Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: RSL on May 22, 2017, 08:43:41 am
-
Everybody who posts on LuLa needs to see this. It may help to reduce the number of tourist pictures being posted:
http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/stories/minimalism/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fbp20170319ys-minimalism&utm_campaign=Content&sf63735827=1
-
Interesting images, no doubt. So, according to you, LuLa are abundant with "tourist" pictures? What are those?
-
I understand where you're coming from Russ. We do see a lot of rather un-unique views of places we all recognize, something I am also guilty of. I picked up your sentiment in a recent comment you made to another forum user, when you said, "So you were there." or something to that effect. I imagine, without meaning to put words in your mouth, this is what you meant by "tourist pictures", photographs that document and validate one's presence at a place other than home. Yes, we see a lot of those here, for better and worse, photos we once classified as "postcard shots".
Many (but certainly not all) of the photos from the NG link you shared are wonderful in their uniqueness. They don't speak to the "tourist pictures" idea because of this and all of us can certainly learn from seeing these photos.
I also see Paulo's point of view. If I understand it correctly, he seems to be questioning your authority, Russ, to classify many photographs into a single genre and in a (slightly) disingenuous way. If someone is excited by a photograph they've made they should be encouraged to post here without being judged in quite that way. They may be looking for feedback, they may be looking to be a part of the club of those who have gone before, they may be just checking in to say,"Hey, I'm pleased with my results.", they may simply be boasting.
I get that we've seen a lot of Iceland, Lofoten, Yosemite, US southwest-canyonlands-arches, waterfalls, mountains, lakes, storms, etc., at times same-old-same-old, with some much more compelling than others, but we're all on a journey and sharing with others is part of that journey. Try to find the positive in each one, then, if requested, constructively suggest improvements to help in the journey. Blanket judgements are akin to COMS (crotchety old man syndrome). :)
-
I think we would be all a little bit better off if we all paid a little less attention to what other people choose to post.
One person's "tourist" photograph may be another person's unique experience photograph.
There are few things easier to ignore than a photograph posted on this site.
-
... There are few things easier to ignore than a photograph posted on this site.
I think Russ' comment is meant to explain why certain photographs remain ignored.
-
...If someone is excited by a photograph they've made they should be encouraged to post here without being judged in quite that way... :)
Not so fast. Otherwise, we would be inundated by pictures or cats, cute babies, family gatherings, "look, ma, I was there," what we had for breakfast, etc. That's what Facebook at al are for.
This site isn't k-12, where everyone gets a ribbon for participation. You do not get pat on the back for anything. You get judged, and sometimes harshly, and that, if you are smart, should help you improve. If you are not, then nothing will. Pats on the back feel good, but are useless if they are not genuine.
-
Some time ago I wrote the following in another thread, which I think is still releveant:
"...A lot of members on the forum lived and worked in a pre-digital and pre-Internet era. It occurred to me that in that era, images like that most likely would have never been displayed publicly (other than to friends and family).
There were only two ways for public access: publishing in a magazine or book, and displaying it at an exhibition (be it of international standing or a local club one). Both ways include some kind of jurying, some kind of triage, filtering before an image reaches public. Images that were poorly composed, out of focus, and overexposed (for no good reason), had very little, if any chance, to be selected. So, when something did reach the public, it already had a certain "seal of approval". Furthermore, it took considerable effort and resources to prepare images for publication and submit them. Unless you wanted to risk your original transparency, you needed to make a decent copy (a problem in itself), pack it well, go to the post office, etc.
So, the effort and resources needed, plus knowing you will be judged seriously, meant for us that we would need to think twice before attempting to go public with our work. The only way to deal with that was to learn beforehand what tools those who would judge our work would use to evaluate it. So we hit the library, attended courses, joined a camera club, and learned about composition, technique, art, perception, etc. For years, sometimes. Consequently, we had to exercise a fair amount of self-restraint, and when we finally submitted something, we did not have to ask the world "what's wrong with my image"... we knew it already (at least the elementary stuff).
Enter the digital/Internet era: after a (shutter) click, with all those wi-fi memory cards, Kodak's Share buttons, various other cameras with direct access to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc., it might take literally seconds and costs absolutely nothing, before an image is displayed to millions. Anyone can post anything to everyone. No triage, filtering, self-restraint... nada. Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before. And no, I am not an Internet Luddite... just pointing out certain unintended consequences..."
-
Not so fast. Otherwise, we would be inundated by pictures or cats, cute babies, family gatherings, "look, ma, I was there," what we had for breakfast, etc. That's what Facebook at al are for.
This site isn't k-12, where everyone gets a ribbon for participation. You do not get pat on the back for anything. You get judged, and sometimes harshly, and that, if you are smart, should help you improve. If you are not, then nothing will. Pats on the back feel good, but are useless if they are not genuine.
The very point I was making. It's the blanket judgement I took issue with, but am understanding of (as I stated at the beginning of my post!)
I like what Otto said:I think we would be all a little bit better off if we all paid a little less attention to what other people choose to post.
One person's "tourist" photograph may be another person's unique experience photograph.
There are few things easier to ignore than a photograph posted on this site.
-
Interesting images, no doubt. So, according to you, LuLa are abundant with "tourist" pictures? What are those?
Hi Paulo, Tourist pictures are pictures people shoot to show "they were there." They usually involve mountains, churches, graveyards, etc. The classic is the one with some humps on the horizon that, according to the poster, are "the Mingus mountains," or some other "so what" named terrain, or a scene that includes some obscure historical fact. The classic is the sunrise over a mountain -- a picture whose quality and significance are much exceeded by the postcard scenes in the local souvenir shop.
