Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: stamper on January 31, 2010, 05:24:07 am
-
I have been lurking and posting here for a few years. A lot of good information and some not so good? A lot of posters come across really well and they write what seems to be knowledgeable information. What I would really like to see how good they really are as photographers? Michael could you make it a condition of membership that every so often a member should be compelled to post an image proving that they can take good images? This would mean that they would be taken more seriously as posters?
-
I have been lurking and posting here for a few years. A lot of good information and some not so good? A lot of posters come across really well and they write what seems to be knowledgeable information. What I would really like to see how good they really are as photographers? Michael could you make it a condition of membership that every so often a member should be compelled to post an image proving that they can take good images? This would mean that they would be taken more seriously as posters?
Hi,
To me, this idea would only have a discrimination effect. And, who judge if a picture is good or not? I think the all sense of a forum like this is to meet and share at any level, not to divide. If it has to be a kind of select club of the "good ones" it would end in a sad monologue.
I went to MF room to get some informations because I'm planning a move to MF or LF. In this area, I'm a beginner, I'm not good and need to learn everything. And I was very pleased to see how the knowledgable users spent a bit of their precious time to help me. They just could have ignored me for not being part of the select club of the "good ones", but fortunately LU-LA is a good place for any kind of photographers.
Maybe in the future if I get good, I will remenber how helpfull were the advices on this forum, and will also be happy to share my experience with the not-so-good-one, or the beginner.
Regards,
Fred.
-
The post is aimed at the posters who have been giving their pearls of wisdom for a good length of time who appear to know what they are talking about? Many of them have hundreds of posts but some people will be wondering how good they really are? A lot of them post images on a regular basis which means the members know they that they can take good images as well as criticising others. It helps to know how good a photographer is when he has replied to one of your posts?
Quote
To me, this idea would only have a discrimination effect. And, who judge if a picture is good or not?
Unquote
The members who are looking at them?
-
Not only do I agree with Stamper, I've posted about this several times over the past year. There are a number of places on the web where it's possible for people to create galleries of their best work. I certainly wouldn't suggest that anyone be denied the right to criticize the photographs they see posted on LuLa, but to me it would be a big help if I could look at a representative sample of the critic's work to help me make a judgment about the value of the criticism. I tend to undervalue comments by those who don't post a URL to a personal gallery.
-
Of course I would consider it "good style" to post own images and
to show something from oneself when commenting/criticizing other peoples images.
But I would never recommend to control this - I believe it would bring something into
these forums which would be not so good.
Lets say someone would do harsh criticizing of others images and not give a possibility to
look at his/her images, either by posting or providing a link, I believe this would quickly
get sorted out by the community here.
As far as I can judge from my observations, LL is a very sane and healthy place with a community
which has the ability to sort these things out without too much administrative control.
I myself participate in the "user critiques" forum, and I often look at the images of people commenting on my images.
I can control it for myself and don't need anyone doing this for me.
I guess there are only relatively few cases, where Mr.Reichmann really has to intervene and control things.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Lets say someone would do harsh criticizing of others images and not give a possibility to
look at his/her images, either by posting or providing a link, I believe this would quickly
get sorted out by the community here.
In that sense I agree,
As far as I can judge from my observations, LL is a very sane and healthy place with a community which has the ability to sort these things out without too much administrative control.
but also agree with this above.
As a user, if I put my pictures in the "critic room", I have no problem if posters critize harshly my work, if good manners are kept, independently if they are good or not, or if I can see their work. I'm not paying them as I would do with a masterclass or a workshop. As soon as I publish them, they belong to users and they all are free to opine. Then, I'm also free to evaluate if one criticism is worth or who's poster I can trust, without any extra rule that would not have this site.
Fred.
-
Bad idea.
There are some people in the arts who are excellent critics but not so great practitioners. Cutting off their input, or denigrating it, would be counterproductive.
Let comment stand on its own. We learn soon enough to distinguish who has insight and can contribute valuable opinion, and who doesn't.
