Missed opportunity

[pixmedic]

Maybe as a forum we can learn to give and accept both artist and technical critique.

 

[The_Traveler]

The fact is if you have a large community any content gets diluted you can't avoid that fact.

This is especially the case when you've a a forum which has an active uptake of new members who are also new photographers. This constant influx doesn't keep the site from getting advanced, but it does mean that there are more non-advanced comments to be thrown around.

The real core problem comes from apathy of the higher level photographers.

thick skin is also something "advanced" shooters need to have when being prepared to release their critique out into the world. But so long as photographers babying their photos clash with those doing similar with their own viewpoint/critique we'll continue to have friction.

There's a small but persistent cadre that work at giving more artistic "does it work" critique, and that's valuable and good.

It's our forum, just do what you want to see more of, and see if it sticks.

I think that all of these lines above are on target.

I believe that it is sort of the responsibility of those who can give better C/C to do it.
Just hanging around and shooting the eventual laser comment, does not help.
It may make the shooter look cool but it is destructive to the effort that others are putting in.

 

[Derrel]

Garry Winogrand,HCB,Joel Meyerowicz,Alexy Titerenco all shot on the street and are very artistic

I disagree on Winogrand entirely; he shot like a man on amphetamines, running sooooo much film through a Leica that he wore the pressure plate out; he shot the chit out of the most mundane and tedious stuff, trying to become Robert Frank, and died with so much undeveloped film it was ridiculous. Winogrand srikes me as the epitome of the spray-and-pray street shooter.

HCB...yeah...I'm familiar with his decisive moment, everything with a 50mm lens stuff...it was pretty cool back in the 1940's...but not much of him was in the photos...it was all about the SUBJECTS. Not the artistry, but the SUBJECTS. He also never printed his own images....he just snapped them.

Joel Meyerowitz...I know him almost exclusively from his Cape Light book, and his use of color negative film back in the early 1980's, when shooting color negative film for "serious" work was a bit anti-establishment. Joel Mererowitz + Cape Light - Google Search

Alexy Titerenco is much, much more of a photographic "artist" than Winogrand or HCB; Winogrand never met a scene he didn't think warranted 20-36 frames, while HCB looked for "moments" where things came together, and had a bit more restraint than Winogrand, who if he were shooting digitally, would probably come home with 128 gigs of files every 8 hours out...

To me, artistry is when the photo is less about the SUBJECT, and more about intent, and photographer intervention and creation...so many people cannot separate great SUBJECT MATTER from artistry...they confuse the two...when a photo is all about the SUBJECT, there's usually very,very little artistry in the shot. That to me is why documentary photography is typically not very "artistic", but merely representational...mere recordings of what existed for one, short,brief moment. The images might just as well have been snapped by an unmanned Google camera roaming the streets...if ya' know what I mean...

 

[The_Traveler]

Garry Winogrand,HCB,Joel Meyerowicz,Alexy Titerenco all shot on the street and are very artistic

I disagree on Winogrand entirely; he shot like a man on amphetamines, running sooooo much film through a Leica that he wore the pressure plate out; he shot the chit out of the most mundane and tedious stuff, trying to become Robert Frank, and died with so much undeveloped film it was ridiculous. Winogrand srikes me as the epitome of the spray-and-pray street shooter.

HCB...yeah...I'm familiar with his decisive moment, everything with a 50mm lens stuff...it was pretty cool back in the 1940's...but not much of him was in the photos...it was all about the SUBJECTS. Not the artistry, but the SUBJECTS. He also never printed his own images....he just snapped them.

Joel Meyerowitz...I know him almost exclusively from his Cape Light book, and his use of color negative film back in the early 1980's, when shooting color negative film for "serious" work was a bit anti-establishment. Joel Mererowitz + Cape Light - Google Search

Alexy Titerenco is much, much more of a photographic "artist" than Winogrand or HCB; Winogrand never met a scene he didn't think warranted 20-36 frames, while HCB looked for "moments" where things came together, and had a bit more restraint than Winogrand, who if he were shooting digitally, would probably come home with 128 gigs of files every 8 hours out...

To me, artistry is when the photo is less about the SUBJECT, and more about intent, and photographer intervention and creation...so many people cannot separate great SUBJECT MATTER from artistry...they confuse the two...when a photo is all about the SUBJECT, there's usually very,very little artistry in the shot. That to me is why documentary photography is typically not very "artistic", but merely representational...mere recordings of what existed for one, short,brief moment. The images might just as well have been snapped by an unmanned Google camera roaming the streets...if ya' know what I mean...

It's not the end result, that's always arguable. It's that these people were actually trying to do something, to catch that lightning in a bottle that all artists dream about.

 

[Derrel]

Ummmm....if it's not the end result we evaluate, then what is it that we evaluate? How nice of a guy each photographer was? How much he loved his wife? if one wishes to capture lighting, shooting a series of time exposures during a lighting storm oughtta' do it. If it was Garrry Winogrand, shooting three thousand frames to get one keeper was about right.

 

[The_Traveler]

Ummmm....if it's not the end result we evaluate, then what is it that we evaluate? How nice of a guy each photographer was? How much he loved his wife? if one wishes to capture lighting, shooting a series of time exposures during a lighting storm oughtta' do it. If it was Garrry Winogrand, shooting three thousand frames to get one keeper was about right.

It's that your opinion of any specific end result of these specific guys isn't important.

What is important is that each of us as photographers have an end result that we are searching and working toward and that others respond to our efforts.
If you aren't moving towards an end, well then, like they say about sharks, if it isn't moving .........................