-
I also see Paulo's point of view. If I understand it correctly, he seems to be questioning your authority, Russ, to classify many photographs into a single genre and in a (slightly) disingenuous way. If someone is excited by a photograph they've made they should be encouraged to post here without being judged in quite that way. They may be looking for feedback, they may be looking to be a part of the club of those who have gone before, they may be just checking in to say,"Hey, I'm pleased with my results.", they may simply be boasting.
Right, Terry, and we're all still waiting for you to post that example of a picture with "artistic, technical and emotional merit." We can then use that as an example of what to post.
-
Right, Terry, and we're all still waiting for you to post that example of a picture with "artistic, technical and emotional merit." We can then use that as an example of what to post.
And presumably you're going to claim authority to determine whether such an image from Terry qualifies or not?
Making a point in such a blunt, common way, is hardly worthy of response. Perhaps your next one will demonstrate wit, insight, and linguistic artistry?
-
The thing is, Russ is right and everybody knows it, but as with so much in contemporary life, it’s considered politically incorrect to call a spade a spade.
That’s what the fuss is really about: the spade’s right to be thought a rose...
Photography has become so easy to do because of digital that most of it has lost meaning. The ubiquitous cellphone shot is as relevant as the one from a Hasselblad. Yes, it really is, because today you can make an image with anything that calls itself a camera and within seconds there it is: the image.
Of course, whether or not it’s any good will remain subjective, and everything is going to be defended simply because someone has fathered it.
Yet, yet… yet it probably still sucks. My feeling is that today, more than ever, photography has been hijacked by money. From the professional level to the amateur (why do I feel a subliminal, external pressure to defend the word amateur?) it feels as if faith rests on the brand of camera used, and even the denizens of the cellphone pond bow in prayer at the feet of the iPhone.
But who are the new photographers whose names will be revered and respected fifty years down the line? Where the new Avedon, Bassman, the new Haskins or Hass? There are no replacements. The skills that marked the difference have not only vanished from the workplace but been ridiculed and turned into antisocial activities that depended upon black magic and darkroom incantations. (There may be some truth to the latter, but most of the ones I heard or uttered were simple, basic four-lettered ones.)
Yes, LuLa is no safe haven from the march of jackbooted dimes either: the obsession with equipment and tests runs deeper than ever, and the most active threads are the ones that pander to that obsession, with the least active those on the art of photography; if you doubt, just go look at how the posts figure. A close runner to the gearheads zone is the one devoted to political make-believe - the crazies and wilfully blind are ever with us.
So where good photography in all of this? Where considered conversation? Pretty much nowhere, and almost certainly not in any forum where all that seems to matter is repetition of the same old tricks. On LuLa there are (were) perhaps two or three photographers whose work was instantly identifiable and highly skilled in its execution (yeah, Texas, I’m lookin’ at you!) but apart from that tiny minority – what? Formula photographers or, worse, lost photographers.
It’s the new reality.
-
He's not "right". He has a point. And if he really believes his point, then there's plenty he can do to provide feedback and guidance to people who might desire it, instead of just whinging about it and making haughty comments at people who presented reasoned and reasonable points of their own.
-
I believe Russ’s ‘And you were there’ post was a response to some images I posted recently.
The images were of some alabaster tomb effigies in a Yorkshire church. I didn’t photograph them as ’I was there’ or as record images.
I was attracted by them as soon as I entered the church - not because I think these things are beautiful in themselves ( I don’t ) - I wasn’t sure what it was at the time.
Looking at the images in Lightroom they struck me as being on a long journey in suspended animation, all asleep together but oddly separated. If they’d been woken they’d have been appalled by their physical deterioration. ( Yes I probably watched & read too much sci-fi as a kid: My Dad took me to see 2001 A Space Odyssey when I was 9 - maybe I’m reminded of the sleeping crew in that film ).
I liked the way the light was falling on them too.
I tried to bring this out in the processing of the images: If forum members don’t think I succeeded it’s cool for them to say so - it’s the ‘Critiques’ section. ( & it’s also cool for them to ignore the images ).
I wouldn’t know if anything I post is ‘tourist’ or not - I can’t be much bothered with travel, I haven’t been abroad this Millennium & haven’t even been on holiday ( vacation ) since 2009.
Russ,
I’d be fascinated to hear how you judge ‘emotional merit’. Responding to an artwork emotionally has to be something pretty personal to the viewer & dependent on the personality, experiences, cultural background etc ( like if they read too much sci-fi as a kid ). I was discussing my attraction to shadowy interiors ( i.e. chiaroscuro ) with my partner a few days ago & we decided it was because I’d spent quite a bit of time at my grandparents place from an early age: Their house had a long dark hallway with bright light glowing through glass doors at either end, the upstairs landing was similar: This fascinated me as it was in contrast to our home which was much more evenly lit. My partner reckons she’s completely imprinted by the colours, landscape & flora of her home county.
Churches are great for chiaroscuro.
‘And you were there’. Well yeah - it’s a large part of what photography’s about. Unlike painting, illustration etc you have to be there to make the photo, it’s always at least partially a record of ‘And you were there’.
Slobodan,
I hear what you’re saying about visual noise. That’s partially why I don’t exhibit or have a website - this is the only place online I post images.
As for triage, filtering etc, well part of the fun of photography for me is that it is quite an immediate art form compared to my day job ( stained glass - it can takes years for a design to be passed by various committees & the making process last months ). If I think an image is interesting I post it. If I haven’t got the best artistic quality control then OK - nobody’s going to die because of it.