Michael
-
I have been lurking and posting here for a few years. A lot of good information and some not so good? A lot of posters come across really well and they write what seems to be knowledgeable information. What I would really like to see how good they really are as photographers? Michael could you make it a condition of membership that every so often a member should be compelled to post an image proving that they can take good images? This would mean that they would be taken more seriously as posters?
This strikes me as an odd idea that would have no benefits. Just because a person does not create their own interesting photographs does not mean they don't have deep technical knowledge of photography or that they cannot comment intelligently on other people's photos. Would you require that someone be skilled at painting, playing music, or writing fiction to take them seriously as a critic in that field? Of course not!
-
It would be possible to have the images posted but not commented on? They would be there to show the poster's credentials, like an avatar in a large size? Despite the fact that there are many different sub forums here for different aspects it is primarily a photography forum and anyone lurking here should do so as a photographer. To be blunt there are a few "snipers" - as on all forums - here who like to snipe but don't put themselves up as a target?
-
This strikes me as an odd idea that would have no benefits. Just because a person does not create their own interesting photographs does not mean they don't have deep technical knowledge of photography or that they cannot comment intelligently on other people's photos. Would you require that someone be skilled at painting, playing music, or writing fiction to take them seriously as a critic in that field? Of course not!
I think that I can definitely disagree with that comment! Deep technical knowledge and doesn't create their own interesting photographs? Why would he/she go to the bother of learning and then don't do it? Come to think of it there are possibly a few on here who like to give the impression of "deep technical knowledge" and don't do it? Hence the reason for my original post.
-
Bad idea.
There are some people in the arts who are excellent critics but not so great practitioners. Cutting off their input, or denigrating it, would be counterproductive.
Let comment stand on its own. We learn soon enough to distinguish who has insight and can contribute valuable opinion, and who doesn't.
Michael
It isn't my idea to cut off their input Michael, just establish their credentials?
-
If all have to be “certified” the forum heads down a path where only the cool kids can or will participate. That is a very bad idea. In the approach we use now, all are encouraged to participate, learn and share.
If one feels the need to read credentials to decide if feedback is valid, it amounts to a thin veneer of evasive BS over a baseless excuse to turn one’s back on a lot of valid input.
A more valid approach might be: does anyone see a deficiency in comments as they exist now? If so address the deficiencies rationally, rather than rationalizing that the format should be changed. The underlying issue is that if one is looking for reasons to dismiss feedback, then, one is not truly interested in feedback in the first place..................
-
I think this is another occurence of what some friends of mine call the "curse of the net".
You can not be as easily sure of a person you learn to know online than in real life due to the restricted nature of online communication.
To me it looks as if stamper was hit by exactly this and tried to fix it in a way which would not really work.
I think on such a forum it takes longer and is more difficult to learn to know people and to judge their reactions as well.
Misunderstandings easily ocur and people sometimes accidentally hurt others without meaning to do so.
From my long term experience as a netizen (20+ years - yes - I know the Times of Datex in Germany and when full TCP access was a luxury - you remember "trumpet winsock"?...) the only solution here is to take your time to learn to know people and to find out the value of their judgements by yourself and with patience ...
no rule or administrative measure of control can save you from that.
Cheers
~Chris
-
I need to add one correction. I'd never make it a requirement for anyone to post his work. It's up to the critic whether or not he wants to expose his own work. But failing to show your own work when you criticize makes me less likely to accept the idea that your criticism is valuable.
-
I have been lurking and posting here for a few years. A lot of good information and some not so good? A lot of posters come across really well and they write what seems to be knowledgeable information. What I would really like to see how good they really are as photographers? Michael could you make it a condition of membership that every so often a member should be compelled to post an image proving that they can take good images? This would mean that they would be taken more seriously as posters?
So what you want is information that you can trust, information that comes from someone that you consider to be a good photographer, technically knowledgeable and generally accepted as having good credentials to guide you in areas that you are not as well educated on as you would like to be.
And you want to compel the owner of this website and the people who contribute to it to provide you with that FOR FREE.
You're also asking that anyone that does not meet some vague concept of being a "good photographer" be shut out from having a voice, regardless of the fact that they might just have a style that does not suit you, or they may also be a relative novice in some areas and want to learn...just like you do.
