I'm confident that none of these pictures are any good.

[Derrel]

Creativity is everything, and everything can be creative.

WWW.REGRETSY.COM

Sometimes NSFW.

Man, I want that toy elephant--and I want it BADLY!!!!!!!!!

http://www.regretsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/bluelephant.jpg

 

[KevinPutman]

Creativity is everything, and everything can be creative.

WWW.REGRETSY.COM

Sometimes NSFW.

Man, I want that toy elephant--and I want it BADLY!!!!!!!!!

http://www.regretsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/bluelephant.jpg

I think chocolate covered bacon would taste much better than a silly elephant.

 

[gina_d]

Creativity is everything, and everything can be creative.

WWW.REGRETSY.COM

Sometimes NSFW.

Oh yeahhhh. I'm a HUGE regretsy.com fan! Some absolute hilarious stuff on there. The woman who writes there is just brilliant.

 

[OrionsByte]

This thread made me think of this thread.

I personally don't see Kevin's shots as much more than snapshot-quality, but as others have said, it's because he's still learning. It's obvious from the subject matter, though, that he's thinking outside the box that most photographers put themselves in, and that's not to be overlooked.

I'm afraid I don't have the background that Gina and Bitter Jeweler have with regards to the history of photography, though I'm really enjoying your discourse and it's given me some things to look up. So, coming from that context, the only thing I really have to add to this conversation is kind of a summary: mundane subjects do not always make mundane photographs, but mundane photography almost always makes mundane photographs. Kevin, take a look at the thread I linked to above, and give it a nice thoughtful read. Then maybe go back to those same subjects with all this new information and go through the exercise from the thread. I think you'll see a huge difference in the results.

 

[gina_d]

Yeah, the garbage can, chain link fence shots, and the beaver-gnawed tree were all Eggleston-worthy subject matter. The only difference is, between thirty and forty years have passed, and Eggleston was a capable,seasoned photographer, whereas Kevin is a newbie, struggling to find his voice. Eggleston was pushing a boundary--Kevin was pushing the shutter release button. And of course, Eggleston saw and seized an opportunity to flaunt the then-current artistic mindset by photographing and elevating the mundane, as a way of poking fun at fine art photography and gallery curators, and as a way of making a serious name and reputation for himself; Kevin on the other hand, lives in Omaha,Nebraska, which is known as quite a boring place, and spent a half hour wandering around a local lake, and then did a photo dump of several pictures made within thirty minutes of one another. So, there really is very little worthy of comparison between Kevin's card dump images and Eggleston's work; if Kevin however were to do SERIES work of say, chain link fences, or beaver-gnawed trees, or even urban garbage cans, he could develop any of those three themes into coherent collections or portfolios of work.

But I am sorry Gina, your idea that Kevin's pictures are "more than snapshots" is ludicrous. The fact that William Eggleston photographed the mundane does not make the random results of a thirty minute photo walk's compact flash card dump into anything more than snapshots...it takes more than mundane subject matter to equal "fine art" or to notch a show at MoMA. What Kevin showed us were boring photos of boring subjects, minus the technical proficiency of W.E., and minus any context other than, "I am confident that none of these pictures are any good,right?" Kevin's images also lack a physical manifestation: where is the fine-quality dye transfer image of the Omaha garbage can? Where is the dye transfer print of the out of focus fishing float on the lake surface?

Derrel, there's so much in your rant that's just wrong and an utter crock that I don't even know where to begin. I'm not even sure it's worth the effort as you don't appear to be open to much opinion beyond your own. That said, I'll address just a couple points.

For the final time, I didn't draw a comparison between Kevin's work and Eggleston's with the SOLE exception of saying his choice of subject matter is a valid one if he so chooses to pursue it. To be told by others that they'd like his photo better if he were shooting something they like more is just ridiculous (and wrong) - as I've already pointed out.

"Kevin on the other hand, lives in Omaha,Nebraska, which is known as quite a boring place,"

This is laughable and really needs no comment other than to say your assessment shows that you really don't understand the entire premise of shooting the mundane and banal in the first place if you're going to discount shooting somewhere "known as quite a boring place." Just, wow. (Kevin, perhaps a move to somewhere more exciting is in order so you can pursue your photographic dreams. I'd enlist Derrel as a realtor/ location scout.)

