Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Dale Villeponteaux on October 24, 2010, 07:46:20 pm
-
The ubiquitous mallard. Capture sharpened with the head dodged. C&C appreciated.
Thanks,
Dale
-
Your anas is out of focus.
-
Assuming it were in focus, why are we looking at it? This is not a zoology class, or a bird-watching forum. What is the story, what are you trying to communicate with the picture?
-
A whimsy really. As in the picture title, a bird sifting light and water, looking for gold.
-
A whimsy really. As in the picture title, a bird sifting light and water, looking for gold.
It takes more imagination than I have to derive that thought from the image, I'm afraid. I can't help wondering if without the duck it might have been an interesting abstract.
Jeremy
-
It takes more imagination than I have to derive that thought from the image, I'm afraid. I can't help wondering if without the duck it might have been an interesting abstract.
Jeremy
My thought exactly when I looked at it yesterday.
-
It takes more imagination than I have to derive that thought from the image, I'm afraid. I can't help wondering if without the duck it might have been an interesting abstract.
Jeremy
Aha! A job for Content-Aware Fill!!!
(Apologies, Dale.)
-
Aha! A job for Content-Aware Fill!!!
(Apologies, Dale.)
Prefer the brain surgery idea, myself.
Rob C
-
Ah well, I fear this picture is a child only a parent could love. "'Tis a poor thing, but mine own."
Thanks for looking
Dale
-
Prefer the brain surgery idea, myself.
Rob C
I would have used the chainsaw but I couldn't find it buried under my pile of recent prints and discarded body parts. So I used CS5 instead.
Eric
-
...I read first the OP Anal platyrhynchos,
I Happily thought there was finally a little bit of sex and depravation in the forum...then I saw the blured duck.
Oh well.
-
I often look at images on here and other sites and then at the comments and insights attributed to them by posters and wonder at what they have "seen". Either their imagination is a lot better than mine or their imagination is illusory. I sometimes think that they see something for the sake of it rather than what is "real" I know that everybody has and is entitled to their opinions but I am often left head scratching. Either I have a lot to learn - a distinct possibility - or some of them are exacting the P. :(
-
I often look at images on here and other sites and then at the comments and insights attributed to them by posters and wonder at what they have "seen". Either their imagination is a lot better than mine or their imagination is illusory. I sometimes think that they see something for the sake of it rather than what is "real" I know that everybody has and is entitled to their opinions but I am often left head scratching. Either I have a lot to learn - a distinct possibility - or some of them are exacting the P. :(
As that famous line in Apocalypse Now almost went: I love the smell of urine in the morning.
Rob C
-
...I read first the OP Anal platyrhynchos,
I Happily thought there was finally a little bit of sex and depravation in the forum...then I saw the blured duck.
Oh well.
Fred, you frighten me: yet another experience we shared!
Rob C
-
One last to show I can occasionally get the focus right. Less gold on the water, too, so less trouble to the imagination.
Thanks,
Dale
-
What escapes me is why these shots should be considered any less worthy of serious consideration than many others I have seen here.
-
What escapes me is why these shots should be considered any less worthy of serious consideration than many others I have seen here.
Since this section is "The Art of Photography," and since this particular board is "User Critiques" as they pertain to this art, it seems the overwhelming consensus is there is nothing "artsy" in the original image (nor, in my mind, the second image). And I don't mean any disrespect.
To me, there are 3 potential payoffs to photographing a duck in the water: (1) an exceptional photo of the duck, showing either exquisite shape or color [or both], (2) something compelling about the water itself that surrounds the duck, or (3) something interesting about the duck and its relationship to the water [e.g., flapping & spraying the water, etc.].
I don't think either photo achieves any of these 3 potential elements well at all. The quality of the duck image is (at best) common; the quality of the water is (again, at best) common; and the way the duck is sitting on the water is nothing out of the ordinary either. I personally see nothing in either photo that I haven't seen in the hundreds of times I've seen ducks on the water.
I think a compelling nature shot has to capture either the form ... or the color ... or the action of wildlife in its environment in some kind of attention-grabbing way that we don't get to see every day.
And, with all due respect, I don't think any of these images does this well at all.
Or at least not for me ...
