Oh man, it's the lake

[LaFoto]

Well, I think, the really great snapshots that have gone into the books and have become "history", as it were, are photos taken on the spur-of-the-moment by someone who in the (many) years BEFORE said famous snapshot was taken has gone the full length of learning their trade. Starting out with the much dreaded and heavily discussed "formalisms" that so many "won't buy", and going through that and into their own style with all they are: their sense of the technology of the thing they do, their visual sense (they have learned to LOOK and SEE), and their entire personality. They have matured in learning ... and the GREAT snapshots of this world SHOW that maturity. That is what makes them so great, i.e. the fact that a full grown personality - with a sound knowledge of what they were doing when they "took the snap" - took that photo. They have learned to previsualise sooooooooo fast, they KNEW what they were doing the moment they VERY QUICKLY took their photo. That is where there is the big difference between the great snaps and those of someone who has a camera.

 

[Harmony]

hmmmm.... assumptions are very dangerous. Too many assumptions are wrong.

you're trying to promote the idea of formalism

My definition of formalism is thus:
'strict adherence to, or observance of, prescribed or traditional forms, as in music, poetry, and art.'
If that's what you mean, then no, I don't promote formalism. If anything, I encourage free and logical thinking. However, most people think the same, and history has shown that when a photograph has been taken in a certain way, say, perhaps, with the rule of thirds, or with a certain type of lighting, that people like it more than if the same shot was taken in a different way. This is a fact. When you get more experianced and you gather more comments and opinions, you'll start to realize a pattern. Granted, people have different opinions, as you do, but you've shown that you still have the rule of thirds ingrained in you, by placing the people in the left bottom corner.

As for objectivity, that's a guideline for critiquing photos. Some people try to invoke feelings in people with photographs, most do actually. From what I gather in this thread, the feelings you managed to evoke were 'I don't like it," and "It could be better."

-M

 

[rob91]

Don't get too far ahead of me now. I never denied technical learning as essential to photography, it is. Formalism, however, is not the same as technical proficiency.

*edit: This is in response to LaFoto

 

[Harmony]

Well said, Corinna.

 

[rob91]

hmmmm.... assumptions are very dangerous. Too many assumptions are wrong.



My definition of formalism is thus:
'strict adherence to, or observance of, prescribed or traditional forms, as in music, poetry, and art.'
If that's what you mean, then no, I don't promote formalism. If anything, I encourage free and logical thinking. However, most people think the same, and history has shown that when a photograph has been taken in a certain way, say, perhaps, with the rule of thirds, or with a certain type of lighting, that people like it more than if the same shot was taken in a different way. This is a fact. When you get more experianced and you gather more comments and opinions, you'll start to realize a pattern. Granted, people have different opinions, as you do, but you've shown that you still have the rule of thirds ingrained in you, by placing the people in the left bottom corner.

As for objectivity, that's a guideline for critiquing photos. Some people try to invoke feelings in people with photographs, most do actually. From what I gather in this thread, the feelings you managed to evoke were 'I don't like it," and "It could be better."

-M

Yes, we are on the same page with the definition of formalism. I do find it interesting, however, that you say you don't promote formalism but then go on to insinuate shots should be taken by certain guidelines, I guess to pander to a majority opinion? If I am wrong on this, please let me know. I do realize there are a certain set of subjects and aesthetic guidelines that a "majority" will find appealing, but I find such tactics reductive and uninteresting.

 

[Alpha]

Don't get too far ahead of me now. I never denied technical learning as essential to photography, it is. Formalism, however, is not the same as technical proficiency.

*edit: This is in response to LaFoto

Quit hiding behind the snapshot bit. If you can't see very obvious differences between your work and great photos that might fall into the snapshot category, then you're in absolute denial. Learn how to use your camera properly and stop bickering about semantics.

 

[rob91]

Quit hiding behind the snapshot bit. If you can't see very obvious differences between your work and great photos that might fall into the snapshot category, then you're in absolute denial. Learn how to use your camera properly and stop bickering about semantics.

Wow, that's an interesting reaction. I'm hiding behind the "snapshot bit"? What does that even mean? And what exactly makes you think I'm in denial? I've been fairly open in this thread about the deficiencies of my shot, and I don't remember comparing myself to the greats.

