The Photographer

[DanOstergren30 5]

I think there is way too much credit and attention to silly details on this forum. So many shots are panned or discarded because people let the little things get in the way of a great shot. Derrel is correct in that allowing the foreground bokeh to exist lends itself to the voyeuristic approach to this shot. If the man with the iPad had been cognizant of my presence, it would have changed his stance or concentration and the shot would have been lost to just another tourist snap. It is nicely composed, pretty much perfectly processed and that this guy is taking a concentrated shot, that's the story in this photo...sorry I don't meet everyone's tidiness needs.

Actually, I don't think I meet many of the needs of this forum....it's why I rarely post here anymore.

I'm in complete agreement with you here! It gets to a point where listening to a lot of the crap people say here actually starts to limit one's capabilities as a photographer. "Needs fill flash" is one of those silly details that seriously gets under my skin, yet it get's said to the natural light photographers all the time. Kinda goes against the whole natural thing, and if you argue against it you are told all sorts of crap about how you're holding yourself back by choosing to not use artificial light.

Sorry for my tangent, just had to share what was bugging me about those silly details as well. I like the shot. One of my favorite things to observe while I was in Ketchikan was all of the tourists using their ipads as cameras. I have nothing against calling them photographers, or have anything against them using these devices to take pictures; I think there is a beauty in art made with available technology.

Well... I'd argue that you also have the opposite issue... Which is people defending poor choices as some sort of artistic or stylistic thing... And 'natural light photographers' very frequently fall into this category.

Perhaps this just isn't an appropriate forum for artists. As well, I used to exclusively use artificial light, and now I am pretty much on the opposite side except when using available light isn't an option. I've done countless shoots where my intention was to use shadow, or to veil a model's face in darker light, yet when explained here it's always the same response: "you're wrong, you need fill". Taking a moment to think outside of the box and to try and figure out deeper meaning rather than completely ignoring artists intentions and saying they are wrong for doing something because it's unconventional is entirely too common here.

 

[skieur]

I think there is way too much credit and attention to silly details on this forum. So many shots are panned or discarded because people let the little things get in the way of a great shot. Derrel is correct in that allowing the foreground bokeh to exist lends itself to the voyeuristic approach to this shot. If the man with the iPad had been cognizant of my presence, it would have changed his stance or concentration and the shot would have been lost to just another tourist snap. It is nicely composed, pretty much perfectly processed and that this guy is taking a concentrated shot, that's the story in this photo...sorry I don't meet everyone's tidiness needs.

Actually, I don't think I meet many of the needs of this forum....it's why I rarely post here anymore.

"Silly details" are what photography is all about and they are not silly to the enthusiast or experienced professional. If your centre of interest is the photographer then a tighter shot eliminating much of the left bottom area as well as some of the top area would be better for the viewer. If you were interested in what the photographer was doing then a better angle indicating where the photographer's attention is focused would have been very effective.

Defensiveness re:"tidiness needs" tends to suggest a limited "willingness to learn" which would restrict the progress of anyone wanting to improve their work.

 

[manaheim]

I'm in complete agreement with you here! It gets to a point where listening to a lot of the crap people say here actually starts to limit one's capabilities as a photographer. "Needs fill flash" is one of those silly details that seriously gets under my skin, yet it get's said to the natural light photographers all the time. Kinda goes against the whole natural thing, and if you argue against it you are told all sorts of crap about how you're holding yourself back by choosing to not use artificial light.

Sorry for my tangent, just had to share what was bugging me about those silly details as well. I like the shot. One of my favorite things to observe while I was in Ketchikan was all of the tourists using their ipads as cameras. I have nothing against calling them photographers, or have anything against them using these devices to take pictures; I think there is a beauty in art made with available technology.

Well... I'd argue that you also have the opposite issue... Which is people defending poor choices as some sort of artistic or stylistic thing... And 'natural light photographers' very frequently fall into this category.

