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

[rexbobcat]

I don't understand the point of a creative endeavor if not to get some recognition for it, whether that be in the form of having your photos displayed by family members or getting comments on forums like this.

I've said it before, but the human ego can't exist in a vacuum. I can't imagine someone spending thousands of dollars in equipment and learning and not expect/want some return on their investment. In creative hobbies/professions, it's almost taboo to admit that you want someone to notice and appreciate your work.

I think it's sometimes more difficult to be a part of a photographic peer group especially in larger markets, because the attitude is less about building community and more along the lines of "Sure, I'll help...for $200."

In LA, for example, there is literally no way to network without already having money.

my ego exists in a vacuum. Like i made my picnic table, i sat at it. I was content. Really not a entire lot to it.

Photography along with every other creative hobby isn't building picnic tables.

 

[bribrius]

I don't understand the point of a creative endeavor if not to get some recognition for it, whether that be in the form of having your photos displayed by family members or getting comments on forums like this.

I've said it before, but the human ego can't exist in a vacuum. I can't imagine someone spending thousands of dollars in equipment and learning and not expect/want some return on their investment. In creative hobbies/professions, it's almost taboo to admit that you want someone to notice and appreciate your work.

I think it's sometimes more difficult to be a part of a photographic peer group especially in larger markets, because the attitude is less about building community and more along the lines of "Sure, I'll help...for $200."

In LA, for example, there is literally no way to network without already having money.

my ego exists in a vacuum. Like i made my picnic table, i sat at it. I was content. Really not a entire lot to it.

Photography along with every other creative hobby isn't building picnic tables.

same thing. Take photo, print photo, hang photo on wall, content with it.
all the same...............
except making chairs and picnic tables i find preferable to shooting abstracts and landscapes. Probably because it is a actual physical structure with a purpose, i can eat off it or sit on it.

 

[rexbobcat]

I don't understand the point of a creative endeavor if not to get some recognition for it, whether that be in the form of having your photos displayed by family members or getting comments on forums like this.

I've said it before, but the human ego can't exist in a vacuum. I can't imagine someone spending thousands of dollars in equipment and learning and not expect/want some return on their investment. In creative hobbies/professions, it's almost taboo to admit that you want someone to notice and appreciate your work.

I think it's sometimes more difficult to be a part of a photographic peer group especially in larger markets, because the attitude is less about building community and more along the lines of "Sure, I'll help...for $200."

In LA, for example, there is literally no way to network without already having money.

my ego exists in a vacuum. Like i made my picnic table, i sat at it. I was content. Really not a entire lot to it.

Photography along with every other creative hobby isn't building picnic tables.

same thing. Take photo, print photo, hang photo on wall, content with it.
all the same...............
except making chairs and picnic tables i find preferable to shooting abstracts and landscapes.

Well, since you aren't really that invested in it, I don't see how my post relates to you in the first place.

 

[bribrius]

in all honesty, most of my photos i dont give a rats azz about, few and far between. Well, except the photos of my kids.
hard drive filler. If they are film i tend to like them a little more.

 

[bribrius]

I don't understand the point of a creative endeavor if not to get some recognition for it, whether that be in the form of having your photos displayed by family members or getting comments on forums like this.

I've said it before, but the human ego can't exist in a vacuum. I can't imagine someone spending thousands of dollars in equipment and learning and not expect/want some return on their investment. In creative hobbies/professions, it's almost taboo to admit that you want someone to notice and appreciate your work.

I think it's sometimes more difficult to be a part of a photographic peer group especially in larger markets, because the attitude is less about building community and more along the lines of "Sure, I'll help...for $200."

In LA, for example, there is literally no way to network without already having money.

my ego exists in a vacuum. Like i made my picnic table, i sat at it. I was content. Really not a entire lot to it.

Photography along with every other creative hobby isn't building picnic tables.

same thing. Take photo, print photo, hang photo on wall, content with it.
all the same...............
except making chairs and picnic tables i find preferable to shooting abstracts and landscapes.

Well, since you aren't really that invested in it, I don't see how my post relates to you in the first place.

just a realist. I love photography. But what is more of value to me. The picnic table or a photo of the picnic table? In that case, fruck the photo.

 

[rexbobcat]

in all honesty, most of my photos i dont give a rats azz about, few and far between. Well, except the photos of my kids.
hard drive filler. If they are film i tend to like them a little more.

