Odd views on photography

Projectionist76

TPF Noob!
Joined
Mar 10, 2012
Messages
23
Reaction score
2
Location
Sweden
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I just can't let this leave my mind; I saw this discussion on flickr and now I'm oddly frustrated by this guy's views on photography.

Flickr: Discussing why ansel adams ? in Ansel Adams (Legendary Landscape Photographer)

Is he an advanced troll or is this view shared by others?

"I have a rule...to make a photo...There should be one of 2 criteria,
of why to take a photogragh...
The subject should be Alive or Rare.
anything...not fitting in this category...few if any pics should be taken
of it. (I am thinking mountains...here.)

Besides the beauty or interest a photo conveys...
it also helps us remember...and gives a since of history.
Mountains...fail miserably... on all 4 of these criteria.
After all...you can not remember what never goes away.

Humanity...is tops...and life...is tops...rocks are not.
when I think of all the notable people that lived in Adams
lifetime...MLK, Mother Teresa, Babe Ruth,Josephine baker,
Albert Einstein...the list goes on and on.
while all these remarkable people...were here....
Adams was out in the woods taking Images of rocks...
blows my mind...wish I had lived when he lived....
I wouldnt have wasted my time.
"

"I can add...my theory for what its worth about trees....
Though nature...a tree is alive....I love trees.
However, and most importantly...A large group of trees
is a worthless photo.
How can I be so arrogant....you say.
simple logic....A photo of a large group of trees shows nothing
of them individually...only a mass of trees.
I would think it best not to photograph more than three of them,
so the uniqueness of each one, can be appreciated.
"

"Bravo...but do some people...too.
A photo is a document of history...
a landscape is never really history..it is mundane
it can be lovely at times I spose...
but again...shouldnt we focus on Humans...animals as well
not the dirt we trod upon !

mountains/landscapes dont make
it...they are the stage the actors play on.
Much like photographing the table...instead of flowers sat upon it.
"

To me he sounds like an arrogant clown but since I'm kinda new to the different philosophies in photography I wonder what you have to say.
 
I sort of agree...

Landscapes bore me. While I do appreciate the work Adams has done for the photographic field, his "work" never really did much for me.

This line in particular stands out to me:
"After all...you can not remember what never goes away."

Most landscapes are very 'forgettable', IMO...
 
An opinion is just an opinion.

A writer writes.

A barely literate writer forms a barely coherent opinion.
 
Hard to say, it is clear to me that he doesn't care for landscape photography.

Frankly, I studied with several outstanding landscape photographers and in the late 70's decided it wasn't for me. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate well done work.

What if no one ever made a wonderful image of a mountain or tree, (fill in the blank here with any ARAT image) would the majority of the world even take notice of these sights sometimes I don't think so.

How people view of a lot of what we as photographers are drawn too is totally different. A post card shot maybe but fine details I don't think so.

Besides the west does not look like an AA photo, that is his vision and his interpretation.

Look at Clive Butcher"s swamp images how many people would see such beauty, i dare say few.

Frankly, I would encourage you not to fret too much over this , he of course is entitled to his own opinion, but these days the internet brings out the strangest folks looking for 15 minutes of fame
 
I sort of agree...

Landscapes bore me. While I do appreciate the work Adams has done for the photographic field, his "work" never really did much for me.

This line in particular stands out to me:
"After all...you can not remember what never goes away."

Most landscapes are very 'forgettable', IMO...
But that's your opinion and it doesn't bother me the least. This guy though, seems to have a very limited view on what should be able to be photographed. He puts humans and human activity as the only thing photography should be about.
Personally manypictures of people bore me and nature is bigger and more important to me.

I guess I just wanted to rant about something that bothered me.
Maybe you have to look at the actual discussion to know what I mean.
 
I sort of agree...

Landscapes bore me. While I do appreciate the work Adams has done for the photographic field, his "work" never really did much for me.

This line in particular stands out to me:
"After all...you can not remember what never goes away."

Most landscapes are very 'forgettable', IMO...
But that's your opinion and it doesn't bother me the least. This guy though, seems to have a very limited view on what should be able to be photographed. He puts humans and human activity as the only thing photography should be about.
Personally manypictures of people bore me and nature is bigger and more important to me.

I guess I just wanted to rant about something that bothered me.
Maybe you have to look at the actual discussion to know what I mean.
Yeah, saying that you should only photograph living or rare things is a little extreme... I think it basically comes back to the question of "what is art?" - everybody has a different answer, and this is that guy's answer.
 
Hard to say, it is clear to me that he doesn't care for landscape photography.

Frankly, I studied with several outstanding landscape photographers and in the late 70's decided it wasn't for me. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate well done work.

What if no one ever made a wonderful image of a mountain or tree, (fill in the blank here with any ARAT image) would the majority of the world even take notice of these sights sometimes I don't think so.

How people view of a lot of what we as photographers are drawn too is totally different. A post card shot maybe but fine details I don't think so.

Besides the west does not look like an AA photo, that is his vision and his interpretation.

Look at Clive Butcher"s swamp images how many people would see such beauty, i dare say few.

Frankly, I would encourage you not to fret too much over this , he of course is entitled to his own opinion, but these days the internet brings out the strangest folks looking for 15 minutes of fame
Yes, if no one ever took pictures of our landscapes and earth not many would be able to know the planet we live on. Not everybody travels as much as I do for example. I know I shouldn't fret and care what he says but I'm new to the field and was confused.

Thanks for telling me about Clive Butcher. Very nice images!
 
I sort of agree...

Landscapes bore me. While I do appreciate the work Adams has done for the photographic field, his "work" never really did much for me.