Perhaps this just isn't an appropriate forum for artists. As well, I used to exclusively use artificial light, and now I am pretty much on the opposite side except when using available light isn't an option. I've done countless shoots where my intention was to use shadow, or to veil a model's face in darker light, yet when explained here it's always the same response: "you're wrong, you need fill". Taking a moment to think outside of the box and to try and figure out deeper meaning rather than completely ignoring artists intentions and saying they are wrong for doing something because it's unconventional is entirely too common here.

You can do anything you want as long as it has the effect you intended. The problem is a lot of folks use "I'm a natural light photographer" as a defense of a poorly executed work.

Who is to decide what is poorly executed? Good question. You can be very centrally-focused about it and say "as long as it's what I want, then it is executed properly". However, if others view the work and don't feel similarly, you have to at least question that judgment.

If it turns out you still feel your work is as it should be, then perhaps you have a greater vision than those who have suggested you do otherwise. Perhaps you do not. In the end, only time will tell.

I have seen a few folks on here who go against the grain and produce some amazing stuff, but I see far (FAR!) more who just have no idea what they're doing and use "against the grain" as an excuse. Sounds like you're not in that latter camp, so the question only becomes whether or not you've come up with something great that the rest of us here just don't get. It's ENTIRELY possible. TPF is very much a least common denominator.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I started a thread on another site for shots just like this....

Caught In The Act..... - SkyscraperPage Forum

 

[DanOstergren30 5]

I think there is way too much credit and attention to silly details on this forum. So many shots are panned or discarded because people let the little things get in the way of a great shot. Derrel is correct in that allowing the foreground bokeh to exist lends itself to the voyeuristic approach to this shot. If the man with the iPad had been cognizant of my presence, it would have changed his stance or concentration and the shot would have been lost to just another tourist snap. It is nicely composed, pretty much perfectly processed and that this guy is taking a concentrated shot, that's the story in this photo...sorry I don't meet everyone's tidiness needs.

Actually, I don't think I meet many of the needs of this forum....it's why I rarely post here anymore.

"Silly details" are what photography is all about and they are not silly to the enthusiast or experienced professional. If your centre of interest is the photographer then a tighter shot eliminating much of the left bottom area as well as some of the top area would be better for the viewer. If you were interested in what the photographer was doing then a better angle indicating where the photographer's attention is focused would have been very effective.

Defensiveness re:"tidiness needs" tends to suggest a limited "willingness to learn" which would restrict the progress of anyone wanting to improve their work.

I quite like the photo with the foreground blur and the crop that it already has. Does this mean I have an unwillingness to learn as well since I agree with the photographer? No. It's a simple difference of taste and opinion that we are allowed to have in response to critique. It's a silly detail that to some doesn't need to be fixed because it's not a problem to begin with. On the opposite side, that obsession with absolute perfection would mean that they could never achieve perfection in my personal opinion. Perfection only exists with imperfection, and to some the little details that aren't removed from a photo actually improve the shot. It's not an unwillingness to learn or being defensive. It's a difference in taste, but having a difference in taste from the majority in this forum seems like the worst faux pas anyone could have. :roll:

 

[DanOstergren30 5]

Well... I'd argue that you also have the opposite issue... Which is people defending poor choices as some sort of artistic or stylistic thing... And 'natural light photographers' very frequently fall into this category.

Perhaps this just isn't an appropriate forum for artists. As well, I used to exclusively use artificial light, and now I am pretty much on the opposite side except when using available light isn't an option. I've done countless shoots where my intention was to use shadow, or to veil a model's face in darker light, yet when explained here it's always the same response: "you're wrong, you need fill". Taking a moment to think outside of the box and to try and figure out deeper meaning rather than completely ignoring artists intentions and saying they are wrong for doing something because it's unconventional is entirely too common here.

You can do anything you want as long as it has the effect you intended. The problem is a lot of folks use "I'm a natural light photographer" as a defense of a poorly executed work.

