Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: alangubbay on March 16, 2010, 12:17:18 pm
-
Interesting contrast?
-
To be honest, I think I've seen this view dozens of times on television (ads and the opening of a very bad comedy series) and in print. It's a cool juxtaposition, but it's been done to death. Sorry.
-
Full House rules! lol
-
Full House rules! lol
Yep, that's the one.
-
To be honest, I think I've seen this view dozens of times on television (ads and the opening of a very bad comedy series) and in print. It's a cool juxtaposition, but it's been done to death. Sorry.
It may be old hat to you, but it looks pretty good to me. I do like the contrast, but feel it would be stronger if a person were walking by. That said, IMO, the image is very good on its own.
JMR
-
I like it, contrasty but not harsh light give it a fresh feel.
It might have been done before, but not by you and in the end that's all that counts.
I think these days the claim "I've seen that before" can be made for probably > 99% of the images posted on the web.
-
In this case though, you can find so many pretty much exact duplicates on google that I bet the people living there see a constant stream of photographers in that same spot
(http://philip.greenspun.com/images/pcd0923/alamo-square-postcard-row-22.4.jpg)
-
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong the OP's photo. It is well done, however there's no denying that it's one of hundreds or thousands of near identical images from that very same spot. That is a fair and useful critique.
-
The question everybody is missing is this: why do these shots in the first place?
I'm not trying to be unpleasant, mocking, superior, elitist or any of those usual suspects; I'm just trying to figure out why folks want to shoot something that they have had absolutely no part in either creating, building or helping cajole into existence. I face the same quandry with landscape in the sense of pretty sunsets etc. That isn't to say that I never did such stuff: I certainly did when I was trying to stay in stock. But, and a big one, without an imagined commercial payback, I wouldn't have bothered doing any of that per se where the only reward would be an 'I was there' without any actual contribution to anything. I don't think much of the theory of silent witness.
I am often reminded of the Terence Donovan quotation which I paraphrase: the greatest problem for an amateur is finding a reason to make a photograph.
Rob C
-
In this case though, you can find so many pretty much exact duplicates on google that I bet the people living there see a constant stream of photographers in that same spot
So what? I even liked his version better than the one you posted
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong the OP's photo. It is well done, however there's no denying that it's one of hundreds or thousands of near identical images from that very same spot. That is a fair and useful critique.
Fair point, but I kinda missed the starting point of your second post the first time around.
I'm not trying to be unpleasant, mocking, superior, elitist or any of those usual suspects;
You're failing
I think the point you're missing is that a picture you take yourself is (at least for me) infinitely more valuable than the same scene taken by another person. After that posting it here and getting input in how you could have done different or better is enough justification to take it. For some people this is a hobby they enjoy That's the reason to take a photograph and why should you have that spoiled by Terence Donovan or anybody else.
-
I think the point you're missing is that a picture you take yourself is (at least for me) infinitely more valuable than the same scene taken by another person.
That's exactly it, at least in my mind. If I was going to not take pictures of things that had already been photographed, I might as well not have a camera.
-
Remember an interview of Pablo Picasso saying that he kept on painting mainly because he wanted to have these paintings on his walls and, or they did not existed, or he could not afford them. (at that time he said that...)
Fred.
-
You're failing
I think the point you're missing is that a picture you take yourself is (at least for me) infinitely more valuable than the same scene taken by another person. After that posting it here and getting input in how you could have done different or better is enough justification to take it. For some people this is a hobby they enjoy That's the reason to take a photograph and why should you have that spoiled by Terence Donovan or anybody else.
Yes, I can understand what you are saying, but that is a different thing to understanding the why of it. As I said about my own efforts in that sort of work, it was fine as long as there was a financial motivation but it failed utterly to engage me without that.
It's as if there is a sort of need to take photographs and it has to met with something, but therein lies the problem: what is that something when commerce is removed from it or, alternatively, some other valid reason - a social service to the community, perhaps - does not exist? I can't believe that any photographer who has advanced enough to be able to shoot and get whatever he wants still feels the need that you outline in your explanation. Surely there has to be more to it than just shooting something because it's there and you can?
Regarding Donovan, far from spoiling anything for me he simply articulated something I have felt for many many years.
Many professionals go on and on about 'personal' work, but I have seldom met any of them who actually do anything that can be classified as such; for most of them, personal means nothing more than their modus operandi, their style or specialisation which is a place they got to because it represented the sort of work that they liked to do. In other words, somebody into fashion might spend non-assignment time shooting yet more model pics, which could be described as personal work but is in effect nothing more than an unpaid version of the day-job, a way of getting something slightly different for the book. I am not saying that some fashionistas might not be crazy about photographing sunsets, I just haven't met any of them like that.
