We give extra credit to

[The_Traveler]

In looking at lots of pictures and reading lots of comments, I have developed the impression that extra credit is given to certain classes of work.
By extra credit I mean that the end product, the picture, is judged much less harshly if:

• the work is by a photographer who is 'known'
• film is used, rather than digital
• old or 'classic' or 'niche' cameras are used rather than modern
• alternative techniques are used - eg cyanotypes, platinum prints, bromoil etc.
• or any combination of the above.

Are we mixing our judgement of the images with a respect for 'authenticity' or harder physical work?

Is this fair? and why?

 

[pixmedic]

It's true.
Fair? Not really, but people are going to feel how they feel and comment as such.
It's just human nature I guess. It also varies I think, on people's interest in the subject. Pages and pages of comments on a wildlife shot, but maybe only a few comments on a portrait.

I think it's about whether a picture falls into a niche category that attracts the attention of a particular group. Wildlife photos often seem more exciting or interesting to more people that portrait headshots. (Well, not to me...)

I will most often comment on people photography, since that's where my interest is, and just gloss over wildlife and street photography. (Unless there are people as the subject)

As for the "extra credit" part...i think we imagine that someone shooting on film has many more photographic obstacles to overcome not having the benefit of a digital cameras processing, rendering of color and wb, and iso performance, that we overlook a photos "weaknesses" due to the perceived level of difficulty.
Grain is ok, but noise is not.
Bland B&W? its just how the film is.
Off colors or WB? Must be the expired film.


Again, is it fair? Nope.

 

[runnah]

I pull no punches. Even if it's one of the more elite members, I don't care.

I give even less leeway to those using non digital techniques. Regardless of the medium, a bad photo is a bad photo. Using techniques from 100 years ago doesn't make up for a boring subject and bad composition.

 

[tirediron]

Interesting - by 'we', do you mean the photographic world at large, or TPF specifically? Personally, I like to think that I am fairly objective regarding the photographer, 'though I suspect that there is a certain subconcious prejudice that comes into play when I click on a link by 'The_Traveler' as opposed to 'Newmemberwhojustjoinedtoday'. As for the gear, technique, et cetera, my personal 'rule' is to look at the image and form an initial impression before reading anything that may be written in conjunction with that image just to avoid that.

 

[runnah]

though I suspect that there is a certain subconcious prejudice that comes into play when I click on a link by 'The_Traveler' as opposed to 'Newmemberwhojustjoinedtoday'.

I will add that with some long term members who post often you can judge a recent photo against their body of work. This is good because sometimes you can see marked growth in the photographer or you can see when they post something that isn't up to their normal standards.

 

[The_Traveler]

Interesting - by 'we', do you mean the photographic world at large, or TPF specifically?

Both.
I was at a show last Friday of some pretty ugly and/or stuff and the gallery owner tried to sway me by saying that these were platinum prints by a well known local photographer - as if that should make a difference in what I thought.

 

[ronlane]

I pull no punches. Even if it's one of the more elite members, I don't care.

I give even less leeway to those using non digital techniques. Regardless of the medium, a bad photo is a bad photo. Using techniques from 100 years ago doesn't make up for a boring subject and bad composition.

Oh boy, I can't wait to get this roll of b&w film back from the processing this week. Runnah will have some fun with me. lol

 

[Parker219]

In looking at lots of pictures and reading lots of comments, I have developed the impression that extra credit is given to certain classes of work.
By extra credit I mean that the end product, the picture, is judged much less harshly if:

• the work is by a photographer who is 'known'
• film is used, rather than digital
• old or 'classic' or 'niche' cameras are used rather than modern
• alternative techniques are used - eg cyanotypes, platinum prints, bromoil etc.
• or any combination of the above.

Are we mixing our judgement of the images with a respect for 'authenticity' or harder physical work?

Is this fair? and why?

How else would you get any compliments Lew?

Just kidding, I think I am fair no matter the circumstance. Instead of saying WE and being general, if it bothers you enough to start a thread over it, try calling out an individual or PMing them if you want.

 

[The_Traveler]

How else would you get any compliments Lew?

It's me that's old and not the camera.

I'm not bothered by anything specific, I wanted to get different ideas particularly on why we favor film and specific printing techniques for an article.

 

[Braineack]

i give equal hate to all!

 

[kathyt]

I either like it or I don't. It is a gut reaction.

 

[ronlane]

I either like it or I don't. It is a gut reaction.

That explains a LOT about the way she reacts to my comments

 

[jenko]

I think this era is defined a lot by "process." Not just in photography, but in all the visual arts. Many times the process is more interesting than the image, which definitely raises some questions. Digital processing is still new, and I think there are many prejudices and misconceptions surrounding it. It hasn't quite legitimized itself yet, like some of the other processes. This has happened before. To give a really old example, oil paint. When oil first came on the scene, there was a lot of misconceptions about it. It was easier to work with, and therefore, thought of as less "artful" than say, tempera or fresco, which are much more difficult mediums. But oil allowed for a new type of painting. It dried very slowly compared to the other mediums, and it allowed the artist to really create dimension and a realism that had never been seen before. In general, I think many people equate difficulty of the task to superiority of the result. Or, the more time it takes, the better it is. Of course this is not true. Another advantage, at least for galleries and collectors, is justification for the cost of the piece. More hours = higher price.

 

[pixmedic]

I'm not bothered by anything specific, I wanted to get different ideas particularly on why we favor film and specific printing techniques for an article.

I think it's partly due to perceived craftsmanship.
We often give a higher value to things that are hand crafted rather than machine made when it comes to art.
Many people believe a picture taken with a film camera has some added value because of the perception that there must be more skill needed. Perhaps it's a manual camera, manual focus, with none of the automated processes that digital photography affords us. Plus, who can resist the extra credit gained by mentioning you did the developing yourself....and made your own custom emulsion...

As apposed to buying a new dslr, setting it to auto, and letting the camera do all the heavy lifting.

Both mediums are simply tools.
do we give more credit to someone that carves sculptures with only hand tools than we do to someone that uses a dremmel or electric saws?

 

[The_Traveler]

I'm not bothered by anything specific, I wanted to get different ideas particularly on why we favor film and specific printing techniques for an article.

I think it's partly due to perceived craftsmanship.

I think that something printed big gets more credit just because of the size.
Do you think that issue of craftsmanship affects people's estimation of worth on an unconscious level?


also, we value even bad works by good artists; is that an unconscious bow to greatness or authenticity?