May I suggest that you find a photographer whose work you admire, approve of and want to learn from, and then contact them and see if they might be willing to take you on as an apprentice and teach you what you want to learn? They might not offer all this for free, hell they might not offer it at all, but that would certainly satisfy your needs.
-
I have been lurking and posting here for a few years. A lot of good information and some not so good? A lot of posters come across really well and they write what seems to be knowledgeable information. What I would really like to see how good they really are as photographers? Michael could you make it a condition of membership that every so often a member should be compelled to post an image proving that they can take good images? This would mean that they would be taken more seriously as posters?
I know some really good photographers whose technical "knowledge" contains a great deal of misinformation. I know some really good critics whose own pictures may be technically perfect but lack creativity. Also, in every field you can name, from the arts to sports, there are coaches, editors, educators, etc., who can spot problems with a person's performance and know how to correct them yet not be able to perform themselves in the particular area.
In these forums, I have also seen well established photographers' work be dismissed as "not art" or "a scam," and I have seen what I consider to be mediocre work praised. I agree with those who say that on these forums, things sort themselves out.
In addition, how do you know that a contributor has not presented his/her own photographs here? If you have a question about a specific individual, do a search of that person's posts and you might turn up some examples of their photos; if not, you might even then request of them that they share their work.
-
I can't take a good picture to save my life. But happy to put one up. Can it be a cat photo?
-
Stamper
I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that this is an idea you would like to see applied to the people who respond to photographs put up here for criticism? I can see your line of thought and, basically, I tend to agree with you but I don't really see how it could be implemented without restricting the criticism function to a small clique of other photographers reaching a level of expertise acceptable to the current control system.
As you have probably noticed from past posts, I have little belief in the wisdom or value of the act of seeking such criticism and hardly ever look at that section nor take part, but putting that aside for the moment, I do think that it is of greater value for criticism to be wide open to the world and its sister. That would quickly show the picture poster that not all of the people who are going to have an impact on his/her work - as viewers - know their ass from their elbow, but that that fact will never stop them from holding and expounding their points of view. The status quo, then? That alone might be a lesson worth learning and a price worth paying...
I remember this same argument being aimed at myself some year or so ago in other sections of the forum because of my reluctance to post. It made me feel rather awkward because I wanted to prove my credentials but felt very inhibited in doing so, not because of any doubts about my work (if you have them then how can you be a pro and last for more than a week?), but simply because much of the work was model-related and involved genuine worries about releases, client confidentiality and all manner of business questions that might escape the non-pro. In the end, I took a chance and did post but never allowed the images to remain up beyond the immediate period of interest. (I think - if any still lurk out there, please let me know in order to cancel them!) I can see why other, perfectly capable photographers, might easily have similar reservations about going public with their work.
Overall, I think the current system works well enough for those who feel the need to use those parts of it where criticism is invited. Having said that, I do not agree with other views expressed here that non-practitioners are really qualified to be critics; if anything, isn't that part of the reason that modern ideas of art (let's include photography here) pushed by curators, magazine and newspaper writers have led to the mess that seems to be the current vogue? I believe these groups have their own personal agendas and that that's really where their efforts are aimed: the pushing of their own careers within the art world. Hell, they are just jobs like any other.
Rob C
-
It's an interesting idea with a modicum merit, but to be effective would need to be differentiated into separate but equal technical (software, hardware) and aesthetic (critique, technique) categories. On the technical side, it's not always necessary to have an experienced and talented photographer giving advice as software/hardware procedures and techniques are relatively easy to learn and subsequently master if one is willing to commit the time and effort.
Aesthetics (composition, image quality, tonality, subject, message, etc) is the core of any art. In this highly subjective category, a valid argument could be made to the importance of talent and experience, without which would omit the essential foundation for understanding and appreciation, thus making meaningful feedback a rarity. Of course, there is no guarantee that even a talented photographer would be able to provide helpful information.
In the end, I doubt any official requirement for "proof of talent" would do much as there is no guarantee of the outcome. Still, I think it does the photo community a service if we provide links to our own work. It not only provides a indication of talent, but also of interests and messages.