"if Kevin however were to do SERIES work of say, chain link fences, or beaver-gnawed trees, or even urban garbage cans, he could develop any of those three themes into coherent collections or portfolios of work."

While a series is a fine idea, it's not a requirement to validate the work. How about a series of "Omaha, known as quite a boring place." (ok, I'm thoroughly amusing myself now)

"But I am sorry Gina, your idea that Kevin's pictures are "more than snapshots" is ludicrous."

Your assessment that Kevin's pictures are not "more than snapshots" is ludicrous. Do you understand what a snapshot is?

Also, you stated more than once, about Kevin's "compact flash card dump". Can you be a little more condescending and rude? Here is someone clearly eager to learn and has the temerity to ask for some help here. I don't think trashing his work (so to speak) is so helpful, nor is telling him what to shoot.

One other thing, *I* never suggested this was museum-worthy work. I just validated the guy's choice to shoot what he likes and what he finds interesting in the face of all those telling him otherwise. I stand by that.

 

[gina_d]

This thread made me think of this thread.

I personally don't see Kevin's shots as much more than snapshot-quality, but as others have said, it's because he's still learning. It's obvious from the subject matter, though, that he's thinking outside the box that most photographers put themselves in, and that's not to be overlooked.

I'm afraid I don't have the background that Gina and Bitter Jeweler have with regards to the history of photography, though I'm really enjoying your discourse and it's given me some things to look up. So, coming from that context, the only thing I really have to add to this conversation is kind of a summary: mundane subjects do not always make mundane photographs, but mundane photography almost always makes mundane photographs. Kevin, take a look at the thread I linked to above, and give it a nice thoughtful read. Then maybe go back to those same subjects with all this new information and go through the exercise from the thread. I think you'll see a huge difference in the results.

I really like the suggestion to go back to the same subjects and shoot again, but with new information. Really a great suggestion.

One little quibble... you said you don't see Kevin's shots as much more than snapshot-quality, but then said it's obvious that he's thinking outside the box. That he's thinking about what he's shooting, how he's shooting it, and has artistic intent is the very thing that negates them being snapshots. Snapshots are of a spontaneous nature - a birthday party, company picnic, your kid in their halloween costume (not to be confused with the halloween portrait. huh?). I do get that people are saying snapshot in the sense that they don't find them to be particularly compelling or well-executed shots, but that doesn't make them snapshots.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel, there's so much in your rant that's just wrong and an utter crock that I don't even know where to begin.

**Yeah, same with your meanderings,Gina You flip-flopped so many times it's hard to follow your various rants throughout this thread.

I'm not even sure it's worth the effort as you don't appear to be open to much opinion beyond your own.

**Nor do you Gina. You appear to be the newest expert to arrive here, criticizing the site and its members from your high throne. Perhaps you can take over as our new Petraio Prime--you're off to a very good start!

That said, I'll address just a couple points.

For the final time, I didn't draw a comparison between Kevin's work and Eggleston's with the SOLE exception of saying his choice of subject matter is a valid one if he so chooses to pursue it. To be told by others that they'd like his photo better if he were shooting something they like more is just ridiculous (and wrong) - as I've already pointed out.
**Uh-huh, sure. You are an expert,so all you say is gospel. Got that, Gina...

"Kevin on the other hand, lives in Omaha,Nebraska, which is known as quite a boring place,"
Yes, it is. Compared with, say, Paris, or with New York, or Los Angeles, Hong Kong, or Berlin, Omaha is known as a hotbed of....what? Husker football fans? Cattle yards? Christ almighty--that breathtaking puddle of a lake that Kevin shot pictures at--wow, it's like the Seine, or Niagara Falls, or Yosemite's Half Dome! And that chain-link fence!! Wow---New York's tourism department surely must be working on countermeasures to keep tourists away from Omaha!


This is laughable and really needs no comment other than to say your assessment shows that you really don't understand the entire premise of shooting the mundane and banal in the first place if you're going to discount shooting somewhere "known as quite a boring place."
**Sorry Gina, but I think you underestimate my knowledge of art history and the history of photography. Take off your red bull blinders, and perhaps that might become apparent to you...but then again, maybe not.