Who is to decide what is poorly executed? Good question. You can be very centrally-focused about it and say "as long as it's what I want, then it is executed properly". However, if others view the work and don't feel similarly, you have to at least question that judgment.

If it turns out you still feel your work is as it should be, then perhaps you have a greater vision than those who have suggested you do otherwise. Perhaps you do not. In the end, only time will tell.

I have seen a few folks on here who go against the grain and produce some amazing stuff, but I see far (FAR!) more who just have no idea what they're doing and use "against the grain" as an excuse. Sounds like you're not in that latter camp, so the question only becomes whether or not you've come up with something great that the rest of us here just don't get. It's ENTIRELY possible. TPF is very much a least common denominator.

It's all subjective really, and I'm not saying every member is like this. But I don't see how being a natural light photographer could be any sort of defense, because it's a preference. Some people including me, don't use artificial light for the simple fact that we don't like it. Telling them that they need to use fill flash isn't helpful. And I for one prefer the presence of deep shadows in my work; using fill flash eliminates this element. It's the same when I get told to avoid using dappled light like it's the plague or see the same thing being told to others here, yet I just had a portrait with a lot of dappled light over the models face published in an international art portrait magazine. I'm not trying to start a fight or issues, I'm just stating that rather than encouraging many members to continue thinking unconventionally with their work or when they have a personal style that is different, they often just get told "you're doing it wrong" by a lot of the members of this forum who think that their way of doing things is the only correct way. Some of them don't know what they're doing themselves, and some of the artists defending themselves don't either and I understand that. I think what the OP was getting at is that a lot of the forum members are stuck in a box and give a lot of feedback that tries swaying others away from thinking creatively as well, whether they execute their shots well or not. This is an observation I agree with.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I think what makes this photo interesting is getting the subject sitting the way he is, looking almost suspended there, perched up straight on the bench, because to me what he's holding isn't seen immediately (because it's dark and doesn't stand out). I don't usually care for editing people or objects out of photos but I do think this is much better without the blue kayak. I think what makes that distracting is that I find my eyes seem to always go to a shape that I can't make out exactly, so I find myself looking at it and wondering - what is that??

I didn't know foreground bokeh was - a thing. I've sometimes taken photos with something in the foreground out of focus, framing the shot or being part of the photo; I thought bokeh was the quality of what's out of focus (which seems to be more related to the lens being used). Of course I never used to know bokeh was a thing either... (oh the joys of the internet).

I use existing light too (I don't think I'd call it natural light when I've been in an old hockey arena with mercury vapor lights). I suppose if I were going to do portraits I might want a reflector; I've concocted my own small homemade version on occasion and use a flash on rare occasions. I think it's more a matter of knowing how to use the existing light or how to set up additional lighting if it's appropriate for the type photos being done, but it's not always necessary especially if you get good at using light and shadows in your photos.

 

[skieur]

I think there is way too much credit and attention to silly details on this forum. So many shots are panned or discarded because people let the little things get in the way of a great shot. Derrel is correct in that allowing the foreground bokeh to exist lends itself to the voyeuristic approach to this shot. If the man with the iPad had been cognizant of my presence, it would have changed his stance or concentration and the shot would have been lost to just another tourist snap. It is nicely composed, pretty much perfectly processed and that this guy is taking a concentrated shot, that's the story in this photo...sorry I don't meet everyone's tidiness needs.

Actually, I don't think I meet many of the needs of this forum....it's why I rarely post here anymore.

"Silly details" are what photography is all about and they are not silly to the enthusiast or experienced professional. If your centre of interest is the photographer then a tighter shot eliminating much of the left bottom area as well as some of the top area would be better for the viewer. If you were interested in what the photographer was doing then a better angle indicating where the photographer's attention is focused would have been very effective.

Defensiveness re:"tidiness needs" tends to suggest a limited "willingness to learn" which would restrict the progress of anyone wanting to improve their work.

