bad singers bad - tone deafness, in short - is the defect that makes them fail to appreciate how bad they are.
Jeremy
This is a strange situation in which to find oneself.
I have never been able to sing, and even playing the guitar was six steps beyond me. But, despite these personal inabilities, I love music, have it on all the time, and cringe when I listen to a record where I can hear, a couple of beats ahead of the event, that the poor old canary is going to fall into exactly the same pit into which I would also be falling, had I not realised so long ago that it was all beyond me.
But, as I can hear/feel that the singer is unavoidably going to fluff it, am I still tone deaf?
Rob C
-
This is a strange situation in which to find oneself.
I have never been able to sing, and even playing the guitar was six steps beyond me. But, despite these personal inabilities, I love music, have it on all the time, and cringe when I listen a record where I can hear, a couple of beats ahead of the event, that the poor old canary is going to fall into exactly the same pit into which I would also be falling, had I not realised so long ago that it was all beyond me.
But, as I can hear/feel that the singer is unavoidably going to fluff it, am I still tone deaf?
Rob C
Maybe you are just tone mute. ;)
-
Maybe you are just tone mute. ;)
Never heard (!) of that; but hey, it sounds logical...
Funny thing: bumped into my Cuban tenor player friend at lunchtime today, and he asked me if I'd like to show up on Christmas Day when the jazz group he plays in has a gig at the local yacht club. Last Xmas was the last time I heard them, and in the same venue; I remember standing outside in the freezing cold chatting to the Argentinian keyboard ace as he had a smoke, prohibited indoors, and I never saw him again after that show: took himself out a few days later. Music seems as tough - to say the least - as photography on many levels. Perhaps that's a reason the two tribes seem to gell quite nicely.
;-) ;-(
Rob C
-
Never heard (!) of that; but hey, it sounds logical...
Funny thing: bumped into my Cuban tenor player friend at lunchtime today, and he asked me if I'd like to show up on Christmas Day when the jazz group he plays in has a gig at the local yacht club. Last Xmas was the last time I heard them, and in the same venue; I remember standing outside in the freezing cold chatting to the Argentinian keyboard ace as he had a smoke, prohibited indoors, and I never saw him again after that show: took himself out a few days later. Music seems as tough - to say the least - as photography on many levels. Perhaps that's a reason the two tribes seem to gell quite nicely.
;-) ;-(
Rob C
I just made it up but I think it could be a real thing. Sad story, too many examples like that.
-
Frustration comes from different sources, too. It can come from knowing that you'd be better off with different equipment that you don't want to buy; it can come from knowing that your skill in some specific area is letting you down, there's so much on the technical list that can ruin it for you.
But that's open to alteration: you can stump up for the equipment, or go for lessons in technical methods.
What you can't do, is spring-clean your mind. The frustration that comes with basic indecision is very real: what about the situation when you think you want to do something (I mean in the sense of genres), and when you begin, you find yourself distracted by something else? Should you waste the new and present urge in order to follow through on the original idea, or stake everything on the latest one? Should you even care, and perhaps just fly on the edge of now? (I speak from the amateur standpoint.) I find that I set out, sometimes, with an open mind and come home without having switched on the camera. Is this a failure or simply an appreciation of the fact that inspìration isn't always holding your hand? I've heard people discount inspiration as being something unreal, that you can always go shoot something wonderful if you have the mind so to do. I don't think so. Yes, you can always shoot a technically competent image, obviously enough, but that's not the point, is it?
Maybe the trouble stems from the very idea of genre: what do I do, what am I good at, why should I do something different and perhaps not as well? Do we have to shake it: do whatever we see and think works? Be the photographic magpie?
I spent a few hours in the island's capital last week - after a very long time away from it - and found it quite photographically stimulating. But, but... too much stuff around, offering itself up to you for the taking. So, a little bit of this, a little bit of that, and not really enough of anything in particular. From some colourful walls, a few fountains, a couple of people shots; images through windows catching fleeting sketches of life within and without... Should I go back, it will not be like that (I think, now!) again: I'll stand in a specific street, concentrate on a small selection of windows where the reflections are interesting and just wait, like a fisherman. But without a canvas stool. I think it would be far more productive. Save on shoes, too.
But hey, am I not straight back into genre?
Rob C
-
Photography is ultimately about speaking with your own voice. Woody Allen refused an oscar on the basis that it was not about objective judgement but about 'favouritism'. Read the sententious, pompous, self-important, 'critiques' on any photo web site and discover the minds of true jackasses who believe they are clever enough to tell other photographers what voice they should speak with. These critiques just trot out a personal favouritism.
Trust your own voice and learn how to express yourself with a camera. There is no right or wrong. The worst crime in photography is to follow someone else's voice rather than your own. Above all ignore the jackasses who set themselves up as 'experts'. Don't waste time reading all that garbage about what camera or lens or tripod to buy. They are no more important than a toothbrush or a house painter's brush. What matters is what you do with that small box with a hunk of glass attached to it. There is no best camera, no best lens, no best post processing software. There is just you and what you want to say about the world around you with a camera. The 'experts' have so polluted the waters that inexperienced photographers are afraid to just follow their instinct.