If you don't care that much, then it makes sense that you don't care what people think. However, if one cares enough to get better at any endeavor, then they have to put their work on the line. Progress is made by being corrected and being given positive reinforcement for things done right, unless you're prodigal enough to be outside of this system.

And even then, in terms of photography, how would you know you've made progress unless it is made apparent?

If progress as a measure of success does not interest you, then whatever task you're working on most likely isn't connected to your self-image anyways.

Building a picnic table has an end-point. Either you can sit and set stuff on it or you can't. Photography is more ambiguous.

 

[bribrius]

in all honesty, most of my photos i dont give a rats azz about, few and far between. Well, except the photos of my kids.
hard drive filler. If they are film i tend to like them a little more.

If you don't care that much, then it makes sense that you don't care what people think. However, if one cares enough to get better at any endeavor, then they have to put their work on the line. Progress is made by being corrected and being given positive reinforcement for things done right, unless you're prodigal enough to be outside of this system.

And even then, in terms of photography, how would you know you've made progress unless it is made apparent?

If progress as a measure of success does not interest you, then whatever task you're working on most likely isn't connected to your self-image anyways.

Building a picnic table has an end-point. Either you can sit and set stuff on it or you can't. Photography is more ambiguous.

So not true, you can make different shaped picnic tables, square, rectangle, hexagon, octagon, separate benches, built in benches, different woods, different heights for little people, different lengths. Give them cup holders.. Give picnic tables roofs for shade and rain. Different stains.

And you worry too much. Not sure i even have a "self image". Sounds deep. Too deep for me. If i want to know something, i just ask or i look it up. If i want to do something. I try to figure out how. It totally revolves around what i want or need to do. I define progress by how much i like it, or if it meets what i wanted to do. Who are you trying to impress? Lets say i post something and get five hundred likes. Are they going to come over and mow my lawn for me? At least? Maybe paint my shed? Probably not. So what did i get out of it? some likes? That isn't real. Just lip service. Sure, it is appreciated to a extent. Of course someone liking something you did is appreciated. It isn't really the "point" of anything i do. Likes are not exactly tangible.

Not to say none of it matters, if someone came over and said "hey, you know , if you built the chair this way it might save you some time and be better". I'll heed the advice. Only a fool wont heed wise advice.
Now, if you are talking about money, then that is a entire different ballgame. Whoever cuts the check, their opinion matters. If you are in this for money, sure, go get your check by all means. Pay me to build a picnic table i'll build it however the hell you want. It's your money. LMAO.

 

[Gary A.]

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.

 

[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.

 

[sashbar]

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.

You talk about the photography that I call "shoes", or utilitarian images, or documentary. Call it as you wish, but these are images that are helpless without date, time and event. This is in essense photo journalism. 99.999% of photography goes along these lines whether you are documenting falling Twin Towers, some lanscape or your cat eating breakfast. (And I leave alone all those idiotic "artsy" photoshop attempts).

That is exactly what Henry Cartier Bresson was talking about when he said that he had no interest at all in documentary, in documenting facts, because it was boring dull. HCB saod he would be an awful photo journalist because he did not care about the content and facts at all. He just used it to create images that will live forever, or at least long after those subjects are gone.

There are lots and lots of images documenting extraordinary events like Syrian war, people dying from ebola in Liberia or devastations in Nepal caused by the earthquake. People look at these emotional images when they are published, but never come back to them again. I have great respect for these reporters risking their lives and demonstrating great skills. Yet these powerful images have a very short life.

And yet we come back to HCB photographs again and again. Photographs that depict basically... nothing. I look at his image - the door, the man in the window, some reflection - and think "How on Earth could he see this????".
Then I look at the image of a Nepalese village in ruins and thik, yeah, strong earthquake. But we all know that our own toothache is more important to us than an earthquake in Nepal.

The difference between HCB images and AFC/Getty/Reuters images is the difference between poetry and news. Noone learns news by heart. Noone will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall.

Most of us here are just learning how to write. Once/if we learn, 99,99999 % of us will be writing news. I will be happy if one or two will start creating some poetry. Sadly most have not got evem a slightest idea of how to even approach it.

 

[The_Traveler]

You talk about the photography that I call "shoes", or utilitarian images, or documentary. Call it as you wish, but these are images that are helpless without date, time and event. This is in essense photo journalism. 99.999% of photography goes along these lines whether you are documenting falling Twin Towers, some lanscape or your cat eating breakfast. (And I leave alone all those idiotic "artsy" photoshop attempts).
.......................