The National Geographic images were a bit too National Geographic for me.
Graeme
-
the obsession with equipment and tests runs deeper than ever, and the most active threads are the ones that pander to that obsession
It's always been like that here.
-
I recently was thinking how there seem to be two kind of images lately that work really well or are popular as of late:
On the one hand there are minimalist images, or, as i read somewhere, maximally reduced compositions,
and on the other hand are images where there is so much going on, you would see something new each time you look at them.
Minimalism has become popular imo, because it provides a refreshing rest for the eyes and mind in an hyper-stimulating world.
And i believe there are still names (to be) made in the photography scene for anyone that keeps honing their skills to maximize their outputquality, but it does involve the entire productionchain including and up to how a viewer will view the output. When you're just one link in a chain, and maximize just that link, you'll get nowhere without proper support from other people willing to maximize the other links.
This is probably the unfortunate side-effect of having been for example a professional fashionphotographer: you're output used to be picked up by an artdirector who in turn would have it picked up by a good reproservice etc. Clearly those days are far behind us.
-
Gonna have to pat myself on the back for getting LuLaers to argue heatedly about something besides politics. Photography? Why would be argue about photography in a photography blog when we can argue about fascinating things like climate change and similar asininities?
From Slobodan: "The only way to deal with that was to learn beforehand what tools those who would judge our work would use to evaluate it. So we hit the library, attended courses, joined a camera club, and learned about composition, technique, art, perception, etc."
Right on! But the most important part was hitting the library and looking at what's gone before. What works? Nobody seems to do that any longer. Instead of studying what's gone before to help decide what you're after, you go on photography "workshops" with a "mentor," where you learn what lenses, what apertures, what shutter speeds, what ISO's to use and then join the bunch in shooting a picture of Half Dome from the approved position.
From Farmer: "And presumably you're going to claim authority to determine whether such an image from Terry qualifies or not?"
Don't know, Farmer, because I haven't seen a picture by Terry since I guess about the beginning of time. But Terry's basis for acceptability, as he put it in another thread was: "artistic, technical and emotional merit." I think we need to see an example from him. And yes, I'll judge it! I lay claim to such authority, as does Terry!
Also from Farmer: "And if he really believes his point, then there's plenty he can do to provide feedback and guidance to people who might desire it. . ."
Exactly what I'm doing, Farmer, though I'm not sure you desire it.
From Graeme: "I’d be fascinated to hear how you judge ‘emotional merit’. Responding to an artwork emotionally has to be something pretty personal to the viewer & dependent on the personality, experiences, cultural background etc."
Actually, my response wasn't based on your "I was there" pictures of grave sculptures, though those blend into the infinite and eternal collection of "so what" pictures. They were a lot better than some. But based on the quote above I have to conclude you haven't read "The Horror of Technical Excellence." (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/TechnicalExcellence.htm) In which I said:
"When you first view a work of visual art, read a poem, or listen to a musical composition, you either get an emotional jolt or you don't. If you don't, the fault is in the artwork. Which is not to say the work is no good. It's to say the work isn't art to you. It's even possible that later in life you might come back to the work and experience the jolt. But for now the jolt is missing, and for you at least the fault is in the artwork. For a photographer to assume that his technically perfect photograph is going to ring the art bell in everyone is chutzpah of the highest order."
My beef, Graeme, is that most people posting on LuLa aren't posting things that gave them an emotional jolt. They're just showing they were there.
-
Instead of studying what's gone before to help decide what you're after, you go on photography "workshops" with a "mentor," where you learn what lenses, what apertures, what shutter speeds, what ISO's to use and then join the bunch in shooting a picture of Half Dome from the approved position.
Looks like you haven't kept up. The bigger sell these days is "vision."
-
You're probably right, Rajan, but as far as I can see, "vision" still seems to be wrapped around the right camera, right lens, right aperture, right shutter speed, right ISO, a demand for ETTR, and approved vantage points for "iconic" scenes.
And yes, I still have my head back in the pre-digital, pre-internet Paleozoic era mentioned by Slobodan, even though I did software engineering for thirty years.
-
My beef, Graeme, is that most people posting on LuLa aren't posting things that gave them an emotional jolt. They're just showing they were there.
But how do you know this? How are you able to divine what the intent of most photographers were? Because a particular photograph does not give you an "emotional jolt" does not mean that another viewer or even the photographers him or herself might not get that "emotional jolt"?
I may be going out on a limb here with the following assumption but I think that most photographers are posting their photographs, on this site, to share and get both positive and constructive negative reactions from the various viewers. Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with that. If posting photographs on the internet brings pleasure to the photographer, then it is a good thing.
Other people choose not to post their photographs on internet sites and that's OK too.
-
Absolutely, Otto. People surely must get emotional jolts from pictures of their cats. Go ahead: tell me that pictures of pets are posted for art critiques.
-
...If posting photographs on the internet brings pleasure to the photographer, then it is a good thing...
No, it is not. It just increases the amount of crap in the world.
Besides, there are many things that posting of which brings pleasure to the poster, but god forbid we are exposed to all of it. Some of which might get you arrested just for seeing it.
-
This is the mental picture I have in my mind when Russ and Slobodan discuss the next round of pet (and other non emotional jolt) pictures on LuLa ;)
(https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/muppet/images/3/3d/TMS-Statler%26Waldorf-BalconyBox.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110325180958)
-
Absolutely, Otto. People surely must get emotional jolts from pictures of their cats. Go ahead: tell me that pictures of pets are posted for art critiques.