I quite like the photo with the foreground blur and the crop that it already has. Does this mean I have an unwillingness to learn as well since I agree with the photographer? No. It's a simple difference of taste and opinion that we are allowed to have in response to critique. It's a silly detail that to some doesn't need to be fixed because it's not a problem to begin with to some. On the opposite side, that obsession with absolute perfection would mean that they could never achieve perfection in my personal opinion. Perfection only exists with imperfection, and to some the little details that aren't removed from a photo actually improve the shot. It's not an unwillingness to learn or being defensive. It's a difference in taste, but having a difference in taste from the majority in this forum seems like the worst faux pas anyone could have. :roll:

Given your limited experience, your view is understandable.

skieur

 

[amolitor]

It is in the more or less official writ of TPF that the critique skews toward the technical.

It is a fact of any community that there will be norming. Like any photographic club, TPF tends to, as a community, like a pretty narrow thing and to apply social pressure toward those norms. It's how people work.

Getting critique of precisely the sort most useful to you is probably never going to happen. You got to take what you can get, here and there, and maybe triangulate the results to approximate what you're looking for.

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm in complete agreement with you here! It gets to a point where listening to a lot of the crap people say here actually starts to limit one's capabilities as a photographer. "Needs fill flash" is one of those silly details that seriously gets under my skin, yet it get's said to the natural light photographers all the time. Kinda goes against the whole natural thing, and if you argue against it you are told all sorts of crap about how you're holding yourself back by choosing to not use artificial light.

Sorry for my tangent, just had to share what was bugging me about those silly details as well. I like the shot. One of my favorite things to observe while I was in Ketchikan was all of the tourists using their ipads as cameras. I have nothing against calling them photographers, or have anything against them using these devices to take pictures; I think there is a beauty in art made with available technology.

Well... I'd argue that you also have the opposite issue... Which is people defending poor choices as some sort of artistic or stylistic thing... And 'natural light photographers' very frequently fall into this category.

Perhaps this just isn't an appropriate forum for artists. As well, I used to exclusively use artificial light, and now I am pretty much on the opposite side except when using available light isn't an option. I've done countless shoots where my intention was to use shadow, or to veil a model's face in darker light, yet when explained here it's always the same response: "you're wrong, you need fill". Taking a moment to think outside of the box and to try and figure out deeper meaning rather than completely ignoring artists intentions and saying they are wrong for doing something because it's unconventional is entirely too common here.

I tried thinking outside the box once. My brain froze. It's cold out there. Lol

Dan, if you post your work for C&C your going to get a whole bunch of responses from folks who believe in certain rules. Just accept it and move on - or just don't ask for C&C. Your not going to convince them that this rule or that rule is "wrong" and they aren't going to convince you that it's "right". Just not worth getting all bent out of shape over IMHO.

 

[Virgil]

Hey guys this is my first post. My take on this photo is that it is "street" photography.. I dont think there are rules or guidelines in capturing these types of shots. If this had been a staged photo shoot, then yes, some things could have been done differently...i see nothing wrong with grabbing whatever shot u can get when walking the streets, not worrying about every little detail... In real life photography work, yes, detail is important. Glad to have found this forum....

 

[DanOstergren30 5]

"Silly details" are what photography is all about and they are not silly to the enthusiast or experienced professional. If your centre of interest is the photographer then a tighter shot eliminating much of the left bottom area as well as some of the top area would be better for the viewer. If you were interested in what the photographer was doing then a better angle indicating where the photographer's attention is focused would have been very effective.

Defensiveness re:"tidiness needs" tends to suggest a limited "willingness to learn" which would restrict the progress of anyone wanting to improve their work.

