Critiquing and Judging

[robbins.photo]

Just trying to see how wide are the boundaries of your unthinking prejudice.

Guess I wonder how wide the boundaries of yours are. I mean this was never meant to be a treatise on B&W vrs color photography, even though apparently now that is all that is of any interest to you and a couple of others. I did, after all, have the temerity to suggest that I didn't instantly love all B&W photo's and as such apparently that makes me some sort of heretic.

But yup, it's true. I guess I'm a heretic. I find most B&W work to be overdone, I think it detracts rather than adds from most photos. Sure, I've seen some absolutely wonderful photographs that could only have been expressed properly in B&W - but they are few and far between. Most B&W I've seen is done in B&W for the sake of being done in B&W, not because it really adds anything of value to the photo itself. I mean if photography is art then I guess it's going to affect everyone differently, now isn't it.

Gosh, that sounds so much like the original point I was trying to make that it's almost scary. So yes, not a big fan of B&W. So what. Some folks aren't a big fan of wildlife photography. Big deal. Others don't really like landscapes. Again, what difference does any of it make. I shoot what I like to shoot. If people find something interesting, uplifting, entertaining in it great. If they don't, that's just fine too. I'm never going to have everyone enjoy my work, and not every photo I take will be considered to be a masterpiece by everyone that views it. Such be life. I enjoy it, and that's enough for me.

Now, if you really wish to continue harassing me about my feelings on B&W, feel free. Just be aware that you are 100% completely off base and totally wrong for even attempting to do so - because how I feel about a photograph or a photographic style is absolutely in no way shape or form something you get to control. B&W for the most part leaves me feeling flat, bored and totally uninterested. Which, as the viewer, is my absolute an unequivocal right. As the photographer if you want to shoot in B&W, that's also your right. But you have ZERO right to tell me how I need to feel when looking at your photograph. That is hubris of the highest and grandest order.

I think the reason you got the response you did was because most others can't relate to you experience. Photography started out as black and white, and at a point color photography was seen as gimmicky and kitsch. So when you blanket most black and white photographs as just TRYING to be artsy it can be seen as inflammatory by those who primarily shoot black and white film. Your original comment was worded in a way that was pretentious and it seemed to be formulated to get the response that you are now getting worked up about.

Just saying that it's your opinion does not excuse you from being challenged about those opinions. If you want to express your opinion in a vacuum, go have kids.

Back on topic, good article. I'm going to share it with my local club and maybe it'll open some of the older members' eyes. And get this, my local club isn't even called the Lubbock Photography Club. It's called the Lubbock Camera Club. Go figure.

I shot B&W film. Never really did that much for me personally. The point of how B&W makes me feel personally was not an indictment of people who shoot black and white, merely trying to illustrate that not everyone gets the same emotional reaction from a photograph that everyone else does. That was the only point attempting to be made. When I see most B&W, yes, that's how it makes me feel. Like it was done intentionally to be "artistic", not because the B&W actually adds to the artistic value of the shot. There are some very notable exceptions, of course, but honestly not many. Guess you'll just have to shoot me for not feelling the same way about it as most, because it's not like my feelings on the subject are going to change. Anymore than you telling me how good tuna is will get me to like the taste of tuna. A lot of folks love it, swear buy it, eat a ton of it. That's great. Me, I just don't care for it. And it really won't matter what your opinion on it is or what you have to say about it, tomorrow when I wake up I'm still not going to be a fan of tuna.

I guess what I don't get is how anyone who likes Tuna could possibly get offended by that. Seems just really silly to me. I mean the fact that not everyone on the planet absolutely loves Tuna should put a tuna lover into attack mode. That just seems ridiculous.

 

[The_Traveler]

You never said how you feel about images that have all/ most BW tones but shot in color?

 

[limr]

Ok, gotta give you bonus points for using pedagogy in a sentence. I guess my thinking is you are never going to "judge" a photograph properly based on any sort of rule set. What makes a great photograph is it's emotional impact on the viewer. So really all the rules out there are based more on "what most people like" than anything else.

Case in point - I really can't stand most black and white photography. When I see a black and white photo, for the most part, I think to myself - wow. Nice picture. Damn shame the photographer chose to completely ruin it by trying to make it "edgy" or "artsy". There are a few.. a very, very few photographs that actual benefit from being converted to B&W, but at least to my eye that's only about 1% of all the B&W photos I see out there on a daily basis.