The difference between HCB images and AFC/Getty/Reuters images is the difference between poetry and news. Noone learns news by heart. Noone will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall.
................................

Most of us here are just learning how to write. Once/if we learn, 99,99999 % of us will be writing news. I will be happy if one or two will start creating some poetry. Sadly most have not got even a slightest idea of how to even approach it.

What a remarkably good explanation of the difference between the two objectives.
I take exception to only one part and that is: "No one will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall."
There are some wonderfully done 'shoes' that do become wall art either because of their subjective beauty or the content.

I also think that the 99.999% figure above is a bit misleading for this reason. There are people who are content to only produce 'shoes'; they are in abundance here on TPF, perhaps the majority.
There are people who aspire to produce work that is more than 'shoes' but, because of some failure of skill or talent or effort, fail.
And then there is that tiny, very-lucky fraction of people who actually succeed at producing art.

Interestingly, when people who are ostensibly only producing 'shoes (I love that term) are so good and creative and skillful at what they do, they are called 'artists' because their work rises far above the documentary level. It evokes ideas and response much beyond the subject matter. And other 'shoe-makers' try to emulate them, not realizing that in doing that, they are trying in some way to be 'artists'.

 

[sashbar]

You talk about the photography that I call "shoes", or utilitarian images, or documentary. Call it as you wish, but these are images that are helpless without date, time and event. This is in essense photo journalism. 99.999% of photography goes along these lines whether you are documenting falling Twin Towers, some lanscape or your cat eating breakfast. (And I leave alone all those idiotic "artsy" photoshop attempts).
.......................

The difference between HCB images and AFC/Getty/Reuters images is the difference between poetry and news. Noone learns news by heart. Noone will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall.
................................

Most of us here are just learning how to write. Once/if we learn, 99,99999 % of us will be writing news. I will be happy if one or two will start creating some poetry. Sadly most have not got even a slightest idea of how to even approach it.

What a remarkably good explanation of the difference between the two objectives.
I take exception to only one part and that is: "No one will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall."
There are some wonderfully done 'shoes' that do become wall art either because of their subjective beauty or the content.

I also think that the 99.999% figure above is a bit misleading for this reason. There are people who are content to only produce 'shoes'; they are in abundance here on TPF, perhaps the majority.
There are people who aspire to produce work that is more than 'shoes' but, because of some failure of skill or talent or effort, fail.
And then there is that tiny, very-lucky fraction of people who actually succeed at producing art.

Interestingly, when people who are ostensibly only producing 'shoes (I love that term) are so good and creative and skillful at what they do, they are called 'artists' because their work rises far above the documentary level. It evokes ideas and response much beyond the subject matter. And other 'shoe-makers' try to emulate them, not realizing that in doing that, they are trying in some way to be 'artists'.

I do agree with all that you said. I have to succumb to a hyperbole sometimes to get across the message due to my limited English.
Of course it is not as black and white as I wrote, but I am glad you got what I wanted to say.

 

[bribrius]

A while ago I tried to join into a gaming group, they were a fun friendly group of players of a decent number and a whole spread of ages. However despite their friendly nature I didn't stick it out with the group and there was a reason for that - they were too good and a touch too focused on the competitive side.

It made me start to think if this isn't perhaps a problem with photography in todays world, especially online. Certainly being around peers who have superior skill can inspire; it can push a person to improve to reach that similar standard. Indeed I would not be one to disagree that exposure to superior works is a beneficial thing and that without it one can end up setting a lower standard than ones full potential.


However I wonder if many of us have gotten too much of this. That we are bombarded by such a volume of quality, of inspiration and of skill that we end up losing focus and that former motivation starts to dwindle away. I feel that many times we lack that contemporary grouping, those who are of a similar skill and experience set of our own. A grouping within which we can rise to the fore within our own niche, where we can see measured improvement in our own work against others and also see their measured changes as well.

Instead we are left still struggling to grasp the slippery rope and pull ourselves up to our peers level so that they might become our contemporaries. That we might "rub shoulders" with them and feel a part of that system; socially contributing and being acknowledged.


Now many might say to this that it doesn't matter, that you shoot for you and you alone. But I don't think that is always true, we do shoot for ourselves (unless we are paid or have other motives); but I think that being social creatures we also like to share and feel that we contribute to the group(s) we are within as well. That we have something to offer, something that makes us stand out, even if just a little.

Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.

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.

You talk about the photography that I call "shoes", or utilitarian images, or documentary. Call it as you wish, but these are images that are helpless without date, time and event. This is in essense photo journalism. 99.999% of photography goes along these lines whether you are documenting falling Twin Towers, some lanscape or your cat eating breakfast. (And I leave alone all those idiotic "artsy" photoshop attempts).

That is exactly what Henry Cartier Bresson was talking about when he said that he had no interest at all in documentary, in documenting facts, because it was boring dull. HCB saod he would be an awful photo journalist because he did not care about the content and facts at all. He just used it to create images that will live forever, or at least long after those subjects are gone.

There are lots and lots of images documenting extraordinary events like Syrian war, people dying from ebola in Liberia or devastations in Nepal caused by the earthquake. People look at these emotional images when they are published, but never come back to them again. I have great respect for these reporters risking their lives and demonstrating great skills. Yet these powerful images have a very short life.

And yet we come back to HCB photographs again and again. Photographs that depict basically... nothing. I look at his image - the door, the man in the window, some reflection - and think "How on Earth could he see this????".
Then I look at the image of a Nepalese village in ruins and thik, yeah, strong earthquake. But we all know that our own toothache is more important to us than an earthquake in Nepal.

The difference between HCB images and AFC/Getty/Reuters images is the difference between poetry and news. Noone learns news by heart. Noone will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall.

Most of us here are just learning how to write. Once/if we learn, 99,99999 % of us will be writing news. I will be happy if one or two will start creating some poetry. Sadly most have not got evem a slightest idea of how to even approach it.

Hcb shot everything, and probably didn't worry this much. Much of his work is outstanding. Some of it if he showed up today and posted it on here people would ask him what the subject is and tell him it sucks. He shot quite a few shoes images.

 

[sashbar]

A while ago I tried to join into a gaming group, they were a fun friendly group of players of a decent number and a whole spread of ages. However despite their friendly nature I didn't stick it out with the group and there was a reason for that - they were too good and a touch too focused on the competitive side.

It made me start to think if this isn't perhaps a problem with photography in todays world, especially online. Certainly being around peers who have superior skill can inspire; it can push a person to improve to reach that similar standard. Indeed I would not be one to disagree that exposure to superior works is a beneficial thing and that without it one can end up setting a lower standard than ones full potential.


However I wonder if many of us have gotten too much of this. That we are bombarded by such a volume of quality, of inspiration and of skill that we end up losing focus and that former motivation starts to dwindle away. I feel that many times we lack that contemporary grouping, those who are of a similar skill and experience set of our own. A grouping within which we can rise to the fore within our own niche, where we can see measured improvement in our own work against others and also see their measured changes as well.

Instead we are left still struggling to grasp the slippery rope and pull ourselves up to our peers level so that they might become our contemporaries. That we might "rub shoulders" with them and feel a part of that system; socially contributing and being acknowledged.


Now many might say to this that it doesn't matter, that you shoot for you and you alone. But I don't think that is always true, we do shoot for ourselves (unless we are paid or have other motives); but I think that being social creatures we also like to share and feel that we contribute to the group(s) we are within as well. That we have something to offer, something that makes us stand out, even if just a little.

Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.

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.

You talk about the photography that I call "shoes", or utilitarian images, or documentary. Call it as you wish, but these are images that are helpless without date, time and event. This is in essense photo journalism. 99.999% of photography goes along these lines whether you are documenting falling Twin Towers, some lanscape or your cat eating breakfast. (And I leave alone all those idiotic "artsy" photoshop attempts).

That is exactly what Henry Cartier Bresson was talking about when he said that he had no interest at all in documentary, in documenting facts, because it was boring dull. HCB saod he would be an awful photo journalist because he did not care about the content and facts at all. He just used it to create images that will live forever, or at least long after those subjects are gone.

There are lots and lots of images documenting extraordinary events like Syrian war, people dying from ebola in Liberia or devastations in Nepal caused by the earthquake. People look at these emotional images when they are published, but never come back to them again. I have great respect for these reporters risking their lives and demonstrating great skills. Yet these powerful images have a very short life.