Jack
-
What escapes me is why these shots should be considered any less worthy of serious consideration than many others I have seen here.
I think the various opinions sums up why. Are you bucking the trend and stating that you find them worthy? If so why? ???
-
To John Koerner,
This is helpful.
Thanks,
Dale
-
To John Koerner,
This is helpful.
Thanks,
Dale did you think the image was good? At the end of the day that is all that counts. :)
Dale
-
I think the various opinions sums up why. Are you bucking the trend and stating that you find them worthy? If so why? ???
I could be saying that or I could be indicating that there is much else on here that is equally unworthy.
Your call.
-
I could be saying that or I could be indicating that there is much else on here that is equally unworthy.
Your call.
Would you like to elaborate on this? After all it is a Critique thread. ;)
-
What escapes me is why these shots should be considered any less worthy of serious consideration than many others I have seen here.
Oh, maybe precisely because of that... maybe we are reaching a tipping point... of just not being able to take it anymore? ;)
-
What escapes me is why these shots should be considered any less worthy of serious consideration than many others I have seen here.
My thoughts exactly
O we put the bar high and just ignore what's not minimally acheived or mastered, o we decide that everyone has a chance to receive constructive criticisms, even if they are horrors.
I personally prefer the last option.
-
To John Koerner,
This is helpful.
Thanks,
Dale
Sure thing Dale.
I am no expert on bird photography but I do try to study what these photographers do. One thing I have learned about animal photography in general (especially small animal photography) is try not to shoot "down" at the animal, but instead try to shoot "up" at it (or at least try to be on the animal's level). If you have to lay down flat to get to their level, go ahead and do it. If the subject is already overhead, or level, so much the better. This kind of perspective gives a sense of presence, majesty to the animal ... whereas shooting "down" at a smaller animal makes it look (well) small and insignificant.
The most compelling duck photography I have viewed seems to come when the perspective is at the water's level, or close to it, where either the color/form of the duck is itself exquisite, or both the duck and the background blend or harmonize in some unique, impacting way. It's hard to get all of the factors in your favor at once when trying to compose a nature shot (lighting, shadows, framing, background, perfect focus, etc.) ... especially when the subject is moving, the clouds are streaming passed the sun which constantly changes the lighting, and/or the wind is blowing ... but that is just what makes it so worthwhile when you finally do get it all together just right in that one magic moment and just nail your shot :)
The "almosts" you pile-up in between times will either drive you into despair and frustration ... or they will drive you to obsession and concentration ... until you nail yet another perfect one again.
I can truthfully promise you I throw away 10x more photos than I keep ...
Jack
.
-
I could be saying that or I could be indicating that there is much else on here that is equally unworthy.
Your call.
The critique isn't a contest so when you look at an image then you don't try and compare it with others on the forum. You judge it as being presented as it is. In this instance it looked to be an ordinary every day shot - which I have taken many - that normally wouldn't have been commented on but someone decided to "trash" it. Possibly the poster will have learnt about the harsh realities of posting an image on here that wasn't imo very good and post something that is "better". I take a deep breadth and cross my fingers when I hit the submit button. :-X
-
I take a deep breadth and cross my fingers when I hit the submit button. :-X
Stamper, I don't think you should worry at all.
There are two ways of looking at pictures on the web: first, if it's your job you are pushing, then you have to show the best of what you expect to do for payment; second, if for fun, then I think you can be happy enough to show what tickled your fancy at the time of shooting. Nobody is so uptight that they feel obliged to present works of genius every time - at least, I hope not, or God help us all!
I think there is room for exchanging opinions, telling people that something you have seen here has moved you to doing something yourself; if it's all to be seen as a competition, a hunt for shooter of the month, then I think I, for one, would never post again.
Rob C
-
Photographs that have take the application of a little thought, skill, knowledge, consideration to create the image are more likely to be reviewed favourably, or one would like to think so anyway. It is a nice idea to consider a picture 'as presented', in isolation to everything else but that denies us any standards or benchmarks by which to judge it, either overtly or subconsciously.
-
I hear your message, Justin, but I think my position was flawed: this is a critique space so it's reasonable for people to expect to have their work dissected.
Perhaps the ideal is for an alternative, simple space where pix can be shown that are not submitted for mainly pointless analysis, but just to be looked at for their own sake or for some special notion that the poster wants to discuss.
