Why are we fighting so hard to impress each other?

[Overread]

Again, as I said before although people chose to ignore it, the foundations ARE important. I'll use my sketching for example. I listen to criticisms on the technical, like if the porportions are off, if the nose looks crooked etc. But I'm not about to let people tell what can and can't draw, what background I can add, what can be contained in my drawing etc.

I think sketching is falling down as an analogy here somewhat. Choosing what you do and don't draw is rather like choosing what we do an don't want to take a photo of. If you want to draw a snake you draw a snake, if you want to photograph a snake you photograph a snake.
However most people, once they get over the early days, don't just want to take a photo of something. They want to say something with it or show something specific about the subject/context/content etc... At this point the consideration of framing, composition, elements that are included and excluded start to come to the fore.
You might well not listen if I say " don't draw snakes draw flies" but if I were to say "if you want my focus on the snake don't draw a dragon the background" then that comment might well be one you take into consideration because it helps promote the vision you want.

The same is true in photography, only that many don't always help themselves by putting into words what it is they wanted to create at the time of taking the shot. As such commentary tends to focus in on the basics of presentation; ie clean backgrounds, clear subject etc... Without direction things focus in on the basics - with direction in the opening post people can give a much clearer set of aids to help present the subject.

 

[blackrose89]

Yea.. I know.. I am just teasing her.. (we are sort of friends.. but don't tell anyone! ) lol!

I kind of figured. Yours was just one of the last posts - I didn't want to search for the posts where people said it seemed like she liked to stir up drama or whatever.

There's nothing wrong with starting a discussion - no reason to say someone likes drama because they are interested in hearing what other people have to say about something.

Yep! And I've been learning from like Mtvision, Scraig through this. After you get the past the initial brunt and the calm people come on they can have some real insight to offer. sometimes you can learn a lot from introducing an unconventional way of thinking.

 

[Austin Greene]

I take photos.

I post them on TPF asking for CC, I could care less if the CC is from some pro, or someone with a point and shoot.

I consider what people have to say, and weigh on if I personally think it will improve my photos (most all of the time I think it will).

I go outside.

I take photos.

Rinse and Repeat....



No trying to impress people, no controversy, very simple and helpful for me

 

[Ms.Nash]

Getting back to the original topic??? Big fat egos????

 

[Derrel]

Sketching and photography are wildly different. How so? The sketch artist chooses every single element that he will include in his sketch. He can create anything he wishes. He can add an elephant to the background of a sketch of a Wall Street stockbroker. He can add a snarling grizzly bear behind a street preacher standing on a San Francisco corner. The sketch artist creates his composition through the process of inclusion. The photographer typically works in the exact opposite manner--by deciding what NOT TO SHOW, and what NOT to include in his compositions.

It is interesting that the field of composition began back in the days long before photography, when an artist was faced with BLANK sheet of canvas or paper, and had to decide what to INCLUDE within the confines of the image area, in order to make a pleasing picture. A photographer on the other hand, aims his camera at the physical world, and makes his compositions better mostly by EXCLUDING the majority of what is in front of him, and by showing only a few elements out of many.

Sketching and photography are two fields of art that have little in common, at least in terms of compositional direction. Perhaps your background (absolutely no pun intended) in sketching is why you have concerns about people discussing what is included in the backgrounds of photographs; perhaps your sensitivity to people talking about your sketch work has affected the way you perceive photography critics when they comment on "distracting backgrounds"??? Food for thought, if you're so inclined to take it and not reject it.