And yet we come back to HCB photographs again and again. Photographs that depict basically... nothing. I look at his image - the door, the man in the window, some reflection - and think "How on Earth could he see this????".
Then I look at the image of a Nepalese village in ruins and thik, yeah, strong earthquake. But we all know that our own toothache is more important to us than an earthquake in Nepal.

The difference between HCB images and AFC/Getty/Reuters images is the difference between poetry and news. Noone learns news by heart. Noone will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall.

Most of us here are just learning how to write. Once/if we learn, 99,99999 % of us will be writing news. I will be happy if one or two will start creating some poetry. Sadly most have not got evem a slightest idea of how to even approach it.

Hcb shot everything, and probably didn't worry this much. Much of his work is outstanding. Some of it if he showed up today and posted it on here people would ask him what the subject is and tell him it sucks. He shot quite a few shoes images.

Mikhael Jordan missed some shots as well. My post was not about it.

 

[bribrius]

A while ago I tried to join into a gaming group, they were a fun friendly group of players of a decent number and a whole spread of ages. However despite their friendly nature I didn't stick it out with the group and there was a reason for that - they were too good and a touch too focused on the competitive side.

It made me start to think if this isn't perhaps a problem with photography in todays world, especially online. Certainly being around peers who have superior skill can inspire; it can push a person to improve to reach that similar standard. Indeed I would not be one to disagree that exposure to superior works is a beneficial thing and that without it one can end up setting a lower standard than ones full potential.


However I wonder if many of us have gotten too much of this. That we are bombarded by such a volume of quality, of inspiration and of skill that we end up losing focus and that former motivation starts to dwindle away. I feel that many times we lack that contemporary grouping, those who are of a similar skill and experience set of our own. A grouping within which we can rise to the fore within our own niche, where we can see measured improvement in our own work against others and also see their measured changes as well.

Instead we are left still struggling to grasp the slippery rope and pull ourselves up to our peers level so that they might become our contemporaries. That we might "rub shoulders" with them and feel a part of that system; socially contributing and being acknowledged.


Now many might say to this that it doesn't matter, that you shoot for you and you alone. But I don't think that is always true, we do shoot for ourselves (unless we are paid or have other motives); but I think that being social creatures we also like to share and feel that we contribute to the group(s) we are within as well. That we have something to offer, something that makes us stand out, even if just a little.

Thus I put forward the view that we are too bombarded with quality; that we have too much inspiration and not enough building of contemporary networks. We don't have learning buddies; we don't have a class; we don't have a grouping - heck even in tutorials or classes the skill range can be very vast.

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.

You talk about the photography that I call "shoes", or utilitarian images, or documentary. Call it as you wish, but these are images that are helpless without date, time and event. This is in essense photo journalism. 99.999% of photography goes along these lines whether you are documenting falling Twin Towers, some lanscape or your cat eating breakfast. (And I leave alone all those idiotic "artsy" photoshop attempts).

That is exactly what Henry Cartier Bresson was talking about when he said that he had no interest at all in documentary, in documenting facts, because it was boring dull. HCB saod he would be an awful photo journalist because he did not care about the content and facts at all. He just used it to create images that will live forever, or at least long after those subjects are gone.

There are lots and lots of images documenting extraordinary events like Syrian war, people dying from ebola in Liberia or devastations in Nepal caused by the earthquake. People look at these emotional images when they are published, but never come back to them again. I have great respect for these reporters risking their lives and demonstrating great skills. Yet these powerful images have a very short life.

And yet we come back to HCB photographs again and again. Photographs that depict basically... nothing. I look at his image - the door, the man in the window, some reflection - and think "How on Earth could he see this????".
Then I look at the image of a Nepalese village in ruins and thik, yeah, strong earthquake. But we all know that our own toothache is more important to us than an earthquake in Nepal.

The difference between HCB images and AFC/Getty/Reuters images is the difference between poetry and news. Noone learns news by heart. Noone will put a news item in a frame and hang it on the wall.

Most of us here are just learning how to write. Once/if we learn, 99,99999 % of us will be writing news. I will be happy if one or two will start creating some poetry. Sadly most have not got evem a slightest idea of how to even approach it.

Hcb shot everything, and probably didn't worry this much. Much of his work is outstanding. Some of it if he showed up today and posted it on here people would ask him what the subject is and tell him it sucks. He shot quite a few shoes images.

Mikhael Jordan missed some shots as well. My post was not about it.

All photographers do. If we could see all those crappy shots they took, people might start realizing they put their pants on one leg at a time as well.