As it is, the feeling in this section is generally that of a sort of camera club atmosphere, something that is not what I am looking for at all. Most of the stuff that regulars post is competent and that's probably good enough; not everybody needs to be better than that, nor wants to be. There's something a bit disturbing about reading one person mouthing off opinion on another's work. The mouth can never know what was in the snapper's mind, and these second guesses are not helpful, in my opinion, but it's well known that I never did advocate paying attention to anyone else's opinion about your work. What the hell do they know that you don't, other than, perhaps, technique? But the art is all yours or its not there at all. And if not, then nobody else can fill in the colours for you. (I don't mean 'you' as in you, I intend it as in 'one'!)
Rob C
-
I hasten to point out Rob that my last post was intended as a general response to the direction of the thread rather than a challenge to your message.
I've mentioned elsewhere that the role of photography has been completely redefined by the wave of IT that has swept the world. Where once there were reasonable certainties about the hierarchy within camera users ranging from Christmas/holiday snappers to very professional professionals with a whole range of positions in between there is now a great grey conglomeration of folk with widely differing skill levels but all clutching two very common items, a digital camera and the belief that possession of such a tool automatically bestows upon them the title of 'Photographer'. It is because of this that I do wish forums such as LL were more like camera clubs, for that, as you know, is the route which I followed and I still smart from comments made by people with motives both altruistic and perhaps a little more self interested but what was more important still was the way in which I was encouraged to think about the craft as a craft rather than simply determining a supposed skill level dictated by the number of features and functions on the camera used.
Perhaps I was just lucky falling in with the right crowd at the right time (and I think I was now I look back) and I count my blessings, however that does not make me any more comfortable with the toe curling dullness of yet another snow capped mountain reflected in a lake or a bright red sunset or poorly lit forest interior and so on and on. These duck pictures are the absolute realisation of my discontent although I do genuinely admire the determination of their author in justifying them for it rather painfully reminds me of my first steps even though I was working with a basic SLR of Eastern European origin rather than a sophisticated Japanese mini PC with a lens screwed in the front.
A week or two ago I was praising some pictures taken at that junction twixt air and water for what really stood out was the fact that here was somebody trying to do something constructive and creative, they were actually thinking about the craft and not the camera. Full marks in my book!
-
Stamper, I don't think you should worry at all.
There are two ways of looking at pictures on the web: first, if it's your job you are pushing, then you have to show the best of what you expect to do for payment; second, if for fun, then I think you can be happy enough to show what tickled your fancy at the time of shooting. Nobody is so uptight that they feel obliged to present works of genius every time - at least, I hope not, or God help us all!
I think there is room for exchanging opinions, telling people that something you have seen here has moved you to doing something yourself; if it's all to be seen as a competition, a hunt for shooter of the month, then I think I, for one, would never post again.
Rob C
When someone posts an image then it tends to reflect how good a photographer they are? A poor image will have the members thinking he/she isn't very good and a good image will have the opposite effect especially if the images are consistently poor or good. We all have an ego and mostly post to get it massaged hence the trepidation when pressing the submit button. I was a camera club member and "won" several competitions. I done so by trying to second guess what the members would like and it generally worked. In hindsight I should have submitted what I really liked and some quirky ones. I wouldn't have "won" so many competitions but would probably have felt better about myself. That is the conundrum... play safe or be true to yourself? My ego likes to get massaged as much as the next person so you post something that you think will get universal praise instead of something that is really worthwhile.
-
a digital camera and the belief that possession of such a tool automatically bestows upon them the title of 'Photographer'.
A left of centre adjunct to this point: In Iceland, you are not allowed to call yourself a 'photographer' in any form of commercial advertising unless you have a formal qualification from a university or equivalent institution (according to the strict adherence of their commercial laws).
Iceland might not know how to manage their economy but they got this right in my book. No different to a plumber or electrician. They cant call themself either or without the relevant qualification (In Australia anyway).
That said.. 'Photographer' is just a title. And personally I dont feel threatened by someone who picks up a digital camera for the first time and calls themself a photographer. We all know it takes more than the camera. An analogy: Just because I picked up the pots and pans this evening and made a bowl of spaghetti doesnt make me a chef! I can use the title.. but I am no more a chef than any other untrained/unqualified 'cook'. Any real chef would spot me a mile away... I assume you see the analogy...