If you don't feel that instinctive call to use a camera to tell your story about the world around you then perhaps its not the best craft to follow. Above all don't be afraid of 'bad' technique. Rembrandt was roundly criticised for his later portraits because people believed he had 'lost it' He hadn't. He just didn't give a monkey's about following a set of rules promoted and policed by jackasses.
-
Photography is ultimately about speaking with your own voice. Woody Allen refused an oscar on the basis that it was not about objective judgement but about 'favouritism'. Read the sententious, pompous, self-important, 'critiques' on any photo web site and discover the minds of true jackasses who believe they are clever enough to tell other photographers what voice they should speak with. These critiques just trot out a personal favouritism.
Trust your own voice and learn how to express yourself with a camera. There is no right or wrong. The worst crime in photography is to follow someone else's voice rather than your own. Above all ignore the jackasses who set themselves up as 'experts'. Don't waste time reading all that garbage about what camera or lens or tripod to buy. They are no more important than a toothbrush or a house painter's brush. What matters is what you do with that small box with a hunk of glass attached to it. There is no best camera, no best lens, no best post processing software. There is just you and what you want to say about the world around you with a camera. The 'experts' have so polluted the waters that inexperienced photographers are afraid to just follow their instinct.
All this seems to me way too categorical...
In my user settings, the "Ignore users in my ignore list" checkbox is cleared -- because I'll never fill that list... Because when even a person that behaves like a, to quote you, "jackass", comments on, say, my image and explains what he/she thinks is wrong with it, I will listen to him. Not necessarily agree, of course, but listen and think about it. Why not? To disregard an extra piece of information is IMHO unwise.
If, on the other hand, a renowned master of photography simply tells me he/she does not like my image and offers no explanation, I'll most probably ignore that. Tastes differ.
If you don't feel that instinctive call to use a camera to tell your story about the world around you then perhaps its not the best craft to follow. Above all don't be afraid of 'bad' technique. Rembrandt was roundly criticised for his later portraits because people believed he had 'lost it' He hadn't. He just didn't give a monkey's about following a set of rules promoted and policed by jackasses.
Well... Later prints by Ansel Adams were widely criticized for being too contrasty/punchy. He did not listen to anyone, was going to redo all his earlier prints, and has lost his long-time assistant largely because of arguments over that. And you know what? It has been discovered he has developed eyesight problems (cataract IIRC) that affected his judgement.
Was he right in ignoring everyone's advice? If he was doing prints only for himself, then yeah, sure. But I somehow doubt that... I believe he just thought that everyone around him was plain wrong.
-
Photography is ultimately about speaking with your own voice. Woody Allen refused an oscar on the basis that it was not about objective judgement but about 'favouritism'. Read the sententious, pompous, self-important, 'critiques' on any photo web site and discover the minds of true jackasses who believe they are clever enough to tell other photographers what voice they should speak with. These critiques just trot out a personal favouritism.
Trust your own voice and learn how to express yourself with a camera. There is no right or wrong. The worst crime in photography is to follow someone else's voice rather than your own. Above all ignore the jackasses who set themselves up as 'experts'. Don't waste time reading all that garbage about what camera or lens or tripod to buy. They are no more important than a toothbrush or a house painter's brush. What matters is what you do with that small box with a hunk of glass attached to it. There is no best camera, no best lens, no best post processing software. There is just you and what you want to say about the world around you with a camera. The 'experts' have so polluted the waters that inexperienced photographers are afraid to just follow their instinct.
If you don't feel that instinctive call to use a camera to tell your story about the world around you then perhaps its not the best craft to follow. Above all don't be afraid of 'bad' technique. Rembrandt was roundly criticised for his later portraits because people believed he had 'lost it' He hadn't. He just didn't give a monkey's about following a set of rules promoted and policed by jackasses.
Nicely put.
I think the photography community would benefit if we paid a little less attention to what other photographers choose to do or not do.
However, to pick a nit, I am not aware of any Oscar that Mr. Allen refused. Has has consistently (with one exception) declined to attend the ceremonies. The reasons why are still debatable. But in an any case declining to attend a ceremony is not the same as declining the award. Mr. Allen has stated that he has a low opinion of the award and how it is awarded.
-
I think the photography community would benefit if we paid a little less attention to what other photographers choose to do or not do.
I believe not reading any photography-related forums should be big part of that... ;)
-
I believe not reading any photography-related forums should be big part of that... ;)
Ha! Imagine if there would be a timer that counted the hours I've spent on this forum. I don't want to know, I really don't want to know...
I pretend that it's a form of relaxing entertainment and that I would otherwise watch fail videos on youtube.
-
My previous reply was censored as I used intemperate language to describe those who set themselves up as arbiters of what is good and bad in photography. I promise to behave better! What I wanted to say is that you should not worry about any external measures of judgement however offensive that is to some people. If you find you voice and speak with it, that is enough. That's really all that matters.
-
Ha! Imagine if there would be a timer that counted the hours I've spent on this forum...
Why imagine!? I can help you with that: 47 days, 14 hours and 5 minutes :)
-
Why imagine!? I can help you with that: 47 days, 14 hours and 5 minutes :)
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
-
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I would suggest that a lot of forum members, myself included, are glad that you did.