I quite like the photo with the foreground blur and the crop that it already has. Does this mean I have an unwillingness to learn as well since I agree with the photographer? No. It's a simple difference of taste and opinion that we are allowed to have in response to critique. It's a silly detail that to some doesn't need to be fixed because it's not a problem to begin with to some. On the opposite side, that obsession with absolute perfection would mean that they could never achieve perfection in my personal opinion. Perfection only exists with imperfection, and to some the little details that aren't removed from a photo actually improve the shot. It's not an unwillingness to learn or being defensive. It's a difference in taste, but having a difference in taste from the majority in this forum seems like the worst faux pas anyone could have. :roll:

Given your limited experience, your view is understandable.

skieur

My limited experience has gotten my work published in numerous magazines and publications around the world, and has been my ticket to traveling to numerous locations, now including my new home in New York City. This "limited" experience in my portfolio has also landed me an internship with one of the world's top fashion and celebrity photographers. My point being that just because I have been doing this for a short while does not mean that I don't know what I'm doing and what I'm talking about, nor does it give you any sort of merit to discredit my opinion by saying that my experience is too limited to know any better. I've challenged myself enough, taken countless risks, failed and succeeded enough to know better than you think.

 

[DanOstergren30 5]

It is in the more or less official writ of TPF that the critique skews toward the technical.

It is a fact of any community that there will be norming. Like any photographic club, TPF tends to, as a community, like a pretty narrow thing and to apply social pressure toward those norms. It's how people work.

Getting critique of precisely the sort most useful to you is probably never going to happen. You got to take what you can get, here and there, and maybe triangulate the results to approximate what you're looking for.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to explain your own point of view in response without being called defensive or being told you have an unwillingness to learn. Nor does it mean that one shouldn't provoke progressive ways of seeing and thinking. Going against the grain isn't a bad thing, and it should be encouraged.

 

[Derrel]

Here's an interesting on-line article from 2006, with some data on how people from different cultural backgrounds tend to look at photographs. When photos like this come up, I sometimes point out that "american audiences" will often immediately criticize a photo that uses out of focus foreground elements that overlap the main subject...when you read this article it become apparent why--Americans tend to focus on "the subject" to a high degree, and for a lengthy percentage of the time in which they view a photo.

The culture-cognition connection

I've used the technique of using out of focus foreground objects over the years, and it's a tough sell among many viewers.

 

[manaheim]

Ok, so I finally had time to go look at your work, Dan. You stood out for me as a name I remembered here on TPF, but couldn't remember why. I knew it wasn't because you were a trouble maker, so I assumed it was something more cool. It was.

Your work is stunning.

You commented on the natural light thing... and from what I see, you do use a lot of natural light in your work, and you do so SO beautifully. Your work is a model of what "natural light photographers" are probably striving for. I certainly wish I had your skills. I don't think I do. I don't honestly think I'm at a point in my artistic career where I could execute as you have here.


So here's the thing... you're railing against people telling you "you're doing it wrong".

Why?

I mean seriously, why in the name of all things good and holy would you POSSIBLY care? Your work is amazing. As you said, your work has gotten you some great opportunities. Who gives a crap if someone on TPF says "you need a fill flash! this is bad!" You know who you are, you clearly have a style that is all your own, and you have an artistry that few here on TPF could hold a candle to. Know it. Embrace it.

Don't get me wrong- everyone produces a clinker now and again, and I don't think the picture in this particular thread in ANY way compares to your work on your profile, but so what?

My take on this whole thing is that you are a great artist who needs to ACTUALLY accept that you're an artist. You don't quite yet have thick enough of a skin to shrug off the slings and arrows of people who don't get it. You know FULL WELL that a significant portion of the population here on TPF is mired in "rules" and purely technical assessments of images that go far beyond the technical. You know FULL WELL that you are well beyond that. And yet, you let them get to you anyway?

Pfft.

I say this with respect and admiration... Dan... grow a pair.

We need folks like you around here to gently guide those who are mired in the foolishness to become ARTISTS rather than gadget-hungry rule-burdened followers. We need folks like you to barrage us with ART so we can see what art really is- in all its forms and flavors. We need people like you to have a thick enough skin to be able to stay around even when you know full well you've outgrown most of us.