-
There is a difference between somebody who takes photographs and somebody who is a photographer. Anybody can take a photograph. The former switches the camera on, points it at something and presses the shutter. The latter has some knowledge of what they are about to do when the shutter is pressed.
Quote
a digital camera and the belief that possession of such a tool automatically bestows upon them the title of 'Photographer'.
Unquote
Why was the word digital used instead of film when it would have been equally applicable?
-
I do quite clearly see the analogy and it is quite correct and one I have deployed myself on occasion. Where I would strongly disagree though is with Iceland's rather myopic stance. I'm all in favour of suitable qualifications where harm or damage can result from poor workmanship, but photography!!!!? If the job is important and expensive enough then I assume that the customer actually checks out the work of the suppliers first, if the their product is good and consistently so then what need of a certificate, who is going to die if a photographer messes up a fashion shoot?
It is the same tired argument that the 'professional' website building community keep throwing around. Let's be honest here, what's going to happen if a page doesn't load on a local community site for instance? Will some terrible plague or foul maleficence fall upon the head of the designer, should they expect a terrible tide of evil to blight their lives and those of their loved ones until eternity? Going by the views of many qualified web designers that I have encountered that is exactly what will happen and it is total self interested poppycock. Sure, if you are a bank or hospital or somesuch then get a proper web development team in but otherwise let people just get on with their lives and stop being so anally retentive.
-
There is a difference between somebody who takes photographs and somebody who is a photographer. Anybody can take a photograph. The former switches the camera on, points it at something and presses the shutter. The latter has some knowledge of what they are about to do when the shutter is pressed.
Quote
a digital camera and the belief that possession of such a tool automatically bestows upon them the title of 'Photographer'.
Unquote
Why was the word digital used instead of film when it would have been equally applicable?
In answer to you last point the advent of home computing has encouraged the purchase of digital cameras as an extension to the PC rather than a photographic tool in its own right. For the most part those that bought SLR's in the days of yore did so because they were interested in photography as a craft rather than something else to do on the computer. As a generalisation this may be a little broad but there is more than a grain of truth in it.
-
When someone posts an image then it tends to reflect how good a photographer they are? A poor image will have the members thinking he/she isn't very good and a good image will have the opposite effect especially if the images are consistently poor or good. We all have an ego and mostly post to get it massaged hence the trepidation when pressing the submit button. I was a camera club member and "won" several competitions. I done so by trying to second guess what the members would like and it generally worked. In hindsight I should have submitted what I really liked and some quirky ones. I wouldn't have "won" so many competitions but would probably have felt better about myself. That is the conundrum... play safe or be true to yourself? My ego likes to get massaged as much as the next person so you post something that you think will get universal praise instead of something that is really worthwhile.
Well, I'm definitely swinging to the side that I don't give a damn what other's think of my images. When I do post something it's generally to get a reaction or feedback to assist me in refining what I'm trying to communicate. I also feel that an image or set needs to elicit a reaction without explanation or only minimal context. So I don't tend to comment once the image is out there nor provide explanations on why I took the image in the first place. It might not be the best strategy to get valuable insight from others (taking my last post as an example.)
"Club" competitions are also losing interest. There's the whole second guessing what the audience would prefer but I wasn't enjoying the process of figuring out what others would like. More importantly, I was losing clarity on my own projects and interests.
As to the Latin duck. There's not much beautiful in how the shot was taken. Maybe that was the point and it's part of a series about mundane ducks in public parks. It could also be the beginning of a journey of someone developing a passion for wildlife photography. I wouldn't be sure how to respond to the post without knowing more about the poster themselves without a little background. I think I might start adding more context when I ask for critique.
-
A left of centre adjunct to this point: In Iceland, you are not allowed to call yourself a 'photographer' in any form of commercial advertising unless you have a formal qualification from a university or equivalent institution (according to the strict adherence of their commercial laws).
Iceland might not know how to manage their economy but they got this right in my book. No different to a plumber or electrician. They cant call themself either or without the relevant qualification (In Australia anyway).
