Is exposure to and study of good photography a bad thing?

[bribrius]

That is just flat out insulting.

Only if you project yourself into his story.

Just caught the last line, it was enough for me. Apparently enough for the mod too. I could ask you the same thing. How come you are so worried about what i do? I hardly ever see you post any images.

 

[sashbar]

Creating Beauty in the Mundane Great Photos of Park Benches Light Stalking

 

[bribrius]

Creating Beauty in the Mundane Great Photos of Park Benches Light Stalking

yeah it gets a little "old" though doesn't it? I do like the bw and the walkway though. (6,7)

 

[tirediron]

...I completely disagree with "It's [the] composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.", as an all-encompassing generalization of photography. When you're shooting ... non-moving subjects in a controlled environment, then composition is vitally important. But when you're documenting a story, shooting a non-stationary subject(s) in a fluid, uncontrolled environment ... then, composition becomes secondary to shooting the story, to capturing the defining moment of the story. But composition is always there and the documentary photographer is always looking for ways to add drama, emphasis and punctuation to the images.

.... okay, I get it and we're both saying the same thing ... the difference between a snapshot and a photograph is the depiction by the photog of the subject as opposed to the minimal to no photographer input of a snapshot.

And you equate that photographer depiction as composition.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you Gary, at least to a point. I think composition is critical and is indeed the defining quality of almost every image, BUT... what consitutes good composition for me, in the studio, and what is good composition for you shooting a riot in downtown LA are often two totally different things, but let's face it, if I cut off the subject's head, chances are the client's not buying the image. If you cut off the head of the guy holding the flaming Molotove cocktail in front of the riot squad, chances are the image isn't running above the fold.

 

[bribrius]

...I completely disagree with "It's [the] composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.", as an all-encompassing generalization of photography. When you're shooting ... non-moving subjects in a controlled environment, then composition is vitally important. But when you're documenting a story, shooting a non-stationary subject(s) in a fluid, uncontrolled environment ... then, composition becomes secondary to shooting the story, to capturing the defining moment of the story. But composition is always there and the documentary photographer is always looking for ways to add drama, emphasis and punctuation to the images.

.... okay, I get it and we're both saying the same thing ... the difference between a snapshot and a photograph is the depiction by the photog of the subject as opposed to the minimal to no photographer input of a snapshot.

And you equate that photographer depiction as composition.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you Gary, at least to a point. I think composition is critical and is indeed the defining quality of almost every image, BUT... what consitutes good composition for me, in the studio, and what is good composition for you shooting a riot in downtown LA are often two totally different things, but let's face it, if I cut off the subject's head, chances are the client's not buying the image. If you cut off the head of the guy holding the flaming Molotove cocktail in front of the riot squad, chances are the image isn't running above the fold.

lol. yeah, you start cutting off heads you better be going for some kind of abstract people shot...

 

[sashbar]

I think what Gary says is that a reporter often simply can not afford that luxury to care too much about the composition. He has no time, he is restricted in his movements, he can not choose the a better light etc, but nevertheless basic composition is so much engraved in his mind it is practically automatic, he does what he can in the circumstances. When there is a choice, an editor will always choose a better composed shot, but sometimes just about any shot will do, because he need at least something to illustrate a story.

 

[Forkie]

Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.

Agree to a extent.

I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance. Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills". I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.

I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image. Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little. There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is. Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no. And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.

Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone. I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images. I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.

This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.

And if we are to claim that all this is good, then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.

Here is where the difference is. You are placing importance in the subject of your photo, whereas the photographers place their importance in their depiction of the subject. It's composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.

A good subject does not a good photo make.

In my world of photojournalism, it is all about the subject, all about the story. In the world of studio/commercial photography, it is about composition and lighting ... In the studio, it is more important to capture a pretty picture than the telling of a story. (pretty = successful)

I completely disagree with "It's [the] composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.", as an all-encompassing generalization of photography. When you're shooting ... non-moving subjects in a controlled environment, then composition is vitally important. But when you're documenting a story, shooting a non-stationary subject(s) in a fluid, uncontrolled environment ... then, composition becomes secondary to shooting the story, to capturing the defining moment of the story. But composition is always there and the documentary photographer is always looking for ways to add drama, emphasis and punctuation to the images.

.... okay, I get it and we're both saying the same thing ... the difference between a snapshot and a photograph is the depiction by the photog of the subject as opposed to the minimal to no photographer input of a snapshot.

And you equate that photographer depiction as composition.

You are right about photojournalism to a point. The point of that is to capture what's going on, regardless. The same with TV news. News Team cameramen are not famous for their artistic flair! But that's almost not quite the same job. A photojournalist's job is to record and document, whereas any other genre is to portray something in an artistic/visually pleasing/evocative way. Although, there are in fact some photojournalists who still go for the artistic, i.e., Steve McCurry with his Afghan Girl.