Just, wow. (Kevin, perhaps a move to somewhere more exciting is in order so you can pursue your photographic dreams. I'd enlist Derrel as a realtor/ location scout.)
**And hire Gina_D as your Director of Congeniality Studies....she's a wonderful woman, with a redeeming quality...she can stroke your dreams for you at nights, and pump you up so that you'll be an Eggleston clone in no time flat!

"if Kevin however were to do SERIES work of say, chain link fences, or beaver-gnawed trees, or even urban garbage cans, he could develop any of those three themes into coherent collections or portfolios of work."

While a series is a fine idea, it's not a requirement to validate the work. How about a series of "Omaha, known as quite a boring place." (ok, I'm thoroughly amusing myself now)
**How about some drug addicts from Tulsa, Oklahoma ? Do you even know what I am referring to?

"But I am sorry Gina, your idea that Kevin's pictures are "more than snapshots" is ludicrous."

Thirty minutes of walking around a lake--and Kevin has produced what Gina??? Masterpieces??? Museum-worthy fine art photos? Pshaw. It's a card dump!

Your assessment that Kevin's pictures are not "more than snapshots" is ludicrous. Do you understand what a snapshot is?
**Yes, I do---but do YOU?

Also, you stated more than once, about Kevin's "compact flash card dump". Can you be a little more condescending and rude?
**That's what it is...he even says he thinks the shots are not good....why be anything less than honest about what he posted? This ain't the atta' boy society....mediocrity is never masterfully done work in my book.

Here is someone clearly eager to learn and has the temerity to ask for some help here. I don't think trashing his work (so to speak) is so helpful, nor is telling him what to shoot.
**Nobody is trashing his work: his work in this thread is poor. Should we give everybody a medal Gina? Do the losers all receive gold medals in your world? Is every photo worthy of fine at status? Here, lemme go outside and shoot 100 pics, and I'll come back in with a card full of Gina-endorsed Masterpieces. All I have to do is ask for Help, and my work is therefore immune to C&C? Is that what you are suggesting--that asking for help insulates poor work from being evaluated fairly?

One other thing, *I* never suggested this was museum-worthy work. I just validated the guy's choice to shoot what he likes and what he finds interesting in the face of all those telling him otherwise. I stand by that.[/QUOTE]

And, you liken his card dump to more than snapshots. Do you know what a snapshot *is* Gina? He posted shots he said were not any good...and here you are, trying to blow smoke up his skirt...let's give him an atta' boy and an exhibit at MoMA. Not.

 

[vtf]

I believe if they mean something to you, keep them as reference to look back upon. To me they really don't draw my interest. I have taken these kind of shots myself in the beginning trying to make them good, but really they weren't. Do I still have some? Yes, I keep them as to see where I started. Omaha can be as interesting as say Cleveland. Keep at it, keep looking, keep shooting and it'll happen, make me want to be interested!:thumbup:

 

[gina_d]

And, you liken his card dump to more than snapshots. Do you know what a snapshot *is*?

Yes, by definition his photos are not snapshots. There's really no question.

he posted shots he said were not any good...and here you are, trying to blow smoke up his skirt...let's give him an atta' boy and an exhibit at MoMA. Not.

I never mentioned the photos being museum-worthy. You (and others) brought museum status into play which was just snarky, silly and mean-spirited.

Again, again, again... I'm merely stated that his choice of subject matter is valid if that's what he chooses to shoot. He should keep at it and find how he wants to present it - if that means garnering more technical knowledge and ability? (it does) great. do that. It seems that was his intent in posting here in the first place - not to have someone tell him, "shoot something else so I'll find it more interesting." (How about telling him how to shoot it BETTER?) Also, please shoot more photos of Asians - I find all these South Americans to be mundane. What? You live where? There's nothing interesting there. Please shoot more photos from NYC.

Lovelace had the right idea when she suggested he shoot every which way he could think of - try it all. And for goodness sakes, Kevin, shoot what's around you. Shoot where you live if that's your option. Don't buy into this idea that you can't get better if you're not shooting in NYC or LA.

Ahd hire Gina_D as your Director of Congeniality Studies....she's a wonderful woman, with a redeeming quality...she can stroke your dreams for you at nights, and pump you up so that you'll be an Eggleston clone in no time flat!

uhhh, nice. your'e a charmer, eh?

