|
|
Do average photos today all basically stink?
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:40:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on your view, but that someone took the time to at least think about things, something not done much in today's photography. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...4086/?page=all What I find amazing is that anyone actually give's a rat's ass about all those photos to actually write a really stupid article. Whether or not a photo is any good is in the eye of the beholder. It's always been this way. A poorly done family photo may be as good as gold if all the other photos are lost in a flood or fire. I say keep shooting. Good or bad, just fire away and let's sort it all out later. |
Do average photos today all basically stink?
Bowser wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:40:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on your view, but that someone took the time to at least think about things, something not done much in today's photography. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...4086/?page=all What I find amazing is that anyone actually give's a rat's ass about all those photos to actually write a really stupid article. Whether or not a photo is any good is in the eye of the beholder. It's always been this way. A poorly done family photo may be as good as gold if all the other photos are lost in a flood or fire. I say keep shooting. Good or bad, just fire away and let's sort it all out later. Brown's commentary is hardly illuminating. He stirs together several different situations where pictures are taken and decides that the standard is uniformly terrible (except the good old days) and dismisses it all without any real attempt at analysis. He leads in the idea that to get good shots you have to take time, plan, concentrate etc and that in some ways the age of film forced one to do so. To me it is as obvious as dogs' balls that taking good shots takes time and thought but if some people don't want to and don't even see the need why is he complaining? It is far less apparent that the gigasnaps taken with phones (that don't involve much time or thought) are aiming to be 'good' or need to be, or that this has any connection at all to the poor standard of his visual wildlife stories competition. He partly contradicts himself by telling us that many of the competion shots were in fact 'good' but failed because they didn't fit the storytelling brief. I suggest that many of those phone gigasnaps tell a story, they exchange experiences, people, places and events. Most are not very clear or well composed images but those who exchange them don't give a damn, they aren't taking memorable images they are communicating their experiences and feelings of today with their friends and peers. So the one is technically strong and weak on story and the other has much story and little technique. But they share the same problem and they are all bad. What problem is that? Dunno, neither does Brown apparently. If he really wants to encourage better photography (in those who actually care) he needs to do some work and find out why so many apparently competent photograpers missed the mark in the wildlife competition or to run some courses in photo-storytelling. This inconclusive whining only fills column inches. David |
Do average photos today all basically stink?
In article , Bowser
wrote: On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:40:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on your view, but that someone took the time to at least think about things, something not done much in today's photography. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...-photos-every- day-why-are-most-so-forgettable/article12754086/?page=all What I find amazing is that anyone actually give's a rat's ass about all those photos to actually write a really stupid article. Whether or not a photo is any good is in the eye of the beholder. It's always been this way. A poorly done family photo may be as good as gold if all the other photos are lost in a flood or fire. I say keep shooting. Good or bad, just fire away and let's sort it all out later. "...just fire away and let's sort it all out later" perfectly encompasses the problem cited. You can create an image that way, but you can't tell a story - at best you illustrate one. I recall going to the 1964-65 World's Fair. I had 36 frames of film and 12 flashbulbs - all I could afford. I made every one count, because I had to. About 30 of those are GOOD photographs, or at least as good as a nine-year-old was likely to take. These days, after previously owning a camera shop and shooting professionally, I'd say 10% of my pictures are good, and less than 1% noteworthy. Since it's not my income anymore, I just don't have enough invested in each frame to make myself care. |
Do average photos today all basically stink?
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:56:48 -0400, Scott Schuckert
wrote: In article , Bowser wrote: On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:40:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on your view, but that someone took the time to at least think about things, something not done much in today's photography. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...-photos-every- day-why-are-most-so-forgettable/article12754086/?page=all What I find amazing is that anyone actually give's a rat's ass about all those photos to actually write a really stupid article. Whether or not a photo is any good is in the eye of the beholder. It's always been this way. A poorly done family photo may be as good as gold if all the other photos are lost in a flood or fire. I say keep shooting. Good or bad, just fire away and let's sort it all out later. "...just fire away and let's sort it all out later" perfectly encompasses the problem cited. You can create an image that way, but you can't tell a story - at best you illustrate one. I recall going to the 1964-65 World's Fair. I had 36 frames of film and 12 flashbulbs - all I could afford. I made every one count, because I had to. About 30 of those are GOOD photographs, or at least as good as a nine-year-old was likely to take. These days, after previously owning a camera shop and shooting professionally, I'd say 10% of my pictures are good, and less than 1% noteworthy. Since it's not my income anymore, I just don't have enough invested in each frame to make myself care. It may be a problem for someone, but not for you or me. All those wasted frames mean nothing to me. What constitutes a good photo is highly subjective, so who is anyone to say what's good? |
Do average photos today all basically stink?
In article , Bowser
wrote: It may be a problem for someone, but not for you or me. All those wasted frames mean nothing to me. What constitutes a good photo is highly subjective, so who is anyone to say what's good? Point is, if you don't take time and care to MAKE a picture good, it won't be, by any standard - not any of them. |
Do average photos today all basically stink?
