That SUCKS!!!

[Slough]

Well, it is interesting to me because almost in any other hobby/profession it is obvious when someone just sucks.  Any musical instrument, golf, tennis, ping pong, writing, almost everything else there is an obvious result to doing it - let's say - not very well.  Hell, even fishing, is pretty obvious.   But photography is totally in the eye of the shooter and it just is what it is.  That is also what makes it great.   We can do it, and not do it well, but still feel that it is good and get some satisfaction out of it.  Maybe that is why so many people enjoy it!  

As far as the equipment comment, that is a given.  Go to any tennis club and you will always see the worst players with the best clothes and equipment.  Human nature.

Not so long ago a major photography prize was won by a photo that many thought was crap. An amateur magazine editor and his staff had the courage to say so publicly. And I agreed, but clearly many people didn't. Sometimes I think that winning images in nature photo competitions are mediocre at best. Photography is exceptionally subjective.

But, I know what you mean. Photo forums are full of people posting dull pictures that surely are of little interest to most of us, and people say "Wow" and "Love it". Most are snapshots of cats, children, etc. I think a lot of the time these are groups of people who either like to encourage each other, or form a mutual back patting society. I can think of one poster whose pictures are in my opinion mundane, he posts often and everywhere, and people seem to love his pictures and comments. Beats me why!

I think if an image has obvious flaws, there is nothing wrong with a polite comment along the lines of "Well I think you could have got closer for more impact". This makes it a suggestion, rather than a put down. The problem is that when someone says "It needs more contrast", and the aim was to get even lighting and avoid high contrast, subjective tastes clash, and conflict can ensue. I do not like unnatural colours, but most pictures I see online have the saturation slider set to 11. And some people like dark photos, as if making a mundane scene dark adds artistry. It doesn't. But I am a lone voice in this belief.

The line between great and crap is blurred!

[Rob C]

[quote name='Josh-H' date='Nov 4 2009, 11:33 AM' post='322416']
"You have critisized the fashion shooters here - and I believe unjustly so with your comment."

And do you really belive that a single one thinks it applies to him or gives a damn?"

"Correct me please if I am wrong... but isn't formulaic what the client wants 99% of the time? Its certainly what sells."

I imagine any fashion clients I had would not recognize either of your sentiments.

"Pro fashion photographers (For the record I don't shoot fashion) are not making 'art' per se to please other photographers - they are producing a photograph as directed by the client (or the client's art director) to meet the client's needs."

Well let me introduce myself: the client was the vehicle for my own desires and they certainly did encompass impressing the competition.

"A photograph can be formulaic and brilliantly executed, meet the clients needs and furnish the photographers wallet. That is a successful photograph and is a lot more than 'okay' in my opinion.

Agreed, but that does not spell great. It spells professional, what the photographer is expected to be able to do, time after time after time; it is his job.

"I put this in the context of my own kids portrait business instead of fashion - what my clients want is about as formulaic as it gets. Formulaic makes money - end of story. It doesn't equal bad or just 'ok' photographs."

Two more disparate genres you could hardly have picked!

" believe there is some truly wonderful photography posted to this forum - and some that falls at the other end of the spectrum. And thats ok. The point is - if you don't have anything constructive to say about a photograph then don't comment. Constructive criticism is educational and may better help the photographer with future work. Saying a photograph 'sucks' contributes nothing meaningful or of substance."

That's why, in my own post, I quoted the song line: if you can't say nuthin' nice... we agree on that.

Rob C

[Rob C]

[quote name='gdwhalen' date='Nov 4 2009, 01:25 PM' post='322425']
"I'm not sure what you guys are talking about here in reference to your 20-30 good pics unless you just don't appreciate or understand the skills necessary to create commercial images.  The lighting and technical skill to make even a bowl of fruit look appealing is pretty impressive.  Maybe in the world of landscape photography you can make that argument but even then it is specious at best.  Commercial, architectural and fashion photography can require the use of dozens of lights and modifiers.  Nothing simple about that!"

Simple or complicated isn't the issue, I don't think; the issue is greatness. In fact, in your reference to fashion here, you remind me of Sante d'Orazio saying that when he goes somewhere and comes across too many lights set up, his reaction is oh-oh! not a good sign! I endorse that opinion.

"I think this falls into the category of say watching a great tennis player make playing tennis look easy or a dancer making dancing look easy.  Commercial shots of cars, products, clothing, etc can be very elaborate and certainly there are many great photographers in those styles that have taken 100's of great photo's.  To claim only 20-30 expresses to me a total lack of understanding and appreciation of those skills."

As with another poster, I think there is a conflict here between what is professional and the norm, and what is great.  I think you might be surprised at how those snappers you admire might view their own output.