Since we've gone off on an Eggleston tangent from the mere mention of his name in conjunction with the choice of subject matter, here's a little light reading from the Democratic Forest:

I was in Oxford, Mississippi for a few days and I was driving out to Holly Springs on a back road, stopping here and there. It was the time of year when the landscape wasn't yet green. I left the car and walked into the dead leaves off the road. It was one of those occasions when there was no picture there. It seemed like nothing, but of course there was something for someone out there. I started forcing myself to take pictures of the earth, where it had been eroded thirty or forty feet from the road. There were a few weeds. I began to realize that soon I was taking some pretty good pictures, so I went further into the woods and up a little hill, and got well into an entire roll of film.

Later, when I was having dinner with some friends, writers from around Oxford, or maybe at the bar of the Holiday Inn, someone said, 'What have you been photographing here today, Eggleston?'

'Well, I've been photographing democratically,' I replied.

'But what have you been taking pictures of?'

'I've been outdoors, nowhere, in nothing.'

'What do you mean?'

'Well, just woods and dirt, a little asphalt here and there.'

I was treating things democratically, which of course didn't mean a thing to the people I was talking to.​

 

[KevinPutman]

Interesting.
Derrel, to be quite honest I've lost respect for you based off your posts.
While I am a newbie, and my work is to be desired, not to mention I even admit that my work is poor, doesn't mean you should hammer the nail further into the board, so to speak.
I appreciate C&C, and I listen to every bit I get, and work to improve. But considering I was at the lake for an extended period of time, and walked all over, from lakeside, through somewhat dense brush, and back, plus adding the consideration of composition (apparent in some of the photos), plus the fact I took well over 150 photos, and narrowed it down to the few I posted (Yeah that's just another way of saying I suck terribly). I can say they are more than just snapshots.

Gina is telling me that while the quality of the photos might not be the best, they show good creativity in some way, which is one of the biggest aspects of photography, amirite? Never did she state that my work was good in any kind of way, aside from the somewhat-creative side.

 

[Speckles]

This thread is getting skeeery.

 

[Derrel]

Abstracting The Landscape

Snapshots ------ Postcards--------Images

Two simple Ansel Adams quotes spring to my mind as being helpful in this discussion of snapshots, and fine art landscapes:

"Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop."

“Simply look with perceptive eyes at the world about you, and trust to your own reactions and convictions. Ask yourself: "Does this subject move me to feel, think and dream? Can I visualize a print - my own personal statement of what I feel and want to convey - from the subject before me?”

In my opinion, anybody who can head outdoors and come back with four or five "significant" photographs within thirty minutes of shooting time...is probably somewhere inside The Pearly Gates--and not walking the face of this Earth...

 

[JWellman]

Interesting.
Derrel, to be quite honest I've lost respect for you based off your posts.

You guys might as well get used to it because some things on this forum will never change. You're wasting your time with this ridiculous debate! Go snap some photos for Pete's sake. :er:

 

[KevinPutman]

Abstracting The Landscape

Snapshots ------ Postcards--------Images

Two simple Ansel Adams quotes spring to my mind as being helpful in this discussion of snapshots, and fine art landscapes:

"Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop."

“Simply look with perceptive eyes at the world about you, and trust to your own reactions and convictions. Ask yourself: "Does this subject move me to feel, think and dream? Can I visualize a print - my own personal statement of what I feel and want to convey - from the subject before me?”

In my opinion, anybody who can head outdoors and come back with four or five "significant" photographs within thirty minutes of shooting time...is probably somewhere inside The Pearly Gates--and not walking the face of this Earth...

Well by all means, I'm terribly sorry for posting such bad-quality pictures on your forums,
would you like me to take my garbage elsewhere?

While you continue on your tirade on how much I suck, I'll go take some more bad pictures, and post them up here for some good advice on how to improve.

Now if you'll kindly leave my thread, and don't post anything else, it'd be greatly appreciated. ^-^

 

[gina_d]

Seems you edited the original to which I posted a response.

Derrel, there's so much in your rant that's just wrong and an utter crock that I don't even know where to begin.

**Yeah, same with your meanderings,Gina You flip-flopped so many times it's hard to follow your various rants throughout this thread.

I haven't flip-flopped. I've been consistent in my assertions while delving into some more thoroughly and responding to those raised by others as the discussion progressed.


I'm not even sure it's worth the effort as you don't appear to be open to much opinion beyond your own.