The bit I'm most referring to is the ability of a photographer to show whatever it is he's photographing in the best way possible. Not just to point and click at it. Which is what I expected every photographer to want to do. But now it seems I was wrong, because there are people around who will just snap at stuff with no intention ever to consider it even worth snapping in the first place.

 

[bribrius]

Most of us are here to learn and share. In particular, to better our photographic skill. The only/best/quickest way to improvement is by learning from those who have successfully travel down a similar photographic path. It is hard to learn from a lesser skilled person. Most of us are seeking the exceptional image ... this forum not only displays what other have captured, but also provides insight into the details of the exceptional capture.

Agree to a extent.

I posted a photo elsewhere once. It was of a construction crew. Someone commented they thought it was a excellent image. The comment beneath it said it was a good image, but it was the men on the construction crew that were excellent.
I have always had that stuck in my mind. A photo doesn't mean a damn thing until it does. And it doesn't matter how "excellent" it is. Perhaps there is a difference in defining excellent? The primary content of the photo is the time, place, subject matter. To me, that is where the excellent comes from. I love photography, but it has its place as me being the peon attempting to capture something of significance. Photographers have become self absorbed imo. They take a photo of a building and suddenly they think they equate to the guys that designed and built it. What is worse, is most copied the perspective of how to shoot the building from another photographer, who copied from another, and the building has probably been shot a thousand times. They are all worried about liking each others photos and improving "skills". I am not sure exactly what the "exceptional" image is.

I think it has more to do with subject content and meaning than any self perceived skill set from copying other photographers and how many likes one gets. something that will still have significance in fifty years. That, could be a truly exceptional image. Since most of us here will probably never pull off that once in a lifetime shot, but might manage to perfect some more worthless flower images. Perhaps we should lighten up a little. There is some great work out there, but it isn't worth anything. No matter how excellent it is. Because the subject matter is non existent. Great capture, yes. Exceptional, no. And as stated, to try to make them exceptional they are photo shopping the chit out of them.

Odds are too. If someone pulls out that "once in a life time" exceptional image. It was chit luck. Right place, right time. MIght even be someone who isn't even a photographer and snapped it with their Iphone. I mention this because the vast photos, perception, like thing, i actually feel could very well be a detriment. Most of the photos people take, will never amount to anything. This is primarily a hobby site. The commercial side is much smaller, but still doesn't promote once in a lifetime "exceptional" type images. It promotes sellable images. I only suggest, people stop concerning themselves so much and do what they want. Hate to see someone spend twenty years walking down that wrong path. sure, they will gain skills. But they would anyway following their own without so much likes concerns.

This IS a online phenomenon. I pity the people that put hours and hours (weeks and weeks maybe?) or whatever into a photo just to get likes. what a waste and mis-direction.

And if we are to claim that all this is good, then we have to make the judgement that photography has improved over the last umpteen years since before so much of the online phenomenon. Me personally, i don't think it has improved. I think the equipment has to a extent, i dont think the photographers themselves have improved at all. They have just become more reliant on equipment and less on skill.

Here is where the difference is. You are placing importance in the subject of your photo, whereas the photographers place their importance in their depiction of the subject. It's composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.

A good subject does not a good photo make.

In my world of photojournalism, it is all about the subject, all about the story. In the world of studio/commercial photography, it is about composition and lighting ... In the studio, it is more important to capture a pretty picture than the telling of a story. (pretty = successful)

I completely disagree with "It's [the] composition of the photo that makes a photo, not the subject itself.", as an all-encompassing generalization of photography. When you're shooting ... non-moving subjects in a controlled environment, then composition is vitally important. But when you're documenting a story, shooting a non-stationary subject(s) in a fluid, uncontrolled environment ... then, composition becomes secondary to shooting the story, to capturing the defining moment of the story. But composition is always there and the documentary photographer is always looking for ways to add drama, emphasis and punctuation to the images.

.... okay, I get it and we're both saying the same thing ... the difference between a snapshot and a photograph is the depiction by the photog of the subject as opposed to the minimal to no photographer input of a snapshot.

And you equate that photographer depiction as composition.

You are right about photojournalism to a point. The point of that is to capture what's going on, regardless. The same with TV news. News Team cameramen are not famous for their artistic flair! But that's almost not quite the same job. A photojournalist's job is to record and document, whereas any other genre is to portray something in an artistic/visually pleasing/evocative way. Although, there are in fact some photojournalists who still go for the artistic, i.e., Steve McCurry with his Afghan Girl.

The bit I'm most referring to is the ability of a photographer to show whatever it is he's photographing in the best way possible. Not just to point and click at it. Which is what I expected every photographer to want to do. But now it seems I was wrong, because there are people around who will just snap at stuff with no intention ever to consider it even worth snapping in the first place.

Everyone is different. Something to keep in mind. The stuff i am "dumping" in the untitled thread today i run for chits and giggles (give people something to look at i suppose) i actually snapped all these shots yesterday and others while i was outside playing "tag" with my kids. From your perspective, i should have paid drastic close attention to each one to try to perfect it.
I was playing tag while i did it and hide and go seek. See the difference?