For the amateur, on the other hand, it is all personal work unless he is a shamateur on the side.
However, I am fully prepared to accept that it is probably myself who doesn't 'get it' rather than the legions who obviously must.
;- (
Rob C
-
Remember an interview of Pablo Picasso saying that he kept on painting mainly because he wanted to have these paintings on his walls and, or they did not existed, or he could not afford them. (at that time he said that...)
Fred.
Fred, you have unintentionally made my point for me. Without the input of Pablo P. there would be nothing to see; with the input of most photographers, all you see (usually at best!) is what already existed.
Regarding the photograph of the buildings that starts this thread, there is nothing wrong with the photograph at all, it's damn good, but that wasn't ever the point of my comments, which was about motivation for making the shot in the first place.
Rob C
-
Fred, you have unintentionally made my point for me. Without the input of Pablo P. there would be nothing to see; with the input of most photographers, all you see (usually at best!) is what already existed.
Regarding the photograph of the buildings that starts this thread, there is nothing wrong with the photograph at all, it's damn good, but that wasn't ever the point of my comments, which was about motivation for making the shot in the first place.
Rob C
Hi Rob,
It's another remake from the remake, yes.
Actually, I can see a reason why this particularly location has been used many times: Contrast in between worlds. The green: primitive nature - the old dusty and romantic: the houses - and the background: the cold, industrial, gigantesque, modern...
So it's like a journey from 3 worlds that seem opposed or somethink like that. There is also 3 scales and 3 spaces.
Now, did the photographer consciously looked to tell a story like this? it is not sure. But on an unconscious base this is probably what motivated the success of this spot. It's like all these pictures from the same location over and over again: the death valley for example.
But in the end,
Dali pointed one day: If Velasquez do paint this scene, it will result a Velasquez. If an idiot paint the same scene it will result an idiocy.
Clever Dali
Cheers,
Fred.
-
With the input of most photographers, all you see (usually at best!) is what already existed.
Your first question : Why? Isn't just enjoying it enough reason. For me it is.
But I think the core of your problem lies in the post above, a photograph is merely a 2 dimensional abstraction of a 3 dimensional scene which based on light, standpoint and angle of view is never exactly the same. You might like it or not like it, it might be more or less similar with other photographs but it's never the same and the enjoyment of having created your own is the answer to "why" the photograph gets taken.
And for Donovan, he killed himself when he was 60, I don't know how long before he ended his life this quote was produced but I don't agree with it.
-
... it's been done to death. Sorry.
O.k., here is another "dead" one. Sorry ;-)
[attachment=20931:710437_lg.jpg]
Yes, it means "Look Mom... I was there", but I was also there trembling for about an hour in the cold and humid wind, waiting for the right light to contrast not only architecture, but shadow/sunlight, warm/cold, old/new. Obviously, the image has more meaning for me than most of viewers, but I hope some might enjoy it nevertheless.
-
And for Donovan, he killed himself when he was 60, I don't know how long before he ended his life this quote was produced but I don't agree with it.
Yes, it was a terrible thing to do - but have you noticed how many professional photographers of note have taken that route?
I have no bright answer for that nor even personal insight that I can drum up to suit myself or even simply to make a point here. I sometimes think that it has to do with stress, with the running ever faster in order to stand still, however much money and fame one might have gathered in the career - or even because of that - or whether it comes to a question of self-evaluation of all that has been done in your name. I think that fame, unlike money, must be very difficult to handle sensibly and perhaps the most difficult part of it might be when that fame starts (even if only to yourself) to drift away...
Photographers can't operate in a vacuum: everything that you do is seen, talked about by your peers, your failures even more so. Lose a regular client and the glee is palpable. After a while, I think that high doses of that must become very destructive even to the strongest characters. Maybe it is the public nature of the work that causes such stress, that business defeats would remain just that were it not for the satisfaction of your competitors.
But in the end, I just don't know. I suppose the best thing to do is nothing: just keep on truckin' and don't look inside yourself for any answers because you may not like what you might find. (I don't mean YOU personally at all, I mean in a general sense of the condition.)
Rob C
-
I think the point you're missing is that a picture you take yourself is (at least for me) infinitely more valuable than the same scene taken by another person. After that posting it here and getting input in how you could have done different or better is enough justification to take it. For some people this is a hobby they enjoy That's the reason to take a photograph and why should you have that spoiled by Terence Donovan or anybody else.