 

[Tamgerine]

I guess I don't really understand the point about posting outside of my comfort zone that you're trying to make. If I fail and know it, I typically know why I failed. It's those times that I'm within my comfort zone and don't know I failed that I need to be told. The point of that is to extend my comfort zone and thus my skill.

I shoot outside of my comfort zone a lot, but all critiquing those photos would do is tell me something I already know, rather than push my good photography into the great category by telling me things I don't know.

 

[runnah]

Disagree. The only reason I joined here was to get the advice of those better than me. I live and work in an area where there is no one to learn from. I come on here and post photos I want to get options on so I can become a better photographer. If I only posted things I am good at, what is the point? Just to show off? I am sure a lot do that but I really want to become better.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

So, what's being said, is that everyone is using the forum as a means to their own end, regardless of how other people think they should be using it.

 

[The_Traveler]

So, what's being said, is that everyone is using the forum as a means to their own end, regardless of how other people think they should be using it.

Aw come one, Bitter.
Stop trying to sound like you know how everyone should act, being the Wise One who sits back and gives pearls of wisdom.

What I'm saying is that people who have the capacity to, as Andy says, "giv(e) more artistic "does it work" critique, and that's valuable and good." should do it.

No one has to do anything they don't want to or can't.
But I think the harder one works, the better it is for those involved.

 

[pixmedic]

So, what's being said, is that everyone is using the forum as a means to their own end, regardless of how other people think they should be using it.

Yup. And thats how it should be. Wouldnt be much incentive for me to use the forum the exact same way other people do. It wouldn't suit my needs. Different strokes.

 

[runnah]

So, what's being said, is that everyone is using the forum as a means to their own end, regardless of how other people think they should be using it.

I'm here for easy money and loose women...

 

[JAC526]

I think a lot of the critique on this forum consists of people parrotting easy to understand ideas (rule of thirds) without really considering why someone may have broken that rule intentionally.

Its like dogma. Its also easy and doesn't require a ton of thought or analysis.

You know barring a very few sites which tend to be very small in population and very focused - I hear these exact same comments on several large photography forums. The fact is if you have a large community any content gets diluted you can't avoid that fact. This is especially the case when you've a a forum which has an active uptake of new members who are also new photographers. This constant influx doesn't keep the site from getting advanced, but it does mean that there are more non-advanced comments to be thrown around.

The real core problem comes from apathy of the higher level photographers. Mostly because they all know each other - already know most of the viewpoints each other will share and because they've lost that same sense of rapid leaning that they had when they were beginners. They tend to either go through a stage of being trollish on the site or just outright leaving (sometimes quietly sometimes after a big huff).

Most of them spread their wings fly off and then come back sometime later . Because the fact is this never ending search for the holy grail of critique just - well it isn't really out there in the net to be found. Its something you've got to build and if you're not prepared to build it, well, it just won't appear. Those in the know will avoid some subjects or will refrain from commenting (often sighting the fact that some newbies have challenged their viewpoint - disagreed- got defensive or just not even given any reply at all) and the knowledge gets held up.

I'm more than certain that we've a community here who are more than capable of advanced level discussions - the fact that these do happen now and then is a reason many still hang around the site itself. The thing is its more difficult than it should be to really get people to spark up and speak up.

Thick skin is oft something touted that newbies need to have when taking critique on their photos yet I can't hide the feeling that thick skin is also something "advanced" shooters need to have when being prepared to release their critique out into the world. It doesn't have to be a fight - in fact it never should be. But so long as photographers babying their photos clash with those doing similar with their own viewpoint/critique we'll continue to have friction.

I've heard plenty of the more "experienced" members do exactly what I was referring to. For example, people routinely say that using a wide angle lens for portraiture is an absolute mistake b/c of distortion...blah blah blah. Then I read a book from a very experience professional who is widely considered an expert in his field and a lot of the portraits he shot utilized a 14-24.

I think its more important to have a thought process that gets you to the shot you want. If in that shot process you break some of the "rules" I fail to see the problem with that.

 

[manaheim]

I'm not sure if you'd call me "in the experienced bunch", but being a bit vain I assume that I am.

I don't post much outside my creative zone because as much as I can see and appreciate how someone totally pulled off something very impressive... such as many of Bitter's recent shots where he took some very simple elements and showed us something with them... and what gsgary did there with his fork and his plate... I just seem to lack the creative juices to identify and compose images like those. I'm also not as into the act of creating pictures as I once was, so I don't shoot much... when I do, and when I have something that I think is cool, I post it.

That said, this very thread has put a bit of inspiration into me to go out and shoot and actually try to pull off something... so maybe.

All this said, I agree with what Derrel and Over were saying about the forum getting bogged down by the technical issues and why. For my part, I try VERY hard to discuss artistry and composition and such in my critique first, and technical issues last... in many cases I'll avoid technical comments entirely, because I think it should be there but not the focus. In other words, I try to lead by example. What's more is if I see people pounding on the technical elements but ignoring all else, I'll call it out and try to get people back on track.

For me, I think this is where us "older folks" might be able to contribute more significantly... by not only providing comments more along the lines of artistry, but to also try to train others here to focus more on that as well. Perhaps if we all banded together and made a point to do that we could elevate the discourse around here. I DO think the culture can be bent here... it just takes a bit of a focused effort and some time. I'd be game.

 

[manaheim]

So, what's being said, is that everyone is using the forum as a means to their own end, regardless of how other people think they should be using it.

I'm here for easy money and loose women...

I'm here for you, baby.