....I do not agree with other views expressed here that non-practitioners are really qualified to be critics; if anything, isn't that part of the reason that modern ideas of art (let's include photography here) pushed by curators, magazine and newspaper writers have led to the mess that seems to be the current vogue? I believe these groups have their own personal agendas.....
Hear, hear!
-
I think that I can definitely disagree with that comment! Deep technical knowledge and doesn't create their own interesting photographs? Why would he/she go to the bother of learning and then don't do it? Come to think of it there are possibly a few on here who like to give the impression of "deep technical knowledge" and don't do it? Hence the reason for my original post.
Who says one has to be capable of creating "interesting photographs" for their deep technical knowledge to be accurate or relevant? Being a good photographer is not a requisite element of having technical knowledge of things like software, sensors, etc.
Roger Ebert's one movie credit is universally regarded as dreadful, does that mean he has no legitimacy as a movie critic? This sort of thinking is just absurd.
I'm with Michael, let poster's comments stand on their own merits.
-
Bad idea.
There are some people in the arts who are excellent critics but not so great practitioners. Cutting off their input, or denigrating it, would be counterproductive.
Michael
Very true. I've seen surgeons who are wonderful teachers and trainers but whom I wouldn't let anywhere near me with a knife. As Brendan Behan wrote of theatre critics: "They're like eunuchs in a harem. They know what to do, they see it done every night, but they can't do it themselves".
Jeremy
-
Lots of folks post their website or online galleries in their signature. I've found some really good photographers here on the site just by clicking through the links.
-
I think that I can definitely disagree with that comment! Deep technical knowledge and doesn't create their own interesting photographs? Why would he/she go to the bother of learning and then don't do it?
They surely want to create interesting photos but don't have the artistic skill or aesthetic sense needed to do so. Photographic technique is, well, technique, and anyone with half a brain can learn it. The art of photography is something else, and I am not sure how much that can be taught. Look, for example, at Cartier-Bresson, who had other people develop and print his photos. He wasn't at all interested in technique but made some of the most memorable photos ever. On the other hand, think of all the technically excellent but dull-as-dirt photos that you see.
-
The last thing I want here is a monoculture of landscape photographers dedicated to technical perfection and pleasing aesthetics. In addition to those photographers I want photojournalists, glamour photographers, bird shooters and amateurs. Anything from MFDBs to LF to iPhones.
Wait, we already have that.
And I find the notion of "bad" photographers being sidelined at best misguided, although I'm inclined to think it would lead to a forum of sycophants catering to the needs of the lowest common denominator - which admittedly would not be so low given the caliber here, but still. Some of the most appropriate and helpful critiques I've received have come from non-photographers who wouldn't know the difference between ISO and dSLR.
If you insist on following up on this, there's a handy ignore user function on the board, so you can just ignore all the posters who don't link to their images, or who's work is not up to your standards.
-
Harri put it very well, IMHO.
It seems to me that those pushing for this form of censorship believe that the only suitable audience for a photograph is a photographer.
I wonder how many of the pros on LL sell their services only to other photographic pros? Most of the folks who have commented in any meaningful way about my own photography have been non-photographers. Real people are my audience.
Anybody who wants to check my "credentials" can visit my website, but that's not why I have a link in my signature.
Eric
-
It seems to me that those pushing for this form of censorship believe that the only suitable audience for a photograph is a photographer.
The word "censorship" is unduly harsh and provocative in this instance and, if you read the entire thread, not really accurate. Second, this has nothing to do with "audience". Instead, the OP asked the question in regard to PEER critiques and assistance.
-
The word "censorship" is unduly harsh and provocative in this instance and, if you read the entire thread, not really accurate. Second, this has nothing to do with "audience". Instead, the OP asked the question in regard to PEER critiques and assistance.
Chuck,
I admit that the word "censorship" was a bit harsh, but having reread the OP I see no mention of "PEER critiques and assistance," but rather a suggestion that posting an image every so often be a "condition of membership." Some subsequent posters seem to agree with this idea and others (myself included) do not.