Absolutely right. I've seen loads of shots of Antelope Canyon. Most are far better than I can reasonably hope to achieve (see Schewe's efforts, a link to which he posted recently). That doesn't mean that I'm not desperate to go there, see it for myself and have MY shots hanging on my wall. The same is true of everywhere else that's cliched and photographed to death.
Jeremy
-
O.k., here is another "dead" one. Sorry ;-)
[attachment=20931:710437_lg.jpg]
Yes, it means "Look Mom... I was there", but I was also there trembling for about an hour in the cold and humid wind, waiting for the right light to contrast not only architecture, but shadow/sunlight, warm/cold, old/new. Obviously, the image has more meaning for me than most of viewers, but I hope some might enjoy it nevertheless.
A beautiful portrayal, well worth the pain
-
Nothing dead about THAT.
-
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=San+Fr...s&FORM=BIFD (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=San+Francisco+Painted+Ladies&FORM=BIFD)
-
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=San+Fr...s&FORM=BIFD (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=San+Francisco+Painted+Ladies&FORM=BIFD)
Only 7980 photos. And a few of them aren't even of the houses.
-
I don't think it's useful to criticize this on the basis of how many times the same scene has been captured by others. Obviously, it's one of the most iconic scenes in San Francisco.
I'd rather discuss the photo purely from a compositional and technical perspective. There's no question that it's a competently framed and exposed photo. Presuming you can go back there, I would suggest shooting the same scene later in the day when the sun lower in the sky and behind you. It looks like this was taken in early afternoon when the light is closer to vertical and not particularly flattering to the row of houses.
And there are things you could do to add some originality to this famous scene. Maybe there could be people doing something interesting or unusual in the foreground. You could try different angles/perspectives. Get a Lensbaby and play around with selective focus. Think of this picture as a generic starting point and show us something new from the neighborhood.
-
It's an easy, predictable photo that obviously almost anyone can and does take.
Might as well put up another wide angle Horseshoe Bend shot for critique.
-
Yes Popnfresh, these are good ideas but I do not think that I will be making the 11,000 miles round trip to have another go.
-
The question everybody is missing is this: why do these shots in the first place?
Rob C
¿might be a good subject for a side-by side camera test?
...the ability of a camera system to penetrate haze is not usually part of camera test is it, and is very relevant for eh landscape photographer.
I have contemplated acquiring a graduated pink filter for this type of shot, where if the sky is totally blown in the raw file, you cannot get it back post-exposure.
You can take one picture, raw-process it twice for the blue back ground and the foreground, and then use a graduated layer mask?
-
¿might be a good subject for a side-by side camera test?
...the ability of a camera system to penetrate haze is not usually part of camera test is it, and is very relevant for eh landscape photographer.
I have contemplated acquiring a graduated pink filter for this type of shot, where if the sky is totally blown in the raw file, you cannot get it back post-exposure.
You can take one picture, raw-process it twice for the blue back ground and the foreground, and then use a graduated layer mask?
Or avoid all that challenging work and keep the camera in its box?
No, seriously, I think the original (here) was pretty well shot; my problem was with the why not the how well. This isn't limited to houses, but applies to almost everything that isn't created by the photographer. It's why I was questioning the reason for shooting anything where you are only a spectator (unless it's what you are being paid to do), a thing I raised some long time ago somewhere around these parts.
While thinking about this, I ask myself about steet shooting, too. I can see that a quick/good street guy has a talent which possibly consists more of nerve than anything else, and I do wish I had some of that courage today. But, the next problem it creates is the one of what can you do with it once you have it nailed? I can see outlets for many sorts of image, but I can't imagine framing and hanging a street one at home, not even an H C-B. In an office waiting room or some such place yes, but never at home. Maybe the natural home for these things is the web? I do have several books on those kinds of photographers and look at them quite a lot, but would never hang such images, even though, as I say, I like them enough to buy the books. But, if I were to make an exception, I would certainly choose some W Eugene Smith stuff from the Pittsburgh epic. (I accept it's a bit of a stretch to street!) On the Genius of Photography documentary that was shown some time ago on the BBC, it was stated that that P. epic was never published: in full, no, but I do remember that a good few pages of one of the (Popular) Photography Annuals I used to be able to buy had images from that shoot. I think it was my introduction to the man's work and I was surprised to see that the strong ferri work he employed was just the same as was done on some fashion magazines too - worlds apart but yet so common a technique.
Don't you just love this business, even as it kills you?