That said.. 'Photographer' is just a title. And personally I dont feel threatened by someone who picks up a digital camera for the first time and calls themself a photographer. We all know it takes more than the camera. An analogy: Just because I picked up the pots and pans this evening and made a bowl of spaghetti doesnt make me a chef! I can use the title.. but I am no more a chef than any other untrained/unqualified 'cook'. Any real chef would spot me a mile away... I assume you see the analogy...
I can't tell you the number of people I've met and worked with in Europe that rue the "qualifications" system. They'd have talents that weren't reflected in the schooling and diplomas they'd achieved, but with little hope of gainful employment within the professions of their talents or passions outside of formal qualifications.
I understand the system and respect the value of training and apprenticeship, but it shouldn't be about how the world defined you in your mid-teens.
-
Most "qualification" systems are set up by politicians in response to pressure from groups already in the business they say requires "qualification." The objective is what economists call "rent seeking." In other words they're trying to cut down competition through government action. It's as true here in the USA as it is anywhere in the world. One of the most absurd "qualification" systems is for hairdressers. In some cities hairdressers are required to take hundreds of hours of useless classes in order to obtain licenses.
-
Oh dear. I think I'm about to become more the outsider than ever.
Qualifications.
I used to believe that a free and open market was the way to fly, mainy because I had the luck to get into an idustrial unit as my first pro experience, and that was before I had any truck with photographic education. My experiences there in that unit taught me all I ever needed to know about photography, the doing of, but nothing about business or art. The educational bit, via night school, was an unmitigated disaster of poor pros teaching naive children how to do it their way. Would you believe 4x5 Gandolfi and tungsten light for head shots, in the day when Hasselblads and electronic studio units existed? Dear God. And then the day the 'lecturer' informed me that were he to shoot picture as did David Bailey, he would quit photography...
So, you'd imagine that I'm all for free access then? No, I'm not.
I think that pro photography falls into two main camps: a. commercial, and b. 'for the people' in the sense of the high street and all that means.
In the pro world, you live or die, almost literally, by your last shoot, and it's a damn small and incestuous community of shooters and agencies in most towns. Screw up and your reputation is done, and you can do no more harm, and very quickly.
But, when you work for the public, that does not hold true. I have seen Scottish snappers in that world continue to work and get fat producing crap. And nobody is any the wiser. The public does not have the protection that the knowledge that the business world has provides.
Because of that, and to a far lesser extent to the benefit of the business world, I do now think that some formal certificate of competence should be mandatory as a form of basic protecion. People can spend thousands of pounds they might not really be able to waste on wedding pictures. Apart from the money aspect, I am reminded of my own wedding: they picked the 'best' wedding guy in town and we bought two images. They sucked, big time. Really terrible in basic things such as camera shake, would you believe? And remember, with many wedding operations you have no idea who will actually turn up with 'his own camera' and shoot your once-in-a-lifetime day.
Why are some afraid of sitting a basic test to gain a basic certificate that proves they can, at least once, get it right to order?
Sorry, this is too short to make the point properly, but I can't bear to write any longer having to keep ducking under the bottom of the little hole in which we are supposed to pen our missives. I should have used Word yet again.
Rob C
-
I can't tell you the number of people I've met and worked with in Europe that rue the "qualifications" system. They'd have talents that weren't reflected in the schooling and diplomas they'd achieved, but with little hope of gainful employment within the professions of their talents or passions outside of formal qualifications.
I understand the system and respect the value of training and apprenticeship, but it shouldn't be about how the world defined you in your mid-teens.
In photograhy, it's usually in your teens when you know you can't live without it; you should act then.
Don't talk to me about diplomas etc., I have those in my own family with degrees from university that meant squat. But, they seemed the easy, 'pleasant' option at the time... Proust, I believe it may have been, had something to say about the search for lost time, or is it really times lost? I believe my Golden Age has just beckoned again. Time to fly and pop my evening pills. I almost rattle.
Rob C
-
Funny things qualifications. Here in Ireland 1,000 nurses finished their training this year and had no jobs to go to whilst a friend's daughter graduated in equine science at Limerick and awaiting the 50 that made up her class there were 250 people wanting to employ them. Funnier still is that our youngest is keen to study something horsey whilst as a concerned parent I've always considered nursing a much safer bet. Well, that's me shot down pretty emphatically!