They might be, I don't follow that sort of stuff.
-
Yeah. They're probably posting their cats for constructive criticism.
And, Pieter, good to see you away from the political rants.
-
Yeah. They're probably posting their cats for constructive criticism.
And, Pieter, good to see you away from the political rants.
I don't really get the issue. Bits and bytes aren't in short supply, and so far as I know Kevin hasn't indicated any looming storage capacity crisis. There's a thread for pets. I posted a cat in it to share a picture of my cat. That didn't stop me from posting my seemingly well-received London series at a later date, nor did anything I posted prior to the kitty become devalued, I don't think, by said furry creature.
Speaking more generally, I've never really understood the problem some people seem to have regarding "unwanted" subject matter (images, verbiage, etc.) online. The Intertubes aren't like a closed room or a theatre - someone blasting the kitty thread every day has zero impact on the discussions surrounding Russ' street postings, Slobodan's architecture work, Bob David's nightlights, or my... whatever it is that I do. Until such time as people that post community-enriching work that you enjoy stop doing so entirely in lieu of cats enjoying cheezeburgers, why get distracted by it?
Going back to the original link in the post, I think the work is excellent. One of the hardest things, for me at least, is not what to put into an image, but how to effectively *exclude* those things that detract, and the OP is right (IMO) that many of us could learn form the effectiveness of images like that. But to me, that doesn't inherently devalue work from others that might not subscribe to that theory or that aesthetic, even if the resulting work from those folks might be considered uninspiring.
Tourist pic?
-
I posted a cat in it to share a picture of my cat.
And, of course, you were looking for a critique of your cat, since the title of the blog is "User Critiques."
I really think we need a new blog on LuLa called "Tourist Pictures and Cats."
-
And, of course, you were looking for a critique of your cat, since the title of the blog is "User Critiques."
I really think we need a new blog on LuLa called "Tourist Pictures and Cats."
No, I wasn't (although I did *offer* one - I missed focus, but the paws were tack sharp :D ) I was simply contributing in a place where other were contributing similar images. If the fault is mine for disregarding the meaning of the forum hierarchical structure, I can live with that. ;)
-
Yeah. They're probably posting their cats for constructive criticism.
And, Pieter, good to see you away from the political rants.
Yup, photography is much more fun, even Alan Klein admits that ;)
I also just posted a cat picture in the pets thread: see here (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117397.100) but don't feel pressured to critique it. It was just for fun to show here that I visited my son earlier this week. But it did give me a jolt taking it, so maybe that counts for something. 8)
-
No, I wasn't (although I did *offer* one - I missed focus, but the paws were tack sharp :D ) I was simply contributing in a place where other were contributing similar images. If the fault is mine for disregarding the meaning of the forum hierarchical structure, I can live with that. ;)
Forgot to mention that I like your Taos Belltower. I'm trying to remember just where that little graveyard is.
And Pieter, posting a cat in User Critiques is pretty bad, but it's probably better than the crap that goes on nowadays in the political rants here in the Coffee Corner.
Oops. Time to stop solving photographic problems and have a Perfect Manhattan.
8)
-
Photography is a big tent. Lots of room for everyone.
-
And Pieter, posting a cat in User Critiques is pretty bad
You know me, I don't always follow your established logic and where else then "Let's see your pets" should I have posted that picture? ::)
Enjoy your Manhattan!
-
Forgot to mention that I like your Taos Belltower. I'm trying to remember just where that little graveyard is.
And Pieter, posting a cat in User Critiques is pretty bad, but it's probably better than the crap that goes on nowadays in the political rants here in the Coffee Corner.
Oops. Time to stop solving photographic problems and have a Perfect Manhattan.
8)
Thanks - it's at Taos Pueblo at the old chapel that was destroyed in the 1800s (off the top of my head - could be wrong about the date though...)
Cheers to the manhattan!
-
I don't really get the issue. Bits and bytes aren't in short supply...
An old adage comes to mind: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
P.S. Taos pic is good.
-
An old adage comes to mind: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
P.S. Taos pic is good.
Thank you. I was there, so I shot it ;)
-
...I was there, so I shot it ;)
"Being there" is a conditio sine qua non* in photography. F/8 is optional. The point is to rise above the mere presence. As one jury member once put it (about my submission): "opportunistic shot - you were there, you clicked." It stung (my ego).
* This is just to irritate Jeff, who thinks that certain voters need a translation from words with Latin roots ;)
-
"Being there" is a conditio sine qua non* in photography. F/8 is optional. The point is to rise above the mere presence. As one jury member once put it (about my submission): "opportunistic shot - you were there, you clicked." It stung (my ego).
* This is just to irritate Jeff, who thinks that certain voters need a translation from words with Latin roots ;)
Ah. Hence the increasing popularity of drones.
-
Russ - you're not really providing feedback, you're providing an opinion. In the rare instances that I've posted photos here, I've been give very good feedback and critique - information that helped me learn. Not a general "you shouldn't post that here". I'm always happy to receive feedback, positive or negative, so long as it's constructive. Even if I don't like what's being said, it has value.
Also, in terms of "being there", isn't the old PJ axiom "F8 and be there"?
When I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, travelling around parts of Australia that to this day few people have been, just "being there" and recording it had, and retains, significant value. The old slides mostly taken by my dad, but plenty also by my mum and even the odd one by me. They have value.
-
Don't know, Farmer, because I haven't seen a picture by Terry since I guess about the beginning of time.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Terry is a frequent poster here, and in his images we see both his skills as a photographer and as a communicator.