Rob C
-
... applies to almost everything that isn't created by the photographer. It's why I was questioning the reason for shooting anything where you are only a spectator (unless it's what you are being paid to do)...
Rob, you got me totally confused with this one!? "Not created by the photographer"... "only a spectator"... what exactly would be left for photographing then? Aren't we always "only spectators"? Even in fashion, aren't you just recording other people's creations (make up, dress, pose, art director's ideas)? Landscapes would be totally excluded, I guess, and practically everything else.
-
....This isn't limited to houses, but applies to almost everything that isn't created by the photographer. It's why I was questioning the reason for shooting anything where you are only a spectator .....
I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with this logic. Every photograph created is different and only shows a reflection of what was there. Every spectator bring a different perception that he puts in his photo.
And to the Sacha Baron Cohen (or Borat) impersonator here, If you've got nothing to contribute pls. don't do it here.
And if you have something to add maybe answer the question I put to you first before continuously repeating yourself.
-
... And to the Sacha Baron Cohen (or Borat) impersonator here, If you've got nothing to contribute pls. don't do it here...
What's up with this intolerance!? Everything is a contribution, if you can read it intelligently. "Borat" is making a valid point, with which you (and I) might not completely agree, that there are gazillions of similar enough photos to be considered practically identical. And he and Rob are questioning the very reason for making such photos in the first place... and again, you (and I) might not fully agree with it, but it is a valid point of view, worth hearing.
Muzzling dissent usually leads to a debate where everybody happily agrees. And we all know what happens then: when everybody thinks the same, nobody thinks.
-
What's up with this intolerance!? Everything is a contribution, if you can read it intelligently. "Borat" is making a valid point, with which you (and I) might not completely agree, that there are gazillions of similar enough photos to be considered practically identical. And he and Rob are questioning the very reason for making such photos in the first place... and again, you (and I) might not fully agree with it, but it is a valid point of view, worth hearing.
Muzzling dissent usually leads to a debate where everybody happily agrees. And we all know what happens then: when everybody thinks the same, nobody thinks.
Sorry, it's not intolerance, it's trying to make him participate. He's put 4 posts making the same point over and never answered the "why" of his argument.
I won't call it trolling, but he's not made one contribution after his first post. Repetition doesn't make anybody think either.
That's in the second sentence I put in my post (the one you didn't quote).
-
pegelli and Slobodan
The thing is this: it was said that 'even in fashion, aren't you only recording other people's creations...?' Well no, not really. You are starting from a point where there is only a blank roll of paper or some other background meant to accentuate your main subject. Nothing exists other than that - no form, shape, concept or anything. Your job, then, the creative thing, is to create a shape and a mood and say something. Simply having the model stand there with her arms hanging down by her sides, her ankles together, becomes the human equivalent of the tree, the rock or the old adobe hut.
You have to come up with something that does not exist until you and the girl both make it happen. It is way beyond just the parts and becomes the sum of them plus your double inputs of, we hope, talent and inspiration. That's not always available and is why people form mutually pleasing combinations of talent - or they used to in my time - the girls I used were all perfectly capable of doing their own hair, makeup etc. and the shoot was far more intimate and delightful an event. I have done work for hairdressers etc, and am pleased that I seldom found myself in a situation where their services were required. Have you ever looked at Vogue, Elle summer issues etc. and seen those shots of girls lying in the surf, hair wet, and you get a hairdresser credit? Go figure, and don't tell me one was needed to create a wet look! Frankly, I think the fewer people on a shoot the better. (If you go to Horvatland.com and read the interviews you will find all of this covered and expressed far more nicely than I am capable of doing; in particular, read Sarah Moon.)
Something far more accessible to the general photographic public: portraiture or head shots. Whatever you do there takes creativity because again, you start with next to nothing and have to make something happen to get anything worthwhile. It doesn't matter how good you are, how experienced - whatever you find yourself doing you are creating. Isn't that more worthwhile than just hanging around waiting for a cloud to sit just so over Half Dome? Frankly, apart from the very necessary money, the joy in all of that shooting, for me at least, was in the doing. It really didn't much matter emotionally after the shooting - in fact, one of the most lonely, drained moments I got to experience was the empty white roll after the model had gone home. Think about that for a moment - if it doesn't prove that for one peson at least it was the creativity of the shooting that mattered, then nothing will.
That's basically the difference I see between shooting a row of buildings, however well, and creating something before the camera that did not previously exist, beyond whatever Mother Nature might already have provided on her own in the way of physical reality and light.