I have been lurking and posting here for a few years. A lot of good information and some not so good? A lot of posters come across really well and they write what seems to be knowledgeable information. What I would really like to see how good they really are as photographers? Michael could you make it a condition of membership that every so often a member should be compelled to post an image proving that they can take good images? This would mean that they would be taken more seriously as posters?
Eric
-
I don't want to get on one side of this 'conversation' or the other, but it reminded me of a thread someone started a while back where every reply had to contain an image. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but the thread died.
Mike.
-
So what you want is information that you can trust, information that comes from someone that you consider to be a good photographer, technically knowledgeable and generally accepted as having good credentials to guide you in areas that you are not as well educated on as you would like to be.
And you want to compel the owner of this website and the people who contribute to it to provide you with that FOR FREE.
You're also asking that anyone that does not meet some vague concept of being a "good photographer" be shut out from having a voice, regardless of the fact that they might just have a style that does not suit you, or they may also be a relative novice in some areas and want to learn...just like you do.
May I suggest that you find a photographer whose work you admire, approve of and want to learn from, and then contact them and see if they might be willing to take you on as an apprentice and teach you what you want to learn? They might not offer all this for free, hell they might not offer it at all, but that would certainly satisfy your needs.
I have picked this post out to formulate a reply. It is - imo - way over the top and misrepresents - I don't know if it is deliberate - my original post. Perhaps compelled was too strong a word. I didn't mean it in the sense of compulsion but encouragement might be a better one? When I was a camera club member my images were criticised and rightly so. If the critic was a good photographer - if I had seen his work - then I listened intently. If he wasn't then my attention wasn't the same. In the six years in the club one member submitted I think two images to competitions but was the biggest critic of others. One poster states
Very true. I've seen surgeons who are wonderful teachers and trainers but whom I wouldn't let anywhere near me with a knife.
Sorry I don't get that line of reasoning. Theoreticians and practitioners spring to mind. If someone is both that is fine but if he only is one please make it a practitioner? My intention wasn't to censor or bar anyone but rather to encourage them. If I can see that he or her is good it is very helpful. There are a lot of posters I admire and take in what they say because they have - imo - proved them selves by showing their work and I take hints from them. There is another poster with over 3,000 posts who states he can't take a good picture to save his life but wants to be taken seriously?
Quote
Who says one has to be capable of creating "interesting photographs" for their deep technical knowledge to be accurate or relevant? Being a good photographer is not a requisite element of having technical knowledge of things like software, sensors, etc.
Unquote
My post is about photographers. This is primarily a photographic forum? There are other posts worth commenting on but it would possibly take up too much bandwidth. Hopefully this adds light to my original post?
-
IMO it's a poorly thought out idea for many reasons, most have which already been discussed at length. It is possible for someone who is very adept at the technical side of photography but weak artistically to provide useful critique, even if his own portfolio is artistically mediocre. Some photographers are artistically gifted but technically inept ("I don't want to have to mathematically analyze DR and noise statistics, I just wanna make pictures"), and while they may have many excellent images to their credit, their technical advice may be suspect at best. Others may be gifted in both areas, but be unable to post images due to model release and usage rights issues. Limiting the scope of those allowed to critique may weed out some chaff, but will also eliminate a lot of good advice from people who fail to meet the criteria for whatever reason.
And who gets to play God and decide who's "in" and who's "out"?
-
There are some people in the arts who are excellent critics but not so great practitioners. Cutting off their input, or denigrating it, would be counterproductive.
I cannot agree more.
"You don't need to know how to lay an egg to be able to tell a good one from a bad one." I think I heard that from Dick Cavett. That's a critic's privilege.
Let comment stand on its own. We learn soon enough to distinguish who has insight and can contribute valuable opinion, and who doesn'
As mentioned in other threads, I value the posters who provide *context* along with their comments. I ignore those who claim camera xyz is the best without telling us comparing to what. I also ignore those who "like" or "dislike" an image without explaining WHY.
-
I tend to undervalue comments by those who don't post a URL to a personal gallery.
RSL
I totally agree.
-
And who gets to play God and decide who's "in" and who's "out"?