My beef, Graeme, is that most people posting on LuLa aren't posting things that gave them an emotional jolt. They're just showing they were there.
This one of my cat gives me an emotional jolt every time I see it. In fact, it's posted on my fridge. I shoot a lot of cat pictures and this one, frankly, I find rather engaging, even if I did shoot it with my phone. So there.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2833/33855672531_661ca3454c_b.jpg (scroll down, please to meet Hamish, who is orange)
-
Absolutely, Otto. People surely must get emotional jolts from pictures of their cats. Go ahead: tell me that pictures of pets are posted for art critiques.
Russ, I refer you to my post, #49 in the "Show me your pets" thread, about my cat Hugo. Minor White felt that the photo had artistic merit.
"Artist's model, musician, and bon vivant, his image was one of only two non-human nudes in the exhibit of about 100 prints that Minor White chose for "Being Without Clothes" at M.I.T.'s Hayden Gallery in 1970 (also published as an Aperture book.)"
I rest my case. ;)
Eric
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4157/33934489063_2ee15a0590_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TGF8kD)
160221_pool.torso2_018147 (https://flic.kr/p/TGF8kD) by Morris (https://www.flickr.com/photos/morristaub/), on Flickr
-
Russ - you're not really providing feedback, you're providing an opinion.
Hi Phil, Please explain the difference.
-
...
-
:D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
:D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D
+1
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4157/33934489063_2ee15a0590_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TGF8kD)
160221_pool.torso2_018147 (https://flic.kr/p/TGF8kD) by Morris (https://www.flickr.com/photos/morristaub/), on Flickr
Morris, I adore this shot. The color is perfect - I suspect some might argue over the decision to cut off the swimmer, but I think it's very "contemporary," for lack of a better way to characterize it.
-
Yes, great shot, Moris.
-
+1. And it's in the right thread.
-
So now that we've started the "minimalism" discussion, shall this thread be the place to also post our minimalist images? :) Or should one be started over in the User critiques section? I suspect the images would be great.
-
Hi Phil, Please explain the difference.
I don't mind taking up the challenge on Phil's behalf as I feel quite strongly there is a subtle, but definite difference...
Feedback
"the transmission of evaluative or corrective information about an action, event, or process to the original or controlling source" – Merriem-Webster.com
"information about reactions to a product, a person's performance of a task, etc., used as a basis for improvement." – Oxford dictionaries.com
Opinion
"a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter." – Merriam-Webster.com
"a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert" – Merriam-Webster.com
"a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." – Oxford dictionaries.com
So, it would seem, the two are very similar, but I do detect a slight difference in the way the American Merriam-Webster dictionary defines them compared to the British Oxford dictionary definitions and perhaps this is the basis of confusion; yet again, divided by a common language (something I know all to much about, being a Canadian who taught in England for three years!)
Overall, however, the concept of feedback seems to imply a certain level of helpfulness towards improvement, rather than simply a statement of good or bad, a judgement.
I found this helpful as an explanation of the difference between opinion and feedback on a life coach blog (https://coachtonimiller.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/feedback-vs-opinion/). By no means is it necessarily authoritative, but it certainly puts the meaning of the two terms into perspective.
As an educator working with youth and adult learners, I find people respond much better to feedback that helps them develop their knowledge, understanding and skills, rather than simply judging their work for what it is. Our goal in education is not to simply judge where a student is at, but give them the tools, assistance and feedback to help them become something more. So, amazingly, we've gone away from marks (a judgement) in favour of feedback that will directly help a student towards achieving the next level. Many do not understand the difference and simply want the world to be the same as when they grew up, but, believe it or not, there are more positive ways to encourage progress whether it's geography or photography.
I found this definition of feedback and it might just fit the situation we have ourselves in with this forum thread (from Merriem-Webster.com):
"a rumbling, whining, or whistling sound resulting from an amplified or broadcast signal (such as music or speech) that has been returned as input and retransmitted". :)
Oh, and Russ, I hope you've managed to find some of the photos I've posted here over the years – many of which are unapologetically "tourist pictures". In the future, please try not to confuse me with that forum troll who had all the answers but never posted a single photo (I can't remember his name).
-
Fair enough, Terry. And I did go over to Flickr and look at your landscapes. I realize there's no point arguing about whether or not landscape has "artistic, technical and emotional merit." I'll buy "artistic" (whatever that means), and "technical," "Emotional" is a horse of a different color. In any case it's good work.
Unfortunately, none of your "feedback" definitions explain the difference between feedback and an opinion. Instead I see: "a view, judgment, or appraisal. . ." and "a formal expression of judgment by an 'expert'" (often defined as a drip under pressure), but it's still an opinion.) and "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge," which actually is close to the very definition of an opinion, though sometimes also known as a WAG.
The opinion from the "educator" sort of bypasses the basic question of how you help people "develop their knowledge, understanding and skills." You don't do that by patting them on the ass when what they're doing is crap, though our school systems and universities are loaded with "educators" doing exactly that. To educate people you have to be critical when criticism is called for. No matter how educated an "educator" may be, that kind of criticism is opinion.
And of course the definition of amplifier feedback (rumbling, whining, whistling) often fits exactly the kind of feedback I see on LuLa.
-
Hi Phil, Please explain the difference.
Terry covered it, although you seem to dismiss it.
In the most simple terms, feedback is specific and intended to help. An opinion is simply a view with no value added.
-
“Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.”
– Yoda
-
Terry covered it, although you seem to dismiss it.
In the most simple terms, feedback is specific and intended to help. An opinion is simply a view with no value added.