However I also understand and accept that a lot of other photographers and viewers like black and white. For them it seems to add something to the photograph. To me it's like stamping the words "Look, IT'S ART!" in huge red letters right across the photo, but for whatever reason it seems to be popular with others.

FWIW, I think this is the wording that some may have taken umbrage with. There is a subtle implication that you're putting down those whom you might see as poseurs: those who are trying to be "edgy" and "artsy" by using B&W for its own sake (at least that's your interpretation - that there's no other reason to use B&W except gratuitously.) And since the quotation marks around those words do not reference a direct quote, one must conclude they are ironic quotation marks, which adds to the impression that you think poorly of these characteristics and the people who aspire to them.

I am not convinced you meant this, but I can see how the comment may lead someone to think that you did.

Just saying that it's your opinion does not excuse you from being challenged about those opinions. If you want to express your opinion in a vacuum, go have kids.

Back on topic, good article. I'm going to share it with my local club and maybe it'll open some of the older members' eyes. And get this, my local club isn't even called the Lubbock Photography Club. It's called the Lubbock Camera Club. Go figure.

EDIT: This is just my opinion. Please do not respond with a retort, because this is just my opinion. Opinion is me. I am opinion.

See, that's just funny And I like your opinion disclaimer, too.

Odd little sidenote: the Westchester Photographic Society mentioned in the article meets at my school on Friday nights. Might go spy on them one day.

 

[Derrel]

The article basically is an indictment of photography judges who happen to be ignorant of fine art, art history,visual design, composition as taught in classic painting and sculptural traditions, and higher-level artistic judgment. In other words, the author laments the prevalence of untrained, unstudied technicians who have little to no experience or education in "fine art". In other words, the author laments the prevalence of people (Both shooters and judges) who think of "Norman Rockwell" when they think of "famous American painter". It's the battle between kitsch and fine art.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, gotta give you bonus points for using pedagogy in a sentence. I guess my thinking is you are never going to "judge" a photograph properly based on any sort of rule set. What makes a great photograph is it's emotional impact on the viewer. So really all the rules out there are based more on "what most people like" than anything else.

Case in point - I really can't stand most black and white photography. When I see a black and white photo, for the most part, I think to myself - wow. Nice picture. Damn shame the photographer chose to completely ruin it by trying to make it "edgy" or "artsy". There are a few.. a very, very few photographs that actual benefit from being converted to B&W, but at least to my eye that's only about 1% of all the B&W photos I see out there on a daily basis.

However I also understand and accept that a lot of other photographers and viewers like black and white. For them it seems to add something to the photograph. To me it's like stamping the words "Look, IT'S ART!" in huge red letters right across the photo, but for whatever reason it seems to be popular with others.

FWIW, I think this is the wording that some may have taken umbrage with. There is a subtle implication that you're putting down those whom you might see as poseurs: those who are trying to be "edgy" and "artsy" by using B&W for its own sake (at least that's your interpretation - that there's no other reason to use B&W except gratuitously.) And since the quotation marks around those words do not reference a direct quote, one must conclude they are ironic quotation marks, which adds to the impression that you think poorly of these characteristics and the people who aspire to them.

I am not convinced you meant this, but I can see how the comment may lead someone to think that you did.

Just saying that it's your opinion does not excuse you from being challenged about those opinions. If you want to express your opinion in a vacuum, go have kids.

Back on topic, good article. I'm going to share it with my local club and maybe it'll open some of the older members' eyes. And get this, my local club isn't even called the Lubbock Photography Club. It's called the Lubbock Camera Club. Go figure.

EDIT: This is just my opinion. Please do not respond with a retort, because this is just my opinion. Opinion is me. I am opinion.

See, that's just funny And I like your opinion disclaimer, too.

Odd little sidenote: the Westchester Photographic Society mentioned in the article meets at my school on Friday nights. Might go spy on them one day.

Honestly, yes and no - Many of the black and white images I've seen are exactly that, people who are trying to make their photographs edgy by using B&W and that is why they chose B&W. That doesn't apply to all B&W photography of course, and it certainly doesn't apply to all photographers who choose B&W as a medium. But I don't think that even those who have chosen B&W as a medium should deny that there are a ton of people out there also using B&W or converting to B&W who quite frankly are doing so with images that really don't look good in black and white. I've seen so many myself that frankly the entire B&W medium for me has become almost like fingernails on a chalkboard. I still see some B&W that I like, but it's become more and more rare.