[/quote]
Nobody is in or out. It is meant as a guide for any one who views posts and wants to make up their mind as to how good the person is who is making criticisms. I thought I made this clear in my last post? I am not playing God but I think that there are some here who possibly are. I would like to see their artistic efforts before I accept their judgements. There must be a lot of them who have passed judgement but never posted any of their efforts to prove their worth. I have read a lot of demeaning comments on here about images posted. BTW this isn't about me being hurt by a comment as someone suggested. In camera clubs judges have to prove their worth before passing judgement, therefore I respected their comments but didn't always agree with them.
-
I cannot agree more.
"You don't need to know how to lay an egg to be able to tell a good one from a bad one." I think I heard that from Dick Cavett. That's a critic's privilege.
As mentioned in other threads, I value the posters who provide *context* along with their comments. I ignore those who claim camera xyz is the best without telling us comparing to what. I also ignore those who "like" or "dislike" an image without explaining WHY.
I agree with you. Also, I think a critique is more valuable when it suggests ways a photo might be improved. After all, the main reason people ask for critiques is (I think) because they want to improve their work. Saying a photo needs improvement is not that helpful unless you suggest how.
-
A truth anecdote from Picasso to feed the debate:
Pablo Picasso, old, was sitting in the stairs of his manor, in the south of France. He was just sitting, doing nothing, apparently bored.
His gardener was there and asked him: "Hi master, resting?"
He replied: "No, working!"
Then, the next day Picasso was at work, painting and apparently concentrated in his studio with the windows opened.
Came the gardener and asked: "Hi master, now you are working no?"
He replied: "No, resting..."
Fred.
-
Why "fix" something that IMO is not broken? I suspect that most here can quickly sort out the poseurs and trolls from those who make useful contributions. LuLa is not perfect but it's one of the best photography forums I have frequented. Adding such a "qualification" for posting does not make it any better.
And if you are trying to decide how seriously you should take this particular post, here's my work (as if that has anything to do with my opinion):
http://www.pbase.com/pauls (http://www.pbase.com/pauls)
Paul
-
In camera clubs judges have to prove their worth before passing judgement, therefore I respected their comments but didn't always agree with them.
I happen to be Director of Competitions in a well established camera club (Westchester Photographic Society) and enjoy all of the club's activities. Members range from rank beginner to pro, and we have a very high percentage of particiaption in our competitions.
However, one of the things that I struggle with is that newcomers begin to take the criticism of the judges so seriously that it alters their perception of photography in a way that limits their creativity. While we don't hew to PSA "rules" as much as some other clubs, some members begin to think that if a photograph has a horizon in the middle it cannot be a good picture; they come back from galleries and museums saying that they don[t understand what people see in the works of well proven photographers of the last century, as well as contemporary works. While those of us with a longer view of what makes good photography constantly urge members to develop their own likes, dislikes and style in shooting, sometimes the tail begins to wag the dog and the photographs become predictable, with every subject at the intersection of thirds, etc., etc., etc.
Regardless of the "authority" of a judge or a critic in a club or here on LuLa, it is the responsibility of you to look at the criticism, see if it helps your image accomplish what you had intended or impedes it from doing what you wanted.
I would also remind all of the pros here that each of us has had the experience of "helping" somebody pick their best shot for some purpose and having it shot down, while a picture we had said was "not as good" received great kudos from a judge, a critic, a gallery owner, curator, etc.
To me, the "rules" are just suggestions for compositional organization that teach a beginner ways to develop awareness of all of the factors that are involved in a picture. I weary of hearing that "this picture is good even though it breaks all the rules," or, "you have to know the rules before you can break them," when, in fact, for some really good images the rules were not "broken" but were not relevant.
What I am saying, I guess, is relax. Do a lot of shooting. If you submit some pictures for c and c, try each suggestion on for size and if it helps, you're ahead of the game. If it doesn't help, nothing is lost.
-
Right on, Walter. This is why I refuse to enter anything in a juried show. The judges always are insane. For two years running I judged a photo show here in central Florida. Year before last, a couple weeks before I judged the show, I gave the group a lecture on the history of Photography. During the lecture I explained that photography judges always are insane. Both years they agreed.