Hi Phil,
So you think "view," "judgment," "appraisal" are not synonyms for "opinion?" That's certainly an interesting point of view, but it doesn't square with the meanings of words.
-
:D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D
+2.
-
+1. And it's in the right thread.
Huh? You complain about pet shots in user critiques and now you like pictures in the coffee corner. :o ;)
-
Morris, I adore this shot. The color is perfect - I suspect some might argue over the decision to cut off the swimmer, but I think it's very "contemporary," for lack of a better way to characterize it.
thanks, James...
-
Yes, great shot, Moris.
thank you...
-
The sharing of pet photos is just people taking a break and being human. Here is my favorite cat photo. And here is Yosemite which believe me at times I want to leave! I'm sorry if I broke some sacred rule. I do like the discussion and I hope I'm developing as a photographer.
-
Hi Phil,
So you think "view," "judgment," "appraisal" are not synonyms for "opinion?" That's certainly an interesting point of view, but it doesn't square with the meanings of words.
Where did I say that, Russ? In general terms I've made the point that there's a difference between having an expressing an opinion and then doing something constructive as a result of your opinion (feedback).
Lots of words have synonyms, but very few are 100% identical in meaning, either due to history or common usage. But if you just want to nail this down to exact meanings of words, there's plenty of websites for dictionaries.
If, instead, you want to have a discussion about the value of saying "that's bad because..." and "that's bad because and here's some ideas on how to improve it", then we can do that here.
-
... saying "that's bad because..." and "that's bad because and here's some ideas on how to improve it", then we can do that here.
Both are feedback and both are opinions.
The only difference between an opinion and a feedback is the "back" part. If I express an opinion about someone's photograph but they are not aware of it, that's an opinion, but not a feedback. It becomes a feedback if/when they hear it, i.e, when it comes back to them.
-
Fine, change the word because you are so bloody fixated on it.
Stop giving opinions/feedback/whatever-word-you-want that is negative without providing any guidance, direction, experience, and so on. And, more specifically, stop complaining that people are posting certain images without commenting on them directly but just complaining you don't like that type (and still not offering any wisdom as to how to improve beyond "don't post those").
Most normal people understood the nuance between the two words in the context used. You have an opinion. You give feedback.
-
... Stop giving opinions/feedback/whatever-word-you-want that is negative without providing any guidance, direction, experience, and so on...
Ah, the famous "constructive criticism."
From one of my earlier posts:
... every time I hear those odes to "constructive" criticism, I cringe. Every criticism is useful, thus constructive. The burden, though, is on the recipient to understand it properly. My people have a saying that even a mosquito buzz is music for a smart head (i.e., being able to detect even the minute amount of useful information in anything).
Lets not forget the medium, i.e., internet forum. This is not an academic environment and there is no obligation for its participants to provide lengthy, well-reasoned and well-written opinion. This is a free forum, where everybody and anybody, for better or worse, can pitch in, as much or as little they know or have time.
"It sucks" is a perfectly valid criticism. So is "nice!", "+1", "does nothing for me", "bravo!", etc. Just do not fall into clinical depression or quit your day job yet. Put it (as the recipient) into a context. It simply means there are folks who do/do not like it, and they either did not have the time to elaborate, or do not feel eloquent enough to do so, or it is not that worth elaborating. You, as the recipient, pay attention to how many of those comments you get, from whom (i.e., credibility), etc.
-
No, not every criticism is constructive. "It sucks" means nothing. "It sucks because you missed the focus" means something. Leaving it up to someone to guess why you hold an opinion is not constructive, because there's no way for them to validate your criticism.
-
Opinion = when I tell you what I think
Feedback = when I tell you what the wife thinks
I wouldn't know why anyone remotely wants "feedback"...
;-)
-
Gold, Oscar, gold :-)
-
The pointlessness of so-called critique has seldom been more evident than now, when even a definition seems to evade people one might consider capable of understanding the nuances implied…
As well, it underlines the malaise that forms like a cloud wherever a collection of self-styled artists gathers. Ego, fear, pride and envy – such the qualities that pervade. No wonder so many spend their time onsite in the technical measurebating club; possibly they realise that the abstract nature of art makes it a hopeless subject for debate – an utter waste of their day.
Rather than thinking that ”it sucks” is bad criticism, perhaps it’s time to rethink the issue and to see that in a real and basic manner, expression of such an emotion is indeed the most honest of criticism. I have long understood that, for a sane person, belief in one’s instincts is the best judgement one can apply to life. From religion to art, from career to disposal of our own waste at death, we have the answers already built in: we just need to listen to the cold reality our senses try to deliver.
The harsh truth about art is that some people are gifted but a majority is not. It’s the same problem that underscores everything in this modern world, starting with early education and the parental expectation that all shall attain success, however ill-suited the individuals might be to whichever endeavour they apply themselves. We deny life’s realities by offering failure the mask of a double-F pass. Then we are shocked that a prospective employer passes, too. What to do then? Easy: blame the teachers, “the system”, for your child’s (one’s own) stupidity.
Amateur photography offers everyone a cheap yet golden opportunity for expression: seize it and have fun, but in order to do that, switch off the silly voice telling you to ask your fellows whether your work has meaning. How the hell would they know? Suffice that it makes you happy, and most of all that you don’t have to turn it into income.
-
They're rarely asking if it has meaning, they're asking for comments that might help them to improve, either by confirming good aspects or explaining bad ones.
-
They're rarely asking if it has meaning, they're asking for comments that might help them to improve, either by confirming good aspects or explaining bad ones.
" How the hell would they know?"
Applies equally to your slight difference in questioning emphasis.