 

[Alpha]

You don't stand to gain anything from this absolutely inane semantic argument except trying to excuse your shortcomings. You are acting so completely lame. Whatever your personal beliefs about formalism or mainstream aesthetics or "objective photography" (whatever the hell that is), they have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your photograph here is of very poor quality. Whatever you need to tell yourself...but it's clear that there wasn't any intentionality in the poor turnout of your shot. If you didn't even have the proficiency to understand that sand in bright daylight will blow out, then you need to drop all the art theory jargon and get back to basics, such as understanding how your equipment works. You've demonstrated and explained that you don't have any control over what your final image looks like except in what direction you point the camera. And as a novice whose spent the entire thread trying to argue their way out of the fact that they took a poor photo, you don't seem to care much about improving, either.

 

[Harmony]

Alright, this is going to be my last post for the night and for this thread, so listen carefully:

Please notice that the first word in my definition of formalism is 'strict'. That now makes your reply obsolete.

To head off on an entirely different note, let's leave the snapshot bit and just talk about you. Why are you so defensive of your photo when experienced photogs have told you what could be improved? Do you feel that you are better than them? That you produce better photos than them? That they were rude in the way they replied to you? Or did you post your photos on this forum to get your ego stroked and wasn't rewarded? I know that it is VERY hard to take criticism when it is not presented nicely, when it is blunt, or unkind. But I personally, still take it because it will make me a better photographer. As for what has been presented tonight on this thread, it has been MUCH kinder that what you would have gotten on the General Critique forum. They would have ripped it apart, far worse than anyone here has.

I know so many photogs are committed to being different and being original, after all, isn't that what photography is all about? But don't be stupid. Look at your photos objectively. Many times we as the photographers are blind to our own photos faults. And listen to criticism, be it nicely presented or not. We are real people back here, behind these screens, giving our opinions. Photographs are meant to be shared, but the general public won't look twice at this photo.

Listen, learn, try again.

 

[LaFoto]

Originality starts when there is a basis upon which you can be "original". That means you need to learn the fundamental things about the technicalities of using a camerea, you need to learn or "soak up" what will be a 2-D photo that still grips the viewer and SEE that beforehand, and you need the personality all in all that will reflect off your photography in the end. It is a rough path to walk, nothing comes easy. Least of all originality and "being different", for in order to be DIFFERENT, you need to BE someone.

And while this reply is in Rob91's thread, it is not directed at only this one (new) member, but it is a very general remark about anyone who means to become good in their trade. It includes 16-year-old fierce critics as much as seasoned photogs and mediocre amateurs like myself.

 

[rob91]

You don't stand to gain anything from this absolutely inane semantic argument except trying to excuse your shortcomings. You are acting so completely lame. Whatever your personal beliefs about formalism or mainstream aesthetics or "objective photography" (whatever the hell that is), they have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your photograph here is of very poor quality. Whatever you need to tell yourself...but it's clear that there wasn't any intentionality in the poor turnout of your shot. If you didn't even have the proficiency to understand that sand in bright daylight will blow out, then you need to drop all the art theory jargon and get back to basics, such as understanding how your equipment works. You've demonstrated and explained that you don't have any control over what your final image looks like except in what direction you point the camera. And as a novice whose spent the entire thread trying to argue their way out of the fact that they took a poor photo, you don't seem to care much about improving, either.

It's interesting, to me you guys are the ones who should probably calm down. I'm quite calm here, simply trying to express my viewpoints and understand yours. And just to be clear, this entire discourse has absolutely nothing to do with my photograph, it stemmed from a simple question I asked Harmony regarding snapshots vs. compositions, then on to formalism. Scroll up if you are having trouble following the conversation. I've already admitted to deficiencies in my photo, I don't really know what more you want from me. Should I print out a copy, defecate all over it and declare myself awful?

 

[toteki]

I actually like the picture (if it is a snapshot or not), the only thing i have to say is just try to do some basic editing.. Your photo is way to bright, and had low contrast.. By just adjusting that in photoshop, and the levels.. you will get this result..



Don't know what you like best, but personally I this the editted version just looks nicer.. you can see it actually is sand in the bottom, because i thought it were rocks and it doesn't hurt the eye with the brightness of you picture..

MISH