-
I do not think it should be obligatory: there are some understandable reasons why someone might not want to show his / her work;
and the value of C&C is not determined by the quality of the poster's work. But I think it is a healthy exercise of honesty to do it; I did it on my first post in this forum, by the way.
-
Right on, Walter. This is why I refuse to enter anything in a juried show. The judges always are insane. For two years running I judged a photo show here in central Florida. Year before last, a couple weeks before I judged the show, I gave the group a lecture on the history of Photography. During the lecture I explained that photography judges always are insane. Both years they agreed.
That's funny!
I have a presentation that uses famous paintings, from renaissance, baroque, impressionistic, modernist and other periods, and I ask the audience to spot the "rules" of composition that are broken in these paintings. The "errors" run from cutting off hands, feet, heads, etc at the edge of the frames, to "mergers" between subject and background, to subjects looking or walking out of the frame, to "distracting" brighter areas than the subject, as well as many others. I ask them why they think these "violations" exist, and they often state that the artists "were unaware" of the rules, or that the paintings were done before the rules were devised! Finally, some of them respond that these are paintings, and not photographs. When I ask why the rules should be different for photographs when paintings and photographs can depict the same scenes, what they ultimately come out with is that "the judges have only a few seconds to view the picture so the impact has to be more instantaneous, and they need some more objective criteria on which to make comparisons."
When I point out that 95% of the photographs in museums and galleries, ranging from the accepted masters to the latest works of living photographers, would do poorly by the judges' rules, they agree that something seems wrong about that but they are uncomfortable about the whole situation. The result is dozens of pictures of single tulips against black bacgrounds,
all tilted diagonally from bottom left to top right, and off-centered appropriately. Or wide angle landscapes with the requisite large rock looming in the foreground with a path or road leading to a river or mountain in the background, and lo and behold, a red canoe one-third of the way in from the right, just below the non-centered horizon.
Beatiful, but ho hum all the way!.
-
That's funny!
I have a presentation that uses famous paintings, from renaissance, baroque, impressionistic, modernist and other periods, and I ask the audience to spot the "rules" of composition that are broken in these paintings. The "errors" run from cutting off hands, feet, heads, etc at the edge of the frames, to "mergers" between subject and background, to subjects looking or walking out of the frame, to "distracting" brighter areas than the subject, as well as many others. I ask them why they think these "violations" exist, and they often state that the artists "were unaware" of the rules, or that the paintings were done before the rules were devised! Finally, some of them respond that these are paintings, and not photographs. When I ask why the rules should be different for photographs when paintings and photographs can depict the same scenes, what they ultimately come out with is that "the judges have only a few seconds to view the picture so the impact has to be more instantaneous, and they need some more objective criteria on which to make comparisons."
When I point out that 95% of the photographs in museums and galleries, ranging from the accepted masters to the latest works of living photographers, would do poorly by the judges' rules, they agree that something seems wrong about that but they are uncomfortable about the whole situation. The result is dozens of pictures of single tulips against black bacgrounds,
all tilted diagonally from bottom left to top right, and off-centered appropriately. Or wide angle landscapes with the requisite large rock looming in the foreground with a path or road leading to a river or mountain in the background, and lo and behold, a red canoe one-third of the way in from the right, just below the non-centered horizon.
Beatiful, but ho hum all the way!.
Rules? What rules? There are no rules, and nobody is breaking them! There are hints, however; and there is wise people who understands and applies the true spirit of those hints, not just the reduced version that others call 'rules'. Read George Barr's article about "Learning From The Best Images"... those are rules.
-
Rules? What rules? There are no rules, and nobody is breaking them! There are hints, however; and there is wise people who understands and applies the true spirit of those hints, not just the reduced version that others call 'rules'. Read George Barr's article about "Learning From The Best Images"... those are rules.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. My point was the same as yours.
-
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. My point was the same as yours.
Sorry, you did make your point clear; it is my "me too" what is not clear.
-
Sorry, you did make your point clear; it is my "me too" what is not clear.
And I agree with both of you.
Eric