 

[blackrose89]

Sketching and photography are wildly different. How so? The sketch artist chooses every single element that he will include in his sketch. He can create anything he wishes. He can add an elephant to the background of a sketch of a Wall Street stockbroker. He can add a snarling grizzly bear behind a street preacher standing on a San Francisco corner. The sketch artist creates his composition through the process of inclusion. The photographer typically works in the exact opposite manner--by deciding what NOT TO SHOW, and what NOT to include in his compositions.It is interesting that the field of composition began back in the days long before photography, when an artist was faced with BLANK sheet of canvas or paper, and had to decide what to INCLUDE within the confines of the image area, in order to make a pleasing picture. A photographer on the other hand, aims his camera at the physical world, and makes his compositions better mostly by EXCLUDING the majority of what is in front of him, and by showing only a few elements out of many.Sketching and photography are two fields of art that have little in common, at least in terms of compositional direction. Perhaps your background (absolutely no pun intended) in sketching is why you have concerns about people discussing what is included in the backgrounds of photographs; perhaps your sensitivity to people talking about your sketch work has affected the way you perceive photography critics when they comment on "distracting backgrounds"??? Food for thought, if you're so inclined to take it and not reject it.

Hmmm good food for thought. I really enjoyed this response. It's also refreshing to hear someone admit that they are vastly different. I hear so many times that it's all the same thing just different mediums which just isn't true. So thanks. The background thing has been bugging me because I have not seen this applied anywhere in the real world. Yes I see the RO3, I see focus, I see framing, proper white balance etc in published photos. I have spent quite a few weeks looking through published magazines, posters, photography galleries for the sole purpose of examining backgrounds, and I'm just not seeing clean simplified backgrounds. I just at times wonder if something such as a "cluttered" background is really an issue or just parroted advice?

 

[MTVision]

Hmmm good food for thought. I really enjoyed this response. It's also refreshing to hear someone admit that they are vastly different. I hear so many times that it's all the same thing just different mediums which just isn't true. So thanks. The background thing has been bugging me because I have not seen this applied anywhere in the real world. Yes I see the RO3, I see focus, I see framing, proper white balance etc in published photos. I have spent quite a few weeks looking through published magazines, posters, photography galleries for the sole purpose of examining backgrounds, and I'm just not seeing clean simplified backgrounds. I just at times wonder if something such as a "cluttered" background is really an issue or just parroted advice?

Yes but do you see trash cans behind a beautiful model in lingerie? Or beer cans on the table behind the amazing portrait of the newborn? It all depends on the type of photo. Whatever is in the background probably adds something to the story. Simplification is also another compositional strategy where you eliminate distracting elements and keep focus on the subject.

But it all boils down to the type of photography I guess.

 

[Vtec44]

I just at times wonder if something such as a "cluttered" background is really an issue or just parroted advice?

For the most part, photography is the art of exclusion where painting is the art of inclusion. Coming from a design background, I have to remind myself hence my signature. A cluttered background typically has nothing to contribute to the photograph/composition but distracts the viewer from the main subject. Generally speaking with photography, you don't have control of what exist in your environment but you can only exclude things out of your photograph.

IMHO of course...

 

[blackrose89]

Hmmm good food for thought. I really enjoyed this response. It's also refreshing to hear someone admit that they are vastly different. I hear so many times that it's all the same thing just different mediums which just isn't true. So thanks. The background thing has been bugging me because I have not seen this applied anywhere in the real world. Yes I see the RO3, I see focus, I see framing, proper white balance etc in published photos. I have spent quite a few weeks looking through published magazines, posters, photography galleries for the sole purpose of examining backgrounds, and I'm just not seeing clean simplified backgrounds. I just at times wonder if something such as a "cluttered" background is really an issue or just parroted advice?

Yes but do you see trash cans behind a beautiful model in lingerie? Or beer cans on the table behind the amazing portrait of the newborn? It all depends on the type of photo. Whatever is in the background probably adds something to the story. Simplification is also another compositional strategy where you eliminate distracting elements and keep focus on the subject. But it all boils down to the type of photography I guess.

Of course I don't mean beer cans with a langerie model. I'm speaking more in terms of say, an urban /street photograph and people complain that there are power lines or too many cars in the background. Maybe so many come from a portrait perspective. For example there were some skateboard photos and people were like "I don't like the street, the equipment, the fence" etc. clean cut background seem fine for portraits, but life doesn't have a background.