Scott Schuckert wrote:
In article , Bowser wrote: It may be a problem for someone, but not for you or me. All those wasted frames mean nothing to me. What constitutes a good photo is highly subjective, so who is anyone to say what's good? Point is, if you don't take time and care to MAKE a picture good, it won't be, by any standard - not any of them. True! But it's also true that the amount of time and the level of care necessary can often be virtually zero. Which is to say that every good image requires some, though perhaps infinitesimally small, amount of time and care... but so does every bad image. Which is which just depends on the highly subjective standard used by each viewer, not on how much time and care are taken. I'll give you a very significant practical example, which brings with it a lesson I learned long long ago. I do a lot of "people pictures", and very much enjoy photographing small children for their parents. Early on I learned not to show anything I am not willing to put my name on to the mother of any child. Cull first, pre-view with Mom second. Because there is no such thing as a "bad" picture of a Mother's child. Out of focus? Grainy? Wrong light? Wrong expression? Bad framing? Obnoxious environment? Not a problem if it shows anything that a mother can recognize as her baby. It is that subjective! If the subject is her kid, she will see it as wonderful. She is not wrong either! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Do average photos today all basically stink?
On 6/27/2013 2:03 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Scott Schuckert wrote: In article , Bowser wrote: It may be a problem for someone, but not for you or me. All those wasted frames mean nothing to me. What constitutes a good photo is highly subjective, so who is anyone to say what's good? Point is, if you don't take time and care to MAKE a picture good, it won't be, by any standard - not any of them. True! But it's also true that the amount of time and the level of care necessary can often be virtually zero. Which is to say that every good image requires some, though perhaps infinitesimally small, amount of time and care... but so does every bad image. Which is which just depends on the highly subjective standard used by each viewer, not on how much time and care are taken. I'll give you a very significant practical example, which brings with it a lesson I learned long long ago. I do a lot of "people pictures", and very much enjoy photographing small children for their parents. Early on I learned not to show anything I am not willing to put my name on to the mother of any child. Cull first, pre-view with Mom second. Because there is no such thing as a "bad" picture of a Mother's child. Out of focus? Grainy? Wrong light? Wrong expression? Bad framing? Obnoxious environment? Not a problem if it shows anything that a mother can recognize as her baby. It is that subjective! If the subject is her kid, she will see it as wonderful. She is not wrong either! I tend to agree, and carry your thought a bit further. folks post their images for several reasons, which I am listing in no particular order. 1. they realize something is wrong, and genuinely want help. 2. The are seeking comments to help improve their photography. 3.They want to show how "great" their images are. In many of the above cases, the maker somehow considers the image to me his child, in the same sanse as you describe above. thus any criticism shooed be tactful, to be taken seriously. |
Do average photos today all basically stink?
PeterN wrote:
On 6/27/2013 2:03 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Scott Schuckert wrote: In article , Bowser wrote: It may be a problem for someone, but not for you or me. All those wasted frames mean nothing to me. What constitutes a good photo is highly subjective, so who is anyone to say what's good? Point is, if you don't take time and care to MAKE a picture good, it won't be, by any standard - not any of them. True! But it's also true that the amount of time and the level of care necessary can often be virtually zero. Which is to say that every good image requires some, though perhaps infinitesimally small, amount of time and care... but so does every bad image. Which is which just depends on the highly subjective standard used by each viewer, not on how much time and care are taken. I'll give you a very significant practical example, which brings with it a lesson I learned long long ago. I do a lot of "people pictures", and very much enjoy photographing small children for their parents. Early on I learned not to show anything I am not willing to put my name on to the mother of any child. Cull first, pre-view with Mom second. Because there is no such thing as a "bad" picture of a Mother's child. Out of focus? Grainy? Wrong light? Wrong expression? Bad framing? Obnoxious environment? Not a problem if it shows anything that a mother can recognize as her baby. It is that subjective! If the subject is her kid, she will see it as wonderful. She is not wrong either! I tend to agree, and carry your thought a bit further. folks post their images for several reasons, which I am listing in no particular order. 1. they realize something is wrong, and genuinely want help. 2. The are seeking comments to help improve their photography. 3.They want to show how "great" their images are. In many of the above cases, the maker somehow considers the image to me his child, in the same sanse as you describe above. thus any criticism shooed be tactful, to be taken seriously. That is an excellent point, and well described. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Do average photos today all basically stink?
Bowser wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:40:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on your view, but that someone took the time to at least think about things, something not done much in today's photography. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...4086/?page=all What I find amazing is that anyone actually give's a rat's ass about all those photos to actually write a really stupid article. "neurotic masturbation". Whether or not a photo is any good is in the eye of the beholder. It's always been this way. They had TONS of good photos (they admit it), they just choose a definition of good that was a) special (must tell a story THEY can see immediately) b) probably never told to the participants A poorly done family photo may be as good as gold if all the other photos are lost in a flood or fire. I say keep shooting. Good or bad, just fire away and let's sort it all out later. And as to "the good old times when everything was better": I've been reviewing old photos (WWII vintage) photos to a certain topic. Tons of snapshots that are not even technically good. (Photographing someone from back and behind while urinating over the side (at sea) may be somewhat risqué, but not that original and of value, just as one example.) And then oh so many standard situations (e.g group photo, some lying or kneeling in the front row) that are staged rather badly and are a dozen a dime. They're only interesting (or in many cases, only somewhat interesting) in the context they belong to --- or to people that have a personal emotional connection. And that was when film was expensive (and probably hard to get in war time) and cameras were not cheap and people had to really think how to spend their few frames on the film. And they wasted them mostly on snapshots! -Wolfgang |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com