There is no intention here that I see as derogatory; there is simply a belief that the expected expertise for which the photographer is being paid does not equate with greatness. Its execution merely demonstrates professional expertise. Not the same things at all.

Rob C

[gdwhalen]

I understand your distinction and it does make sense from the point of observation.  But from the point of knowledge that is a different thing.  A great pic may not mean great aesthetically, it may be great from a technical standpoint.  Both ways can still be great.  But the combination of the two are relevant in your perspective.    People can show their work and be referencing their technical skills or the "unbelievable" (to them) look of their lens.  Lots of reasons for posting pics.  

My original post was referencing people posting pics that they think are interesting or beautiful etc.  From the aesthetic angle.  I wasn't referring to posts where someone is showing the capabilities of their new camera or lens.  

[TMARK]

Rob C: I 100% agree with your above posts.

I rarely comment on anything unless I really, really like it.  I honestly think that any valid criticism would have to go too deep for a web forum, and address issues of taste, which touches values, which leads to acrimony.  Meaningful criticism really comes from within.  You need other's feedback as a reality check, to either check hubris or to cut short being over critical.

I think, in general and not specific to this forum, the glut of over retouched dramatic lighting "fashion" shots is overwhelming.  In fact, I think the heavy use of strobes is awful, at least is now in 2009.  It was cool in 2000-2006, or at least trendy.  Now its a crutch.  I guess technique is always the fall back when you have no ideas, and I direct this to myself as well as teh great heaving purile mass of budding fashion shooters on Model Mayhem.  They teach that in art school, actually, that when you are stuck, fall back on technique and just paint.  The problem I'm seeing is that is all many people aspire to be:  technicians.  This feeds into the subject of Great Photographs.

I will say that for my generation, I'm 36, and the immediatly following generation, those in their late 20's, that being great was never a priority, really.  Everyone was trying to sell out as fast as they could, which meant mediocrity.  Things have changed, at least with people I know.

[PeterA]

Criticism has to have a 'context' and if the context of any pic posted is "this is a professional work that I am proud of" - then what is the point of challenging a person's personal opinion about their own work? Of course it will lead to acrimony.

The notion of 'great' itself is full of trouble and strife..

Craft and technique? one person's art is another peron's bad technique.

Commerically sound and solid - does the job / pays the bills? who cares apart from the photographer and his client? thats not a test of anything it is a transanction.

My test of a good shot is would I buy it and hang it in my gallery ?- space on a wall chaps - thats one test. Complemeting other really good shots - thats another test. People willing to buy somethigng and hang it on their wall -because they love it? thats another test...

Great shots? thats another world...

[mmurph]

Then there is the question of fine art.  That goes far beyond the concept of "technique." The photo world is so conservative and quaint sometimes!   .

Can you say "Marcel Duchamp"? I spent 12 years in the 1980's and 1990's studying his work. I do - quite honestly - think he was the most important artist ever to live.

Look at "The Large Glass", "The Green Box", and "Etant Donne" - all in Philadelphia. Spend a day there pondering (I actually  met Beatrice Wood while there, at about 85 years old, one of Duchamp's lovers from what, the 1920's? Wow ...)

FWIW - 51 here.

M.

[gdwhalen]

Tmark, do you have pics in here somewhere?  I would be curious to see them.

[Rob C]

Then there is the question of fine art.  That goes far beyond the concept of "technique." The photo world is so conservative and quaint sometimes!   .

And that question begins with the title itelf: fine art?

It starts with an intrinsic pretension. Drop the adjective and the whole thing becomes much more acceptable and less controversial and challenging of the powers of belief of a normal, sane viewer. (By which I mean myself.)

As for the photo world being conservative, well, I did note the lol at the end of your sentence. If you speak of the photographic art world, then perhaps what you could have written is that it is not so much conservative as attempting to be all things to all men in the vain hope of opening all purses. And that's why I believe there is so much risible nonsense on view wherever you care to turn; also, that's why, in a strange sort of way, the art photo world justifies the professional commercial stuff: the latter can be whatever it happens to be becaue it fulfills the needs of a brief, obviously or subliminally. Art can't do that quite so easily: a piece has to be exciting of itself and not by virtue of its connection with something outwith itself - a product, for example.

And that distinction is quite important because it creates a situation where good commercial stuff might be absolutely useless as anyone's idea of marketable art. I found this all too clearly in my own work when I first got into desktop printing and began to trawl through old commercial shoots in the high expectation of finding material to convert to 'fine art' black/white prints. What looked okay as calendar art in colour turned out much, much less so in the isolation of a sheet of Hahnemuehle! One great big missing link was continuity of theme, obvious within the commercial whole of the original production but unknowable in the single image. A case of the holistic being better than the parts alone...

But commercial shouldn't be seen as a pejorative term in its relationship with art either. Most of the great art we still have started life to commission by church, duke or banker. So what's new?

Rob C