I guess the best thing I could equate it to and have it make sense would be pictures of sunsets. I've seen some really spectacular images of sunsets. However for every thousand sunset images I see, I probably only see one or two that really make me take notice, because everybody and their brother and their second cousin and their dog is out there taking picture after picture after picture of sunsets. Same thing with the extreme closeup of the insect on a flower thing - I've seen a couple that really made me go "wow", but there are just so many of them out there now that at this stage when I see one my first initial reaction is "great. Bug on a flower". It's not that all macro's of insects on flowers or all sunsets or all B&W is necessarily a bad thing, it's just that I've seen so many images of all of the above that it just really doesn't have the emotional effect on me that the photographer intends, usually it's the opposite.

But the point of all of this was not a indictment of B&W photography or anything of the sort, it was simply to point out that different people have a different emotional reaction to various photographs, and as such no one rule or set of rules could possibly apply in all situations.

 

[Derrel]

I tried substituting words for your use of B&W, such as "female" and "female-created literature", and then reading sections of your anti-B&W sermons. Wow...

I also tried "Spanish" and "Spanish-language writing" and it sounded so hateful.

Seriously. We get it. B&W work sucks. Or it blows. Not sure which, but obviously, anybody doing it is trying to be edgy, and is a nitwit poseur.

 

[robbins.photo]

You never said how you feel about images that have all/ most BW tones but shot in color?

Well gosh Lew, I got such a receptive, kind, generous reaction when I tried to be honest and explain my thoughts on how not all people react to photographs in the same way by using B&W photography as an example I guess I thought I'd just leave it at that. Didn't see much point in getting into every specific detail about this minor variation or that one.

 

[limr]

Honestly, yes and no - Many of the black and white images I've seen are exactly that, people who are trying to make their photographs edgy by using B&W and that is why they chose B&W. That doesn't apply to all B&W photography of course, and it certainly doesn't apply to all photographers who choose B&W as a medium. But I don't think that even those who have chosen B&W as a medium should deny that there are a ton of people out there also using B&W or converting to B&W who quite frankly are doing so with images that really don't look good in black and white. I've seen so many myself that frankly the entire B&W medium for me has become almost like fingernails on a chalkboard. I still see some B&W that I like, but it's become more and more rare.

I guess the best thing I could equate it to and have it make sense would be pictures of sunsets. I've seen some really spectacular images of sunsets. However for every thousand sunset images I see, I probably only see one or two that really make me take notice, because everybody and their brother and their second cousin and their dog is out there taking picture after picture after picture of sunsets. Same thing with the extreme closeup of the insect on a flower thing - I've seen a couple that really made me go "wow", but there are just so many of them out there now that at this stage when I see one my first initial reaction is "great. Bug on a flower". It's not that all macro's of insects on flowers or all sunsets or all B&W is necessarily a bad thing, it's just that I've seen so many images of all of the above that it just really doesn't have the emotional effect on me that the photographer intends, usually it's the opposite.

But the point of all of this was not a indictment of B&W photography or anything of the sort, it was simply to point out that different people have a different emotional reaction to various photographs, and as such no one rule or set of rules could possibly apply in all situations.

I get your point and agree with it (not about B&W, which I do quite love, but the point about reaching saturation with a certain subject or technique that is used for no other reason than to use it - or at leas that's how it might seem.) I also think you made that point clearer and more effectively in subsequent posts than you did in your initial post.

Edited: No pun intended with 'saturation' but now that I think of it, it's kind of a good one, since there's also quite an...overabundance, shall we say?...of pictures with the saturation dialed up to 11.

 

[robbins.photo]

I tried substituting words for your use of B&W, such as "female" and "female-created literature", and then reading sections of your anti-B&W sermons. Wow...

I also tried "Spanish" and "Spanish-language writing" and it sounded so hateful.

Seriously. We get it. B&W work sucks. Or it blows. Not sure which, but obviously, anybody doing it is trying to be edgy, and is a nitwit poseur.

Sorry Derrel, but you didn't get it. I never said anything of the sort. What I have said is that to me personally B&W seems over used to the point of abuse. That some, but not all B&W images really don't benefit from B&W. That many, but not all people who choose B&W as a medium do so with images that just don't work well in B&W, and that they most likely do so because they think that using B&W will make up for other areas where the image is lacking. That doesn't apply to all photographers who use black and white, and I've stated.. gee, in pretty much every posting I've done that there is some B&W work that most definitely benefited from being B&W and that you would have never gotten the same emotional effect using color. But at least to my eye that does not apply to a lot of the B&W work I've seen.