Show me the experts here and I might be willing to change my mind, even listen to them.
Rob C
-
They're rarely asking if it has meaning. . .
And that, my friend, is exactly the problem.
-
Show me the experts here and I might be willing to change my mind, even listen to them.
Rob C
Rob,
You know full well that I am the Ultimate Expert here! If I say something, it is Absolute Truth for All Eternity (and the same applies to what I say the very next day, even if it is the exact opposite of whatever I said today.) ???
It's all the fault of the Digital Revolution. Back in darkroom days making an image took so much time and effort that we didn't waste energy arguing definitions of minimalism, opinion, or feedback.
Go out and shoot pictures, folks!
-Eric
-
-1.
-
-1.
That is my minimalist opinion. (Or is it feedback?)
-
0
-
Rob,
1. You know full well that I am the Ultimate Expert here! If I say something, it is Absolute Truth for All Eternity (and the same applies to what I say the very next day, even if it is the exact opposite of whatever I said today.)
2. making an image took so much time and effort
-Eric
1. I shall never see you as Mr Trump.
2. No, it was usually a labour of love, so time didn't exist.
I prove this by knowing that my "working years" musical catalogue was formed by pirate radio, to which I would listen each and very darkroom session. I even remember the perfect synchronicity of hearing the Mamas and the Papas singing to me that "the darkest hour is just before dawn" and they were right: I proved it on stepping out of the darkroom trap into the finishing room where the window revealed dawn to be just about to break!
For the skeptical: pop music works when it's based on truth, whether of love found, love lost, working in a coal mine or simply paddling you pirogue up the bayou.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOEI5Lp30_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J759HLTrMaM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3HIBqwWBmU
You see?
-
;D
-
And that, my friend, is exactly the problem.
No, the problem is that you're not directing them to ask that question when you tell them "it sucks" or, since you don't really do that literally, when you say nothing.
Having all the wisdom in the world is worth nought if you keep it all to yourself.
-
No, the problem is that you're not directing them to ask that question when you tell them "it sucks" or, since you don't really do that literally, when you say nothing.
Having all the wisdom in the world is worth nought if you keep it all to yourself.
Now, with that I have no argument.
Rob C
-
You know full well that I am the Ultimate Expert here! If I say something, it is Absolute Truth for All Eternity (and the same applies to what I say the very next day, even if it is the exact opposite of whatever I said today.)
Eric, you've reminded me of something. Before 1966, decisions of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (the highest court of appeal in England and Wales, now called the Supreme Court) were immutable: the principles they laid down could never be changed, except by Act of Parliament. A P Herbert, a member of Parliament in the mid-20th century, wrote humorous columns on law for Punch. One of them contained this, supposedly from a speech in the Lords:
The point which your Lordships are required to decide has never been decided before, and, if your Lordships are able to decide it now, it need never be decided again, nor can it be decided otherwise. It is never likely to arise again, but that is another matter. Your Lordships' House is almost the only authority in this mortal world whose word on any subject is the last word for ever. Your pronouncements have the unalterable force of a law of nature; and if we are able by taking pains to add a single grain of certitude to the shifting sands of human affairs is there any one who is prepared pedantically to count the cost? 'It is something,' as Lord Mildew said in Rex vs. Badger, 'to dot an "i" in perpetuity.'
I think the last sentence and a half is one of the most beautiful pieces of writing I have ever come across, and am delighted to have it brought to mind again.
Jeremy
-
Thanks for that, Jeremy.
Previously I never seriously considered applying to be a (paid) consultant to the House of Lords! I think i'd fit right in.
Unfortunately, the speech you quoted is too complex to be understood by most members of the current U.S. House of Representatives or Senate.
Eric
-
Having all the wisdom in the world is worth nought if you keep it all to yourself.
Well, you can't accuse me of keeping it to myself, Phil.
-
At my age I really don't want to be taught how to make my photos better. I just don't believe anyone, even self proclaimed experts, can make someone see in a new way and/or produce a photo with a unique signature that wasn't there before. And I believe this attitude is ramped to 11 by those who are highly educated retired engineers, doctors, lawyers, programmers, scientists, etc. and now hobbyist photographers. They don't want to be taught either.
Most of Russ's linked Minimalism samples to compare against the less loftier "I was there" tourist shots are just as emotionally empty to me but even worse convey a polished cleverness that seems to annoyingly pander to an audience who'll most likely look at it for 3 seconds and move on.
I kept asking on one of them why is the super model off in the distance silhouetted by a beach cliff scene and ocean horizon climbing a rope up to the cliff? That's a lot of crotch rope burn! Yikes! Ouch! Do any of these photographers who make these kind of shots read back in their mind similar descriptions?
If you're going to make an image that is produced in a style that grabs attention, it better have something to say and not just be eye candy or else I'll go looking at some touristy majestic mountain image which at least doesn't look staged.
-
Well, you can't accuse me of keeping it to myself, Phil.
Your opinions, no. Your wisdom, at times, yes.
-
At my age I really don't want to be taught how to make my photos better.
That's sad, Tim. At 87 I'd bet I'm older than you, yet I learn something new about a world full of images every day. Just look around you. The world is full of new things. "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." (HCB)
-
Your opinions, no. Your wisdom, at times, yes.
Absolutely no sense of humor. Which is typical of left-wingers.
-
Absolutely no sense of humor. Which is typical of left-wingers.
Is it? I don't know - I'm not a left-winger. If this is all a joke, good and well, but I thought you might have had something worthwhile to share.