Returning to photography I really don't see any sort of licensing arrangement being effective let alone practical or enforceable. Would it mean for instance that Uncle Bob would be barred from taking snaps at his nieces wedding for a few quid? Trying to get that to work on the ground would be a somewhat thankless task.
-
Because of that, and to a far lesser extent to the benefit of the business world, I do now think that some formal certificate of competence should be mandatory as a form of basic protecion.
Rob C
Rob, The problem with that is that a person or people have to judge who's competent and who's not. As soon as you create a certifier or group of certifiers you've opened the process to bribery and general corruption. You're also depending on a person or group who may not be competent. How are you going to select the certifiers? Elect them? Have them appointed by politicians?
When I was mayor of Manitou Springs, Colorado we had a group called the Historic Preservation Commission. This was a commission that had the authority to tell you what color to paint your house, etc. The chairwoman was a gal who was known around town as "the queen of kitsch." She was a nice lady but her taste left something to be desired. There wasn't any way to get her out of there. I tried to get rid of the commission by pointing out that if we'd had historic preservation from the time Manitou first was settled we'd all be living in tepees, but the Council didn't buy it.
Something I first noticed when I was a kid: There are people who will gripe and complain about the Congress and the President and in the next breath tell you about something the "government" ought to make a law about. Who the hell do they think the "government" is?
-
… There are people who will gripe and complain about the Congress and the President and in the next breath tell you about something the "government" ought to make a law about. Who the hell do they think the "government" is?
Well, you can't really blame your wife for everything… that is where the government comes handy. ;)
-
Right, Slobodan, but usually complaining about the government is a reasoned and reasonable response. It's the second part of that situation that's not reasoned or reasonable.
-
Right, Slobodan, but usually complaining about the government is a reasoned and reasonable response. It's the second part of that situation that's not reasoned or reasonable.
But suddenly in the U.S.A. at least it is unfashionable to use reason when complaining about government. Facts are out. "Truth" is in the eye of the (often very low-res) beholder.
Eric
-
Something I first noticed when I was a kid: There are people who will gripe and complain about the Congress and the President and in the next breath tell you about something the "government" ought to make a law about. Who the hell do they think the "government" is?
So much truth there.
There are always people wanting laws to be made about this, that and t'other, just so long as they perceive such rules to bolster their own immediate well being that is. Try imposing somebody else's wish list of legislation upon them and suddenly their rights are threatened and democracy is once more teetering on the edge. Many folk just can't seem to think beyond their own little comfort zone which has a most corrosive effect upon society as a whole.
Personally I feel that America has now become ungovernable in many ways. Obama is at heart probably one of the straightest and most well meaning presidents the country has had for decades and yet the fruitcakes on the right cannot accept anything that smacks of common sense or decency if it offends their totally self centred view and belief in themselves as God's (their own god of course) chosen people. The US could at one time be respected, not any more, despite the many good people who just happen to be American.
Sorry, got a bit carried away there, what was that about ducks?
-
Rob, The problem with that is that a person or people have to judge who's competent and who's not. As soon as you create a certifier or group of certifiers you've opened the process to bribery and general corruption. You're also depending on a person or group who may not be competent. How are you going to select the certifiers? Elect them? Have them appointed by politicians?
Russ, I believe you are exaggerating the problem for the sake of making the point. To extend that argument, no qualifications would become possible, neither medical, flying, sailing, teaching, anything. There is no difficulty in selecting valid judges: the old Institute of British Photographers (IBP) was perfectly capable of selecting and grading the standing of members until its best efforts were degraded by the wedding fratenity clamouring to get a bit of the legitimacy for themselves. After that was permitted, the thing became a meaningless joke, as did the qualifications and the spin-off associations of, mainly, money-creating licensing committees. It was good when it was tough.
I've lived through the period where qualifications were not a legal requirement but most certainly were essential weapons in any serious effort to gain employment within industrial photography. The commercial, outside world of poseurs and charlatans was always a different kettle of, often, stinking fish, even if mainy short-lived ones.
Rob C
-
Following is one of the better feedback commentaries i've read here in a while. Great work!
Sure thing Dale.