This line in particular stands out to me:
"After all...you can not remember what never goes away."

Most landscapes are very 'forgettable', IMO...



It's funny when people say "landscapes bore me". This is a great example of how individualism and opinion can be one of the most irritating things conceivable. You mean to say, capturing a landscape and moment in time that will never happen again in the exact same way for the rest of time, that is as unique and timeless as any other type of photography, bores you?

Saying all landscapes are boring is just crap. Just plain nonsense.

It would be the equivalent of saying
All portrait photography is boring.
All sports photography is boring.
All abstract photography is boring.
All stock photography is boring.
All black and white photography is boring.
All wedding photography is boring.

Why not take it a step further? All photography is boring. By your logic, this is just the next logical step, right?

It's just a cumbersome over-generalization.

I keep an open mind and appreciate art and beauty in all mediums and forms.

I guess appreciating the beauty and finer points of our world are missed on some because it's just "boring".
 
"I have a rule...to make a photo...There should be one of 2 criteria,
of why to take a photogragh...
The subject should be Alive or Rare.
anything...not fitting in this category...few if any pics should be taken
of it. (I am thinking mountains...here.)

Who are we to say mountains are not alive.

Mountains are born, mountains age, and mountains die. But they do so at a rate so much slower than human life.

The common fruit fly - Drosophila melanogaster - is often used for genetic studies because a new generation appears every 10 days or so. Drosophila melanogaster's shortest development time, from egg to adult, is 7 days, and that developement time is temperature controlled.

To a fruit fly, humans may seem as forever as mountains seem to be to people.

So I think the guy that wrote that has way to narrow a perspective on things.

Besides AFAIC, anyone that routinely uses ... , and that won't use the shift key when appropriate, has little credibility. I only read the part I quoted here, and skipped the rest on that basis alone.
 
You mean to say, capturing a landscape and moment in time that will never happen again in the exact same way for the rest of time, that is as unique and timeless as any other type of photography, bores you?

well, yes. It is to me.
It pretty much stays the same and what is different about it doesn't interest me - and my opinion is much more important to my own photography than anything you say.
Because you think it's interesting, well go ahead and shoot it.
But your opinion about other people's likes and dislikes has no real factual or logical basis and is just an opinion.
 
Focus-on-You_0.jpg
 
I sort of agree...

Landscapes bore me. While I do appreciate the work Adams has done for the photographic field, his "work" never really did much for me.

This line in particular stands out to me:
"After all...you can not remember what never goes away."

Most landscapes are very 'forgettable', IMO...



It's funny when people say "landscapes bore me". This is a great example of how individualism and opinion can be one of the most irritating things conceivable. You mean to say, capturing a landscape and moment in time that will never happen again in the exact same way for the rest of time, that is as unique and timeless as any other type of photography, bores you?

Saying all landscapes are boring is just crap. Just plain nonsense.

It would be the equivalent of saying
All portrait photography is boring.
All sports photography is boring.
All abstract photography is boring.
All stock photography is boring.
All black and white photography is boring.
All wedding photography is boring.

Why not take it a step further? All photography is boring. By your logic, this is just the next logical step, right?

It's just a cumbersome over-generalization.

I keep an open mind and appreciate art and beauty in all mediums and forms.

I guess appreciating the beauty and finer points of our world are missed on some because it's just "boring".
:lol:

Yes, you are absolutely correct - I can't believe I never realized how much I hate photography before. Anybody want a Fuji GF670 and Canon 1N RS? I'm selling all my gear now.

The answer to your question (in bold) is Yes.

Re-read what I wrote - Landscapes bore me. Yes, it's true - I do not enjoy landscape photography. "Most landscapes are very 'forgettable', IMO.." - My opinion, and I stand by it. I have seen very few landscapes that were not forgotten 10 minutes after seeing it.

I also think most (maybe all) wedding photography is boring. Same goes for stock photography - that's kind of the point with stock photography though, isn't it? Bland images that could be used for anything... Sports as well - not really interested...



Is it so hard to imagine that not everybody likes what you like?
 
You mean to say, capturing a landscape and moment in time that will never happen again in the exact same way for the rest of time, that is as unique and timeless as any other type of photography, bores you?

well, yes. It is to me.
It pretty much stays the same and what is different about it doesn't interest me - and my opinion is much more important to my own photography than anything you say.
Because you think it's interesting, well go ahead and shoot it.
But your opinion about other people's likes and dislikes has no real factual or logical basis and is just an opinion.

Sure, neither does yours. Neither does anyone's. But ruling out an entire sub-discipline of photography is close-minded.

Let's take a moment and analyze your signature image. If you returned to the spot where this image in your signature was created, are you ever going to be able to recreate the image in the exact same way?
The light falling on the path the way it has?
The amount of saturation of the dirt?
The light coming through at the end of the road?
The position of the trees?
The position of the people?

You'd be hard pressed to get anything close to it.

Is your photograph a moment in time that will never happen again? Yes. Was it a moment worth capturing? Yes.

But, so are landscapes. If it doesn't interest you, fine. But when people say an entire sub-discipline of photography is "boring" to them, it's weak.

Photography is capturing a moment in time.

If it's a picture of a mountain, a person, a tree or a flea, it's still a moment in time.
 
I don't recall ever having walked out on the deck in the morning, whether it be at a motel at a vacation destination or at home, and remarking, "God what a gorgeous tree". I do, however, recall walking out on a motel deck on numerous occasions and remarking, "God what a view!"
 
If it's a picture of a mountain, a person, a tree or a flea, it's still a moment in time.
And you really think that all "moments in time" are equally 'interesting'?
 

Most reactions

Back
Top