-
That's sad, Tim. At 87 I'd bet I'm older than you, yet I learn something new about a world full of images every day. Just look around you. The world is full of new things. "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." (HCB)
Russ, I didn't say I don't like learning. I said I don't want to be taught by someone else about a subject, image making, that I feel is a personal journey.
I'm well aware of the art of looking. I was doing that in my teens when I was teaching myself to draw. I'ld take the summer breaks not drawing, but just carefully looking. Surprisingly when I returned to school my drawing skill greatly improved. Here's some of the drawings I did, some paid for and some I did while in school.
http://timlookingbill.deviantart.com/
So I dropped out of art school with a C average and went to work being paid to make the art you see on the t-shirt and the cartoon of the man and woman in that gallery.
I know a thing or two about teaching someone a new style or unique signature and I can tell you you can't teach that especially to those who frequent this forum and other photography sites.
-
...I'm not a left-winger...
No!?
Now, that must be a joke! Just waiting for the punch line.
-
No!?
Now, that must be a joke! Just waiting for the punch line.
Even in US terms, I'm centrist. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but not by much on either as a general guide (obviously, like everyone, there are particular matters, issues, or policies where I might differ from the general description - the simple left/right meter is pretty limited).
Outside of the US, I'm slightly right of centre, but still as above in terms of fiscal and social general direction.
This is one of the problems with political extremism as it flows into extreme partisanship (which is widespread in the US - it's pretty much the norm), in that anyone who is more than a small step one way or the other from you is considered "extreme", because they don't conform to your (and I use the general and, in this case, specific "you") paradigm. By being centrist, I'm left of you so you see me as left wing, but genuine left wingers see me as right wing. There's the simple clue.
Having said that, I don't feel that being right, left, or middle is right or wrong - they're just different. Even centrists can be "extreme", and I don't favour that. It's extremism that I see as the problem.
-
Even centrists can be "extreme", and I don't favour that. It's extremism that I see as the problem.
Amen!
-
Even in US terms, I'm centrist. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. . .
Really? Then if you're fiscally conservative you must be in favor of reining in things like medicaid, and letting wages respond to the market rather than to a "minimum wage." But if you're a social liberal -- at least in the modern meaning of that word -- then you're glad to see medicaid expand and encompass more people, and you're in favor of a government-imposed "living wage" (whatever that is). Your statement is an oxymoron.
-
Even in US terms, I'm centrist... Outside of the US, I'm slightly right of centre..
Too funny, as I see myself the same way! Then again, we all tend to see ourselves in a more favorable light than others see us ;)
-
Too funny, as I see myself the same way! Then again, we all tend to see ourselves in a more favorable light than others see us ;)
Clearly, Slobodan, your tastes don't encompass C&W music, not to menion Swamp Pop Rock!
If they did, you'd never write what you've just written.
It's the secret to my humility; I listen all day.
;-)
Rob
-
So is everybody settled on which wing you fly off the handle on?
Wouldn't you know even this thread about photography would end up another "beating a dead horse" on political slanting and slandering.
-
So is everybody settled on which wing you fly off the handle on?
Wouldn't you know even this thread about photography would end up another "beating a dead horse" on political slanting and slandering.
You can't keep the important stuff down; photography is just a worthless, expensive game.
Rob
-
You can't keep the important stuff down;
Rob
Vomit?
Just take some Pepto-Bismol.
-
Really? Then if you're fiscally conservative you must be in favor of reining in things like medicaid, and letting wages respond to the market rather than to a "minimum wage." But if you're a social liberal -- at least in the modern meaning of that word -- then you're glad to see medicaid expand and encompass more people, and you're in favor of a government-imposed "living wage" (whatever that is). Your statement is an oxymoron.
Firstly, I'm not an American, and secondly that's a very narrow view of both perspectives. Of course there are times when the two sides come into conflict, that happens even for someone who is right or left of centre. The key is that you take "socially liberal" as "a social liberal", but you miss the bit where I say not very far on either side for the most part.
I look at universal healthcare in Australia and see that we spend much less on health than the US does (public and private) for better outcomes. I see that the US system is broken, with very poor fiscal outcomes. It doesn't need to move to a universal healthcare system, but it does need to look at tort reform and health insurance and fix both, which are utterly broken. The level of public healthcare probably can be expanded in some cases, but it's likely that overall costs would go down if less people needed it as a result of fixing those two aspects I mentioned. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal - in a balance, with room to move around depending on needs (i.e. no extremism).
Wages? That delves into far more complex economics than a simple yes or no to your question. In essence, though, a reasonable and sustainable baseline to protect individuals who have essentially no power compared to their employers balanced against the need to reflect the actual value of the work. The real issue is consumers expecting to get a lot for nothing, and I have to say the tip system which in theory pays those who do better but in reality often screws over people because the consumers don't always play the game fairly. The expectation that tips are your basic income is fundamentally flawed because regardless of your performance, someone can stiff you on the tip.
So, complex, but very much capable of being looked at from both perspectives to achieve a reasonable balance.
More interesting would be to find a topic where it was more of a dilemma, and that's where I feel comfortable not being an extreme centrist, knowing that sometimes there's no balance possible and you just need to pick a way forward, and that can be discussed.
-
Hey, Phil, funny but I agree with most of what you said above, but we hijacked this thread enough, so let's continue in other threads, if needed.
-
Vomit?
Just take some Pepto-Bismol.
Could just be; politics sometimes makes one feel that way...
Unfortunatey, the solution can't be taken orally, and trying to apply it via the suppositiory method may invoke the strong arm of the law.
Democracy, you see...
Rob C