 

[blackrose89]

Yes but do you see trash cans behind a beautiful model in lingerie?

You've cleary never looked through "Inked girls" .

 

[Fred Berg]

One thing to bear in mind is that subjectivity is tempered by experience. If people look at my efforts and share their knowledge, I have twice as much experience: mine in taking the photo plus theirs in telling me what they think works or not. Originality is for the gods; I'm happy to recycle.

 

[MTVision]

Yes but do you see trash cans behind a beautiful model in lingerie?

You've cleary never looked through "Inked girls" .

LOL! I have but that's not what I meant. Like I said, it all depends on the type of portrait work. I know what skateboard pictures you were talking about and they weren't the best photos but I do understand what you mean. Even with that type of photo you should eliminate as much distracting elements as possible like the power lines since they have absolutely nothing to do with skateboarding. Street photography is a little different but if someone is outside taking portraits of their kids, friends, family, etc. there shouldn't be cars, buildings, etc. in the background UNLESS they were meant to be there OR they add something to the image. The skate park would add to the skateboarding photos but a car would not add to a portrait of a child. The thing with cluttered backgrounds is they are accidental - most people do not notice them. Most people don't even look all around the whole frame before taking the picture. Even lifestyle shots wouldn't have erroneous stuff in the background just because it was there - the photographer would work around so only the elements wanted in the frame would be there.

 

[blackrose89]

You've cleary never looked through "Inked girls" .

LOL! I have but that's not what I meant. Like I said, it all depends on the type of portrait work. I know what skateboard pictures you were talking about and they weren't the best photos but I do understand what you mean. Even with that type of photo you should eliminate as much distracting elements as possible like the power lines since they have absolutely nothing to do with skateboarding. Street photography is a little different but if someone is outside taking portraits of their kids, friends, family, etc. there shouldn't be cars, buildings, etc. in the background UNLESS they were meant to be there OR they add something to the image. The skate park would add to the skateboarding photos but a car would not add to a portrait of a child. The thing with cluttered backgrounds is they are accidental - most people do not notice them. Most people don't even look all around the whole frame before taking the picture. Even lifestyle shots wouldn't have erroneous stuff in the background just because it was there - the photographer would work around so only the elements wanted in the frame would be there.

Good points. Inked girls is a very grunge chaotic tattoo magazine. Lol.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Hmmm good food for thought. I really enjoyed this response. It's also refreshing to hear someone admit that they are vastly different. I hear so many times that it's all the same thing just different mediums which just isn't true. So thanks. The background thing has been bugging me because I have not seen this applied anywhere in the real world. Yes I see the RO3, I see focus, I see framing, proper white balance etc in published photos. I have spent quite a few weeks looking through published magazines, posters, photography galleries for the sole purpose of examining backgrounds, and I'm just not seeing clean simplified backgrounds. I just at times wonder if something such as a "cluttered" background is really an issue or just parroted advice?

Yes but do you see trash cans behind a beautiful model in lingerie? Or beer cans on the table behind the amazing portrait of the newborn? It all depends on the type of photo. Whatever is in the background probably adds something to the story. Simplification is also another compositional strategy where you eliminate distracting elements and keep focus on the subject.

But it all boils down to the type of photography I guess.

Good idea, I like that kind of pictures, contrasted.

 

[thereyougo!]

Exactly. At the start it's easy to impress yourself. As you learn more, you learn to get things into perspective and challenge yourself more. Some of my early things that impressed me, no longer do so. It's all part of the learning process.

Have you ever shared your work?

Indeed I have - they are in the main gallery threads. Although I have posted a few shots here in the beginner's section to give an example, I've always felt that the beginner's section here has too many photos that are really intermediate at least. Having made that point before, it would be hypocritical of me to post my shots here. So there is only 1 thread in this section started on here, my very first thread nearly two years ago.