**Nor do you Gina. You appear to be the newest expert to arrive here, criticizing the site and its members from your high throne. Perhaps you can take over as our new Petraio Prime--you're off to a very good start!

Yes, I'm new here. That doesn't invalidate my opinion nor does your length of time and prolific posting record make yours more valid. It's the internet. We all get a say. I've expressed a great deal of confidence and admiration for the knowledge of the posters here many times in my limited posts here. That I question some creative or artistic advice is the rest of the story. I'm ok with that.

That said, I'll address just a couple points.

For the final time, I didn't draw a comparison between Kevin's work and Eggleston's with the SOLE exception of saying his choice of subject matter is a valid one if he so chooses to pursue it. To be told by others that they'd like his photo better if he were shooting something they like more is just ridiculous (and wrong) - as I've already pointed out.
**Uh-huh, sure. You are an expert,so all you say is gospel. Got that, Gina...

Whew!

"Kevin on the other hand, lives in Omaha,Nebraska, which is known as quite a boring place,"
Yes, it is. Compared with, say, Paris, or with New York, or Los Angeles, Hong Kong, or Berlin, Omaha is known as a hotbed of....what? Husker football fans? Cattle yards? Christ almighty--that breathtaking puddle of a lake that Kevin shot pictures at--wow, it's like the Seine, or Niagara Falls, or Yosemite's Half Dome! And that chain-link fence!! Wow---New York's tourism department surely must be working on countermeasures to keep tourists away from Omaha!

I already addressed this one in your first, unedited post.

This is laughable and really needs no comment other than to say your assessment shows that you really don't understand the entire premise of shooting the mundane and banal in the first place if you're going to discount shooting somewhere "known as quite a boring place."
**Sorry Gina, but I think you underestimate my knowledge of art history and the history of photography. Take off your red bull blinders, and perhaps that might become apparent to you...but then again, maybe not.

Not so far. You seem to be obscuring it quite a bit behind your narrow-minded and condescending facade. I'm happy to know you have more to offer though.

Just, wow. (Kevin, perhaps a move to somewhere more exciting is in order so you can pursue your photographic dreams. I'd enlist Derrel as a realtor/ location scout.)
**And hire Gina_D as your Director of Congeniality Studies....she's a wonderful woman, with a redeeming quality...she can stroke your dreams for you at nights, and pump you up so that you'll be an Eggleston clone in no time flat!

again. addressed already and ummm, ew?

"if Kevin however were to do SERIES work of say, chain link fences, or beaver-gnawed trees, or even urban garbage cans, he could develop any of those three themes into coherent collections or portfolios of work."

While a series is a fine idea, it's not a requirement to validate the work. How about a series of "Omaha, known as quite a boring place." (ok, I'm thoroughly amusing myself now)
**How about some drug addicts from Tulsa, Oklahoma ? Do you even know what I am referring to?

Yes. Kevin? Move to Tulsa and shoot photos of drug addicts. (seriously though, Tulsa? there's nothing to shoot there. I'm pretty sure Tulsa is known as the second quite a boring place, only behind Omaha, of course.

"But I am sorry Gina, your idea that Kevin's pictures are "more than snapshots" is ludicrous."

Thirty minutes of walking around a lake--and Kevin has produced what Gina??? Masterpieces??? Museum-worthy fine art photos? Pshaw. It's a card dump!

Who EVER said "museum-worthy fine art photos"?? not me.

His photos aren't a "card dump" - interesting term, by the way. They're his efforts for where he is now. Summarizing someone's work as a "card dump" is unnecessary and just plain not helpful. No one said you have to stroke his ego and pump him up (ahem) - but there's middle ground between that and carddump.

Here is someone clearly eager to learn and has the temerity to ask for some help here. I don't think trashing his work (so to speak) is so helpful, nor is telling him what to shoot.
**Nobody is trashing his work: his work in this thread is poor. Should we give everybody a medal Gina? Do the losers all receive gold medals in your world? Is every photo worthy of fine at status? Here, lemme go outside and shoot 100 pics, and I'll come back in with a card full of Gina-endorsed Masterpieces. All I have to do is ask for Help, and my work is therefore immune to C&C? Is that what you are suggesting--that asking for help insulates poor work from being evaluated fairly?

asked. answered. multiple times now.

done.