So yes, I see a lot of amateur work where B&W is abused. Much like I see enough bad sunset pictures to choke a horse. Doesn't mean that all sunset pictures are bad or that they all suck. Just means it's one of those subject matters that is generally over done and as such doesn't get the same emotional reaction from me as say a picture with different subject matter.

So yes, I'm not a big fan of a good percentage of the black and white photography I've seen. By all means, roast me alive for daring to have a slightly different opinion on the subject than most.

 

[robbins.photo]

Honestly, yes and no - Many of the black and white images I've seen are exactly that, people who are trying to make their photographs edgy by using B&W and that is why they chose B&W. That doesn't apply to all B&W photography of course, and it certainly doesn't apply to all photographers who choose B&W as a medium. But I don't think that even those who have chosen B&W as a medium should deny that there are a ton of people out there also using B&W or converting to B&W who quite frankly are doing so with images that really don't look good in black and white. I've seen so many myself that frankly the entire B&W medium for me has become almost like fingernails on a chalkboard. I still see some B&W that I like, but it's become more and more rare.

I guess the best thing I could equate it to and have it make sense would be pictures of sunsets. I've seen some really spectacular images of sunsets. However for every thousand sunset images I see, I probably only see one or two that really make me take notice, because everybody and their brother and their second cousin and their dog is out there taking picture after picture after picture of sunsets. Same thing with the extreme closeup of the insect on a flower thing - I've seen a couple that really made me go "wow", but there are just so many of them out there now that at this stage when I see one my first initial reaction is "great. Bug on a flower". It's not that all macro's of insects on flowers or all sunsets or all B&W is necessarily a bad thing, it's just that I've seen so many images of all of the above that it just really doesn't have the emotional effect on me that the photographer intends, usually it's the opposite.

But the point of all of this was not a indictment of B&W photography or anything of the sort, it was simply to point out that different people have a different emotional reaction to various photographs, and as such no one rule or set of rules could possibly apply in all situations.

I get your point and agree with it (not about B&W, which I do quite love, but the point about reaching saturation with a certain subject or technique that is used for no other reason than to use it - or at leas that's how it might seem.) I also think you made that point clearer and more effectively in subsequent posts than you did in your initial post.

Edited: No pun intended with 'saturation' but now that I think of it, it's kind of a good one, since there's also quite an...overabundance, shall we say?...of pictures with the saturation dialed up to 11.

Lol.. thought the saturation thing was pretty funny actually. Your right, I probably didn't make the point clear enough in the original posting. Honestly I wasn't expecting anything near the emotional responses I got on the subject. If I had I probably would have chosen my initial approach with more care. Truth was I wasn't even attempting to make a point about B&W at all, merely trying to illustrate that different viewers of a photograph are always going to have different reactions - so really the "rules" of composition, etc - are really more about what is going to give most people a good reaction. They are really more about what's popular than anything else. That was really the only point I was attempting to make. Had no intention of starting some sort of holy war.

 

[mishele]

robbins.photo
For you...hehe

 

[robbins.photo]

robbins.photo
For you...hehe

Lol.. ok, see now for me this is actual a B&W shot that works - and it works because the structure/subject matter itself appears to be old enough that it was around when the only thing available was B&W - so in this case the B&W doesn't make me go.. ugh.. another B&W.

But hey, not like it matters. Now if you'll excuse me it's time to mount the scales and prove that I weigh as much as a duck, so logically I must be a witch and therefore burned. Lol

 

[gsgary]

If i only shot captive animals i wouldn't shoot B+W

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[rexbobcat]

It's funny how people will start off with an incredibly firm and just really opinionated stance, and then they'll get flak and they start to back off a bit.

Before: "MOST black and white images are just pseudo-artsy BS."

After: "Well, it just seems like black and white is actually only abused by some photographers."

I love the Internet lol.

 

[robbins.photo]

It's funny how people will start off with an incredibly firm and just really opinionated stance, and then they'll get flak and they start to back off a bit.

Before: "MOST black and white images are just pseudo-artsy BS."

After: "Well, it just seems like black and white is actually only abused by some photographers."

I love the Internet lol.

Misquoted and misrepresented from start to finish. Yup, that internet is a whacky place alright.