Rob C
-
Rob, I agree that for a model or portrait shoot a larger number of creative acts are performed (directing the scene and taking the shot) vs. a photograph of houses, nature or rocks. In those other cases the directing of the scene takes a much lower proportion. However there is still the creative acts of capturing the right light, choosing where to stand, what to include and exclude from the scene, how to accentuate depth (or not) etc. etc. To say no creativity is involved as "it's all allready there" is in my mind an oversimplification of this style of photography. You may not like or enjoy doing it, you may not like the results of others but it still involves a unique creative process.
-
Rob C
Got it ... only what you did is photography, only the cameras that suit you are worth making, etc.
-
Isn't that more worthwhile than just hanging around waiting for a cloud to sit just so over Half Dome?
Rob,
For the most part, I agree with your last post. Where I depart is the above statement, as I think you really underestimate both the passion of the photographers as well as the time/energy/creativity/emotions and thought involved in shooting landscapes, at least for those of us who are very serious about it. "Waiting" is the least of what we do. That feeling you get when staring at a white backdrop after the shoot is the same exact feeling I get when the car door opens and I shove my bag in the back seat after a long day of photographing. Exactly the same.
Landscape photography, as an art, gets it's bad rap because it's so easy to do it badly. It's proven millions of times each day on Flickr, Photoshelter, and the like. Of that, there's no denying. However, we can't all be lumped into that same mold, just as studio shooters, like yourself, should not be lumped in with the plethora of photographers shooting high school senior portraits and puppies. Apologies if you really do shoot puppy pictures
The trouble with the OP was not that the "painted ladies" photo was taken (souvenirs are a perfectly acceptable use of photography) but that it was posted in a CRITIQUE forum of a photo site. Therefore it was treated as if it were supposed to be a piece of fine art. I was as critical as anyone, but perhaps we should have critiqued it as a "souvenir" photo rather than a piece of art, in which case I would have said "nice juxtaposition and good exposure". Not very helpful, but perhaps more fair.
-
Rob,
For the most part, I agree with your last post. Where I depart is the above statement, as I think you really underestimate both the passion of the photographers as well as the time/energy/creativity/emotions and thought involved in shooting landscapes, at least for those of us who are very serious about it. "Waiting" is the least of what we do. That feeling you get when staring at a white backdrop after the shoot is the same exact feeling I get when the car door opens and I shove my bag in the back seat after a long day of photographing. Exactly the same.
Landscape photography, as an art, gets it's bad rap because it's so easy to do it badly. It's proven millions of times each day on Flickr, Photoshelter, and the like. Of that, there's no denying. However, we can't all be lumped into that same mold, just as studio shooters, like yourself, should not be lumped in with the plethora of photographers shooting high school senior portraits and puppies. Apologies if you really do shoot puppy pictures
The trouble with the OP was not that the "painted ladies" photo was taken (souvenirs are a perfectly acceptable use of photography) but that it was posted in a CRITIQUE forum of a photo site. Therefore it was treated as if it were supposed to be a piece of fine art. I was as critical as anyone, but perhaps we should have critiqued it as a "souvenir" photo rather than a piece of art, in which case I would have said "nice juxtaposition and good exposure". Not very helpful, but perhaps more fair.
Chuck, I am not denying that the other types of photography do enthuse other people and that my loves leave them cold, but that still dodges or misses my question which is, basically, why? But perhaps you have really answered it with the reference to my empty Colorama roll of white: these other forms are still emotional tugs of war. Good enough, even if I can't quite understand the why of that!
For my part, I'm happy to leave it on that note - to each his own, and why ever not?
No, I only ever shot one dog shot - I had to get a passport together for our alsabrador when we exported her to Spain - needed for the rabies shot document. I'd have thought that one alsabrador was indistinguishable from any other, just like black cats. As an aside, I realised then that getting a large dog's head into focus from tip of nose to back of ears is not for the faint-hearted. I failed miserably, but the print was small...
Rob C
-
I am not denying that the other types of photography do enthuse other people and that my loves leave them cold, but that still dodges or misses my question which is, basically, why?
Don't think anybody is dodging your question. To the contrary, I think you're dodging the answers.
The fact these answers are not sufficient for you to take a similar photograph is a different matter, but also realise nobody is forcing you to do that.
-
Why?
Because it is fun? Just for self-fulfillment? Pretty mundane reasons, I know; but do we really need a reason?
If I extrapolated your line of reasoning, I think I would lose all motivations to wake up each morning; or perhaps I would find the urge to make a radical change to my lifestyle, who knows...