I am no expert on bird photography but I do try to study what these photographers do. One thing I have learned about animal photography in general (especially small animal photography) is try not to shoot "down" at the animal, but instead try to shoot "up" at it (or at least try to be on the animal's level). If you have to lay down flat to get to their level, go ahead and do it. If the subject is already overhead, or level, so much the better. This kind of perspective gives a sense of presence, majesty to the animal ... whereas shooting "down" at a smaller animal makes it look (well) small and insignificant.
The most compelling duck photography I have viewed seems to come when the perspective is at the water's level, or close to it, where either the color/form of the duck is itself exquisite, or both the duck and the background blend or harmonize in some unique, impacting way. It's hard to get all of the factors in your favor at once when trying to compose a nature shot (lighting, shadows, framing, background, perfect focus, etc.) ... especially when the subject is moving, the clouds are streaming passed the sun which constantly changes the lighting, and/or the wind is blowing ... but that is just what makes it so worthwhile when you finally do get it all together just right in that one magic moment and just nail your shot :)
The "almosts" you pile-up in between times will either drive you into despair and frustration ... or they will drive you to obsession and concentration ... until you nail yet another perfect one again.
I can truthfully promise you I throw away 10x more photos than I keep ...
Jack
.
-
Russ, I believe you are exaggerating the problem for the sake of making the point. To extend that argument, no qualifications would become possible, neither medical, flying, sailing, teaching, anything. There is no difficulty in selecting valid judges: the old Institute of British Photographers (IBP) was perfectly capable of selecting and grading the standing of members until its best efforts were degraded by the wedding fratenity clamouring to get a bit of the legitimacy for themselves. After that was permitted, the thing became a meaningless joke, as did the qualifications and the spin-off associations of, mainly, money-creating licensing committees. It was good when it was tough.
Rob, Maybe I'm missing something, but seems to me you just made my point.
But: (1) As far as medical certification is concerned, here in the US the American Medical Association controls the whole thing. They determine how many people will be allowed to become MDs, etc. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, but it sure ends up "underserving" rural communities. (2) Flying certification is a bit different from hairdresser certification. It doesn't depend on a certain number of hours spent in a classroom. It depends on an instructor pilot sitting next to you with a clipboard while you fly an airplane. If the pilot works for an airline the airline is very interested in making sure the guy isn't going to prang one of their airplanes, so the IPs are very good. (3) Sailing is a lot like flying. Two of my sons are certified. But the only thing sailing certification does is make sure you're qualified when you rent a boat. (4) Finally, teaching: I don't know what teacher certification is like in your part of the world, but here in the US it's a joke. It has nothing to do with professional qualifications in, say, math, if you're going to teach a math class. It has only to do with how many hours you've sat in a classroom listening to someone drone on in educationese. It's controlled by the unions for the benefit of the unions. I come from a long line of teachers and I've seen the whole disaster at work.
But for photographic certification: Who's going to evaluate the photographers? On what basis? Seems to me that to answer either of those questions lands you in hot water.
-
My daughter and her hubby are both teachers, and it took a university degree plus further stuff to get to teaching a class; I'm not sure how the unions function, but they can't have done very well as the salaries are pretty low... However, I do think I was told that some reach the teacher level without a degree and need another sort of qualification. Perhaps that limits the harm they can do higher up the grade because they work lower down the totem pole. However, bad teaching at any level will be paid for by the pupil.
If there's a problem in schools today (I only speak about Scotland) then I think it's a matter of discipline. When I was a schoolboy it never entered out heads to treat teachers with disrespect; they would never have tollerated such a dumb thing. Further, going home with a bad report or with a telephone call from the school arriving home before one, would have resulted in a further heap of troubles! Come to think of it, I don't think anybody I knew was inclined to be rude to adults; I don't believe it entered our heads. Why would it?
Today, some teachers fear the parent/teacher interface because of violent parents!
The blame for that, in my mind, falls squarely on the heads of the morons that took over basic education during and after the 60s. Worse, the same tribe seems to have taken over all the posts in the judiciary, too. Nobody gets legally thumped for anything. Unless it involves money. Steal that in a big way and you will be chased forever. Unless you are a Member of Parliament, when they will close ranks about you and obfuscate and stonewall until the press forgets.
Rob C