 

[bribrius]

you all need to lighten up a little. Photography isn't meant to be this stressful, especially if you aren't doing it for money.
just sayn......

 

[Buckster]

I wonder what kind of response I would get if I went to a forum of woodworking furniture craftsmen and started posting pictures of rough, unfinished blocks of wood with bent nails in them and saying stuff like, "After 30 years of woodworking, here's my latest chair/table/cabinet." Then when the eyebrows raise and the questions start flowing, just respond with stuff like, "well I just really don't care that much about the finished product, I just enjoy banging nails into wood until they're bent, and I don't plan to actually use this stuff, and besides, I was pretty busy watching cartoons at the time, so you all need to stop insulting me and my work and lighten up. After all, this is supposed to be fun."

Something tells me I'd be laughed right off of their forum or called a troll, or both.

Not that there's anything like that going on here, mind you... It's just something that came to mind suddenly out of the blue, and I don't even know why...

 

[tirediron]

I wonder what kind of response I would get if I went to a forum of woodworking furniture craftsmen and started posting pictures of rough, unfinished blocks of wood with bent nails in them and saying stuff like, "After 30 years of woodworking, here's my latest chair/table/cabinet." Then when the eyebrows raise and the questions start flowing, just respond with stuff like, "well I just really don't care that much about the finished product, I just enjoy banging nails into wood until they're bent, and I don't plan to actually use this stuff, and besides, I was pretty busy watching cartoons at the time, so you all need to stop insulting me and my work and lighten up. After all, this is supposed to be fun."

Something tells me I'd be laughed right off of their forum or called a troll, or both.

Not that there's anything like that going on here, mind you... It's just something that came to mind suddenly out of the blue, and I don't even know why...

One immediate difference that comes to mind is that in your example of cabinetry, you can, at least to some degree, quantify quality based on established standards; that is: Doors should open and close freely, the top should not fall off, etc. That said, I'm sure you wouldn't have to look to far to find someone who has produced "art" from blocks of wood with bent, rusty nails hammered into them (and doubtless received a government grant for it) and called it art. I'm the first to admit that I don't understand the vast majority of what is referred to as "art", but that doesn't diminish it any way. I'm sure there are many ('most' more likely) who look at images that I've created and immodestly refer to as 'art' and shake their heads in incredulity...

 

[bribrius]

I wonder what kind of response I would get if I went to a forum of woodworking furniture craftsmen and started posting pictures of rough, unfinished blocks of wood with bent nails in them and saying stuff like, "After 30 years of woodworking, here's my latest chair/table/cabinet." Then when the eyebrows raise and the questions start flowing, just respond with stuff like, "well I just really don't care that much about the finished product, I just enjoy banging nails into wood until they're bent, and I don't plan to actually use this stuff, and besides, I was pretty busy watching cartoons at the time, so you all need to stop insulting me and my work and lighten up. After all, this is supposed to be fun."

Something tells me I'd be laughed right off of their forum or called a troll, or both.

Not that there's anything like that going on here, mind you... It's just something that came to mind suddenly out of the blue, and I don't even know why...

Oh, i am definitely not the greatest photographer. Never claimed to be. I just can't seem to fathom why you worry more about it than i do. Refer yourself again back to my earlier post (in which you believe you were attacked).

 

[Buckster]

One immediate difference that comes to mind is that in your example of cabinetry, you can, at least to some degree, quantify quality based on established standards; that is: Doors should open and close freely, the top should not fall off, etc.

That's only if you care about the quality of the finished result, but we already established that I don't - I just enjoy the "banging nails into blocks of wood until they're bent" part of it, not whether anyone thinks it's any good or conforms to anyone else's standards. And then I like to share those results with other woodworking craftsmen for them to enjoy.

How could any of that be at all questionable?

 

[pixmedic]

One immediate difference that comes to mind is that in your example of cabinetry, you can, at least to some degree, quantify quality based on established standards; that is: Doors should open and close freely, the top should not fall off, etc.

That's only if you care about the finished result, but we already established that I don't - I just enjoy the "banging nails into blocks of wood until they're bent" part of it, not whether anyone thinks it's any good or conforms to anyone else's standards. And then I like to share those results with other woodworking craftsmen for them to enjoy.

How could any of that be at all questionable?

I think, and i might be totally off here, that in reference to the woodworking forum analogy... if you produce, lets say...less than generally pleasing or functional work (and you are aware of its shortcomings or un-mainstreamism), and you display it in a manner for public consumption, then you probably should not be surprised when said work is not readily accepted by more mainstream craftsmen (or women) and they comment to point out the cosmetic or functional flaws.

 

[Gary A.]

Gentlemen, if you would have read the entire post ... I ultimately got Forkie's point and agreed with him. Forkie and I are saying the same thing and coming to the same conclusion ... just through different paths.